Preventing the Impending War on Iran by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Dandelion Salad

by Prof. Marjorie Cohn
Global Research, November 23, 2007

Rhetoric flowing out of the White House indicates the Bush administration is planning a military attack on Iran. Officials in Saudi Arabia, a close Bush ally, think the handwriting is on the wall. “George Bush’s tone makes us think he has decided what he is going to do,” according to Rihab Massoud, Prince Bandar ben Sultan’s right-hand man. Saudi Social Affairs Minister Abdel Mohsen Hakas told Le Figaro, “We are getting closer and closer to a confrontation.”

As Bush and Cheney try to whip us into a frenzy about the dangers Iran poses, their argument comes up short. They say Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says there is “no evidence” of this. They say Iran is sending deadly weapons into Iraq to kill U.S. troops, but those devices can be manufactured in any Iraqi machine shop. Now the New York Times reports most of the foreign fighters in Iraq come, not from Iran, but from two Bush allies – Saudi Arabia and Libya. An estimated 90 percent of suicide bombings are carried out by foreign fighters. And senior U.S. military officials believe the financial support for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia comes primarily from Saudi Arabia.

Yet the Bush/Cheney rhetoric about Iran continues to escalate. In light of the lack of evidence Iran is actually developing nukes, Bush equated Iranian “knowledge” to make nuclear weapons with World War III. “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III,” he said recently, “it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” This substantially lowers the bar for a U.S. attack on Iran.

A few days after Bush warned of World War III, Cheney called Iran “the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism,” adding, “The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences… We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” These threats are eerily reminiscent of his rants in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

In an unprecedented move, the Bush administration labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It appears the administration applied that label in an effort to trigger language in the 2002 Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. That authorization says, “The President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

Like Bush’s invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran would violate international and U.S. law. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of military force except in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council. Iran, which has not attacked any country for 2,000 years, hasn’t threatened to invade the United States or Israel. Rather than protecting Israel, U.S. or Israeli military force against Iran will endanger Israel, which would invariably suffer a retaliatory attack.

In making its case against Iran, the administration points to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s alleged comment that Israel should be wiped off the map. But this is an erroneous translation of what he said. According to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who said the “regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Cole said this “does not imply military action or killing anyone at all.” Journalist Diana Johnstone points out the quote is not aimed at the Israeli people, but at the Zionist “regime” occupying Jerusalem. “Coming from a Muslim religious leader,” Johnstone wrote, “this opinion is doubtless based on objection to Jewish monopoly of a city considered holy by all three of the Abramic monotheisms.”

It seems significant that support for Ahmadinejad may be waning among the real power brokers in Iran, particularly the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Jomhouri Eslami daily in Iran, which has close ties to Khamenei, has denounced Ahmadinejad’s characterization of those opposed to his nuclear program as traitors.

If the United States attacks Iran, the results would be catastrophic. Three Europeans, including former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard and Yehuda Atai, a member of the Israeli Committee for a Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction, wrote in Libération, “We are being warned about it from all sides: The United States is at the brink of war, ready to bombard Iran. The only thing lacking is the presidential order.” Drawing parallels with the U.S. war in Iraq, they caution, “An attack against Iran, whatever its targets, its methods and its initial scope, will significantly aggravate the situation, achieving similar results, without even talking about the disastrous impact on the global economy.” They add, “It would be still worse if the insane idea of using tactical nuclear weapons – which exist – to prevent Iran from building, in spite of its denials, the nuclear weapons that recent IAEA inspections have found no trace of, were implemented.”

The threats against Iran appear to be politically motivated. Seymour Hersh’s extensive research has convinced him that Bush/Cheney will invade Iran. They likely think embroiling us in Iran will ensure a GOP victory in 2008. It will certainly make it harder for the new President to withdraw from Iraq once we are mired in Iran.

If Hillary Clinton becomes that new President, she will likely continue Bush’s foreign policy. Clinton, who favors leaving a large contingent of U.S. troops in Iraq, says nothing about disbanding the huge U.S. military bases there. Clinton is also rattling the sabers in Iran ‘s direction. She voted to urge Bush to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and she, too, misquotes Ahmadinejad about Israel.

As we go to the polls in the coming months, it is imperative we scrutinize the candidates’ positions on Iraq and Iran. The security of the United States, as well as the Middle East, is hanging in the balance.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of “Cowboy Republic : Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.” Her columns are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Marjorie Cohn is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Marjorie Cohn
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 Marjorie Cohn, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7416

The PLO excluded from the Annapolis Conference by Prof. Francis A. Boyle

Dandelion Salad

by Prof. Francis A. Boyle
Global Research, November 23, 2007

As you will see from the list below, it seems the US has invited practically everyone in the world to this fandango — from Poland to Sweden to Slovenia to Yemen to the World Bank and the IMF… except the PLO — which is the only body that has the authority and international standing to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people! In addition, the elected government of Hamas is also not invited, of course.

Nov 23, 2007

My Dear Palestinian Friends:

As you can see from the US Government’s list of Invitees [below] to the Annapolis Conference, it has only invited the Palestinian Authority, not the PLO. But only the PLO has the authority under international law to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian People and the State of Palestine. That is why the Chairman of the PLO Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Agreement in the name of the PLO. The Palestinian Authority has no authorization under international law to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian People, let alone the State of Palestine, whose Provisional Government is the PLO Executive Committee. Indeed, an entire series of UN General Assembly Resolutions have made it clear that only the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People. Hence this delegation of the Palestinian Authority to the Annapolis Conference has no legal authority under international law to conclude anything on behalf of the Palestinian People, let alone the State of Palestine

I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to bring this matter to the attention of the Palestinian People around the world.

Thank you.

Francis A. Boyle

Professor of International Law
Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations and His Excellency Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi (1991-1993)

 


US State Department – Nov 20, 2007

Announcement of Annapolis Conference

Press Statement: Sean McCormack Washington, DC

November 20, 2007

Announcement of Annapolis Conference

On November 27, the United States will host Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Abbas, along with the Members of the Quartet, the Members of the Arab League Follow-on Committee, the G-8, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and other key international actors for a conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Secretary Rice will host a dinner the preceding evening here in Washington, where President Bush will deliver remarks. President Bush and the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will deliver speeches to open the formal conference in Annapolis.

The Annapolis Conference will signal broad international support for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ courageous efforts, and will be a launching point for negotiations leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those invited to attend the conference are:

United States
Israel
Palestinian Authority
Algeria
Arab League Secretary General
Bahrain
Brazil
Canada
China
Egypt
EU Commission
EU High Rep
EU Pres
Portugal
France
Germany
Greece
India
Indonesia
Iraq Italy
Japan
Jordan
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mauritania
Morocco
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Poland
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Syria
Quartet Special Envoy Tony Blair
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
UNSYG [??]
Yemen

Observers:

IMF,
World Bank

Francis A. Boyle is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Francis A. Boyle

see
Everything You Need to Know About Annapolis Peace Conference

Annapolis: How to Get Out? By Uri Avnery

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 Francis A. Boyle, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7417

NOW: Oil, Politics and Bribes (video)

Dandelion Salad

PBS NOW: Alaskan Oil, Politics & the Corrupt Bastards Club

Two state legislators have been convicted in Federal court for accepting bribes from VECO. The FBI has video and audio evidence that reveal VECO executives shockingly handing out cash to those legislators in exchange for promises to roll back a tax on the oil industry. But that may only be the tip of the oily iceberg. NOW’s Maria Hinojosa learns that dozens more lawmakers are being eyed in the growing scandal, including one of the country’s most powerful politicians, Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens.

Continue reading

UN official says Israel’s siege of Gaza breeds extremism and human suffering By Donald Macintyre

Dandelion Salad

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
ICH
11/23/07 “The Independent

A senior United Nations official has issued an unprecedented appeal to British MPs to use their influence to try to alleviate the impact of “indiscriminate” and “illegal” Israeli sanctions in Gaza which display “profound inhumanity” and are “serving the agenda of extremists”.

In one of the strongest attacks on recent Israeli strategy issued by a senior international official, John Ging, Gaza’s director of operations for the refugee agency UNRWA, said that “crushing sanctions” imposed since the Israeli cabinet declared the Strip a “hostile entity” in September had contributed to “truly appalling living conditions.”

Mr Ging said the measures had been justified as protection from what he fully acknowledged were rocket attacks “terrorising” the Israeli civilian population within range. The rockets have killed two people this year and injured 99 others. But citing cuts in fuel and planned cuts in electricity along with closures which have had “an atrocious” impact on Palestinian medical care, “destroyed” Gaza’s economy and threatened already “Third World” water and sanitation, he told the Britain-Palestine group of MPs: “This presupposes that the civilian population are somehow more capable of stopping the rocket fire than the powerful military of the occupying power.

“My message … is that not only are these sanctions not working, but because of their profound inhumanity, they are counterproductive to their stated purpose and while Gaza is not yet an entity populated by people hostile to their neighbour, it inevitably will be if the current approach of collective punitive sanctions continues.”

Mr Ging, whose agency is responsible for 70 per cent of Gaza’s 1.5 million population, said that over the past two years “every hopeful opportunity has been irrationally dashed and followed by even worse circumstances”. He added that Gaza’s civilian population expected more of Israel and the international community, who regularly expressed concern about their humanitarian plight but “to no avail”.

Mr Ging, whose message is reinforced by a letter warning of the “increasingly desperate situation” in Gaza from major aid agencies in today’s Independent, said 649 Palestinians had been killed this year, including 63 children. The figure includes more than 330 killed in internal fighting.

Mr Ging added that UNRWA was unable to provide more than 61 per cent of the necessary calories to refugees. “At present we do not have sufficient funding to provide just one high nutrient biscuit to 200,000 children in UN schools.”

Israeli officials cite signs of a decline in Hamas’s popularity as evidence that the sanctions are working. But Mr Ging said the “human suffering and misery for the entire civilian population in Gaza was creating fertile ground for the extremists”.

The Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights says that 11 patients have died since last month because their treatment was blocked or delayed. At least 800 more are being denied treatment abroad.

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.

Everything You Need to Know About Annapolis Peace Conference

Dandelion Salad

From an email by http://www.linktv.org

1. How did the Annapolis conference come about?

On July 16, U.S. President George W. Bush called for the convening of an “international meeting” this fall to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Three days later the Middle East Quartet of the EU, UN, US, and Russia endorsed Bush’s call.

2. What were the events surrounding Bush’s call for a conference?

In June, the Bush Administration lifted its political and economic boycott of the Palestinian Authority. The boycott had been in place since the democratically-elected Hamas formed a government in March of 2006. It was lifted on June 18, four days after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah dissolved the Fatah-Hamas national unity government and removed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh from his position as Prime Minister. Abbas appointed former Finance Minister Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister, who then selected a new cabinet. On June 17, Hamas took control of Gaza while Fatah remains in control of most of the West Bank, though both territories remain under Israeli military occupation.

3. When and where will the conference convene?

At the end of September it was revealed the gathering will take place at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD. On November 20, the U.S. issued formal invitations to Israel and the Palestinian Authority to attend talks on November 27. Talks are also scheduled to take place in Washington, DC, on November 26 and 28. (View conference schedule. )

4. Who will attend?

In his announcement of the conference, Bush stated “the key participants…will be the Israelis, the Palestinians, and their neighbors in the region.” The United States has sent formal invitations to Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and nearly 50 other countries and institutions. (View full list of invitees. ) Members of the European Union, the United Nations, the Group of Eight and the Arab League Follow-up Committee have expressed a willingness to attend. Many, however, have stated they will wait to see the agenda before making a final decision on whether to attend. The formal invitation makes mention of the Saudi peace initiative and calls for a “comprehensive settlement” in an effort to entice high-level Saudi and Syrian attendance. The Arab League will hold a mini-summit in Cairo on Thursday, November 22, to formulate a policy for the Annapolis conference.

More FAQ onthe Annapolis Conference


Annapolis: Dead on Arrival

There is a lot of hype in world media about the upcoming Annapolis Peace conference but expectations are very low right here on the streets of Jerusalem.

Although the Annapolis summit is being promoted as a breakthrough in the peace process, many locals are worried that it will merely generate new tensions.

Both Israelis and Palestinians that I spoke to believe that the Annapolis “peace process,” like its many predecessors in the Middle East, is destined to fail because it lacks the necessary international support and is based on vague promises.

Its agenda remains uncertain and there are differences in the expectations of the participants: The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, believes that the conference should deal with the border issue, the status of Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements, while the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert seems to be looking towards yet another confidence building conference.

MIR’s Co-Producer Jamal Dajani Reports from Jerusalem

Cinderella at Annapolis

WHAT many dreamed would be a gilded carriage carrying the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to a grand ball of peacemaking has turned back into a pumpkin before their eyes. A firm date of November 27th for the “international meeting” in Annapolis, Maryland, was set only a week before the event itself, and as this article went to press talks were continuing over the content and which Arab states would attend. Despite increasingly frantic shuttle diplomacy, Condoleezza Rice, George Bush’s secretary of state, could not close the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions, forcing her to accept little more than the “photo-op” meeting that she had promised Annapolis would not become.

One reason was simple: the gulf between Israel and the Palestinians is indeed wide. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, wanted Annapolis to pin down some of the “core issues” of the two-state peace deal agreed at the non-binding 2001 Taba talks; issues such as the overall quantity (if not the exact borders) of the land Israel would relinquish for a Palestinian state. He also wanted a firm, six-month deadline for completing peace talks. Ms Rice too wanted some sort of commitments. Israel, on the other hand, wanted them left vague. In private, its officials argued that Mr Abbas and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, were so politically weak at home that if they made promises they could not keep, opponents would seize on the chance to undermine both them and the peace process.

Read More

Peace Conference at Annapolis!

In 1974 I had a meeting with Aaron Yariv, then Minister of Information in Israel. As expected we discussed the Arab Israeli conflict and how to promote a peace process. Two points were highlighted. First, negotiation is the only viable way because neither side would be able to annihilate the other. Second, each party to the conflict would be wise to put itself in the position of the other and imagine how they see the issues and how they would decide in the given circumstances. To illustrate this point, Yariv said that he had followed the development of Yasser Arafat’s political career since the 1950s and he has admired his dedication to the Palestinian cause. If he were in Arafat’s position, he would have acted the same way that Arafat had acted, except for Arafat’s failure to see the issues from Israel’s standpoint. In other words, Arafat was not realistic enough for his own cause.

These two highlighted points are relevant to the impending Annapolis Conference between Israel and the Palestinians, sponsored by the United States. However, many questions have been raised to express skepticism, hope, and hopelessness. For example, should a conference be convened without assurances of some success? Who should be invited to participate? Should basic issues be discussed or should the emphasis be on principles and general confidence building procedures? Should the conveners expect resolutions or consider this conference as the start of negotiations? Many other questions are raised, especially by the media, with comments and predictions that might influence the expectations and results. However, experienced negotiators would try to remain immune to influence by others, especially by those who are much less informed than they themselves are.

Read More

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

see
Annapolis: How to Get Out? By Uri Avnery

The Palestinian path to peace does not go via Annapolis By Jonathan Steele + MIR: Annapolis: Dead on Arrival (video)

Annapolis: How to Get Out? By Uri Avnery

Dandelion Salad

By Uri Avnery
11/23/07 “ICH

THE ANNAPOLIS conference is a joke. Though not in the least funny.

Like quite a lot of political initiatives, this one too, according to all the indications, started more or less by accident. George Bush was due to make a speech. He was looking for a theme that would give it some substance. Something that would divert attention away from his fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something simple, optimistic, easy to swallow.

Somehow, the idea of a “meeting” of leaders to promote the Israeli-Palestinian “process” came up. An international meeting is always nice – it looks good on television, it provides plenty of photo-opportunities, it radiates optimism. We meet, ergo we exist.

So Bush voiced the idea: a “meeting” for the promotion of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Without any preceding strategic planning, any careful preparations, anything much at all.

That’s why Bush did not go into any details: no clear aim, no agenda, no location, no date, no list of invitees. Just an ethereal meeting. This fact by itself testifies to the lack of seriousness of the entire enterprise.

This may shock people who have never seen close up how politics are actually conducted. It is hard to accept the intolerable lightness with which decisions are often made, the irresponsibility of leaders and the arbitrary way important processes are set in motion.

FROM THE MOMENT this idea was launched, it could not be called back. The President has spoken, the initiative starts on its way. As the saying goes: One fool throws a stone into the water, a dozen wise men cannot retrieve it.

Once the “meeting” had been announced, it became an important enterprise. The experts of all parties started to work frantically on the undefined event, each trying to steer it in the direction which would benefit them the most.

  • Bush and Condoleezza Rice want an impressive event, to prove that the United States is vigorously promoting peace and democracy, and that they can succeed where the great Henry Kissinger failed. Jimmy Carter failed to turn the Israeli-Egyptian peace into an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Bill Clinton failed at Camp David. If Bush succeeds where all his illustrious predecessors have failed, won’t that show who is the greatest of them all?
  • Ehud Olmert urgently needs a resounding political achievement in order to blur the memory of his dismal failure in the Second Lebanon War and to extricate himself from the dozen or so criminal investigations for corruption that are pursuing him. His ambition knows no bounds: he wants to be photographed shaking the hand of the King of Saudi Arabia. A feat no Israeli prime minister before him has achieved.
  • Mahmoud Abbas wants to show Hamas and the rebellious factions in his own Fatah movement that he can succeed where the great Yasser Arafat failed – to be accepted among the world’s leaders as an equal partner.

This could, therefore, become a great, almost historic conference, if …

IF ALL these hopes were something more than pipedreams. None of them has any substance. For one simple reason: no one of the three partners has any capital at his disposal.

  • Bush is bankrupt. In order to succeed at Annapolis, he would have to exert intense pressure on Israel, to compel it to take the necessary steps: agree to the establishment of a real Palestinian state, give up East Jerusalem, restore the Green Line border (with some small swaps of territory), find an agreed-upon compromise formula for the refugee issue.

But Bush is quite unable to exert the slightest pressure on Israel, even if he wanted to. In the US, the election season has already begun, and the two big parties are bulwarks standing in the way of any pressure on Israel. The Jewish and Evangelistic lobbies, together with the neo-cons, will not allow one critical word about Israel to be uttered unpunished.

  • Olmert is in an even weaker position. His coalition still survives only because there is no alternative in the present Knesset. It includes elements that in any other country would be called fascist (For historical reasons, Israelis don’t like to use this term). He is prevented by his partners from making any compromise, however tiny – even if he wanted to reach an agreement.

This week, the Knesset adopted a bill that requires a two-thirds majority for any change of the borders of Greater Jerusalem. This means that Olmert cannot even give up one of the outlying Palestinian villages that were annexed to Jerusalem in 1967. He is also prevented from even approaching the ‘core issues” of the conflict.

  • Mahmoud Abbas cannot move away from the conditions laid down by Yasser Arafat (the 3rd anniversary of whose death was commemorated this week). If he strays from the straight and narrow, he will fall. He has already lost the Gaza Strip, and can lose the West Bank, too. On the other side, if he threatens violence, he will lose all he has got: the favor of Bush and the cooperation of the Israeli security forces.

The three poker players are going to sit down together, pretending to start the game, while none of them has a cent to put on the table.

THE MAJESTIC mountain seems to be getting smaller and smaller by the minute. It’s against the laws of nature: the closer we get to it, the smaller it seems. What looked to many like a veritable Mt. Everest first turned into an ordinary mountain, then into a hill, and now it hardly looks like an anthill. And even that is shrinking, too.

First the participants were to deal with the “core issues”. Then it was announced that a weighty declaration of intentions was to be adopted. Then a mere collection of empty phrases was proposed. Now even that is in doubt.

Not one of the three leaders is still dreaming of an achievement. All they hope for now is to minimize the damage – but how to get out of a situation like this?

As usual, our side is the most creative at this task. After all, we are experts in building roadblocks, walls and fences. This week, an obstacle larger then the Great Wall of China appeared.

Ehud Olmert demanded that, before any negotiations, the Palestinians “recognize Israel as a Jewish state”. He was followed by his coalition partner, the ultra-right Avigdor Liberman, who proposed staying away from Annapolis altogether if the Palestinians do not fulfill this demand in advance.

Let’s examine this condition for a moment:

The Palestinians are not required to recognize the state of Israel. After all, they have already done so in the Oslo agreement – in spite of the fact that Israel has yet to recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own based on the Green Line borders.

No, the government of Israel demands much more: the Palestinians must now recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”.

Does the USA demand to be recognized as a “Christian” or “Anglo-Saxon state”? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a “Communist state”? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a “Catholic state”, or Pakistan as an “Islamic state”? Is there any precedent at all for a state to demand the recognition of its domestic regime?

The demand is ridiculous per se. But this can easily be shown by analysis ad absurdum.

What is a “Jewish state”? That has never been spelled out. Is it a state with a majority of Jewish citizens? Is it “the state of the Jewish people” – meaning the Jews from Brooklyn, Paris and Moscow? Is it “a state belonging to the Jewish religion” – and if so, does it belong to secular Jews as well? Or perhaps it belongs only to Jews under the Law of Return – i.e. those with a Jewish mother who have not converted to another religion?

These questions have not been decided. Are the Palestinians required to recognize something that is the subject of debate in Israel itself?

According to the official doctrine, Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state”. What should the Palestinians do if, according to democratic principles, some day my opinion prevails and Israel becomes an “Israeli state” that belongs to all its citizens – and to them alone? (After all, the US belongs to all its citizens, including Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, not to mention “Native-Americans”.)

The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. The definition “Jewish state” turns them automatically into – at best – second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs of their own relatives.

Olmert & Co. know this, of course. They are not posing this demand in order to get it accepted. They pose it in order that it not be accepted. By this ploy they hope to avoid any obligation to start meaningful negotiations.

Moreover, according to the deceased Road Map, which all parties pretend to accept, Israel must dismantle all settlements set up after March, 2000, and freeze all the others. Olmert is quite unable to do that. At the same time, Mahmoud Abbas must destroy the “terror infrastructure”. Abbas can’t do that either – as long as there is no independent Palestinian state with an elected government.

I imagine Bush tossing and turning in his bed at night, cursing the speechwriter who put this miserable sentence into his mouth. On their way to heaven, his curses must be mingling with those of Olmert and Abbas.

WHEN THE leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine were about to sign the Declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, the document was not ready. Sitting in front of the cameras and history, they had to sign on an empty page. I am afraid that something like that will happen in Annapolis.

And then all of them will head back to their respective homes, heaving a heartfelt sigh of relief.

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

see

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

The Palestinian path to peace does not go via Annapolis By Jonathan Steele + MIR: Annapolis: Dead on Arrival (video)

A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above By Paul Koring

Dandelion Salad

By Paul Koring
ICH
11/23/07 “Globe and Mail

A bombing campaign has been in the works for months – a blistering air war that would last anywhere from one day to two weeks

WASHINGTON — Massive, devastating air strikes, a full dose of “shock and awe” with hundreds of bunker-busting bombs slicing through concrete at more than a dozen nuclear sites across Iran is no longer just the idle musing of military planners and uber-hawks.

Although air strikes don’t seem imminent as the U.S.-Iranian drama unfolds, planning for a bombing campaign and preparing for the geopolitical blowback has preoccupied military and political councils for months.

No one is predicting a full-blown ground war with Iran. The likeliest scenario, a blistering air war that could last as little as one night or as long as two weeks, would be designed to avoid the quagmire of invasion and regime change that now characterizes Iraq. But skepticism remains about whether any amount of bombing can substantially delay Iran’s entry into the nuclear-weapons club.

Attacking Iran has gone far beyond the twilight musings of a lame-duck president. Almost all of those jockeying to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush are similarly bellicose. Both front-runners, Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran’s ruling mullahs can’t be allowed to go nuclear. “Iran would be very sure if I were president of the United States that I would not allow them to become nuclear,” said Mr. Giuliani. Ms. Clinton is equally hard-line.

Nor does the threat come just from the United States. As hopes fade that sanctions and common sense might avert a military confrontation with Tehran – as they appear to have done with North Korea – other Western leaders are openly warning that bombing may be needed.

Unless Tehran scraps its clandestine and suspicious nuclear program and its quest for weapons-grade uranium (it already has the missiles capable of delivering an atomic warhead), the world will be “faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned.

Bombing Iran would be relatively easy. Its antiquated air force and Russian air-defence missiles would be easy pickings for the U.S. warplanes.

But effectively destroying Iran’s widely scattered and deeply buried nuclear facilities would be far harder, although achievable, according to air-power experts. But the fallout, especially the anger sown across much of the Muslim world by another U.S.-led attack in the Middle East, would be impossible to calculate.

Israel has twice launched pre-emptive air strikes ostensibly to cripple nuclear programs. In both instances, against Iraq in 1981 and Syria two months ago, the targeted regimes howled but did nothing.

The single-strike Israeli attacks would seem like pinpricks, compared with the rain of destruction U.S. warplanes would need to kneecap Iran’s far larger nuclear network.

“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq,” said John Pike, director at Globalsecurity.org, a leading defence and security group.

“Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States,” along with warplanes from land bases in the region and carriers at sea, at least two-dozen suspected nuclear sites would be targeted, he said.

Although U.S. ground forces are stretched thin with nearly 200,000 fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the firepower of the U.S. air force and the warplanes aboard aircraft carriers could easily overwhelm Iran’s defences, leaving U.S. warplanes in complete command of the skies and free to pound targets at will.

With air bases close by in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan, including Kandahar, and naval-carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, hundreds of U.S. warplanes serviced by scores of airborne refuellers could deliver a near constant hail of high explosives.

Fighter-bombers and radar-jammers would spearhead any attack. B-2 bombers, each capable of delivering 20 four-tonne bunker-busting bombs, along with smaller stealth bombers and streams of F-18s from the carriers could maintain an open-ended bombing campaign.

“They could keep it up until the end of time, which might be hastened by the bombing,” Mr. Pike said. “They could make the rubble jump; there’s plenty of stuff to bomb,” he added, a reference to the now famous line from former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Afghanistan was a “target-poor” country.

Mr. Pike believes it could all be over in a single night. Others predict days, or even weeks, of sustained bombing.

Unidentified Pentagon planners have been cited talking of “1,500 aim points.” What is clear is that a score or more known nuclear sites would be destroyed. Some, in remote deserts, would present little risk of “collateral damage,” military jargon for unintended civilian causalities. Others, like laboratories at the University of Tehran, in the heart of a teeming capital city, would be hard to destroy without killing innocent Iranians.

What would likely unfold would be weeks of escalating tension, following a breakdown of diplomatic efforts.

The next crisis point may come later this month if the UN Security Council becomes deadlocked over further sanctions.

“China and Russia are more concerned about the prospect of the U.S. bombing Iran than of Iran getting a nuclear bomb,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Tehran remains defiant. Our enemies “must know that Iran will not give the slightest concession … to any power,” Iran’s fiery President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday. For his part, Mr. Bush has pointedly refused to rule out resorting to war. Last month, another U.S. naval battle group – including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman with 100 warplanes on board and the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown as one of its screen of smaller warships – left for the Persian Gulf. At least one, and often two, carrier battle groups are always in the region.

Whether even weeks of bombing would cripple Iran’s nuclear program cannot be known. Mr. Pike believes it would set back, by a decade or more, the time Tehran needs to develop a nuclear warhead. But Iran’s clandestine program – international inspectors were completely clueless as to the existence of several major sites until exiles ratted out the mullahs – may be so extensive that even the longest target list will miss some.

“It’s not a question of whether we can do a strike or not and whether the strike could be effective,” retired Marine general Anthony Zinni told Time magazine. “It certainly would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that follows?”

Attacked and humiliated, Iran might be tempted, as Mr. Ahmadinejad has suggested, to strike back, although Iran has limited military options.

At least some Sunni governments in the region, not least Saudi Arabia, would be secretly delighted to see the Shia mullahs in Tehran bloodied. But the grave risk of any military action spiralling into a regional war, especially if Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to make good on his threat to attack Israel, remains.

“Arab leaders would like to see Iran taken down a notch,” said Steven Cook, an analyst specializing in the Arab world at the Council on Foreign Relations, “but their citizens will see this as what they perceive to be America’s ongoing war on Islam.”

***

Building tension

The confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program has been simmering for more than five years. These are some of the key flashpoints.

August, 2002: Iranian exiles say that Tehran has built a vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak without informing the United Nations.

December, 2002: The existence of the sites is confirmed by satellite photographs shown on U.S. television. The United States accuses Tehran of “across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.” Iran agrees to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

June, 2003: IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei accuses Iran of not revealing the extent of its nuclear work and urges leaders to sign up for more intrusive inspections.

October, 2003: After meeting French, German and British foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA’s ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is produced to confirm the end of enrichment.

November, 2003: Mr. ElBaradei says there is “no evidence” that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The United States disagrees.

February, 2004: An IAEA report says Iran experimented with polonium-210, which can be used to trigger the chain reaction in a nuclear bomb. Iran did not explain the experiments. Iran again agrees to suspend enrichment, but again does not do so.

March, 2004: Iran is urged to reveal its entire nuclear program to the IAEA by June 1, 2004.

September, 2004: The IAEA orders Iran to stop preparations for large-scale uranium enrichment. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell labels Iran a growing danger and calls for the UN Security Council to impose sanctions.

August, 2005: Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is installed as Iranian President as Tehran pledges an “irreversible” resumption of enrichment.

Jan. 10, 2006: Iran removes UN seals at the Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.

February, 2006: The IAEA votes to report Iran to the UN Security Council. Iran ends snap UN nuclear inspections the next day.

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council demands that Iran suspend its nuclear activities by Aug. 31.

Aug. 31, 2006: The UN Security Council deadline for Iran to halt its work on nuclear fuel passes. IAEA says Tehran has failed to suspend the program.

Dec. 23, 2006: The 15-member UN Security Council unanimously adopts a binding resolution that imposes some sanctions and calls on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities and to comply with its IAEA obligations.

March 24, 2007: The Security Council unanimously approves a resolution broadening UN sanctions against Iran for its continuing failure to halt uranium enrichment. Iranian officials call the new measures “unnecessary and unjustified.”

April 10, 2007: Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs says Iran will not accept any suspension of its uranium-enrichment activities and urges world powers to accept the “new reality” of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

May 23, 2007: The IAEA says in a new report, issued to coincide with the expiration of a Security Council deadline for Tehran, that Iran continues to defy UN Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment and has expanded such work. The report adds that the UN nuclear agency’s ability to monitor nuclear activities in Iran has declined due to lack of access to sites.

Oct. 24, 2007: The United States imposes new sanctions on Iran and accuses the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps of spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Sources: BBC, Reuters, Financial Times, Radio Free Europe

***

Target: Iran

Despite continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran. In addition to nuclear installations, other likely targets include ballistic missile sites, Revolutionary Guard bases, and naval assets.

***

Syria: Earlier this year, Israel bombed a site in Syria’s Deir ez-Zor region that it suspected was part of a nascent nuclear program.

Osirak: Israel in 1981 had its aircraft bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor before it became operational.

Natanz: Believed to be Iran’s primary uranium-enrichment site and a key target of any attack.

***

B1: A supersonic, intercontinental bomber, capable of penetrating deep into defended airspace and dropping more than 50-tonnes of conventional bombs on a single mission.

B2: America’s biggest stealthy long-range bomber, capable of flying half-way around the globe to deliver up to 23 tonnes of bombs on multiple targets.

F-117: The original stealth fighter, almost invisible on radar, was used to drop the first bombs in both Iraq invasions.

F-18: Carrier-borne fighter-bomber capable of many roles from air combat to bombing missions.

EGBU-28: The newest of the U.S. “bunker busters,” it uses a GPS guidance system and can penetrate six metres of concrete to deliver four tonnes of high explosives.

SOURCES: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, GLOBAL SECURITY.ORG, ASSOCIATED PRESS

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

see

‘Quid pro quo’ in store for US and Iran? by Katie Baker, Raw Story

(thanks for the link, Katie)

Dennis Kucinich blasts Democratic leadership, says the vow from his party’s leadership is “total fraud” By Nashua Telegraph

Dandelion Salad

By Nashua Telegraph
After Downing Street
NewsandPolicy.com

Dennis Kucinich blasts Democratic leadership, says the vow from his party’s leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a “total fraud”

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said Wednesday the vow from his party’s leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a “total fraud.”

The Ohio congressman said the most recent House-passed plan to set a timetable for ending the war still would permit permanent bases in Iraq and allow Americans soldiers to train Iraqi military and police and to fight off insurgents.

“This is a fraud, a total fraud, and it breaks the promise the Democrats made to the voters that we would get out of Iraq,” Kucinich said of his own party’s congressional leadership during an interview Wednesday.

“They want to be on all sides of the issue. Instead of getting out of Iraq, we are getting in deeper,” Kucinich said.

State Rep. Betty Hall, D-Brookline, said she decided to endorse Kucinich after watching him unsuccessfully pursue impeachment charges against Vice President Dick Cheney.

“I was inspired by his boldness and tence,” Hall said at a news conference in Manchester.

Last month, the Democratically controlled U.S. House ducked an up or down vote on the matter and instead shipped Kucinich’s charges against Cheney to committee for review.

Kucinich said he would seek “more lengthy” impeachment charges against Bush but declined to say if this move would come before the Jan. 8 primary in New Hampshire.

Hall tried to bring in a non-binding resolution to the New Hampshire House supporting an impeachment proceeding against Bush and Cheney.

House leaders from both parties in this state opposed letting Hall’s late proposal in for an up or down vote.

“It isn’t popular to speak up; I know. When I spoke in the Legislature, some people were angry, but we must talk about it. We must learn about it,” Hall said.

“Impeachment is a tool our Constitution gives us. It is like a scalpel to remove a disease in our system, but like surgeons, we the people must use it to save the patient.”

Hall showed Kucinich the state Constitution contains unique language in its Article 10 known as the Right to Revolution.

“The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and repression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good of all mankind,” it reads in part.

Kucinich said a section of the Declaration of Independence contains similar sentiment that gives citizens the right to rebel against their own government.

“I’m going to quote that language from the New Hampshire Constitution all over the country. Clearly New Hampshire is the place to bring this message,” Kucinich said.

“I think the outrage is building among the voting public, but to the political system, it’s business as usual.”

Kucinich will be a leading speaker Monday night at Dartmouth College for an “Impeachment Teach-In” sponsored by state and national liberal-leaning organizations.

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

see

Dennis Kucinich: Light Up Black Friday (video)

Radio: Kucinich on Impeachment (link)

Kucinich: Edwards’ pro-war posture in ’04 raises serious credibility questions

Blackwater in Potrero (video)

Dandelion Salad

AlternateFocus

In late 2006, Blackwater USA, now known as Blackwater Worldwide, submitted a proposal to build a training facility called Blackwater West in the rural San Diego County town of Potrero. This documentary tells the story of what followed. Features interviews with Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater: the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army as well as Brian Bonfiglio, the vice president of Blackwater West; Gordon Hammers, Jan Hedlun, Mary Johnson, Jerry Johnson, and Thell Fowler of the Potrero Planning Board; Raymond Lutz of Citizens Oversight Committee; Rep. Bob Filner, and many others. Producer: Andy Trimlett; Associate Producers: John Odam and Aaron Seeley.

Alternate Focus is available on the Dish Network, Free Speech TV, Channel 9415 and on cable stations near you. Check http://www.alternatefocus.org for details. Alternate Focus is a volunteer-run 501(c)(3) non-profit organization supported by viewers like you.

Added: November 23, 2007

The Financial Tsunami: Sub-Prime Mortgage Debt is but the Tip of the Iceberg by F. William Engdahl

Dandelion Salad

by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, November 23, 2007

Part 1: Deutsche Bank’s painful lesson

Even experienced banker friends tell me that they think the worst of the US banking troubles are over and that things are slowly getting back to normal. What is lacking in their rosy optimism is the realization of the scale of the ongoing deterioration in credit markets globally, centered in the American asset-backed securities market, and especially in the market for CDO’s—Collateralized Debt Obligations and CMO’s—Collateralized Mortgage Obligations. By now every serious reader has heard the term “It’s a crisis in Sub-Prime US home mortgage debt.” What almost no one I know understands is that the Sub-Prime problem is but the tip of a colossal iceberg that is in a slow meltdown. I offer one recent example to illustrate my point that the “Financial Tsunami” is only beginning.

Deutsche Bank got a hard shock a few days ago when a judge in the state of Ohio in the USA made a ruling that the bank had no legal right to foreclose on 14 homes whose owners had failed to keep current in their monthly mortgage payments. Now this might sound like small beer for Deutsche Bank, one of the world’s largest banks with over €1.1 trillion (Billionen) in assets worldwide. As Hilmar Kopper used to say, “peanuts.” It’s not at all peanuts, however, for the Anglo-Saxon banking world and its European allies like Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Barclays Bank, HSBC or others. Why?

A US Federal Judge, C.A. Boyko in Federal District Court in Cleveland Ohio ruled to dismiss a claim by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. DB’s US subsidiary was seeking to take possession of 14 homes from Cleveland residents living in them, in order to claim the assets.

Here comes the hair in the soup. The Judge asked DB to show documents proving legal title to the 14 homes. DB could not. All DB attorneys could show was a document showing only an “intent to convey the rights in the mortgages.” They could not produce the actual mortgage, the heart of Western property rights since the Magna Charta of not longer.

Again why could Deutsche Bank not show the 14 mortgages on the 14 homes? Because they live in the exotic new world of “global securitization”, where banks like DB or Citigroup buy tens of thousands of mortgages from small local lending banks, “bundle” them into Jumbo new securities which then are rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poors or Fitch, and sell them as bonds to pension funds or other banks or private investors who naively believed they were buying bonds rated AAA, the highest, and never realized that their “bundle” of say 1,000 different home mortgages, contained maybe 20% or 200 mortgages rated “sub-prime,” i.e. of dubious credit quality.

Indeed the profits being earned in the past seven years by the world’s largest financial players from Goldman Sachs to Morgan Stanley to HSBC, Chase, and yes, Deutsche Bank, were so staggering, few bothered to open the risk models used by the professionals who bundled the mortgages. Certainly not the Big Three rating companies who had a criminal conflict of interest in giving top debt ratings. That changed abruptly last August and since then the major banks have issued one after another report of disastrous “sub-prime” losses.

A new unexpected factor

The Ohio ruling that dismissed DB’s claim to foreclose and take back the 14 homes for non-payment, is far more than bad luck for the bank of Josef Ackermann. It is an earth-shaking precedent for all banks holding what they had thought were collateral in form of real estate property.

How this? Because of the complex structure of asset-backed securities and the widely dispersed ownership of mortgage securities (not actual mortgages but the securities based on same) no one is yet able to identify who precisely holds the physical mortgage document. Oops! A tiny legal detail our Wall Street Rocket Scientist derivatives experts ignored when they were bundling and issuing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CMO’s in the past six or seven years. As of January 2007 some $6.5 trillion of securitized mortgage debt was outstanding in the United States. That’s a lot by any measure!

In the Ohio case Deutsche Bank is acting as “Trustee” for “securitization pools” or groups of disparate investors who may reside anywhere. But the Trustee never got the legal document known as the mortgage. Judge Boyko ordered DB to prove they were the owners of the mortgages or notes and they could not. DB could only argue that the banks had foreclosed on such cases for years without challenge. The Judge then declared that the banks “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test,” the Judge concluded, “their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.” Deutsche Bank has refused comment.

What next?

As news of this legal precedent spreads across the USA like a California brushfire, hundreds of thousands of struggling homeowners who took the bait in times of historically low interest rates to buy a home with often, no money paid down, and the first 2 years with extremely low interest rate in what are known as “interest only” Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs), now face exploding mortgage monthly payments at just the point the US economy is sinking into severe recession. (I regret the plethora of abbreviations used here but it is the fault of Wall Street bankers not this author).

The peak period of the US real estate bubble which began in about 2002 when Alan Greenspan began the most aggressive series of rate cuts in Federal Reserve history was 2005-2006. Greenspan’s intent, as he admitted at the time, was to replace the Dot.com internet stock bubble with a real estate home investment and lending bubble. He argued that was the only way to keep the US economy from deep recession. In retrospect a recession in 2002 would have been far milder and less damaging than what we now face.

Of course, Greenspan has since safely retired, written his memoirs and handed the control (and blame) of the mess over to a young ex-Princeton professor, Ben Bernanke. As a Princeton graduate, I can say I would never trust monetary policy for the world’s most powerful central bank in the hands of a Princeton economics professor. Keep them in their ivy-covered towers.

Now the last phase of every speculative bubble is the one where the animal juices get the most excited. This has been the case with every major speculative bubble since the Holland Tulip speculation of the 1630’s to the South Sea Bubble of 1720 to the 1929 Wall Street crash. It was true as well with the US 2002-2007 Real Estate bubble. In the last two years of the boom in selling real estate loans, banks were convinced they could resell the mortgage loans to a Wall Street financial house who would bundle it with thousands of good better and worse quality mortgage loans and resell them as Collateralized Mortgage Obligation bonds. In the flush of greed, banks became increasingly reckless of the credit worthiness of the prospective home owners. In many cases they did not even bother to check if the person was employed. Who cares? It will be resold and securitized and the risk of mortgage default was historically low.

That was in 2005. The most Sub-prime mortgages written with Adjustable Rate Mortgage contracts were written between 2005-2006, the last and most furious phase of the US bubble. Now a whole new wave of mortgage defaults is about to explode onto the scene beginning January 2008. Between December 2007 and July 1, 2008 more than $690 Billion in mortgages will face an interest rate jump according to the contract terms of the ARMs written two years before. That means market interest rates for those mortgages will explode monthly payments just as recession drives incomes down. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners will be forced to do the last resort of any homeowner: stop monthly mortgage payments.

Here is where the Ohio court decision guarantees that the next phase of the US mortgage crisis will assume Tsunami dimension. If the Ohio Deutsche Bank precedent holds in the appeal to the Supreme Court, millions of homes will be in default but the banks prevented from seizing them as collateral assets to resell. Robert Shiller of Yale, the controversial and often correct author of the book, Irrational Exuberance, predicting the 2001-2 Dot.com stock crash, estimates US housing prices could fall as much as 50% in some areas given how home prices have diverged relative to rents.

The $690 billion worth of “interest only” ARMs due for interest rate hike between now and July 2008 are by and large not Sub-prime but a little higher quality, but only just. There are a total of $1.4 trillion in “interest only” ARMs according to the US research firm, First American Loan Performance. A recent study calculates that, as these ARMs face staggering higher interest costs in the next 9 months, more than $325 billion of the loans will default leaving 1 million property owners in technical mortgage default. But if banks are unable to reclaim the homes as assets to offset the non-performing mortgages, the US banking system and a chunk of the global banking system faces a financial gridlock that will make events to date truly “peanuts” by comparison. We will discuss the global geo-political implications of this in our next report, The Financial Tsunami: Part 2.

 

F. William Engdahl is the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). His most recent book, which has just been released by Global Research is Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.

NEW RELEASE (To 0rder, click below)

WILLIAM ENGDAHL’S SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION

Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl

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 F. William Engdahl, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7413

see

Dollar hits new depths, stocks rise

Scott McClellan Didn’t Out Bush for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Cheney Did by Mark Karlin

Dandelion Salad

by Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher
www.BuzzFlash.com
After Downing Street
BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG
November 23, 2007

As we’ve noted before, BuzzFlash feels personally invested in the exposing of the White House treason surrounding the outing of Valerie Plame, which resulted in impairing our national security when it comes to tracking weapons of mass destruction. Following up on a David Corn commentary shortly after the infamous Bob “The Traitor” Novak column, BuzzFlash helped Corn raise the alarm about the dangerous and illegal significance of the identification of Plame as a CIA operative.

So it is with astonishment that we have watched the mainstream media ignore or dismiss the revelation by once White House loyalist Scott McClellan that Cheney and Bush were likely involved in the outing and knowingly sent him out to lie to the press about the role of the two key messengers: Libby and Rove.

You’ve no doubt heard by now that the McClellan admission was made in a first person excerpt from a book being printed early next year by Public Affairs Press (affiliated with the Perseus Group).While the first person confirmation of what anyone with a pea for a brain knew all along caromed across the Internet, the Washington Post and the New York Times gave it the cold shoulder, among other mainstream media outlets.

In the meantime, we suspect that the White House hit men gave McClellan and his publisher the same treatment that they have given other “made men” that ratted on them: the brass knuckles and warnings to back off if they cared about their families.

As one blogger noted: “John Dillulio calls them ‘machiavellian mayberries’ and suggests that they politicize everything–yet a week later he backs down completely. Paul O’Neill says that they planned on invading Iraq from the beginning, he is savaged by the machine.”

So the publisher, within a day backed off the first person quote by McClellan, with a rather bizarre claim that the book wasn’t finished yet, even though it was the publisher that posted the quotation on its website. McClellan was in seclusion, of course, no doubt being waterboarded by some of Cheney’s crew.

In an all too fitting and tragic irony, the mainstream media only took notice of the damning revelation of criminal behavior – certainly in the high crimes and misdemeanors category, as Valerie and Joe Wilson charge – on cue from the White House once the publisher recalled the first person quotation, which is indeed quite a remarkable feat, since clearly it would only be done under pressure, since it is hard for a publisher to post a first person quote and then claim that it was premature. What kind of credibility does that leave you with? But it was probably preferable than running a publishing house with two broken arms and a pencil rammed through your ear.All along, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald noted in his investigation that a cloud of suspicion hung over Dick Cheney, and he all but said that Cheney was the key culprit. In fact, Scooter Libby’s crime – the one he was convicted for – was integrally related to an obstruction of justice essentially revolving around the reality that he was covering up for Cheney.

Long forgotten – and barely noticed during the trial – was a document introduced during the case that directly implicates Bush. And the notes on the document that point at Bush as being a co-conspirator were written by Dick Cheney.

Truthout.org covered this crucial link to Bush, including a copy of the handwritten note:

Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by attorneys prosecuting former White House staffer I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.

Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy’s stinging rebukes of the administration’s use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson’s wife’s covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.

But Cheney’s notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby’s perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush’s vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson.

The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador raises the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame’s undercover role with the CIA?

Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney’s comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby’s lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.

Last week, Libby’s attorney Theodore Wells made a stunning pronouncement during opening statements of Libby’s trial. He claimed that the White House had made Libby a scapegoat for the leak to protect Karl Rove – Bush’s political adviser and “right-hand man.”

“Mr. Libby, you will learn, went to the vice president of the United States and met with the vice president in private. Mr. Libby said to the vice president, ‘I think the White House … is trying to set me up. People in the White House want me to be a scapegoat,'” said Wells.

Cheney’s notes seem to help bolster Wells’s defense strategy. Libby’s defense team first discussed the notes – written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan – during opening statements last week. Wells said Cheney had written “not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others”: a reference to Libby being asked to deal with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson’s allegations that the Bush administration knowingly “twisted” intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq.

However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written “this Pres.” instead of “that was.”

In another story on Truthout at the time of the Libby trial, it details other documents that indicate Cheney had claimed authorization from Bush to disclose classified information from a National Intelligence Estimate in order to try and discredit Joe Wilson.

It should also be remembered that Bush retained a private attorney in regards to the Libby case, a highly curious move for an innocent president. Furthermore, Bush promised to get to the bottom of the leak himself and fire anyone involved after the CIA formally requested a Justice Department investigation into Valerie Plame’s outing, because of the potential harm it had done to national security. As we now know, Bush, if he kept his word, would have ended up firing Dick Cheney and himself.

It is a testament to the persistent tacit alliance of the corporate media with the Republican Party (to ensure favorable big media regulations, tax cuts, and anti-trust favors) that damage done to the national security of the United States — authorized in all likelihood by the President of the United States and most certainly orchestrated by the Vice-President of the United States — is either roundly ignored or dismissed as insignificant.

Scott McClellan did not pen a rogue statement in his forthcoming book. What he said is entirely consistent with the information disclosed at the Libby trial, and even – ironically – with the defensive strategy of Libby’s own legal team, which was to position “Scooter” as a fall guy for the White House.

That may have, indeed, been the sole true assertion made on behalf of Mr. Libby.

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

see

George Bush, Traitor and Liar in Chief by Larry Johnson

Impeachment on the Thanksgiving Table: McClellan’s Dish by Dave Lindorff

Olbermann: O’Reilly vs The USO + Lies and Consequences + Books and Liars + Worst (videos)

Hardball: What Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It? (video; CIA Leak)

Olbermann: Where Does the Buck Stop? + Conspiracy Theories + Gonzo But Not Forgotten + Funding Fight + Worst (videos)

McClellan implicates Bush, Cheney in Plame lie by Tim Grieve

Cheney’s Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair

Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak By Jason Leopold

CIA Leak/Plame Case

The World’s Best Country to live in – Left out of the Michael Moore film SICKO (video)

Dandelion Salad

liveleak.com — This is a video clip teaser from the bonus material on the DVD-version of Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” This clip was left out of the original movie because it was said to be “unbelievable” and “people wouldn’t believe it” because it was too good to be true.

Norway

via The World’s Best Country to live in – Left out of the Michael Moore film SICKO watch!

The Media and Class Warfare by Norman Solomon

Dandelion Salad

by Norman Solomon
Atlantic Free Press
Thursday, 22 November 2007

A few decades ago, upwards of one-third of the American workforce was unionized. Now the figure is down around 10 percent. And news media are central to the downward spiral.

As unions wither, the journalistic establishment has a rationale for giving them less ink and air time. As the media coverage diminishes, fewer Americans find much reason to believe that unions are relevant to their working lives.

But the media problem for labor goes far beyond the fading of unions from newsprint, television and radio. Media outlets aren’t just giving short shrift to organized labor. The avoidance extends to unorganized labor, too.

So often, when issues of workplaces and livelihoods appear in the news, they’re framed in terms of employer plights. The frequent emphasis is on the prospects and perils of companies that must compete.

Well, sure, firms need to compete. And working people need to feed and clothe and house themselves and their families. And workers hope to provide adequate medical care.

The issue of health insurance is a political talking-point for many candidates these days. But meanwhile, unionized workers are finding themselves in a weakened position when they try to retain whatever medical coverage they may have. And non-unionized workers often have little or none.

With all the media discussion of corporate bottom-line difficulties, the human element routinely gets lost in the shuffle. In day-to-day business news and in general reporting, the lives of people on the line are apt to be rendered as abstractions. Or they simply go unmentioned.

The topic of war in Iraq is huge in the media. I can’t say much for the quality of that coverage, but at least it keeps reporting that a military war is happening overseas. But what about the economic war that’s happening at home?

Phrases like “class war” have been discredited in American news media — tarred as too blunt, too combative, too rhetorical. But, call it what you will, the clash of economic interests is with us always.

Waged from the top down, class war is a triumphant activity — and part of the success involves the framing and avoidance of certain unpleasant realities via corporate-owned media outlets. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or a social scientist to grasp that multibillion-dollar companies are not going to own, or advertise with, media firms that challenge the power of multibillion-dollar companies.

One of the dominant yet little-remarked-upon shifts in the media landscape over the past couple of decades has been the enormous upsurge in business news as general news. A result is that tens of millions of low-income people are seeing constant news stories about challenges and opportunities for well-to-do investors.

The reverse, of course, is not the case. The very affluent of our society don’t often pick up a newspaper or tune in the evening news and encounter waves of stories and commentaries about the dire straits of America’s poor people and what it’s like to be one of them. And it’s even more rare to see coverage of ways that a few people grow obscenely wealthy as a direct result of the further impoverishment of the many.

“Class war”? The nation’s most powerful editors cringe at the phrase. But every day, millions of Americans are painfully aware that — by any other name — class warfare is going on, and they’re losing.

Norman Solomon’s latest book is “Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State.” For more information, go to: www.MadeLoveGotWar.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.

Report: IAF knocked out Syria radar during Sept. 6 strike By Yossi Melman

Dandelion Salad

By Yossi Melman
Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service

The Israel Air Force hit a Syrian radar post near the country’s northern border with Turkey on September 6, knocking out Syria’s entire radar system as a prelude to striking a suspected nuclear reactor, Aviation Week & Space Technology is reporting in its November 26 edition.

The radar site was hit with a combination of electronic attack and precision bombs to allow the IAF to enter and exit Syrian airspace unobserved, the report said.

Subsequently all of Syria’s air-defense radar system went off the air for a period of time that encompassed the raid, U.S. intelligence analysts told Aviation Week.

According to the report, the United States provided Israel with information about Syrian air defenses as Israel carried out the strike.
Continued…

h/t: Greg

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

see

Satellite photos don’t lie by B. Michael

Israel’s Syrian Airstrike Was Aimed at Iran by Gareth Porter

Could those loose nukes have been meant for the Syrian strike? by The Other Katherine Harris