Holding Zionism To Account by Alan Hart

Dandelion Salad

From Alan Hart
author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
11/06/07 “ICH
Open Letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Dear Secretary Rice,

According to a widely quoted Reuters report, you are “so anxious not to repeat mistakes of past Middle East peace-making” that you sought the advice of, among others, former President Jimmy Carter. (The others included, apparently, former President Bill Clinton and three of your predecessors – Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Madeleine Albright).

Your spokesman, Sean McCormack, was quoted as saying: “She’s trying to draw on the historical record and the experience of others to see what she can glean and how far that may be applicable to the current day… She is a student of history and has a keen appreciation for how we can apply the lessons of history, what we can learn from those who have gone before us.”

Apparently you’ve also been “scouring historical records for pointers”.

And, most impressive of all, you’ve made it clear that you will devote all of your energy in the Bush administration’s final 14 months “to get what others have failed to attain in the past – a viable, independent Palestinian state living side by side with a secure Israel.”

Secretary of State, in principle it really IS do-able, it’s the practise that’s the problem, and I’ll come to that in a moment.

I am presuming to offer you some advice because, although I say it myself, I know the Middle East at least as well and perhaps even better than any of those (the named ones) you have consulted on your side of the water. In my television reporting and early book-writing days, for example, I enjoyed, uniquely, initimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, the two greatest opposite in all of human history, Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. One way and another I have been engaged with the conflict in and over Palestine, and why a resolution of it has remained beyond the reach of politics and diplomacy, for slightly more than four decades. (The Gentile me first went to Israel as a 23 year-old ITN reporter in 1965).

The problem with the “historical record” – I mean the first and still existing draft of Judeo-Christian history – is that it’s mostly nonsense. Propaganda nonsense. Zionist propaganda nonsense. At its core are two myths.

One is that the Zionist state of Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. The truth of history is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger. Not in 19448/49. Not in 1956. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover which allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most, America and Western Europe, with presenting its aggression as self-defence and itself as the victim when it was, and is, the oppressor.

The other is that Israel has not had a Palestinian partner for peace. The truth of history on this account is that the ground for peace on the Palestinian side was prepared by Yasser Arafat as far back as 1979 – more than a quarter of a century ago. In that year, 1979, Arafat persuaded the Palestine National Council, the highest decision-making body on the Palestinian side, to back his policy of politics and (until then) unthinkable compromise with Israel.

As I recorded in my book Arafat (the title of the American edition, the original title was Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?), it took him six long years to persuade first his Fatah leadership colleagues and then other PNC members to accept the reality of Israel’s existence. When the vote was eventually taken, in 1979, it was 296 for his policy of politics and compromise and four against. Arafat, who had risked his life as well as his credibility to turn his people around, was then at the height of his powers; and from that moment on, and as President Carter knew, there could have been successful negotiations for a real and lasting peace based on a genuine two-state solution – Israel back behind its pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem, preferably as an open city, the capital of two states.

The problem was that Arafat did not have a partner for peace on the Israeli side – because Zionism was not, and is not, interested in peace on any terms the vast majority of Palestinians and other Arabs and most Muslims everywhere could accept. It’s true that in 1993, and thanks in part to President Clinton’s stage management and pulling power, Arafat did have a “perhaps” Israeli partner for peace in the shape of Yitzhak Rabin, but he was assassinated by a gut-Zionist. And Rabin was succeeded by Israeli leaders whose prime objective was to re-demonise and destroy the Palestinian leader. Arafat the terrorist they could handle. Arafat the peacemaker they could not. (Didn’t Barak offer Arafat “95 percent” of everything he had said he wanted? No, he did not! That, too, is a propaganda lie).

One of the few Westerners – they could be counted on the fingers of two hands – who understood that by the end of 1979 Arafat had prepared the ground on his side for peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief, was Brian (now Sir Brian and long-retired) Urquhart. In my view he was in his working life one of the the greatest Englishmen of his time. In 1979 he was Under-Secretary-General of the UN, and in that capacity he was, effectively, the world’s number one trouble-shooter and hands-on crisis manager. He knew the Middle East better than anybody else and he was respected by leaders in the East as well as the West, and by Israelis as well Arabs.

Urquhart told me of the message Arafat had asked him to give to Israel’s leaders when Sharon, then Prime Minister Begin’s defence minister, was preparing to invade Lebanon to exterminate Arafat and all of his PLO leadership colleagues. Arafat said to Urquhart: “Please tell these stupid people in Jerusalem that they will be sorry when I am go. I am the only one who can deliver the compromise to make peace.” To me, and as quoted in my book on Arafat, Urquhart said: “It’s tragic. Arafat was speaking nothng less than the truth. From the beginning he has been the only Palestinian leader who could talk about dealing with Israel and not be killed the next day for saying so.” Subsequently Urquhart said to me that he feared it would only be when Arafat was dead that Israelis would realise how much they had needed him for peace.

Secretary of State, if you really want the best advice, you should talk to Urquhart.

And if you really want to come to grips with the truth of history in order to formulate a real policy for peace, I suggest you read my latest book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. It’s epic in length (two volumes) as well as sweep and substance because I’ve re-written the whole history of the making and sustaining of what used to be called the Arab-Israeli conflict, replacing Zionist mythology with the documented facts and truth of history. Though it’s available from Amazon, it’s not yet published in America because all American publishers are too terrified of totally offending Zionism to take it on. I should stress that it’s the opposite of anti-Semitic. It’s my Gentile call for the Jews to become the light unto nations by demonstrating that right can triumph over might, and that there is a place for morality in politics.. The key to understanding is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism – why they are total opposites: and thus why it is (a) perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise) without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic; and (b) why it is wrong to blame all Jews for the crimes of the hardcore Zionist few.

Now to the principle of real peace-making. Often on public speaking platforms I put it this way:

If the President of America had a magic wand, and if he could wave it overnight to get Israel back behind its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem and open city and the capital of two states, he would have (with one wave of the wand) the thanks, respect, friendship and support of not less than 95%, and probably 99%, of all Arabs and Muslims everywhere.

In other words, with one wave of the magic wand to end Israel’s occupation of Arab land grabbed in 1967, the President and you as his Secretary of State would go down in history as the greatest of all peacemakers; and you would undo all the damage that’s been done to America’s standing in the world by neo-con driven policies including support for Israel right or wrong. And, the bonus, you would make winning “the war against global terrorism” by political means a mission possible.

The question is: What can the President do without a magic wand?

Short answer: He could use the leverage he has to require Israel to end its occupation in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and international law. (I am aware that President Bush promised Prime Minister Sharon that Israel could keep the main settlements it has established on the occupied West Bank, but it was a promise the President should not have made and was, is, without legal authority of any kind. On this the President would have to come clean and say, “I made a mistake and I am now correcting it.”)

The truth of the matter, or so it seems to me, is that in his last 14 months in the White House, President Bush is well placed to be the first American President to call and hold Zionism to account – because he can’t run for office again and so doesn’t need Zionist lobby support in the form of campaign funds and votes. Simply stated, he now has 14 months of freedom to do what is right and best for America’s real interests. (And also those of the Jews of the world).

Secretary of State, I am aware that right now the Mother and Father of all political battles is going on behind closed doors in Washington DC – to determine whether or not Vice-President Cheney and his neo-con-and-Zionist associates will continue to call the policy shots. If he and they do, I think it’s highly likely that two things will happen. Iran will be bombed by America or Israel (probably in February, March or April) triggering catstrophe, possibly even a nuclear one, for all; and Israel, after it has failed to impose its will on the Palestinians (they won’t accept crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of two or three bantustans) will be given the greenlight to go for a final round of ethnic cleansing. (The full horror of the first round is now fully documented by Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “revisionist” historian, in his latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).

It’s my understanding that Defence Secretary Gates is quietly leading the campaign to stop the madness Cheney and his associates represent. Once upon a time you, Secretary Rice, had great influence on President Bush. You were subsequently sidelined to a very large extent by Cheney and Zionism’s watchers in the White House and your own department. But what of today? I have the impression that your seven visits to Israel/Palestine have led you to the conclusion (of course you can’t say so in public) that the Zionist state of Israel is the obstacle to peace.

If my impression is correct (and, of course, I could be wrong), it’s my hope that you’ll now use your influence to tip the balance of power in Washington DC in favour of those on the side of justice and peace and sanity.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Hart

Alan Hart, author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

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.

11.05.07 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)

Dandelion Salad

This video contains images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

Selected Episode

Nov. 5, 2007


For more episodes and other Link TV programs:
“Musharraf Declares Emergency Law”, Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Rice Optimestic About Chances for Peace”, IBA TV, Israel
“Historical Perspective on Zionist Crimes”, Al Aqsa, Gaza
“Spanish King’s Visit to Colony Angers Moroccons”, Dubai TV, UAE
“Iraqi Refugees Return Home”, Al-Alam TV, Iran
“Baghdad Residents Demand Removal of Barriers”, Al-Iraqiya TV, Iraq
“Inflation Devastates the Lebanese Economy”, Al Arabiya TV, UAE
“Egyptian Police Caught on Tape”, Al Jazeera English, Qatar
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

Olbermann: Impeachment + Rush + Michael Moore + Worst (videos)

Dandelion Salad


Impeachment Impediment

Keith discusses the way the Democrats handled Denis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution today. Rachel Maddow weighs in on the political strategy or lack of on both sides.

When Rush Attacks

Keith discusses Rush Limbaugh’s latest attack on yet another child.

Michael Moore on Health Care

Keith gives his report on the ballot measure in Oregon on health insurance for poor kids and who’s supporting it and who’s against it. Michael Moore weighs in on what’s wrong with the bill and what we need to do in order to have health care for all in this country.

Worst Person

And the winner is….Glenn Beck. Runners up the Chicago Police Department and Joe Libermann.

Nov. 6, 2007


Why should Congress impeach Cheney?  Watch this must-see documentary:
Frontline: Cheney’s Law (link)

Dennis Kucinich on Tucker (video)

Kucinich throws the gauntlet to Pelosi-Impeach (videos)

Kucinich’s Bill Is Under Discussion on the Floor of the House and on C-Span (updated again)

Dennis Kucinich on Tucker (video)

I do not care much for Tucker Carlson. “Overthrow the govt!” My gosh. ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad




Kucinich throws the gauntlet to Pelosi-Impeach (videos)

Kucinich’s Bill Is Under Discussion on the Floor of the House and on C-Span (updated again)

America’s Road to Tyranny By Vincent L. Guarisco

Dandelion Salad

By Vincent L. Guarisco

11/06/07 “ICH

‘John Adams wrote, ‘Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.’ We stand at a defining moment for America. If we do not act now, we risk the freedoms that sweat, blood, sacrifice, and loyalty to inalienable rights have earned us over the past two-hundred thirty-one years.’

~Naomi Wolf Author of ‘The end of America: letter of warning to a young patriot.’ (A citizen’s call to action)

It’s weird how old quotes like the one penned above still hold true even today. Indeed, yes it is, and that’s why this article is written with you in mind. I guess we’re not all born into this world to be the brightest ‘candle’ at the alter of democracy, now are we? Nope, because not even hardly a ‘flicker’ of tenacity for truth seems to remain these days. In fact, most of the ‘free’ world rightfully sees America as an old melted heap-of-wax whose bright light burned out long ago when we morphed into a military state dictatorship.

Pardon me for the metaphors, but our dark days are quite painful to most others living in distant foreign lands. They have felt the burning, scorching heat from our foreign policy for a very long time. As a result, It has left hundreds of thousands of dead, decaying bodies lying rampant across many landscapes with countless others left displaced and homeless. On a religious note — maybe Bush’s casualties of war are kinda like God decorating the earth with daisies and nuts…except His handiwork looks, smells and tastes much better.

So, Patriot, what are we to do? Are the ‘born-again’ Christians among us supposed to support what our government does — in our name — regardless of the death and destruction? Earth to George, are you hearing this? What is God going to tell you to destroy next? Will He whisper in our ears too and tell us how to stop you? God speed my Lord, we await with open ears…

Actually, I am an average, honest, hard-working agnostic dude who loves his country as much as anyone, but in the same breath, I am being honest when I admit I’m ashamed and appalled at what our leaders are doing. In addition, I am a loving father, blessed to have two beautiful daughters (ages 18 and 21). In placing high value on ‘patriotism and country,’ I have just finished placing an order for two copies of Naomi Wolf’s new book, ‘The End of America,’ which is a searing political call to arms to save democracy…

As a Christmas gift, I am giving each of my lovely daughters a copy of this powerful book. Sadly, I wish I did not have to do so. But duty calls in the wake of duplicity, and that’s what separates a real parent from a dysfunctional wannabe. See, I am not afraid to tell my kids ‘we screwed-up.’ Printed by the socially conscious Chelsea Green Publishing House, ‘The End of America’ describes the ‘ten classic steps dictators take when closing down an open society.’ Wolf makes it abundantly clear that ‘each of those ten steps is now underway in the United States today.’

I want my children to read this book (along with other pertinent information) and develop a real evolving wisdom concerning false flag operations at home and abroad, the true meaning of war and hostile occupation carried out with lies, shrewd nation building geared to profit the military industrial complex, the human cost of holocaust politics, why government scandals continue unabated, how scorched earth policy is destroying the planet, and the effects of state-sponsored news propaganda that fills every crevice of the America blowhole.

Yes, I have decided to give my children Wolf’s new book, disregarding my usual habit of giving inspirational gifts during the holiday season. And I highly recommend you do the same. So what, if the hair on our collective heads is standing at full attention just because we screwed everything up for them. Screw it, the little tots deserve to know how our generation is destroying both the free world and the planet. It’s better than sticking their innocent heads into sand with their butts high in the air for all to gleefully assault. Best scenario, they may actually become appalled enough to grow a real backbone (even from weak genes) to actually do something about it!

At this late point in time it’s a little redundant for me to comprehensively attempt to explain how it is we came to be in this disheartening place. Surreal as it may be, my only concern now is that a small flicker of hope can be rekindled in order to fix this bloody mess, and the younger generation is our best bet.

The truth is, those we entrusted to lead us have miserably failed us at every turn. Very few members of the House have their hearts in the right place in Washington today. I’m sure Paul Wellstone is rolling in his grave after watching our Democratic congress bathe in campaign squalor as they sold us down the Potomac river.

After Wellstone’s death, his staff released a transcript of his last 2002 midterm election campaign commercial, which had been slated for airing just before the November election: ‘I don’t represent the big oil companies,’ Wellstone said. ‘I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies, I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what, they already have great representation in Washington. It’s the rest of the people that need it. I represent the people of Minnesota.’ Five years ago we lost the man dubbed ‘the soul of the Senate. A sad day indeed. May a new beacon for truth emerge…

In the spirit of truthfulness, not every old fool sat on his rump doing little or nothing while believing every lie uttered from political hacks and pundit pie-holes! When I was a young boy, my father used to tell me, ‘son, the truth is the hardest thing you’ll ever find.’ Indeed, father was right, he truly was a wise man. Navy Veteran Anthony Guarisco paid his dues long ago and learned his lesson well when he served during WWII and Korea. With the ashes of Hiroshima caked on the bottom of his combat boots and the smell of genocidal nuclear death still lingering in his nose, he was surreptitiously used as a guinea pig in ‘Operation Crossroads,’ the largest atmospheric test ever conducted by the U.S. in the Marshall Islands, in 1946.

After knowingly being exposed to radiation by the uncaring lunatics of his day, he went on and founded and directed The Alliance of Atomic Veterans (AAV), a national non-profit organization providing valuable resources and needy health guidance to sick veterans and their families, filing service-connected disability claims for medial treatment and financial compensation. My father devoted most of his life to this endeavor. He also fought hard for nuclear disarmament and worked tirelessly to end all atomic testing. In addition, he was a strong proponent for the peace movement and gave much effort on other important social issues. Most people (myself included) can only dream of doing all the things my father accomplished in his life experience (a very long bio indeed). I may attempt to write about news-worthy topics, but brave patriots like my father ‘made the news.’

And there are many other brave souls doing their part too. I also would like to take a moment to honor another true American patriot, her name is ‘Sibel Edmonds.’ She is the famed FBI whistleblower who went public after the attacks of September 11, 2001. And to date, she is the most gagged individual in the history of United States. After 9/11 Edmonds was gagged by the rarely-invoked ‘States Secret Privilege,’ compliments of the Bush administration and other higher-ups performing ‘damage control.’

Since 2002, her testimony has been banned from any and all investigations to date. She is forbidden to say anything about the criminal penetration of the FBI where she worked as a FBI translator. Silenced at the Departments of State and Defense; Edmonds cannot discuss everything she heard concerning the corruption and illegal activities of several well-known members of Congress; everything she’s aware of concerning information omitted and/or covered up in relation to 9/11. All of the information gleaned from her time listening to and translating wire-taps made prior to 9/11 at the FBI are not allowed to escape her lips.

But yet, this brave girl is prepared to risk everything, including her freedom or even her life to inform the public about everything she knows. Sibel exclaimed
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5163 ‘Here’s my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks — ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX — promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know.’

Edmonds recently said, ‘I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up. I’m not compromising ongoing investigations,’ Edmonds explained, because ‘they’ve all been shut down since.’ The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the ‘States Secrets Privilege.’ What a sham job!

In fact, an interview 60 Minutes aired on CBS with her in 2004, was later retroactively classified by the Department of Justice under the same ‘privilege.’ But enough is enough. Edmonds is now ready to tell the public everything she knows. She’s willing to speak to any broadcast network that would have her. ‘I have exhausted every channel.’ she said. ‘If they want to, they can bring criminal charges against someone who divulges criminal activity, and see how far they’re going to get.’

But will any of the corporate mainstream networks take her up on the offer? It would certainly be an explosive exclusive. ‘I don’t think any of the mainstream media are going to have the guts to do it,’ she dared them. ‘You put me on air live, or unedited. If I’m given the time, I will give the American people the exact reason of what I’ve been gagged from saying because of the States Secrets Privilege, and why it is that I’m the most gagged person in the history of the United States.’

So whaddaya say 60 Minutes? Will you be smart enough to take this on? If Sibel Edmonds is lucky enough to find a major network to air her story on national TV, you can bet the farm my family and I will be there watching it!

Bottom line — America wants to feel proud once again, we want to be able to sing the National Anthem and truly feel the warmth of patriotism. We long for this. However, right now our hearts are filled with betrayal and rage. We’re dismayed at how under-educated and totally disconnected from reality a large portion of the public truly remains. We’re blown away at how quickly our fellow citizens roll over and believe the many lies that are told to us. And many of us feel cheapened by this same segment of people who have a very short memory span for the many important events that have transpired …But most of all, we despise the talking heads who covertly sell and peddle the political propaganda and official control tactics that keeps everyone at bay — docile and compliant for the ruling elite. Those who do this are the most ruthless enemy within our grasp, because they sold-us-out for far LESS than those individuals who make bank while manipulating the puppet strings at a safe distance.

So, Patriot — let’s tell our children to save us from our miserable mistakes. America’s road to tyranny is no future worth living. Let the words of Paul Wellstone echo in the youth of tomorrow: ‘If we don’t fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don’t really stand for them.’

Vincent L Guarisco is a freelance writer from Bullhead City AZ., a contributing writer for many web sites, and a lifetime member of the Alliance of Atomic Veterans. Reprint permission is given as long as article content is not altered or changed and credit is given to the author. Replies welcomed at: vincespainting1@hotmail.com

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.


A “Paper Coup,” and Blackwater Eyes Midtown Manhattan By Naomi Wolf

Paths Towards Fascism by Naomi Wolf

FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All – and Face Charges if Necessary By Brad Friedman

Talk by Naomi Wolf – The End of America (video) (must-see)

Celebrating American Tears: Responding to Naomi Wolf’s Recent Missive by Carolyn Baker

Amazing Grace By Charles Sullivan (Fascism)

Dandelion Salad

By Charles Sullivan
11/06/07 “ICH

It seems inexplicable that so many of the American people can be so dazed and confused, while moral degenerates ransack our nation, piss and defecate upon the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and brazenly loot the public domain, making a mockery of the rule of law and societal norms; whatever they may be.

Incredible lies are routinely passed as truth and the world as we know it is unraveling, as we prepare to invade and occupy yet another country, perhaps igniting World War Three. We go on with the insipid routine of our dull lives: we go shopping, and bombard our senses with mind numbing entertainment, telling ourselves that it—fascism—can’t happen here, even as its poisoned blossoms unfold before our astonished eyes and fill our lungs with their noxious fumes.

We refuse to believe what we are seeing and we dismiss it as too preposterous to be real. We no longer wholly trust our own senses or follow our most innate instincts, failing to recognize that they are all that is true; all that allow us to survive the wretched madness that pursues us like rabid dogs, and relentlessly nips at our fleeing heels.

Increasing numbers of us move through this world with a sense of impending doom but we do not fully comprehend its origins or the breadth of the disaster it portends. We sense not only that something is wrong—something is terribly, irreconcilably, sickeningly, wrong. We do our utmost to repress those feelings, telling ourselves that our worst fears, our darkest nightmares, are irrational, unfounded phantoms of the imagination; so many ghosts lurking under our beds.

We have been programmed to believe that we are the greatest nation to ever emerge from the mists of history, that everything about us as a people is exceptional and exemplary. Despite a history of endless provocation and war and countless other forms of self mutilation, we claim that we are a peace loving people—god’s own children, animated by divine stirrings.

But perhaps our state of confusion, our disorientation, and our shock at what the government is doing in our name—all of which seems to be occurring at the blinding speed of light—and our refusal to believe that which is so blatantly obvious to all but those who wear mental blindfolds, or the criminally insane, is a form of psychological shock and awe that has been deliberately imposed upon us not only by depraved politicians vying for wealth and power, but by our every societal institution.

We have arrived at our place as a result of an educational system that does not teach us how to think, but to follow rules and obey authority; to bow to self policing peer pressure and group think: a system that prepares us to pass math tests but not those of citizen and neighbor. We dutifully recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag but we hold no allegiance to the world’s people, or its stunning biological and cultural diversity, or to truth. We were led to the precipice by religious institutions that operate by the same principles as “for profit” corporations, encouraged by Zionist and Christian fundamentalists with visions of Armageddon dancing in their crazed, bigoted heads. We are here because we pay attention to a media monoculture that does not inform, but lies and deceives for money.

We are here because we are morally lazy, uninterested, distracted, overworked, over burdened with debt, and apathetic to a fault. We confused the symbols of democracy with democracy itself; and we foolishly thought that democracy could somehow magically move of its own accord, without our participation as citizens. Too many of us believed that all that was required of us was to vote in elections in which the outcomes were preordained by the candidate’s access to wealth. We told ourselves this is democracy, but we were tragically mistaken. And now it is too late.

The rush to Armageddon will occur quickly; it must happen, like the passage of the Patriot Act, before the people have time to digest what is being done to them, before they can concoct an intelligent and rational response to shock and awe; before the people can organize against the premeditated murder and mayhem that awaits them.

We Americans are the product of free market ideologues, religious zealots, and vulgar experiments in social engineering. We are being led to slaughter, and to be slaughtered, by dark and foreboding forces bent on the destruction of all that is decent, just, and beautiful.

Yet many will continue to believe that the president and his henchmen are sane and just people. Some will even ordain them devout Christians and extol their dark virtues as enlightenment and courage. Others will continue to believe that the sycophants in Congress will awaken at the eleventh hour to save us from our own delusions and excesses, not recognizing that we are alone and have only one another. It has always been so; but rather than uniting against our tormentors—we fight amongst ourselves.

Events may already be in motion that have acquired an unstoppable momentum, like a hulking meteor streaking in deadly silence toward the earth in precise accordance with the laws of motion. But like all tempests, they too will eventually blow themselves out and, better people than us will someday attempt to rebuild the world anew. I wish them luck and amazing grace, the kind of grace that is so conspicuously absent in us. In the words of labor organizer, Joe Hill, murdered by the state before a Utah firing squad: “Good luck to all of you.”

No more can we enjoy the sight of soft summer sunsets in tranquil settings, accompanied by the singing of the wood thrush, and choirs of chanting insects embracing the darkling twilight; but forever more the rocket’s perpetual red glare and silent, distant death. We are nearing road’s end. The time is fast approaching to mount the nearest hillside, to hold our loved ones close; to sip some vintage wine, and watch the fireworks that are even now hurtling their way toward Armageddon. The time is nigh to watch the world as we knew it wink out of existence, and to say goodbye. It’s been good to know you.

Charles Sullivan is a nature photographer, free-lance writer, and community activist residing in the Ridge and Valley Province of geopolitical West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at csullivan@phreego.com.

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.

CNN Coverage of Ron Paul’s Money Bomb 11.06.2007 (video)

Dandelion Salad



News Coverage:




CNN Coverage of Ron Paul’s Money Bomb 11/6/2007

Added: November 06, 2007


Ron Paul on Tucker 11.06.07 (video)

Kucinich throws the gauntlet to Pelosi-Impeach (videos)

Dandelion Salad


Kucinich Presents Articles Impeachment to Congress Rep. Dennis Kucinich
November 6, 2007
House of Representatives
Presents Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Richard Cheney under the rules of “Priviliged Resolution ” in Congress

Part 1 Video Clip
Rep. Kucinich reviews Article 1 for Impeachment.

Supporting Documents for Article I

Article I (1)(A): Transcripts of March 17, 2002 Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

Article I (1)(B): Transcripts of March 19, 2002 Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

Article I (1)(C): Transcripts of March 24, 2002 Wolf Blitzer interview of Vice President Cheney on CNN’s Late Edition.

Article I (1)(D): Transcripts of May 19, 2002 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Article I (1)(E): Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention on August 26, 2002.

Article I (1)(F & G): Transcripts of September 8, 2002 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Article I (1)(H): Transcripts of March 16, 2003 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Article I (2)(A): Pincus, Walter and Priest, Dana. “Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits.” Washington Post 5 June 2003: A01.

Article I (2)(B): Hersh, Seymour M. “The Stovepipe.” The New Yorker 27 October 2003.

Article I (3)(A): National Intelligence Estimate, October 1, 2002. pg. 9

Article I (3)(B): National Intelligence Estimate, October 1, 2002. pg. 84

Article I (3)(C): National Intelligence Estimate, October 1, 2002. pg. 9

United States service member deaths: Department of Defense Casualty Report

Iraqi civilian deaths: Lancet Report

Cost of the war: CRS report RL33110

Loss of military readiness: Korb, Lawrence. “A troop readiness crisis.” Boston Globe 11 April 2007.

Videos by Voice of Americans 2008

Added: November 06, 2007

Rep. Dennis Kucinich
November 6, 2007
House of Representatives
Presents Articles of Impeachment for Vice President RicharVidd Cheney under the rules of “Priviliged Resolution ” in Congress.

Part 2 Video Clip
Rep. Kucinich reviews Article 2 for Impeachment.

Supporting Documents for Article 2
Article II (1)(A): Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference on December 2, 2002.

Article II (1)(B): Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia on January 30, 2003.

Article II (1)(C): Transcripts of March 16, 2003 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Article II (1)(D): Transcripts of September 14, 2003 Tim Russert interview with Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Article II (1)(E): Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa on October 3, 2003.

Article II (1)(F): Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation on October 10, 2003.

Article II (1)(G): Hayes, Stephen. “Cheney v. Powell.” The Weekly Standard 13 January 2004.

Article II (1)(H): Transcripts of January 22, 2004 Juan Williams interview with Vice President Cheney on NPR’s Morning Edition.

Article II (1)(I): Transcripts of June 17, 2004 Gloria Borger interview with Vice President Cheney on CNBC’s Capital Report.

Article II (2)(A): Waas, Murray. “Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel.” National Journal 22 November 2005.

Article II (2)(B): Jehl, Douglas. “Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts.” New York Times 6 November 2005.

Article II (2)(C): “Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link.” BBC News 5 February 2003.

United States service member deaths: Department of Defense Casualty Report

Iraqi civilian deaths: Lancet Report

Cost of the war: CRS report RL33110

Loss of military readiness: Korb, Lawrence. “A troop readiness crisis.” Boston Globe 11 April 2007.

Videos by Voice of Americans 2008

Rep. Dennis Kucinich
November 6, 2007
House of Representatives
Presents Articles of Impeachment for Vice President RicharVidd Cheney under the rules of “Priviliged Resolution ” in Congress

Part 3 Video Clip
Rep. Kucinich reviews Article 3 for Impeachment.

Supporting Documents for Article III

Article III (1)(A): Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference on March 7, 2006.

Article III (1)(B): Transcripts of January 24, 2007 Wolf Blitzer interview with Vice President Cheney on CNN’s Situation Room.

Article III (1)(C): Transcripts of January 28, 2007 Richard Wolffe interview with Vice President Cheney for Newsweek Magazine.

Article III (1)(D): Transcripts of February 24, 2007 Press Briefing with Vice President Cheney and Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

Article III (2)(A): Transcripts of February 19, 2007 Daniel Dombey interview with Director General Mohamed ElBaradei for the Financial Times.

Article III (2)(B): International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors Report, February 22, 2007.

Article III (2)(C): Transcripts of February 19, 2007 Daniel Dombey interview with Director General Mohamed ElBaradei for the Financial Times.

Article III (3)(A): Hirsh, Michael. “Hirsh: A Failed Shot at Peace with Iran?” Newsweek 8 February 2007.

Article III (3)(B): Abramowitz, Michael. “Cheney Says U.S. Is Sending ‘Strong Signal’ to Iran.” Washington Post 29 January 2007: A02.

Article III (3)(C): Hersh, Seymour M. “The Iran Plans.” The New Yorker 17 April 2006.

Article III (3)(D): Londono, Ernest and al-Izzi, Saad. “Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group.” Washington Post 14 March 2007: A10.

Article III (3)(E): Hersh, Seymour M. “The Iran Plans.” The New Yorker 17 April 2006.

Article III (4)(A): Article VI of Constitution of the United States of America.

Article III (4)(B): Chapter I, Article 2 of Charter of the United Nations

Article III (4)(C): Chapter VII, Article 51 of Charter of the United Nations

Videos by Voice of Americans 2008

h/t: After Downing Street


Why should Congress impeach Cheney?  Watch this must-see documentary:
Frontline: Cheney’s Law (link)

Kucinich’s Bill Is Under Discussion on the Floor of the House and on C-Span (updated again)

Rep’s Conyers/Ellison/Waters Discuss Impeachment By Jennifer Umolac

50 years ago, 50 years from now (video; Kucinich)

Kucinich to Move Impeachment of Bush After Cheney By David Swanson

It’s Time to Impeach Cheney by Dennis Kucinich

Crisis in Pakistan: Leading Journalist Speaks Out (video)

Dandelion Salad


Najam Sethi, outspoken Pakistani journalist and Editor-in-Chief of The Friday Times, in an exclusive phoner…on the protests, Musharraf’s future, the crucial role of the United States, Benazir Bhutto, and press restrictions. Sethi, a recipient of the International Press Freedom award of the Committee to Protect Journalists, is an International Council Member of the Asia Society. Recorded 11/05/07.

Added: November 06, 2007

Kucinich’s Bill Is Under Discussion on the Floor of the House & on C-Span (updated)


The vote started at 2:53 PM ET and finished after a little bit over an hour.

Yea – Nay – Pres – NV

162 – 251 – 0 – 20


~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

Kucinich’s Resolution Survives Tabling Attempt, Is Referred to Committee

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-11-06 14:47.
After Downing Street

What’s gained? 86 Congress Members showed a level of support for impeachment. The resolution is back in the same committee but with more momentum. The media is more aware. The public is more aware. Kucinich is fired up and ready to introduce new resolutions on both Cheney and Bush. Congress heard from the public in massive numbers – the phones on the Hill were jammed. And the public is energized.

4:41 The motion to send it to the Judiciary Committee passed with only about 5 Dems voting No and 3 Republicans voting Yes. Presumably the 86 Dems who voted No on tabling believed that to be enough to appease their constituents, while 5 Dems actually had integrity enough to put the Constitution ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer. There was no discussion of a time limit for the Judiciary Committee to report back (even though there are precedents for insisting on one with impeachment resolutions). This bill has, of course, ALREADY been in the Judiciary Committee for months, and that committee has done nothing with it.

You’d think if offense (rather than defense) ever entered Pelosi and Hoyer’s heads, they’d want to put an hour of Cheney-bashing debate on TV. But they want at all costs to avoid impeachment, and you can’t debate the substance of the charges against Cheney without making an obvious case for impeachment.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Towns.

4:19 p.m. There is now a 5-min vote underway on whether to refer to the House Judiciary Committee.

4:14 p.m. The motion to table having failed, Hoyer moved to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. Kucinich tried to avoid that and get a vote on the resolution, but – unable to do that – asked for a vote on the decision to refer to committee. Hoyer withdrew his motion and then unwithdrew his motion. Boehner asked for 40 minutes of debate. Serrano as chair seemed clueless for a while, and then ordered a procedural vote on whether to vote on sending to committee. If this new 15-min vote passes, then they will vote on whether to send to committee.

Roll call.

4:02 p.m. Over an hour into this 15 min vote, 78 Dems are voting Nay on tabling, joined by 164 Republicans in an apparent stunt to surprise the Dems and bring the issue to the floor — which the Republicans will regret if the Democrats actually debate it and debate it well (admittedly a remote possibility). They will say over and over and over that this has divided the Democrats. Not outside the Beltway it hasn’t. Over 3/4 of Dems want Cheney impeached.

Currently 142 Dems to table, 78 not to, 13 not voting; 28 Repubs to table, 164 not to, and 9 not voting. Most of the Republicans switched their votes, and for some reason the leadership kept the vote open for over an hour, allowing them to do so. No doubt the Republicans want to get the Dem leaders on tape on the floor defending Cheney against impeachment. But how smart is it of them to allow the topic to gain attention? The evidence, after all, is overwhelming that Cheney has committed impeachable offenses.

2:54 p.m. Hoyer moves to table.
Kucinich asks for Yays and Nays.
15 minute recorded vote begins.
C-Span quotes sentence from Tribune with lie about impeachment dividing the Dems’ base.
C-Span brought on Sabrina Eaton from the Plain Dealer to talk some more trash.



Kucinich Introduced Resolution, Response from Leadership Required Within Two Days

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-11-06 14:06.
After Downing Street

Rep. Jose Serrano chaired the session. Congressman Kucinich introduced H Res 333 and read the three charges against Cheney contained therein. Serrano said that a time would be designated within the next two days for the bill to be considered. At that time, anything could happen, including a vote on the resolution, a vote on tabling the resolution, or sending the resolution to committee (potentially with a time limit for a response). Rep. Steny Hoyer has reportedly said he will move to table the resolution. We have somewhere between 10 mins and 48 hours to let our Congress Members know to vote No on tabling, Yes on impeachment. See: http://impeachcheney.org


Hoyer Will Move to Table (Kill) Impeachment Resolution

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-11-06 13:36.
After Downing Street

That’s according to this Tribune reporter, who claims without citing a shred of evidence that impeachment divides the Democrats’ base. In the only national poll ever published on impeaching Cheney, 76% of Democrats said yes, a number that I suspect has risen since. Where’s the division?

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.


Why should Congress impeach Cheney?  Watch this must-see documentary:
Frontline: Cheney’s Law (link)

Kucinich to Move Impeachment of Bush After Cheney By David Swanson

The Anti-Empire Report by William Blum

Dandelion Salad

The Anti-Empire Report
Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life

by William Blum
November 6, 2007

In a sound-bite society, reality no longer matters

Last month, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told assembled world leaders at the United Nations that the time had come to take action against Iran. “None disagrees,” she said, “that Iran denies the Holocaust and speaks openly of its desire to wipe a member state – mine – off the map. And none disagrees that, in violation of Security Council resolutions, it is actively pursuing the means to achieve this end. Too many see the danger but walk idly by – hoping that someone else will take care of it. … It is time for the United Nations, and the states of the world, to live up to their promise of never again. To say enough is enough, to act now and to defend their basic values.”[1]

Yet, later the same month, we are informed by Haaretz, (frequently described as “the New York Times of Israel”), that the same Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni had said a few months earlier, in a series of closed discussions, that in her opinion “Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel.” Haaretz reported that “Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.”[2]

What are we to make of such a self-contradiction, such perfect hypocrisy?

And here is Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International: “The one time we seriously negotiated with Tehran was in the closing days of the war in Afghanistan, in order to create a new political order in the country. Bush’s representative to the Bonn conference, James Dobbins, says that ‘the Iranians were very professional, straightforward, reliable and helpful. They were also critical to our success. They persuaded the Northern Alliance [Afghan foes of the Taliban] to make the final concessions that we asked for.’ Dobbins says the Iranians made overtures to have better relations with the United States through him and others in 2001 and later, but got no reply. Even after the Axis of Evil speech, he recalls, they offered to cooperate in Afghanistan. Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence. The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says, ‘looked down and rustled his papers.’ No reply was ever sent back to the Iranians. Why bother? They’re mad.”[3]

Dobbins has further written: “The original version of the Bonn agreement … neglected to mention either democracy or the war on terrorism. It was the Iranian representative who spotted these omissions and successfully urged that the newly emerging Afghan government be required to commit to both.”[4] … “Only weeks after Hamid Karzai was sworn in as interim leader in Afghanistan, President Bush listed Iran among the ‘axis of evil’ — surprising payback for Tehran’s help in Bonn. A year later, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, all bilateral contacts with Tehran were suspended. Since then, confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program has intensified.”[5]

Shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran made another approach to Washington, via the Swiss ambassador who sent a fax to the State Department. The Washington Post described it as “a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.” The Bush administration “belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax.” Richard Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration “the bias was toward a policy of regime change.”[6]

So there we have it. The Israelis know it, the Americans know it. Iran is not any kind of military threat. Before the invasion of Iraq I posed the question in this report: What possible reason would Saddam Hussein have for attacking the United States or Israel other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide? He had no reason, and neither do the Iranians. Of the many lies surrounding the invasion of Iraq, the biggest one of all is that if, in fact, Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction the invasion would have been justified.

The United States and Israel have long strived to dominate the Middle East, viewing Iraq and Iran as the most powerful barriers to that ambition. Iraq is now a basket case. Iran awaits basketization. And, eventually perhaps, the omnipresent American military bases, closing the base-gap between Iraq and Afghanistan in Washington’s encirclement of China, and the better to monitor the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea areas.

There was a time when I presumed that the sole purpose of United States hostile policy toward Iran was to keep the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons, which would deprive the US and Israel of their mideast monopoly and ultimate tool of intimidation. But now it appears that destroying Iran’s military capability, nuclear and otherwise, smashing it to the point of being useless defensively or offensively, is the Bush administration’s objective, perhaps along with the hope of some form of regime change. The Empire leaves as little to chance as possible.

Cuba and Original Sin

Since the early days of the Cuban Revolution assorted anti-communists and capitalist true-believers around the world have been relentless in publicizing the failures, real and alleged, of life in Cuba; each perceived shortcoming is attributed to the perceived shortcomings of socialism — It’s simply a system that can’t work, we are told, given the nature of human beings, particularly in this modern, competitive, globalized, consumer-oriented world.

In response to many of these criticisms, defenders of Cuban society have regularly pointed out how the numerous draconian sanctions imposed by the United States since 1960 are largely responsible for most of the problems pointed out by the critics. The critics, in turn, say that this is just an excuse, one given by Cuban apologists for every failure of their socialist system. It would be very difficult for the critics to prove their point. The United States would have to drop all sanctions and then we’d have to wait long enough for Cuban society to recover what it’s lost and demonstrate what its system can do when not under constant attack by the most powerful nation in the world.

The sanctions (which Cuba calls an economic blockade), designed to create discontent toward the government, have been expanding under the Bush administration, both in number and in vindictiveness. Washington has adopted sharper reprisals against those who do business with Cuba or establish relations with the country based on cultural or tourist exchanges; e.g., the US Treasury has frozen the accounts in the United States of the Netherlands Caribbean Bank because it has an office in Cuba, and banned US firms and individuals from having any dealings with the Dutch bank.

The US Treasury Department fined the Alliance of Baptists $34,000, charging that certain of its members and parishioners of other churches had engaged in tourism during a visit to Cuba for religious purposes; i.e., they had spent money there. (As George W. once said: “U.S. law forbids Americans to travel to Cuba for pleasure.”[7])

American courts and government agencies have helped US companies expropriate the famous Cuban cigar brand name ‘Cohiba’ and the well-known rum “Havana Club”.

The Bush administration sent a note to American Internet service providers telling them not to deal with six specified countries, including Cuba.[8] This is one of several actions by Washington over the years to restrict Internet availability in Cuba; yet Cuba’s critics claim that problems with the Internet in Cuba are due to government suppression.

Cubans in the United States are limited to how much money they can send to their families in Cuba, a limit that Washington imposes only on Cubans and on no other nationals. Not even during the worst moments of the Cold War was there a general limit to the amount of money that people in the US could send to relatives living in the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe.

In 1999, Cuba filed a suit against the United States for $181.1 billion in compensation for economic losses and loss of life during the first forty years of this aggression. The suit held Washington responsible for the death of 3,478 Cubans and the wounding and disabling of 2,099 others. In the eight years since, these figures have of course all increased. The sanctions, in numerous ways large and small, makes acquiring many kinds of products and services from around the world much more difficult and expensive, often impossible; frequently, they are things indispensable to Cuban medicine, transportation or industry; or they mean that Americans and Cubans can’t attend professional conferences in each other’s country.

The above is but a small sample of the excruciating pain inflicted by the United States upon the body, soul and economy of the Cuban people.

For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling Cuba an “international pariah”. We don’t hear much of that any more. Perhaps one reason is the annual vote at the United Nations on a General Assembly resolution to end the US embargo against Cuba. This is how the vote has gone:

1992     59-2   (US, Israel)
1993     88-4   (US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay)
1994   101-2   (US, Israel)
1995   117-3   (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1996   138-3   (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1997   143-3   (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1998   157-2   (US, Israel)
1999   155-2   (US, Israel)
2000   167-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2001   167-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2002   173-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2003   179-3   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2004   179-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2005   182-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2006   183-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2007   184-4   (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)

Cuba’s sin, which the United States of America cannot forgive, is to have created a society that can serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model, and, moreover, to have done so under the very nose of the United States. And despite all the hardships imposed on it by Washington, Cuba has indeed inspired countless peoples and governments all over the world.

Long-time writer about Cuba, Karen Lee Wald, has observed: “The United States has more pens, pencils, candy, aspirin, etc. than most Cubans have. They, on the other hand, have better access to health services, education, sports, culture, childcare, services for the elderly, pride and dignity than most of us have within reach.”

In a 1996 address to the General Assembly, Cuban Vice-President Carlos Lage stated: “Each day in the world 200 million children sleep in the streets. Not one of them is Cuban.”

On April 6, 1960, L.D. Mallory, a US State Department senior official, wrote in an internal memorandum: “The majority of Cubans support Castro … the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. … every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” Mallory proposed “a line of action that makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the government.” Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo.[9]

Hugo the demon dictator strikes again

The latest evidence that Hugo Chavez is a dictator, we are told, is that he’s pushing for a constitutional amendment to remove term limits from the presidency. It’s the most contentious provision in his new reform package which has recently been approved by the Venezuelan congress and awaits a public referendum on December 2. The lawmakers traveled nationwide to discuss the proposals with community groups at more than 9,000 public events[10], rather odd behavior for a dictatorship, as is another of the reforms — setting a maximum six-hour workday so workers would have sufficient time for “personal development.”

The American media and the opposition in Venezuela make it sound as if Chavez is going to be guaranteed office for as long as he wants. What they fail to emphasize, if they mention it at all, is that there’s nothing at all automatic about the process — Chavez will have to be elected each time. Neither are we enlightened that it’s not unusual for a nation to not have a term limit for its highest office. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, if not all of Europe and much of the rest of the world, do not have such a limit. The United States did not have a term limit on the office of the president during the nation’s first 175 years, until the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Were all American presidents prior to that time dictators?

Is it of any significance, I wonder, that the two countries of the Western Hemisphere whose governments the United States would most like to overthrow — Venezuela and Cuba — have the greatest national obsession with baseball outside of the United States?

Reason Number 3,467 for having doubts about our God-given free-enterprise system

I recently bought my first cellphone and took it with me to Burlington, Vermont, only to discover that it didn’t work there. It seems that AT&T/Cingular doesn’t have cellphone towers in that area. But other phone companies do have towers there and their subscribers’ phones work. Is that not a really clever system?

To have a single national telephone system with all towers available for use by everyone would presumably upset libertarians and others who worship at the shrine of competition.. So instead we’re given another charming “market solution”, and the beauty of competition is preserved. Why stop there?  Just imagine the advantages in being able to call around to find out which fire station will give you the best rate should your house suddenly go up in flames.

An unwelcome guest at the table of respectable opinion

In the September edition of this report I presented a review of New York Times reporter Tim Weiner’s new book “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA”. It was rather critical of the book, particularly as to what has been left out about CIA operations and the effect upon foreign peoples of these operations. The net result of these numerous omissions is to paint a picture of US foreign policy that significantly downplays the actions most destructive to the peace, prosperity, and happiness of the world.  It’s an old story — the media decide which issues to cover in the first place; they then decide how many sides there are to an issue; and then they decide what type of coverage is “balanced”. The major ideological problem of the American media is that they do not believe that they have any ideology.

But I wondered if I was not being somewhat unfair to Weiner in one or more cases; perhaps he had a good reason for some of his omissions; perhaps in the 700 pages, including 155 pages of small-type notes, I had missed something I thought had been omitted. I decided to send a copy of the review to him, hopefully to get his reaction, and wrote to the Times asking for his email address. I got back an email from Weiner himself which read, in full:

“Dear Mr. Blum: I read your review several days ago. And I’ve read all your books. best wishes, tw”

No challenges to anything I said; no corrections. I’d be surprised if he’s done more than skim a few pages of any of my books. His letter is his way of saying: “I really don’t want to hear from you again. Our worlds are not designed for mingling. Our truths are not the same, and neither my publisher nor the New York Times pays me to disseminate yours.”

[1] Haaretz.com (Israeli newspaper), October 1, 2007

[2] Haaretz.com, October 25, 2007; print edition October 26

[3] Newsweek, October 20, 2007

[4] Washington Post, May 6, 2004

[5] Washington Post, July 22, 2007, p.B7, op-ed by Dobbins

[6] Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.16

[7] White House press release, October 10, 2003

[8] Press release from the Cuban Mission to the United Nations, October 17, 2007, re this and preceding three paragraphs.

[9] Department of State, “Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba” (1991), p.885

[10] Washington Post, October 31, 2007, p.12

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at <www.killinghope.org>

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website at “essays”.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to <bblum6@aol.com> with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission.  I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned. www.killinghope.org

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 Deadly Embrace – Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran by James Petras

Dandelion Salad

by James Petras
Dissident Voice
November 6th, 2007


Explanations for the US attack on Iraq range from military-political pretexts to accounts focusing on geopolitical and economic interests.

The original official explanation was the now discredited claim that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destructions (WMD), which threatened the US, Israel and the Middle East. Subsequent to the US military occupation, when no WMD were discovered, Washington justified the invasion and occupation by citing the removal of a dictator and the establishment of a prosperous democracy in the Arab world. The imposition of a colonial puppet regime, propped up by an imperial occupation force of over 200,000 troops and irregular death squads, which have killed close to a million Iraqi civilians, forced over 4 million into exile and impoverished over 95% of the population, puts the lie to that line of argument. The latest line of justification revolves around the notion that the US occupation is necessary to ‘prevent a civil war’. Most Iraqis and military experts think the presence of the US colonial occupation army is the cause of violent conflict, particularly the US military’s devastating attacks on civilians, their financing of rival tribal leaders and Kurdish mercenaries and their contracting of local police-military to repress the population. Since most Americans (not to speak of the rest of the world) are not convinced by these specious arguments, the Washington regime rationalizes its continued war and occupation by citing the need for a colonial military victory to maintain its world and regional status as a super-power, and to assure its Middle East client regimes that Washington can defend their ruling cliques and their hegemonic ally, Israel. The Bush White House and pro-Israel Congressional leaders claim a victory in Iraq will bolster Washington’s image as a successful global ‘anti-terrorist’ (anti-insurgent) regime. These post-facto justifications have lost credibility as the war drags on, popular resistance grows in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia, Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan and elsewhere. The longer the war continues, the greater the economic cost and the demoralization and depletion of military personnel, the more difficult the task of sustaining the capacity to intervene in defense of the empire.

If the official political and military justifications for the US colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ring hollow and convince few, what of the other economic explanations for the war put forth mostly but not exclusively by critics of the Bush administration?

The major focus of the economic determinists of the war centers on the issue of oil, as in ‘war for oil’.* These explanations in turn break down into several variants: The first and most popular is that the big US oil companies were behind the war, that Bush and Cheney were pressured by their Big Oil handlers into launching the war so that US oil companies could seize the nationally-owned Iraqi oil fields and refineries. A second, slightly modified, version argued that the White House was not pressured by Big Oil but acted on their behalf as a reflex action. (This is put forth to explain why the spokesmen for Big Oil multinationals were so conspicuously absent from the media and halls of Congress in the lead-up to the war.) (* see recent statements in September and October by former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan and US General John Abazaid among others)

A third version argued that the US went to war to secure oil for US national security interests threatened by Saddam Hussein. This explanation cites the danger of Saddam Hussein closing down the Strait of Hormuz, invading the Gulf States, inciting revolts in Saudi Arabia and/or reducing the flow of Middle East oil to the US and its allies. In other words, the ‘geopolitics’ of the Middle East dictated that a non-client regime was a threat to US, European and Japanese access to oil. This is apparently the latest argument put forth by Alan Greenspan, a former proponent of the WMD propaganda.

The major advocates of the ‘war for oil’ (WFO) argument fail several empirical tests: Namely that the oil companies were not actively supporting the war via propaganda, congressional lobbying or through any other policy vehicle. Secondly the proponents of WFO fail to explain the efforts by major oil companies to develop economic ties with Iraq prior to the invasion and were in fact, working through clandestine third parties to trade in Iraqi oil. Thirdly, all the major oil companies operating in the Middle East were mainly concerned with political stability, the liberalization of the economic policies of the region and the opening of oil services for foreign investors. The big oil companies’ strategies were to advance their global interests through the on-going liberalization process in the Middle East and conquering new markets and oil resources through their formidable market power – investments and technology. The onset of the US invasion of Iraq was viewed with anxiety and concern as a military action, which would destabilize the region, increase hostility to their interests throughout the Gulf and slow down the liberalization process. Not a single CEO from the entire petroleum industry viewed the US invasion as a positive ‘national security’ measure, because they understood that Saddam Hussein, after over a decade of economic and military sanctions and frequent bombing of his military installations and infrastructure throughout the Clinton years, was not in a position to launch any acts of aggression against Gulf oil companies or states. Moreover the oil companies had several real prospects of developing lucrative service and commercial oil contracts with Saddam Hussein’s regime in the lead-up to the war. It was the US government pressured by the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), which pushed legislation blocking (through sanctions) Big Oil from consummating these economic agreements with Iraq.

The argument that Big Oil promoted the war for its own benefit fails the empirical test. A corollary to that is that Big Oil has failed to benefit from the US occupation because of the heightened conflict, continuous sabotage, the predictable resistance of the Iraqi oil workers to privatization and the general insecurity, instability and hostility of the Iraqi people.

The American Left jumped on Alan Greenspan’s declaration that the Iraq war was about oil, as some kind of confirmation in the absence of any evidence. Yet everyday that has transpired since the beginning of the war five years ago, demonstrates that ‘Big Oil’ not only did not promote the invasion, but has failed to secure a single oil field, despite the presence of 160,000 US troops, thirty thousand Pentagon/State Department paid mercenaries and a corrupt puppet regime. As of September 19, 2007 the Financial Times of London featured an article on the conspicuous absence of the ‘Oil Majors’ in Iraq: “Big Oil Plays a Waiting Game over Iraq’s Reserves’ (September 19, 2007). Only a few small companies (‘oil minnows’) have contracts in Northern Iraq (‘Kurdistan’), which has only 3% of Iraq’s reserves. ‘Big Oil’ did not start the Iraq war, nor has ‘Big Oil’ benefited from the war. The reason why ‘Big Oil’ did not support the war is the same reason they haven’t invested after the occupation: “The level of violence is still unacceptably high…if anything the prospects of agreement appears to be receding as tensions between parties grow.” (ibid) ‘Big Oil’s’ worst nightmares leading up to the Zionist-influenced war have all been utterly confirmed. Whereas ‘Big Oil’s’ negotiations and third party deals with pre-war Iraq provided a stable and consistent flow of oil and revenue, the war has not only reduced these revenues to zero, but has all but eliminated any new options for the next decade.

Despite the war, liberalization elsewhere in the region has proceeded and US oil and financial interests have advanced despite the increased obstacles and hostilities, which have grown out of the US slaughter of Muslims.

Big Oil, Texas billionaires, even big contributors to the Bush family political campaigns were no match for the ZPC when it came to Middle East war policy. They lacked the inside and outside power, the disciplined grass roots organization of Jewish community organizations to overcome the Zionist warmongering power over Congress, their position in strategic executive offices and their army of academic scribes from Harvard, Yale and Hopkins churning out bellicose propaganda in the US media. What is striking about the position papers and op-ed reprints in the Daily Alert is the total absence of any deviation from official Israeli pro-war positions: Whether it is killing children in Jenin, bombing population centers in Lebanon, shelling Arab families relaxing at the beach in Gaza, the Daily Alert simply echoes the official Israeli line and blatant lies about human shields, accidents, gunmen among school children, self-induced atrocities. Never in the entire period analyzed is there a single critical article questioning Israel’s massive displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. No crime against humanity is too great for the Presidents of the Leading American Jewish Organizations to defend. It is this slavish obedience to the official Israeli policy that marks out the Zionist Power Configuration as something much more than just another lobby as its ‘left’ apologists and even Walt and Mearsheimer claim. The ZPC is much more sinister both as a transmission belt for the policies and interests of a colonial power hell-bent on domination in the Middle East and as the most serious authoritarian threat to our democratic freedoms: no single individual who dares criticize can escape the long hand of the pro-Israel authoritarians. Book sellers are picketed, editors are intimidated, university presses and distributors are threatened, university presidents are blackmailed, local and national candidates are browbeaten and smeared, meetings are cancelled and venues are pressured, faculty are fired or denied promotion, corporations are blacklisted, union pension funds are raided, theater performances and concerts are cancelled. And the list of repressive actions taken by these authoritarian Zionist organizations at the national and local levels runs on, arousing fear among some, anger among many more and a slowly burning resentment and growing awareness among the silent majority. The second geo-political version of ‘oil for war’ focuses on the national security issues. After the First Gulf War in 1991 and eleven years of economic sanctions and military disarmament, Iraq was an impoverished, weak nation partially dismembered by the US backed Kurdish enclave in the north and constant US bombing and over flights. Iraq was severely bombed several times during the Clinton regimes and over 1 million of its citizens, including an estimated 500,000 children, died prematurely from conditions related to the US imposed deprivation of food and essential medical and water treatment supplies.

Before the invasion in 2003 Iraq did not even control its shorelines, airspace or even a third of its national territory. As the US invasion demonstrated, Saddam’s military lacked the most elementary capacity to mount any defense in a conventional war, not even a single fighter plane presented a threat to any offshore US client or to the Strait of Hormuz. The stiff resistance to the US came later in the form of irregular forces engaged in guerrilla warfare, not from any organized force established by the Baathist regime. In other words no matter how far the concept of ‘national security’ is stretched to include US military bases, oil installations, client rulers and transport and shipping lanes in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein was clearly not a threat. If however the concept of ‘national security’ is re-defined to mean the physical elimination of any potential opponent of US and Israeli domination in the region, then Saddam Hussein could be labeled a national security threat. But that takes the discussion of the explanation for the US war against Iraq to another terrain and a discussion of the political forces who manipulated the phony WMD and ‘War for Oil’ propaganda to justify a war for US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Even more important the disinformation campaign about who was responsible for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is highly relevant to the current propaganda blitz driving us toward a war with Iran.


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 Pursuing Nuclear Ambitions of His Own by Jason Leopold

Dandelion Salad

by Jason Leopold
Global Research, November 6, 2007
t r u t h o u t

While Dick Cheney has been talking tough over the years about Iran’s alleged nuclear activities, the vice president has been quietly pursuing nuclear ambitions of his own.

For more than two years, Cheney and a relatively unknown administration official, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell, have been regularly visiting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure agency officials rewrite regulatory policies and bypass public hearings in order to streamline the licensing process for energy companies that have filed applications to build new nuclear power reactors, as well as applications for new nuclear facilities that are expected to be filed by other companies in the months ahead, longtime NRC officials said.

Before being sworn in as deputy energy secretary in March 2005, Sell, a lawyer whose roots extend to Bush’s home state of Texas, was a White House lobbyist working on energy issues. He had also participated in secret meetings with Cheney’s Energy Task Force.

In April, Sell and Cheney had both met with NRC officials to sign off on the final regulatory policies related to new nuclear reactors. Following the meeting, Sell had alerted a group of energy companies they could begin to take advantage of the faster application process, NRC officials said.

NRC officials said that Cheney has expressed a desire to see applications for nuclear reactor projects approved by the NRC when he and Bush leave the White House in January 2009.

The energy corporations Cheney and Sell have been personally lobbying the NRC on behalf of this year have advised the vice president and his staff on energy policy in a way that would boost their companies’ profit margins. These corporations have also donated millions of dollars to President Bush’s and Cheney’s past presidential campaigns.

One of the cornerstones of President Bush’s National Energy Policy, released in May 2001, but never wholly adopted, was “the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy.” Cheney said that reviving the nuclear power industry would be long-term solution to the country’s increasing thirst for electricity.

At a time when public awareness surrounding renewable energy resources, the devastating effects of global warming and the importance of conservation is at an all-time high, the Bush administration has steered tens of billions in taxpayer dollars toward revamping the dormant nuclear power industry, touting it as the only proven technology to combat climate change.

Behind the scenes, Cheney and Sell have worked in tandem with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a powerful industry organization whose members include some of the country’s largest energy corporations, to get the NRC to rewrite long-standing environmental review policies and limit oversight of new nuclear projects, thereby simplifying the application process, and significantly cutting down the time it takes to get new nuclear projects off the ground, an NRC official said.

The Nuclear Energy Institute spent $680,000 during the first half of 2007 lobbying the White House, Congress, the Department of Energy, and other federal agencies, according to a disclosure form posted online August 13 by the Senate’s public records office. Cheney’s longtime friend, Tom Loeffler, a former lobbyist and Republican congressman, represented the NEI. Loeffler’s former aide, Nancy Dorn, worked as a Congressional liaison for Cheney, and later became a lobbyist for General Electric.

Cheney and Sell’s behind-the-scenes efforts have been a boon for the nuclear energy industry – and to Westinghouse Electric, a nuclear reactor designer whose AP1000 reactor unit was certified by the Department of Energy. The company stands to earn tens of billions of dollars in profit through the sale of just a few of its nuclear reactor units. Cheney has said publicly he wants to see dozens scattered across the US.

In September, Princeton-based NRG Energy Inc., having emerged from bankruptcy proceedings, became the first company in 30 years to submit an application to build two new General Electric-designed nuclear reactors at its Bay City, Texas, nuclear power plant facility, a move that came as a direct result of several private meetings NRG lobbyists and executives held with Cheney and Sell, according to company officials. NRG’s former president, David Peterson, traveled to Washington on two occasions in 2001 to help Cheney’s Energy Task Force shape the country’s energy policy, according to government records.

Prior to NRG’s application, there had not been a filing for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor meltdown three decades ago.

NRG Chief Executive David Crane told investors recently that massive federal tax incentives and federal loan guarantees included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was the deciding factor in steering the company toward the $6 billion nuclear project.

“The whole reason we started down this path was the benefits written into the [Energy Policy Act] of 2005,” Crane said.

That legislation calls for upwards of $125 million in annual tax credits for a nuclear plant, in addition to loan guarantees that would cover about 80 percent of construction costs. Furthermore, the federal government provided $2 billion in risk insurance for application costs, thereby protecting energy companies in the event they would not be able to finance a nuclear project due to regulatory obstacles.

The federal loan program automatically requires taxpayers to cover any defaults on the loans. In a February report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office said failure to properly account for default risks in the loan program was one factor that “could result in substantial financial costs to the taxpayer.”

A 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report said the risk of utilities defaulting on loans for new nuclear plants is “very high – well above 50 percent.”

In October, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation’s largest public power provider, also filed an application with the NRC for a license to construct and operate two new nuclear power reactors in northern Alabama using General Electric’s Westinghouse AP1000 reactor units. The application was filed under the banner of NuStart Energy, LLC, a consortium of electric utilities that joined together in 2004 to test the NRC’s streamlined nuclear reactor licensing program. The licensing costs were paid for by the federal government under an Energy Department program called Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010), to promote construction of new nuclear power plants.

According to the Department of Energy’s web site, NP2010 was launched in 2002, and “is a joint government/industry cost-shared effort that can help provide solutions to meet future base load energy demand and address climate change. Specifically, NP2010 seeks to: demonstrate new, untested processes for licensing reactors in the United States; identify sites for new nuclear power plants, complete first-of-a-kind engineering of new reactor designs; develop and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, and evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power plants.”

Sell said TVA’s application was a “a monumental step toward the rebirth of nuclear power in the United States.”

He also touted General Electric and Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor units as cutting edge, which subsequently helped boost the stocks of both companies. Sell said TVA’s application lays the groundwork for dozens of Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to be built in the United States. General Electric had been one of the company’s that advised Cheney on the National Energy Policy.

Members of the NuStart consortium include: Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, EDF International North America, the US subsidiary of the French electric utility, Entergy Nuclear, Exelon Generation, Florida Power & Light Company, Progress Energy, South Carolina Electric & Gas, Southern Company and Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

With the exception of Progress Energy, South Carolina Electric Gas & Light and EDF International, all of these companies participated in meetings with Cheney’s Energy Task Force and advised the vice president on energy policy. Additionally, these corporations have said publicly they intend to file applications for nuclear reactor licenses before the end of 2008, the deadline to receive billions of dollars in federal subsidies and tax credits. The NRC says it expects to receive as many as 21 applications to build 32 new reactors before the end of 2008, with most, if not all, expected to go online in 2015.

Since 2005, Sell has met with the corporate executives of the consortium at least half-a-dozen times. He has relayed to top NRC officials the group’s concerns over the agency’s decade-old regulatory policy related to the lengthy review process of licensing nuclear power plants, and, with Cheney’s backing, urged the NRC to draft new rules that calls for granting a combined construction and operating license, which will essentially result in a decrease in oversight and public scrutiny, according to three senior officials at the Energy Department.

In an October 30 news release, the DOE said it “selected NuStart to demonstrate the NRC’s untested process for licensing new reactors in the United States, and for obtaining regulatory approval of new reactor designs.”

Meanwhile, the Energy Department has undertaken a massive public relations effort, expected to continue until the end of 2008, to promote nuclear energy as the new “green” energy.

In early October, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, in a speech at a nuclear power conference held at the Howard Baker Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee, described nuclear energy as “safe, clean and reliable. And, for the foreseeable future, it is the only mature, emissions-free technology that can supply the power America will need to meet the projected increase in demand for electricity over the next 25 years. This is one of the reasons we have put so much emphasis on bringing about a nuclear renaissance here in the United States.”

In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” that said even with volatile natural gas prices and a wildly fluctuating market, the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power plants is still 20 percent more expensive than electricity produced from gas-fired power plants, and 60 percent more expensive than electricity produced from a coal-fired power plant.

Earlier this year, Bodman, while promoting nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, said the Bush administration would continue to oppose mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 caps, following a report released in January by the world’s leading climate scientists that said the emissions of greenhouse gases were to blame for severe heat waves, floods and an increase in more intense hurricanes and tropical storms. Bodman said mandatory caps could financially ruin some of the energy companies responsible for polluting the air.

“There is a concern within this administration, which I support, that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country would – may – lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad (to nations) that do not have such a carbon cap,” Bodman said in February. “You would then have the US economy damaged, on the one hand, and the same emissions … potentially even worse emissions.”

Before being tapped as Energy Secretary, Bodman ran a chemical company, Cabot Corporation that spent years on the top five lists of the country’s worst polluters. In 1997 alone, Cabot was responsible for the 54,000 tons of toxic emissions his company’s refineries released into the atmosphere. Cabot was identified as the fourth-largest source of toxic emissions in Texas. Cabot is the world’s largest producer of industrial carbon black, a byproduct of the oil refinery process. Bodman is the wealthiest official in the Bush administration. His net worth is estimated to be between $42 million and $164 million, the bulk of it in Cabot stock, deferred compensation, and other benefits.

Perhaps the thorniest issue neither Cheney, Sell, Bodman nor the nuclear energy industry has yet to address is how it plans to dispose of nuclear waste. The Department of Energy, the agency largely responsible for monitoring nuclear waste, plans on submitting an application to the NRC next year to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, the site of a former nuclear testing ground in Nevada, where the agency has proposed burying the waste deep underground. The review process is expected to take at least three years.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democrat from Nevada, is opposed to the DOE’s plan, and has vowed to continue to cut funding for the Yucca Mountain project.

“In over 50 years of operating experience, the nuclear industry still has not managed to solve the problems of safety, security, and disposal of highly dangerous radioactive waste,” said Jon Block, nuclear energy and climate change project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “Until that happens, we’re much better off investing in safer, cleaner energy sources such as renewable wind, geothermal, tidal, and solar projects.”

Jason Leopold is senior editor and reporter for Truthout. He received a Project Censored award in 2007 for his story on Halliburton’s work in Iran.

Global Research Articles by Jason Leopold

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 Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7272

Rep’s Conyers/Ellison/Waters Discuss Impeachment By Jennifer Umolac

Dandelion Salad

By Jennifer Umolac
After Downing Street

Nov. 6, 2007

On Tuesday, October 23rd, Impeach for Peace was granted a meeting with Representative John Conyers in Washington DC to discuss H. Res 333 and the status of impeachment. The meeting took place in the Judiciary Offices of the Rayburn building and was attended by Rep. John Conyers, an aide to Rep. Conyers and myself. There was no scheduled endtime for the meeting and ultimately the meeting lasted nearly 45 minutes. During this time many different aspects of the impeachment process were discussed. Representative Conyers was very generous with his time and made it very clear that he considers it very important for him to continue these conversations about impeachment. Unlike during his visit to Minneapolis, Rep. Conyers did not mention the matter of “time” as one of the factors against bringing forward H. Res 333. His most prominent rationale for not bringing forward the resolution was that he felt there wouldn’t be support for the measure and subsequently that it wouldn’t go anywhere. He spoke about all of the freshman Congresspeople who were elected in Red States and how they were unlikely to come out in favor of impeachment. He then stated that if he weren’t in his position, he would be “one of you…lobbying for impeachment.” I implored him to be one of us IN his position and to lobby his fellow Representatives in support of H. Res 333.

I also mentioned to him that I had a conversation with a Minnesota Representative, Tim Walz, who was in exactly that position, representing a traditionally conservative area that had narrowly elected him. In our conversation on impeachment, Rep. Walz had stated that though he wouldn’t sign on to H. Res 333, he would support articles of impeachment should they come to the floor. I suggested that this might be a far more widespread stance than he would expect.



Nov. 6, 2007

Congressman Danny Davis has signed on as the 22nd cosponsor and 23rd total congress member to support H Res 333: http://impeachcheney.org

h/t: After Downing Street

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.


Kucinich to Move Impeachment of Bush After Cheney By David Swanson

It’s Time to Impeach Cheney by Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich Campaign update 11-05-07 with Dennis on Impeachment (video) + Live Call-In

Phone Numbers for Impeachment CoSponsers of HRes333

50 years ago, 50 years from now (video; Kucinich)