Libertarians for Obama

...and this is now, not then...

Fire Is Born — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:23:07 EST

It's been a while that I watched BMJ. When I began watching tonight in the middle of the program I entered into President Johnson's conversation in 1965 with McNamara on escalation of the war, when the troops there were in the range of 45 thousands. I sat pinned down to my chair till the end of the program.

That "while" wiyhout BMJ was a wasted while. God bless Bill Moyers of the USA! fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

A Tale of Two Quagmires

This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers looked back some four decades to his experience as a member of President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. At the time, Johnson made a series of fateful decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam, where eventually over two million American military personnel would serve. Estimates indicate that nearly 60,000 U.S. troops – and more than a million Vietnamese – were killed during the course of the conflict.

With an eye on President Obama’s deliberations on whether to deploy more U.S. troops in addition to the 68,000 already in Afghanistan, Moyers presented a montage of recorded conversations and his personal memories of President Lyndon Johnson’s decisions to escalate the war in Vietnam. He said:

“Our country wonders this weekend what is on President Obama’s mind. He is apparently about to bring months of deliberation to a close and answer General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan. When he finally announces how many, why, and at what cost, he will most likely have defined his presidency, for the consequences will be far-reaching and unpredictable. As I read and listen and wait with all of you for answers, I have been thinking about the mind of another President – Lyndon B. Johnson. I was 30 years old, a White House assistant, working on politics and domestic policy. I watched and listened as LBJ made his fateful decisions about Vietnam... Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and this is now, not then. The situation is different. But listen – and you will hear echoes and refrains that resonate today.”

The nation is divided about America’s mission in Afghanistan. In a new WASHINGTON POST – ABC News poll, 55% of respondents expressed confidence that President Obama will pick a strategy that will work, but 52% said that the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting given the costs versus the benefits.

What do you think?

How does the history of the Vietnam War compare to the present situation in Afghanistan?

What decisions do you think Obama should make regarding Afghanistan? What do you think he's actually going to do? Explain.

Killing addicts in rehabilitation centers - recent strategies in the "war on drugs"

Fire Is Born — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:08:38 EDT

This has been the fifth attack on a rehabilitaion center in Ciudad Juarez. fib

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Arrest over Mexican drug murders

A senior member of a Mexican drug cartel has been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murders of 17 people at a rehab centre, reports say.

Jose Rodolfo Escajeda, a suspected hitman and drug smuggler, was held in connection with the murders in the city of Juarez, near the border with Texas.

He has long been on wanted lists held by both the Mexican government and the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

Meanwhile, a state politician and his family were killed in Tabasco state.

The bodies of Jose Francisco Fuentes - a state congressional candidate - his wife and two young sons were found with many bullet wounds at their house in the state capital, Villahermosa, according to state Attorney General Rafael Gonzalez Lastra.

Authorities in the state have in recent days arrested gunmen suspected of working for Mexico's notorious Gulf drug cartel

Turf wars

According to Mexican media reports, Mr Escajeda was arrested by Mexican troops on Friday.

Thought to be a senior figure in the Juarez cartel, he is suspected of involvement in the attack last week in which gunmen stormed into a drug treatment clinic, lined patients up against a wall and killed at least 17 of them.

The BBC's Stephen Gibbs, in Mexico, says the attack shocked even the violence-weary residents of Ciudad Juarez, where there have been an average of 10 murders every day this year.

Juarez is the setting of a vicious turf war, principally between two gangs - the Juarez cartel, and the Sinaloa cartel, which is led by Mexico's most wanted man and reported billionaire, Joaquin Guzman.

The gangs are fighting for control of the local drug market, and smuggling routes into the United States.

About 1,400 people have died in Juarez's drug violence this year.

Thousands of extra police and troops have been deployed in Ciudad Juarez to try to stem the violence.

More than 13,000 people have been killed since the Mexican government ordered the military to take the offensive against the drug gangs in 2006.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8240213.stm

Published: 2009/09/06 04:17:07 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Speaking of "socialism"..

Fire Is Born — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:48:12 EDT

Capitalism: A Love Story

(Documentary) An Overture Films release of a Paramount Vantage, Overture Films presentation in association with the Weinstein Co., of a Dog Eat Dog production. (International sales: Paramount Vantage, Los Angeles.) Produced by Michael Moore, Anne Moore. Executive producers, Kathleen Glynn, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein. Co-producers, Rod Birleson, John Hardesty. Directed, written by Michael Moore.

With: Michael Moore, Frank Moore.

By LESLIE FELPERIN

By returning to his roots, professional gadfly Michael Moore turns in one of his best films with "Capitalism: A Love Story." Pic’s target is less capitalism qua capitalism than the banking industry, which Moore skewers ruthlessly, explaining last year’s economic meltdown in terms a sixth-grader could understand. That said, there’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery. Whether "Capitalism" matches "Fahrenheit 9/11" or underperforms like Sicko" will depend on how much workers of the world are ready to unite behind the message.

Pic reaped mostly ecstatic applause at its first press screening in Venice — no great surprise, given the largely leftist persuasion of film-fest auds, especially in Europe. Still, "Capitalism’s" worldview is resolutely U.S.-centric, apart from the odd approving mention of some foreign nation. Nevertheless, pic is likely to make considerably more offshore, where "socialism" isn’t considered a cuss word, than at home.(...)"

"Can communism reform itself?" - Leszek Kolakowski, 1927-2009.

Fire Is Born — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:10:05 EDT

Hitchens writes from my native city in my native country and it is tough not to be proud again. fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

A Sense of Historical Irony

Leszek Kolakowski, 1927-2009.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, July 20, 2009, at 12:26 PM ET

WROCLAW, Poland—It was distinctly eerie to learn of the death of professor Leszek Kolakowski just 15 minutes before entering a room in which I was to give a short lecture on his influence. But it was also rather inspiring to be in a country that made the passing of a public intellectual into the front-page headline of every national daily paper the following day.

SPENDING ON DRUGS

Fire Is Born — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:26:29 EDT

"(...) Apart from these big-picture analyses, it is important to catalogue all of the differences on a more specific level, as well. For example, yesterday, the Huffington Post took a look at the differences between spending on the "drug war" from 2009 to 2010. Again, the results were minimal (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: Quantifying Change

In the 2010 budget, prevention takes a 10.6 percent hit while domestic law enforcement gets a boost of 2.3 percent, with "interdiction" (military and police actions designed to stem the flow of drugs into and about the country) gaining 4.4 percent. On the positive side of the ledger, treatment shows a 4.4 percent increase. And what of the never-ending seesaw battle between supply and demand initiatives? Unfortunately, demand reduction efforts (education, prevention) are down 0.8 percent, while (generally futile) supply reduction initiatives (enforcement, burning or poisoning crops) gets a 2.7 percent bump.

In terms of actual spending figures, here is the breakdown from the Obama administration itself:

Interdiction: $4.004 billion (2010) vs. $3.836 billion (2009)
Domestic Law Enforcement: $3.737 billion (2010) vs. $3.654 billion (2009)
Drug Treatment: $3.566 billion (2010) vs. $3.416 billion (2009)
Drug Prevention: $1.602 billion (2010) vs. $1.791 billion (2009)
International Enforcement: $2.160 billion (2010) vs. $2.174 billion (2009)

Mexico's Misuse of Military Justice to Prosecute Abuses in Counternarcotics and Public Security Operations

Fire Is Born — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:03:46 EDT

Uniform Impunity
Mexico's Misuse of Military Justice to Prosecute Abuses in Counternarcotics and Public Security Operations

I. Executive Summary

“When one judges oneself, one always tries to find a justification. [Military
officers] simply try to cover for one another.”

—Widow of a young man killed by soldiers explaining her doubts about the
impartiality of the military justice system

Since taking office, President Felipe Calderón has relied heavily on the armed forces to fight
serious drug-related violence and organized crime. The need to improve public security is
clear. Mexico is facing powerful drug cartels that are engaged in violent turf battles, an influx
of sophisticated weapons, a large number of kidnappings and executions in several Mexican
states, and shocking forms of violence including beheadings. The competition and fighting
among powerful cartels, as well as shootouts between cartel members and law enforcement
agents, have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, police, and members of the
military. The numbers of victims have risen significantly since 2006, with the death toll
reaching an estimated 6,000 in 2008.

Mexico has used its armed forces in counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations for
decades. But the visibility of the armed forces in law enforcement operations has increased
dramatically under the Calderón administration, which has portrayed the deployment of the
army as one of its key strategies to combat drug trafficking and increase public security.
Thousands of members of the military have been incorporated into the federal police force,
and more than 40,000 military and police officers have been deployed throughout the
country. In very violent cities, such as Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana, local governments have
appointed high ranking military officers to head the police forces. The Calderón
administration has stated that the use of the army is temporary, but has yet to present even
a provisional plan for withdrawal of the troops.

While engaging in law enforcement activities, Mexico’s armed forces have committed
serious human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, killings, torture, rapes,
and arbitrary detentions. The abuses detailed in this report include an enforced
disappearance, the rape of indigenous women during counterinsurgency and
counternarcotics operations in Southern Mexico, the torture and arbitrary detention of
environmental activists during counternarcotics operations, and several cases of torture,
rape, killings, and arbitrary detentions of dozens of people during public security operations (...)

blogs browsing

Fire Is Born — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:29 EDT

April 28, 2009
Gene Expression
Archives • About • RSS

California swine flu cases derived from Ohio strains? That's what Sandy at Digital Biology is suggesting from her analyses.......
Discovering Biology in a Digital World
Archives • About • RSS

Did the California H1N1 swine flu come from Ohio? It looks like the California flu strains may have come from Ohio
Neuron Culture
Archives • About • RSS

Brandon Keim on The Language of Horses In a few slender leg bones and fragments of milk-stained pottery, archaeologists recently found evidence of one of the more important developments in human history: the domestication of horses. Unearthed from a windswept plain in Kazakhstan, the remains were about 5500 years old, and suggested that a nomadic people now called the Botai had learned to ride a creature that had captured mankind's imagination thousands of years earlier.
The Questionable Authority
Archives • About • RSS

Steele's "Weak Reviews" I'm still trying to fully digest the implications of Specter's Switch, but there was something in one of the Politico articles on the defection that I can't resist commenting on now: In 2001, Republicans still had the House and...
Pharyngula
Archives • About • RSS

What's Bachmann said now? The crazy lady of Minnesota politics has done it again. In case you don't actually want to see and hear this lunatic, here's what she says: I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine...
Uncertain Principles
Archives • About • RSS

Show Me the Pony So, the President gave some sort of speech to a bunch of smart people yesterday (video, transcript), and hearts are a-flutter all over the science blogosphere, as President Obama promises great things for science: We double the budget of key...
Greg Laden's Blog
Archives • About • RSS

A New Look and Feel for My Blog ... but only subtly different. You may have noticed that all of the Science Blogs (or almost all) have changed over to a new template. My understanding is that this is mainly an underlying technical upgrade, and no so much a resurfacing, but you will...

NATO and Afghanistan’s Shia Marriage Law

Fire Is Born — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:13:47 EDT

http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/nato-and-afghanistans-shia-marriage-law-the-collapse-of-a-master-narrative/

I got it from Rachel Maddow updates on Twitter!!!!

Fire Is Born — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:56:00 EDT

Let's twit!

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://www.rockcookiebottom.com/post/97815385/109-for-this-song-i-took-language-directly-from

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OK! THIS IS BETTER THAN THE BLUE SPAM!!! BEAT IT!

Fire Is Born — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:06:23 EDT

We place these articles at no charge on our website to serve all the people who cannot afford Monthly Review, or who cannot get access to it where they live. Many of our most devoted readers are outside of the United States. If you read our articles online and you can afford a subscription to our print edition, we would very much appreciate it if you would consider purchasing one. Please click here to subscribe. Thank you very much. —The Editors

Home
Subscribe

BOOKS RELATED
TO THIS TOPIC:

Bush versus Chávez
Washington's War On Venezuela
by Eva Golinger

BUY THIS BOOK

Faces of Latin America
by Duncan Green
BUY THIS BOOK

Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution
by Hugo Chavez
and
Marta Harnecker
BUY THIS BOOK

» Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent
by Eduardo Galeano

» Days and Nights of Love
and War
by Eduardo Galeano

» Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War
by Che Guevara

RECENT ESSAYS ON:

Africa

Asia

Empire & the New Imperialism

Europe

Feminism/Women

Food & Hunger

Globalization

Iraq & U.S. Imperialism

Labor/Working-Class

Latin America & Caribbean

Media/Communications

The War on Terrorism & the New Police State

U.S. Politics/Economy

Social/Political Theory

Essays on Latin America
and the Caribbean

The Only Road Is Practice
Michael A. Lebowitz

I am certain that, like many people these days, the first thing on your mind is the question of the referendum on reform of the Bolivarian Constitution—what the defeat means and where do we go from here. What I want to talk about today is not on that topic specifically, but it is related. Some people have said lately that they don’t know what the word socialism means. That was certainly a question raised about the proposed reforms. There were people who were determined to generate confusion and fear, and they were asking, what is all this talk about socialism in the constitution? Are we talking about Stalinism? Are we talking about an authoritarian society?

June 2008

The Guerrilla in Colombia: An Interview with Rodrigo Granda, Member of the FARC-EP International Commission
Rodrigo Granda interviewed by Jean Batou

Rodrigo Granda is a member of and the leading international spokesperson for the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC–EP). His name gained global prominence in December 2004 when he was kidnapped in Venezuela and handed over to Colombian authorities by a number of Venezuelan National Guard soldiers seeking a reward placed on his head by the Colombian government. At the time of his capture Granda was attending a meeting of the Bolivarian Peoples Movements in Caracas. Granda’s kidnapping in Venezuela at the instigation of the Colombian government created an international dispute between Venezuela and Colombia. He was released in 2007 in response to pressures exerted on the Colombian government by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

March 2008

Socialist Strategies in Latin America
Claudio Katz

The Latin American left is once again discussing the paths to socialism. The correlation of forces has changed through popular action, the crisis of neoliberalism, and U.S. imperialism’s loss of offensive capability. It is no longer relevant to juxtapose a revolutionary political period of the past with a conservative present. The social weakness of the industrial working class does not impede anti-capitalist progress, which depends on the exploited and the oppressed uniting in common struggle.

September 2007

Dual Power in the Venezuelan Revolution
George Ciccariello-Maher

Too often, the Bolivarian Revolution currently underway in Venezuela is dismissed by its critics—on the right and left—as a fundamentally statist enterprise. We are told it is, at best, a continuation of the corrupt, bureaucratic status quo or, at worst, a personalistic consolidation of state power in the hands of a single individual at the expense of those “checks and balances” traditionally associated with western liberal democracies. These perspectives are erroneous, since they cannot account for what have emerged as the central planks of the revolutionary process. I will focus on the most significant of these planks: the explosion of communal power.

September 2007

Our Summer 2007 Issue

Revolt in Latin America

July-August 2007

New Wings for Socialism
Michael A. Lebowitz

Seventeen years ago, in 1990, I began an essay with a poem of Bertolt Brecht. It was a poem about a man in Europe in the Middle Ages who put on "things that looked like wings," climbed to the roof of a church, and tried to fly. He crashed, and the bishop who passed by said, "No one will ever fly."

April 2007

Our February 2007 Issue

Brazil Under Lula: An MR Survey

February 2007

Socialism and the Knowledge Economy: Cuban Biotechnology
by Agustín Lage Dávila

As authoritatively stated in an editorial in Nature, vol. 436, issue 7049 (July 2005), “Cuba has developed a considerable [scientific] research capability—perhaps more so than any other developing country outside of Southeast Asia.” Cuba has been especially successful in establishing a biotechnology industry that has effectively introduced drugs and vaccines of its own, along with a nascent pharmaceutical industry that has achieved considerable success in exports. Its agriculture and health sectors have been strong beneficiaries of its scientific research. As Nature observed: “It is worth asking how Cuba did it, and what lessons other countries might draw from it.” Indeed, the Cuban case is all the more surprising since it is not only a poor country, but one that has been confronted for decades by a ruthless embargo imposed by the United States, which has been extended to scientific knowledge. Moreover, much of Cuba’s scientific progress has occurred in the decade and a half since the fall of the Soviet Union, which previously had aided it economically and technologically.

December 2006

Prevention and Solidarity: Democratizing Health in Venezuela
Claudia Jardim

Halfway up the hill, in a semi-finished, rustic house, a sheet divides the consulting room from the treatment room. Rarely is there a need to identify oneself upon arrival. “How are you Mr. Antonio, has your pressure decreased?” says the fifty-three-year-old Venezuelan nurse Carlota Núñez. Antonio goes in and, little by little, the inhabitants of the neighborhood Las Terrazas de Oropeza Castillo, municipality Sucre, Caracas move through the waiting room.

January 2005

After the Referendum: Venezuela Faces New Challenges
Marta Harnecker

With President Hugo Chávez’s victory in the August 15 referendum, the Venezuelan opposition suffered the third great defeat in its struggle to end his government. The unprecedented recall referendum ratified Chávez’s presidency by a margin of two million votes and was declared valid unanimously by the hundreds of international observers who scrutinized it.

November 2004

The Greening of Venezuela
David Raby

With all the hullabaloo about Chávez’s alleged authoritarianism, opposition strikes and demonstrations, and a possible recall referendum, you could be forgiven for thinking that nothing constructive is being done in Venezuela and that the nation’s energies are entirely absorbed by political mud-slinging. Indeed, that’s just what the corporate media would like you to think.

November 2004

Haiti Matters!
Charles McCollester

Arriving at the Hotel Oloffson in Port-au-Prince on the eve of the new year, 2004, the bicentennial of Haiti’s independence, tension was thick in the air. Street violence was mounting but still mostly under control. Clashes took place between opposition demonstrators and police or between anti- and pro-Aristide forces. Since the hotel is near the university and its hospital, we witnessed several groups of 100 to 200 anti-Aristide student demonstrators jogging in cadence toward police with signs and banners shouting slogans—A bas Aristide! Down with Aristide! Since my previous trip in June, anti-Aristide slogans had blossomed in some areas of Port-au- Prince, while pro-Aristide graffiti retained its hold in the poorest districts, smaller towns, and rural areas. Our visit to the towns of Fondwa and Jacmel in the south was eventful in the normal Haitian way, but peaceful. Back in the capital, at the end of our five-day trip up-country, cars were being torched, boulders rolled on roads, and gas stations and banks closed in antigovernment actions.

September 2004

Cuba: The Next Forty-Five Years?
István Mészáros

This year Cuba will be celebrating the forty-fifth anniversary of its victorious revolution: a great historic achievement. And when we bear in mind that the Cuban revolution—the long sustained action of a nation of just eleven million people—survived for forty-five years against all odds, successfully confronting the declared enmity, the U.S.-dictated international political encirclement and economic blockade, as well as the ever renewed attempts to subvert and overthrow the post-revolutionary order by the world’s most preponderant economic and military power, even this simple fact puts forcefully into relief the magnitude and the lasting significance of the ongoing Cuban intervention in the historical process of our time. We are all contemporaries to an achievement whose reverberations reach well beyond the confines of the tendentiously propagandized “American Hemisphere,” offering its hopeful message to the rest of the world.

January 2004

U.S. Offensive in Latin America: Coups, Retreats, and Radicalization
JAMES PETRAS

The worldwide U.S. military-political offensive is manifest in multiple contexts in Latin America. The U.S. offensive aims to prop up decaying client regimes, destabilize independent regimes, pressure the center-left to move to the right, and destroy or isolate the burgeoning popular movements challenging the U.S. empire and its clients. We will discuss the particular forms of the U.S. offensive in each country, and then explore the specific and general reasons for the offensive in contemporary Latin America. In the concluding section we will discuss the political alternatives in the context of the U.S. offensive.

May 2002

The Argentine Crisis
JOSEPH HALEVI

Historically, monetary crises have been related to hyperinflation, from which Argentina has often suffered. Hyperinflation is generally viewed as a calamity leading to the destruction of the capitalist monetary system of circulation. In the present Argentine crisis, however, there has been a complete implosion of economic and monetary relations due to hyperdeflation. This is the strangulation of the economy by the requirement to pay an unsustainable debt.

April 2002

Argentina: An Alternative Proposal to Overcome
the Crisis
LUIS BECERRA, ET AL.

“There is no alternative” has always been wishful thinking at best, at worst a deliberate lie, on the part of the ruling powers. From out of the ruins to which neoliberalism has brought Argentina, its onetime much-heralded model of success, now come the unsilenced voices of radical economists. We present here an English translation of a proposed alternative solution to the Argentine crisis. The proposal was set out on January 24, 2002, by Argentine economists as a starting point for discussion within the emerging popular movement.—The Editors

April 2002

The Unemployed Workers Movement in Argentina
JAMES PETRAS

Latin America has witnessed three waves of overlapping and interrelated social movements over the last twenty-five years. The first wave, roughly from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s, was largely composed of what were called “the new social movements.” They included human rights, ecology, feminist, and ethnic movements as well as Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Their leadership was largely lower middle class professionals, and their policies and strategies revolved around challenging the military and civilian authoritarian regimes of the time.

January 2002

From Oscar Grant to Lovelle Mixon - Oakland's troubled legacy

Fire Is Born — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:25:42 EDT

From Oscar Grant to Lovelle Mixon - Oakland's troubled legacy

David Muhammad, New America Media

Four Oakland Police Department officers killed, another shot, and a young assailant dead. This is tragic and unfortunate. Period.

Images View Larger Images Oakland Officers Killed

More Opinion

On Prostitution in San Francisco / Going after massage parlors 03.31.09
Letters To The Editor 03.31.09
Pot laws are no laughing matter 03.31.09
A budget solution - Sell off San Quentin 03.31.09

I begin this way to make sure that this message is not lost as I also explain how so many others in Oakland saw this story. I received a barrage of phone calls, text messages and e-mails shortly after the initial shooting of two officers, and the messages kept pouring in after three more officers were shot and the suspect killed. Every one of the people I spoke with, young and old, all merged this tragic incident with the killing of Oscar Grant on New Year's Day by a BART police officer.

It is quite possible that Lovelle Mixon had no thoughts of Oscar Grant. Lovelle was a parolee out from prison for assault with a deadly weapon. He had apparently violated his parole, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Maybe he just didn't want to go back to prison. But in the minds of many Oaklanders, the two horrific shootings - that of Oscar Grant and that of five Oakland officers - were connected.

After the announcement of the death of the fourth officer, I received one very disturbing text message from a young man who was incensed by the Oscar Grant murder: "Us: 4 - Them: 1."

I was born and raised in Oakland. I grew up, like most of my friends, with a fair dose of fear, distrust and animosity toward the police. I was a teenager in 1988 when NWA released its controversial hit, "F- the Police." One night that same year, I was hanging out with a very large group of friends and fellow junior high school students. There were about 25 of us standing on the corner when, unbeknown to me, four of the guys tried to take the car of a couple who had pulled up in a nearby parking lot. Now, I participated in my fair share of delinquent acts as a juvenile, but this crime I wanted no part in. I walked off with my cousin.

While walking home, a police car pulled up alongside of us - I immediately ran off. I sprinted through several backyards, jumping over fences and leaping over bushes. I ran right into a waiting cop on the other side of a fence. It was pitch black, in the back of an apartment complex, and I had angered the pursuing officers. I stopped and put my hands up - I anticipated being badly beaten.

The officer slammed me onto a bed of rocks, busting open my lip. He stepped on my neck with his boot, and when his partner arrived, he stomped on my back. And though that was clearly excessive force, when I was then picked up, handcuffed and led to the car, I was astonished that it ended there. The officers took me to the couple who had almost been carjacked, and when they said I was not involved, I was let go. (Ironically, one of the handcuffs wouldn't come off, so the officers took me to the fire department to have it cut off before they drove me home).

I had many friends who were not nearly as fortunate as I. Oakland is a town long known for the animosity between citizens and police. Such strained relations gave birth to what the city is best known for in many parts of the country - the Black Panther Party. And it was that spirit of the Panthers that had so many people I spoke with connecting what Lovelle Mixon did to Oscar Grant.

Many in Oakland are still furious that three months after Johannes Mehserle killed Grant, he has not been convicted and sent to prison. The death of four police officers, who seemed to have been honorable servants of public safety, has the potential to fuel more disdain among cops for the black community. This will, of course, create greater distrust of police within the community. It can become like the deadly gang rivalries that these same officers try to stop.

A leading cause of street violence is the lack of trust between the community and law enforcement. The tension in Oakland since the murder of Oscar Grant had amassed into a powder keg, and it ignited. Whether Mixon lit it intentionally we may never know, but it was lit. And now, before it gets even worse, a deliberate, public, sincere healing is needed in Oakland.

Oakland native David Muhammad now co-directs the juvenile detention system in Washington, D.C., as chief of committed services, Department of Youth and Rehabilitative Services.

This article appeared on page H - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Libertarian Ideals that Obama is committed to

Libertarians for Obama — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:21:17 EDT

Granted, President Barack Obama is not completely "Libertarian" but who really is? Yet if you look at the Obama Agenda at: www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/ and look at Libertarian Party motto: Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom and LP issues at: www.lp.org/issues there are many areas of common interest. Below are some of the top Libertarian Party issues that Obama has some agreement with.

Libertarian Party motto: "Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom"

"Lower Taxes"
..."working families struggle to pay their taxes" www.lp.org/issues/taxes

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "I'll Cut Taxes for 95% of "Working Families"

Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of "workers" and their "families" with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms

Libertarian Party: How Can We Cut Taxes?

... politicians spend millions to subsidize tobacco farmers...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Goes After Farm Subsidies President-elect Obama gave an example of one piece of wasteful government spending: farm subsidies.
Obama cited a GAO report that said from 2003 to 2006, "millionaire farmers" got $49 million in farm subsidies despite earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff in annual income. "If it's true," Obama said, "it's a prime example of waste."

"More Freedom"

Libertarian Party: Freedom of Speech, Against Censorship"We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself....
We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media."

http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Freedom of Speech, Against Censorship

President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. To send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff, please go to website: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/Contact/

Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Everyone can participate and inform the work of the President through the online front door of the White House at the Office of Public Liaison & Intergovernmental Affairs (OPL-IGA). OPL-IGA will bring new voices to the table, build relationships with constituents and seeks to embody the essence of the President's movement for change through the meaningful engagement of citizens and their elected officials by the federal government.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring their national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. Obama will personally deliver Your Weekly Address via webcast.

"Removing the troops from Iraq"

Libertarian Party: We established years ago that the war in Iraq had little to do with national security, if it ever did. Even those that initially supported the war in Iraq have come around to recognize that the longer we keep our troops in the region, the more lives we lose and the more money is wasted. It is time to bring the troops home. http://www.lp.org/issues/current-issues
"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 3.1 (adopted: May 2008)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: to remove all of our troops from Iraq.

"Immigration" http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

Libertarian Party: "For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency."

President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/immigration/

Bring People Out of the Shadows: Support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

The CIA acknowledged that it destroyed 92 tapes of detainee interrogations

Fire Is Born — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:43:06 EST

Learn more about the ACLU’s ongoing efforts to document, expose and end government wrongdoing.

Help support this
important work.

Dear ACLU Supporter,

The truth is finally starting to come out -- and it’s happening because of the sheer persistence of you and the ACLU.

Yesterday, in response to an ACLU lawsuit seeking government torture documents, the CIA acknowledged that it destroyed 92 tapes of detainee interrogations.

This confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to evade a court order and hide evidence of its deep involvement in harsh interrogation techniques. Unconscionably, the CIA also withheld these tapes from the 9/11 Commission.

It has taken years of determined efforts by the ACLU -- in the form of lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and ongoing public pressure to get to this point. And with persistence and your help, we will expose the full extent of the Bush administration’s unlawful national security policies.

Without the full truth about what was done in our name, we can’t move forward and we can’t hold those responsible to account. And these essential efforts are having a real impact.

Just yesterday, in addition to the CIA tape revelations, the ACLU played a key role in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) release of nine secret documents and opinions underlying the Bush administration’s unlawful expansion of presidential powers.

The memos were written by OLC lawyer John Yoo and others. And they essentially argue that the President has a blank check to disregard the Constitution during wartime, not only on foreign battlefields, but also here in the United States.

The tireless efforts of ACLU attorneys and advocates -- efforts that you make possible -- have been the driving force behind these revelations. And now more than ever, as the full truth about what was done in our name starts to emerge, we need your ongoing support.

Your donation can help fund the months of serious legal work, intense research, and unyielding advocacy that are behind each and every ACLU breakthrough against government secrecy and misconduct. And we must not stop now. Donate now to help the ACLU continue this important work.

These revelations are critical as we seek to better understand who developed, justified, and advocated for policies such as torture and warrantless surveillance. And their release is fundamental to help all of us participate more meaningfully in the ongoing debate about national security, civil liberties, and human rights.

But this is just the first step. Dozens of other OLC memos are still being withheld.

Help America turn the page on a lawless era. Support the ACLU’s efforts to get the truth out and all of our other work to restore lost liberties.

Thank you for standing on principle and standing alongside the ACLU.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

President Barack Obama formally nominated Genachowski for the position of the Federal Communications Commission chairman

Fire Is Born — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:20:37 EST

Obama Officially Picks Genachowski To Chair FCC
Julius Genachowski has held key posts in government and business, and he's known President Obama since their college days.

By W. David Gardner

InformationWeek

March 3, 2009 04:54 PM

One of Washington's worst-kept secrets -- that Julius Genachowski would be the next Federal Communications Commission chairman -- ended Tuesday when President Barack Obama formally nominated Genachowski for the position.

After Obama won the presidential election, Genachowski was an immediate odds-on favorite for the FCC position given his background that is steeped in technology and that included a stint as legal counsel to ex-FCC chairman Reed Hundt.

The new chairman-designate also has close ties to Obama. They were undergraduates at Columbia University at the same time and became friends later at Harvard Law School, where Obama blossomed as a top student and began to show the political savvy that later would carry him all the way to the White House.

Genachowski is something of a double threat, having held important positions in official Washington and in business as well. Before the FCC, Genachowski clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and, earlier, for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who was retired at the time.

Genachowski has solid liberal credentials and his appointment was hailed by Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, a prominent Washington public interest group. She said, "I am certain that he will seek to restore public confidence in an agency that has had a long history of opaqueness, industry capture, and a lack of data-driven policymaking."

Noting that she has known Genachowski for 15 years, Sohn cited Genachowski's familiarity and comfort level in both government affairs and business.

On the business side, Genachowski held senior executive positions at IAC/InterActiveCorp, joining the firm shortly after CEO Barry Diller founded it. Genachowski has also been a board member ofExpedia (NSDQ: EXPE), Hotels.com, Hotwire, TripAdvisor, Ticketmaster, and Ask.com. In addition, he has also been a principal in venture capital firms Rock Creek Ventures and LaunchBox Digital.

Important voices against (and one for) the war on drugs - from SF Chronicle Insight

Fire Is Born — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:50:10 EST

Drug wars near and far

Sunday, March 1, 2009

"For us, the only action we have is to maintain pressure against the drug traffickers and act against their crops, harvests, labs, goods and continue this frontal fight."

Colombia Vice President Francisco Santos, on the need for Colombia to receive foreign aid to continue its war on drugs.

oooooooooooooooooooooooo

"It's high time to replace an ineffective strategy with more humane and efficient drug policies."

Written by former Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia, and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, suggesting abandoning the war on drugs and focusing on prevention and education.

oooooooooooooooooooooooo

"I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, about his proposed legislation to legalize and tax marijuana.

oooooooooooooooooooo

"The last thing our society needs is yet more legal intoxicants."

John Lovell, who represents the California Peace Officers' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Narcotic Officers' Association, and opposes Ammiano's bill.

oooooooooooooooooooo

"We need to stop the prosecutions, bring the prisoners home, and begin working to eliminate the conflict between state and federal medical marijuana laws."

Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, the nation's largest medical cannabis advocacy organization.

ooooooooooooooooooooo

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/01/IN7S1648B2.DTL

This article appeared on page H - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

SOS Clinton in Israel - from BBC

Fire Is Born — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:05:35 EST

(...)

Potential clashes

The BBC's Middle East correspondent Tim Franks says the relationship between the US and Israel may become a little less warm than it was under the Bush administration.

American diplomacy may sound a new tone with stronger condemnation of Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, as well as greater pragmatism in dealing with the reality of Hamas's control of the Gaza Strip, he adds.

Clinton's delicate Mid-East tour Palestinians pledge era of unity Send us your comments

During Mrs Clinton's visit, Israeli warplanes bombed smuggling tunnels on the border between Gaza and Egypt, injuring six people according to Palestinian medical sources.

On Monday, a rocket was fired from the Gaza Strip at the city of Ashkelon. There were no reports of injury or damage.

Also on Monday, the Israeli government lodged an official complaint with the United Nations about the continued rocket fire from Gaza.

"The government of Israel will continue to safeguard its citizens and will do everything in its power to ensure that the situation in the south will not go back to what it was before December 2008," the letter read.

"Israel will not endure and will respond in kind to attacks against its citizens."

The Israeli military says 130 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza since each side adopted unilateral ceasefires in January.

Israel has launched a series of bombing raids on alleged arms smuggling operations and has kept tight curbs on the entry of goods into the heavily-populated coastal strip.

Israel launched a major military offensive on Gaza in December and January, in which about 1,300 Palestinians were killed, of whom 412 were children, and which destroyed thousands of homes and businesses. Thirteen Israelis were killed during the three weeks of violence. "

What's left behind, AKA Bush's legacy - "Media Maters" investigates

Fire Is Born — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:23:59 EST

This article is long and pedantic. But when we are through we shall be even more entititled to forgetting him, and Cheney. (I did not say "forgiving"). fib

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

"On Bush legacy tour, media often just along for the ride

Summary: In recent weeks, the media have repeatedly indulged President Bush and Vice President Cheney through various interview stops on their Bush legacy tour, utterly failing to push back against statements that were demonstrably false or highly disputable. Media Matters has reviewed interviews given by Bush and Cheney since the November 4 election and has identified numerous instances in which interviewers have failed to challenge false or debatable statements; these failures span a variety of issues, including Hurricane Katrina, prewar Iraq intelligence, national security, and the economy."

Support Conyers Truth Commission

Monitor — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:01:35 EST

[Cross-Posted at Library Grape.]

As to the Bush administration's illegal excesses over the last eight years, there are a few salient options: (1) let bygones be bygones; (2) sic prosecutors after the lawbreakers; or (3) form up a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I am starting to lean toward option three. It would have the benefit of partially muting the "Witch hunt!" wing of the naysayers and, above all else, have the power to bring to light all of the illegal things that have been done in our name over the last eight years.

Here's where the action comes in. Representative John Conyers has introduced legislation to create a Truth Commission:

There is established the National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Commission") to investigate the broad range of policies of the Administration of President George W. Bush that were undertaken under claims of unreviewable war powers, including detention by the United States Armed Forces and the intelligence community, the use by the United States Armed Forces or the intelligence community of enhanced interrogation techniques or interrogation techniques not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "ghosting" or other policies intended to conceal the fact that an individual has been captured or detained, extraordinary rendition, domestic warrantless electronic surveillance, and other policies that the Commission may determine to be relevant to its investigation (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the activities").

If you want some background on the potential illegality the bill is referencing, check out the new 500-page report that was issued on Tuesday: "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush".

To date, Conyers' bill has only received 12 co-sponsors. We need to get the word out to Congress that Conyers' bill is important and has our support. If you have a few minutes, please write or call your Congressperson today to express your support for the Conyers bill: H.R. 104.

If you are an American who wants a just peace in Gaza...

Fire Is Born — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:53:17 EST

Please call your representatives in Congress today in support of a new legislative proposal for peace in Gaza:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/CenterDoug/gGxFQy/commentary#comments

It is very very important! Exercise your electoral power and give real voice to the humanitarian will of us Americans.

Our new SOS may well be well informed of the will of the American people and our determination to obtain a peaceful coexistence of all the peoples in that region. This just peace is possible and necessary. No need to recall Bible now for historical evidence to the contrary. There has been peaceful life in that region as well. Let's learn from peace, not war.

As an American I want Israel to be an ally that the World respects. The sooner this new terrible war is over the better for Israel's reputation and standing. This war has been based on some error of judgment among politicians striving for power, it was well calculated but in all counts is a loss for everybody. Hear both sides of the conflict, which is not the aim of the MSMs (Main Stream Media). How does this War help Israel's safety in the long run?

Please call! This peace is really in your hands and your voice.

Thank you. fib

Democrats need to take the lead on common sense liability reform

Mike Serfas — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:20:04 EST

The recent editorial by George Will should serve as a shot across the bow for those of us who have been wondering how the Republican Party will try to sell itself in the future, and it makes some valid points. Anyone who has followed the news sometime in the past few decades knows that liability judgments in this country can get out of control.

What George Will doesn't need to say is that in the past few years, with substantial political control, the Republicans have appeared to put themselves into the lead in trying to do something about it. Left to their own devices, the Republicans will say that liability is driving health care costs out of control and making American business uncompetitive, and that only their party has the common sense and anti-government rebelliousness to bring it under control. For this reason it is crucial that Democrats get out ahead of this issue.

Let's start by pointing out that the prevalent Republican idea of capping damages at a fixed dollar amount is really aimed at helping large organizations and wealthy people. It doesn't improve the way in which the damages and the theory of liability is determined. If someone slips on your steps or takes exception to something you said in a town meeting, a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages isn't going to help you.

Besides which, some of the worst routine injustices involve economic damages - especially, wild theories of lost pay. A person is fired by a school and two years later the taxpayers are told they need to pay two years' back salary for work never done. Or a group of lunatics takes down the World Trade Center and while the theory of liability is that "you can't put a price on life", it immediately proceeds to do so - provided that the price on life is different for different people according to guesswork about what they might have made in salary. I think that in general it can't be justice to assess full compensatory payment to people for work not done. Instead we should recognize the reality of noneconomic damages - real pain and suffering and death - and we should not be shy to set statuatory values on them that are the same for all people, rich and poor. The rich can afford extra life insurance. We should not compensate for "lost wages" except for the reasonably expected length of the temporary disruption in a person's life from a wrongful dismissal, or the lingering marginal effect of a blacklist.

We also should focus on abolishing theories that demand people to treat one another like fools, or to be responsible for preventing one another from acting stupidly. We should demand that victims shoulder the full risk of interacting with the natural environment when they are outside, and that they can't hold building and business owners to blame who have complied with all the vast number of building codes and ordinances that might be relevant to a risky situation. Even if it is a good idea to demand that employers insure workers against injuries suffered on the job without the employer violating any laws or standards, it surely would be far more efficient to mandate this through good medical coverage than by arguing each case in court.

I may well have committed errors of judment in the above discussion - even in theory, it will by no means easy to truly fix America's liability system rather than just using caps and date limits to keep it corraled. It will probably require many separate, detailed pieces of legislation that could easily be corrupted by special interests. But if the Democrats can do it then they will make a saner, more efficient America, and as reward they will be ready to win one of the ideological battlegrounds of the next election.

"There are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can't have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake."

Fire Is Born — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:33:00 EST

Obama's strategic silence on Gaza

By Richard Lister
BBC News, Washington

"There is one president at a time."

That is the mantra from the Obama transition team whenever it is confronted with an issue on which it would rather not comment.

It annoys senior Democrats like Representative Barney Frank, who said "that seriously overstates the number of presidents we have".

And Mr Obama's refusal to make any substantive comment on the situation in Gaza has also threatened to lose him support in the Arab world.

But the US constitution makes it pretty clear who is in charge at the moment and until 20 January, that person is George W Bush.

Power vacuum

Mr Obama does not have the legal authority to back his words with actions; he does not have an administration in place and he risks complicating what has otherwise been a smooth transition process if he decides to take on the presidential mantle before he is sworn in.

Yet it is not quite as simple as that, of course.

There is a power vacuum in Washington at the moment - as there always is in the waning weeks of any administration.

But so profound is this one that the Obama team decided to raise the president-elect's profile in the weeks after his election.

He reassured financial markets that he was working behind the scenes on a far-reaching economic stimulus package.

When Mr Obama arrived in Washington, his first appointment was with the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, because as he said "the business of the people cannot wait".

He has made statements on the economy, the carmakers' bail-out, and the attacks in Mumbai - so why so little on Gaza?

Well, with the exception of Mumbai, he has spoken only about domestic issues - seen as fair game for an incoming president.

The attacks in India were far more clear-cut than the turmoil in Gaza.

They were an unusual event which presented no lingering policy issues and required no continuing diplomacy.

And that is key.

Mr Obama has reiterated that it is President Bush who is responsible for American diplomacy.

"When it comes to foreign affairs it is particularly important to adhere to the principle of one president at a time," he said.

"There are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can't have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake."

Changing landscape

Gaza is a political minefield for Mr Obama.

If he makes a statement that suggests he would pursue a different Middle East policy from that of the Bush team, it would pull the rug from under the current administration's diplomatic efforts in the region.

It would also cost him Republican goodwill at home if he were to undermine President Bush in that way.

If he issues a statement which puts him in lock step with the Bush team's approach, then he loses flexibility when the issue arrives in his in-tray in two weeks time.

Whatever he says now will be regarded as policy, but the political landscape in the Middle East could be quite different when he is sworn in.

It may be that events on the ground create overwhelming pressure on Mr Obama to make a more substantive statement.

If so, he will have to weigh up the diplomatic and political damage done by saying little, against the damage done by saying something which will inevitably be condemned by one of the players in the region - and could come back to haunt him.

In fact, nothing he has said on the Middle East in the past has been significantly out of step with President Bush's policies.

Visiting the Israeli town of Sderot in July, he suggested that he too would respond if rockets were being fired at his house.

He has also spoken about the problem of negotiating with Hamas when it is "not representative of a nation state, does not recognise [Israel's] right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon and is deeply influenced by other countries".

However, he has always been careful to avoid definitive statements which lock him into a particular course of action.

All recent presidents have made some kind of policy shift in their efforts to find peace in the Middle East - President Bush was the first to call openly for a two-state solution, for example.

But there is very little political advantage for Barack Obama in revealing his hand before he sits at the table for real.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7812498.stm

Published: 2009/01/06 18:48:07 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Print Sponsor

BBC.adverts.write("printableversionsponsorship"); BBC.adverts.show("printableversionsponsorship");

President-elect Barack Obama breaking his silence about the Gaza war

Fire Is Born — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:49:36 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama, breaking his silence about the Gaza war, expressed deep concern on Tuesday about the loss of civilian lives in Gaza and in Israel.

Speaking after Israeli tank shells killed at least 40 Palestinians at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, Obama told reporters "the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern for me."

But Obama otherwise said he would adhere to his principle that only U.S. President George W. Bush would speak for American foreign policy at this time, but said he would have plenty more to say after his January 20 inauguration.

(Reporting by Steve Holland, Editing by Sandra Maler)

Sign Our Open Letter to President-Elect Obama

We Need a Change in Israel/Palestine Policy

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your historic election as the next President of the United States.

Last year, you pledged to “take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of [Israeli-Palestinian] peace from the start of my Administration.” We are eager to work with you to fulfill this goal.

To do so, your Administration should break with past policies of unconditional support for Israel's illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, and change U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine to support human rights, international law, and equality.

We agree with Aaron David Miller, a 25-year State Department Middle East negotiator and adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs, who wrote that “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations.”

To become an honest and effective broker, your Administration should:

* Insist that Israel ends its siege of the Gaza Strip. Israel has deliberately impoverished the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip and caused a humanitarian catastrophe of dire proportions by prohibiting the delivery of food, medicine, fuel, and electricity. Your Administration should insist on the illegality of collective punishment and support the human rights of Palestinians such as freedom of movement as a first step towards ending Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip.

* Demand a freeze in the construction of settlements and Israel's Wall in the West Bank. Israel's West Bank settlements, including those in East Jerusalem, are all illegal under international law,and the International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that Israel's Wall is illegal and must be torn down. Halting this construction should be a first step toward completely dismantling the infrastructure of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which former President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and others have labeled “apartheid.”

* Hold Israel accountable for its misuse of U.S. weapons. In 2007, the United States and Israel agreed to increase military aid to Israel by 25% over the next decade, totaling $30 billion. During the Bush Administration, Israel killed more than 2,000 innocent Palestinian civilians who took no part in hostilities, oftentimes with U.S. weapons in violation of the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts. Your Administration should hold Israel accountable for these violations of U.S. law and cut off military aid as required by law, rather than increase it.

* End the U.S. veto protecting Israel at the United Nations. The United States has used its veto power at the UN more than 40 times since 1972 to shield Israel from the consequences of its violations of human rights, UN resolutions, and international law. Your Administration should work with, not in opposition to, the international community so that human rights, UN resolutions, and international law are applied and enforced uniformly.

* Base a just peace on human rights, international law, and equality. Such a policy is the only way to ensure the legitimate security needs of all peoples and can only be achieved by engaging in dialog with all interested parties. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace includes the complete end of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip; a resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue consistent with international law and UN resolutions, including the right of return and/or compensation; and full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel. A policy denying Palestinians these internationally-guaranteed rights will only lead to yet another failed “peace process”.

Signed by,

National Organizations
1. African American Islamic Institute
2. American Jews for a Just Peace
3. Americans for a Just Peace in the Middle East
4. Black Voices for Peace
5. Code Pink: Women for Peace
6. Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
7. Council for the National Interest
8. Doctors for Global Health
9. Episcopal Peace Fellowship
10. Fellowship of Reconciliation
11. Friends of Sabeel North America
12. Global Exchange
13. Interfaith Peace-Builders
14. Middle East Children’s Alliance
15. Middle East Peace Fellowship
16. Middle East Research and Information Project
17. Muslim Student Association West
18. National Hip Hop Political Convention
19. National Lawyers Guild
20. Nonviolence International
21. Peace Action
22. Presbyterian Peace Fellowship
23. Progressive Democrats of America
24. Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East
25. United for Peace and Justice
26. US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
27. Voters for Peace
28. War Resisters League
29. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom—U.S. Section

Alabama
1. Birmingham Interfaith Human Rights Committee, Birmingham
2. North Alabama Peace Network, Huntsville

Alaska
1. Alaskans for Peace and Justice, Anchorage

Arizona
1. Islamic Reform, Tucson
2. Local to Global Justice, Phoenix
3. Peacemaking Committee, Faith Presbyterian Church, Sun City
4. Women in Black—Phoenix, Phoenix
5. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom—Tucson Branch, Tucson

California
1. 14 Friends of Palestine, San Rafael
2. Academic Mentorship Program at UCLA, Los Angeles
3. Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Oakland
4. Bay Area Women in Black, Oakland
5. Beacon Presbyterian Fellowship, Oakland
6. Berkeley Institute of Biblical Archaeology and Literature (BIBAL), Rodeo
7. Coachella Valley Movement for a Democratic Society, Desert Hot Springs
8. Conversation with Connection, Los Angeles
9. Couples Center, Sebastopol
10. Crabgrass, San Francisco
11. Deep Hum Productions, Berkeley
12. Ecumenical Peace Institute, Berkeley
13. El Cerrito Green Party, Kensington
14. Friends of Deir Ibzi’a, Berkeley
15. Global Information Services, Greenbrae
16. Greenwood Earth Alliance, San Francisco
17. Holy Cross Melkite-Greek Orthodox Church, Placentia
18. International & Multicultural Education, University of San Francisco, San Francisco
19. International Imaging, Pasadena
20. Jews against Zionism, Sacramento
21. MAIZ -- Movimiento de Acion, Inspirando Servicio, San Jose
22. Middle East Needs Peace, San Jose
23. Middle East Policy Advisory Council, Oakland
24. Nick Dibs for Congress, Long Beach
25. Northeast Los Angeles Radical Neighbors for Peace through Justice, Los Angeles
26. Northern California International Solidarity Movement, El Cerrito
27. Office of the Americas, Los Angeles
28. Pacifica Peace People, Pacifica
29. Parrot Software Services, Menlo Park
30. Peace Political/Human Rights for All, Concord
31. Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Palo Alto
32. Resource Center for Nonviolence, Santa Cruz
33. Sacred Music Events, Auburn
34. San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper, San Francisco
35. San Jose Peace and Justice Center, San Jose
36. September 11 Action, Danville
37. Shomer Shalom Institute for Jewish Nonviolence, Berkeley
38. Some of All Parts, Oakland
39. Students for Justice in Palestine-University of California Santa Barbara, Goleta
40. Students for Justice in Palestine—University of Southern California, El Monte
41. The Added Edge, Inc., Vineburg
42. Timothy Crofton Real Estate, Fremont
43. Tri-City Peace and Justice, Fremont
44. Venturans for Justice in Palestine, Ventura
45. Vista Medical Group, Colton
46. Western Regional Advocacy Program, San Francisco
47. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom—Berkeley/East Bay Branch, Oakland
48. Zionism Explained, Oakland

Colorado
1. Christian Peacemakers Teams of Colorado, Longmont
2. Colorado Jews for a Just Peace, Boulder
3. Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Denver
4. Friends of Sabeel—Colorado, Boulder
5. Longmont Citizens for Justice and Democracy, Longmont
6. Musical Missions of Peace, Longmont
7. Obamans for Change in the Americas, Glenwood Springs
8. Pax Christi Metro Denver, Wheat Ridge
9. Pax Christi of the Pikes Peak Region, Colorado Springs
10. Peace and Justice Task Force, Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church, Denver
11. Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder
12. Strength through Peace, Fort Collins
13. Willow Way Wellness, Longmont

Connecticut
1. Bridgeport Islamic Community Center, Bridgeport
2. Greater New Haven Peace Council, New Haven
3. People of Faith CT, West Hartford
4. We Refuse to Be Enemies, New Britain

District of Columbia
1. Episcopal Peace Fellowship DC, Washington
2. House of Creative Writing, Washington
3. Malcolm X Day Committee, Washington
4. Sharing Jerusalem, USA, Washington

Florida
1. AGSPEC Enterprises Inc., Delray Beach
2. Brevard Patriots for Peace, Melbourne
3. Florida Palestine Solidarity Network, Bradenton
4. Florida Peace Action Network, Hudson
5. Hindus for Peace and Justice, West Melbourne
6. Humanists for Peace, West Palm Beach
7. Jiffi Print, Coconut Creek
8. Patriot Rebel, Santa Rosa Beach
9. Pax Christi Northeast Florida, St. Augustine
10. Society for a Just Peace in Palestine, Rollins College, Lake Mary
11. Stafford Farms, Ocala
12. Tallahassee Network for Justice and Peace, Tallahassee
13. We Are Wide Awake, Clermont
14. We Can Take It, St. Petersburg

Georgia
1. Athens for Justice in Palestine, Duluth
2. Foundation for Global Community, Atlanta
3. Free All with Truth, Decatur
4. Southern Energy Network, Athens

Hawaii
1. Center for Nonviolent Education and Action, Kurtistown
2. World Peace Society, Holualoa

Idaho
1. Alliance for Community Transformation, College of Idaho, Caldwell
2. Boise Brown Berets, Boise
3. Women in Black Boise, Boise

Illinois

HAMAS, FATAH, RICE, AND BUSH - AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Fire Is Born — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:02:53 EST

The Middle East

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President George W. Bush, whose secret Palestinian intervention backfired in a big way. Photo illustration by Chris Mueller; left, by Debbie Hill/Sipa Press; right, by Issam Rimawi/ApaImages/Polaris; background by Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters/Corbis.

The Gaza Bombshell

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

by David Rose April 2008

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?printable=true&currentPage=all

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

by David Rose April 2008

The Al Deira Hotel, in Gaza City, is a haven of calm in a land beset by poverty, fear, and violence. In the middle of December 2007, I sit in the hotel’s airy restaurant, its windows open to the Mediterranean, and listen to a slight, bearded man named Mazen Asad abu Dan describe the suffering he endured 11 months before at the hands of his fellow Palestinians. Abu Dan, 28, is a member of Hamas, the Iranian-backed Islamist organization that has been designated a terrorist group by the United States, but I have a good reason for taking him at his word: I’ve seen the video.

To hear an interview with David Rose and to see documents he uncovered, click here.

It shows abu Dan kneeling, his hands bound behind his back, and screaming as his captors pummel him with a black iron rod. “I lost all the skin on my back from the beatings,” he says. “Instead of medicine, they poured perfume on my wounds. It felt as if they had taken a sword to my injuries.”

On January 26, 2007, abu Dan, a student at the Islamic University of Gaza, had gone to a local cemetery with his father and five others to erect a headstone for his grandmother. When they arrived, however, they found themselves surrounded by 30 armed men from Hamas’s rival, Fatah, the party of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. “They took us to a house in north Gaza,” abu Dan says. “They covered our eyes and took us to a room on the sixth floor.”

The video reveals a bare room with white walls and a black-and-white tiled floor, where abu Dan’s father is forced to sit and listen to his son’s shrieks of pain. Afterward, abu Dan says, he and two of the others were driven to a market square. “They told us they were going to kill us. They made us sit on the ground.” He rolls up the legs of his trousers to display the circular scars that are evidence of what happened next: “They shot our knees and feet—five bullets each. I spent four months in a wheelchair.”

Abu Dan had no way of knowing it, but his tormentors had a secret ally: the administration of President George W. Bush.

A clue comes toward the end of the video, which was found in a Fatah security building by Hamas fighters last June. Still bound and blindfolded, the prisoners are made to echo a rhythmic chant yelled by one of their captors: “By blood, by soul, we sacrifice ourselves for Muhammad Dahlan! Long live Muhammad Dahlan!”

There is no one more hated among Hamas members than Muhammad Dahlan, long Fatah’s resident strongman in Gaza. Dahlan, who most recently served as Abbas’s national-security adviser, has spent more than a decade battling Hamas. Dahlan insists that abu Dan was tortured without his knowledge, but the video is proof that his followers’ methods can be brutal.

Bush has met Dahlan on at least three occasions. After talks at the White House in July 2003, Bush publicly praised Dahlan as “a good, solid leader.” In private, say multiple Israeli and American officials, the U.S. president described him as “our guy.”

The United States has been involved in the affairs of the Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel captured Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. With the 1993 Oslo accords, the territories acquired limited autonomy, under a president, who has executive powers, and an elected parliament. Israel retains a large military presence in the West Bank, but it withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

In recent months, President Bush has repeatedly stated that the last great ambition of his presidency is to broker a deal that would create a viable Palestinian state and bring peace to the Holy Land. “People say, ‘Do you think it’s possible, during your presidency?’ ” he told an audience in Jerusalem on January 9. “And the answer is: I’m very hopeful.”

The next day, in the West Bank capital of Ramallah, Bush acknowledged that there was a rather large obstacle standing in the way of this goal: Hamas’s complete control of Gaza, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians, where it seized power in a bloody coup d’état in June 2007. Almost every day, militants fire rockets from Gaza into neighboring Israeli towns, and President Abbas is powerless to stop them. His authority is limited to the West Bank.

It’s “a tough situation,” Bush admitted. “I don’t know whether you can solve it in a year or not.” What Bush neglected to mention was his own role in creating this mess.

According to Dahlan, it was Bush who had pushed legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, despite warnings that Fatah was not ready. After Hamas—whose 1988 charter committed it to the goal of driving Israel into the sea—won control of the parliament, Bush made another, deadlier miscalculation.

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.

Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.

Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.

The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed. “There is a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy,” he says. “It directly contradicts it.”

Preventive Security

Bush was not the first American president to form a relationship with Muhammad Dahlan. “Yes, I was close to Bill Clinton,” Dahlan says. “I met Clinton many times with [the late Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat.” In the wake of the 1993 Oslo accords, Clinton sponsored a series of diplomatic meetings aimed at reaching a permanent Middle East peace, and Dahlan became the Palestinians’ negotiator on security.

As I talk to Dahlan in a five-star Cairo hotel, it’s easy to see the qualities that might make him attractive to American presidents. His appearance is immaculate, his English is serviceable, and his manner is charming and forthright. Had he been born into privilege, these qualities might not mean much. But Dahlan was born—on September 29, 1961—in the teeming squalor of Gaza’s Khan Younis refugee camp, and his education came mostly from the street. In 1981 he helped found Fatah’s youth movement, and he later played a leading role in the first intifada—the five-year revolt that began in 1987 against the Israeli occupation. In all, Dahlan says, he spent five years in Israeli jails.

Muhammad Dahlan at his office in Ramallah, January 2008. Photograph by Karim Ben Khelifa.

From the time of its inception as the Palestinian branch of the international Muslim Brotherhood, in late 1987, Hamas had represented a threatening challenge to Arafat’s secular Fatah party. At Oslo, Fatah made a public commitment to the search for peace, but Hamas continued to practice armed resistance. At the same time, it built an impressive base of support through schooling and social programs.

The rising tensions between the two groups first turned violent in the early 1990s—with Muhammad Dahlan playing a central role. As director of the Palestinian Authority’s most feared paramilitary force, the Preventive Security Service, Dahlan arrested some 2,000 Hamas members in 1996 in the Gaza Strip after the group launched a wave of suicide bombings. “Arafat had decided to arrest Hamas military leaders, because they were working against his interests, against the peace process, against the Israeli withdrawal, against everything,” Dahlan says. “He asked the security services to do their job, and I have done that job.”

It was not, he admits, “popular work.” For many years Hamas has said that Dahlan’s forces routinely tortured detainees. One alleged method was to sodomize prisoners with soda bottles. Dahlan says these stories are exaggerated: “Definitely there were some mistakes here and there. But no one person died in Preventive Security. Prisoners got their rights. Bear in mind that I am an ex-detainee of the Israelis’. No one was personally humiliated, and I never killed anyone the way [Hamas is] killing people on a daily basis now.” Dahlan points out that Arafat maintained a labyrinth of security services—14 in all—and says the Preventive Security Service was blamed for abuses perpetrated by other units.

Dahlan worked closely with the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and he developed a warm relationship with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, a Clinton appointee who stayed on under Bush until July 2004. “He’s simply a great and fair man,” Dahlan says. “I’m still in touch with him from time to time.”

“Everyone Was Against the Elections”

In a speech in the White House Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, President Bush announced that American policy in the Middle East was turning in a fundamentally new direction.

Arafat was still in power at the time, and many in the U.S. and Israel blamed him for wrecking Clinton’s micro-managed peace efforts by launching the second intifada—a renewed revolt, begun in 2000, in which more than 1,000 Israelis and 4,500 Palestinians had died. Bush said he wanted to give Palestinians the chance to choose new leaders, ones who were not “compromised by terror.” In place of Arafat’s all-powerful presidency, Bush said, “the Palestinian parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body.”

Arafat died in November 2004, and Abbas, his replacement as Fatah leader, was elected president in January 2005. Elections for the Palestinian parliament, known officially as the Legislative Council, were originally set for July 2005, but later postponed by Abbas until January 2006.

Dahlan says he warned his friends in the Bush administration that Fatah still wasn’t ready for elections in January. Decades of self-preservationist rule by Arafat had turned the party into a symbol of corruption and inefficiency—a perception Hamas found it easy to exploit. Splits within Fatah weakened its position further: in many places, a single Hamas candidate ran against several from Fatah.

“Everyone was against the elections,” Dahlan says. Everyone except Bush. “Bush decided, ‘I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.’ Everyone is following him in the American administration, and everyone is nagging Abbas, telling him, ‘The president wants elections.’ Fine. For what purpose?”

The elections went forward as scheduled. On January 25, Hamas won 56 percent of the seats in the Legislative Council.

Few inside the U.S. administration had predicted the result, and there was no contingency plan to deal with it. “I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming,” Condoleezza Rice told reporters. “I don’t know anyone who wasn’t caught off guard by Hamas’s strong showing.”

“Everyone blamed everyone else,” says an official with the Department of Defense. “We sat there in the Pentagon and said, ‘Who the fuck recommended this?’ ”

In public, Rice tried to look on the bright side of the Hamas victory. “Unpredictability,” she said, is “the nature of big historic change.” Even as she spoke, however, the Bush administration was rapidly revising its attitude toward Palestinian democracy.

Some analysts argued that Hamas had a substantial moderate wing that could be strengthened if America coaxed it into the peace process. Notable Israelis—such as Ephraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency—shared this view. But if America paused to consider giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt, the moment was “milliseconds long,” says a senior State Department official. “The administration spoke with one voice: ‘We have to squeeze these guys.’ With Hamas’s election victory, the freedom agenda was dead.”

The first step, taken by the Middle East diplomatic “Quartet”—the U.S., the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations—was to demand that the new Hamas government renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and accept the terms of all previous agreements. When Hamas refused, the Quartet shut off the faucet of aid to the Palestinian Authority, depriving it of the means to pay salaries and meet its annual budget of roughly $2 billion.

Israel clamped down on Palestinians’ freedom of movement, especially into and out of the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip. Israel also detained 64 Hamas officials, including Legislative Council members and ministers, and even launched a military campaign into Gaza after one of its soldiers was kidnapped. Through it all, Hamas and its new government, led by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, proved surprisingly resilient.

Washington reacted with dismay when Abbas began holding talks with Hamas in the hope of establishing a “unity government.” On October 4, 2006, Rice traveled to Ramallah to see Abbas. They met at the Muqata, the new presidential headquarters that rose from the ruins of Arafat’s compound, which Israel had destroyed in 2002.

America’s leverage in Palestinian affairs was much stronger than it had been in Arafat’s time. Abbas had never had a strong, independent base, and he desperately needed to restore the flow of foreign aid—and, with it, his power of patronage. He also knew that he could not stand up to Hamas without Washington’s help.

At their joint press conference, Rice smiled as she expressed her nation’s “great admiration” for Abbas’s leadership. Behind closed doors, however, Rice’s tone was sharper, say officials who witnessed their meeting. Isolating Hamas just wasn’t working, she reportedly told Abbas, and America expected him to dissolve the Haniyeh government as soon as possible and hold fresh elections.

Abbas, one official says, agreed to take action within two weeks. It happened to be Ramadan, the month when Muslims fast during daylight hours. With dusk approaching, Abbas asked Rice to join him for iftar—a snack to break the fast.

Afterward, according to the official, Rice underlined her position: “So we’re agreed? You’ll dissolve the government within two weeks?”

“Maybe not two weeks. Give me a month. Let’s wait until after the Eid,” he said, referring to the three-day celebration that marks the end of Ramadan. (Abbas’s spokesman said via e-mail: “According to our records, this is incorrect.”)

Rice got into her armored S.U.V., where, the official claims, she told an American colleague, “That damned iftar has cost us another two weeks of Hamas government.”

“We Will Be There to Support You”

Weeks passed with no sign that Abbas was ready to do America’s bidding. Finally, another official was sent to Ramallah. Jake Walles, the consul general in Jerusalem, is a career foreign-service officer with many years’ experience in the Middle East. His purpose was to deliver a barely varnished ultimatum to the Palestinian president.

We know what Walles said because a copy was left behind, apparently by accident, of the “talking points” memo prepared for him by the State Department. The document has been authenticated by U.S. and Palestinian officials.

“We need to understand your plans regarding a new [Palestinian Authority] government,” Walles’s script said. “You told Secretary Rice you would be prepared to move ahead within two to four weeks of your meeting. We believe that the time has come for you to move forward quickly and decisively.”

The “talking points” memo, left behind by a State Department envoy, urging Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to confront Hamas. Enlarge this. Page 2.

The memo left no doubt as to what kind of action the U.S. was seeking: “Hamas should be given a clear choice, with a clear deadline: … they either accept a new government that meets the Quartet principles, or they reject it The consequences of Hamas’ decision should also be clear: If Hamas does not agree within the prescribed time, you should make clear your intention to declare a state of emergency and form an emergency government explicitly committed to that platform.”

Walles and Abbas both knew what to expect from Hamas if these instructions were followed: rebellion and bloodshed. For that reason, the memo states, the U.S. was already working to strengthen Fatah’s security forces. “If you act along these lines, we will support you both materially and politically,” the script said. “We will be there to support you.”

Abbas was also encouraged to “strengthen [his] team” to include “credible figures of strong standing in the international community.” Among those the U.S. wanted brought in, says an official who knew of the policy, was Muhammad Dahlan.

On paper, the forces at Fatah’s disposal looked stronger than those of Hamas. There were some 70,000 men in the tangle of 14 Palestinian security services that Arafat had built up, at least half of those in Gaza. After the legislative elections, Hamas had expected to assume command of these forces, but Fatah maneuvered to keep them under its control. Hamas, which already had 6,000 or so irregulars in its militant al-Qassam Brigade, responded by forming the 6,000-troop Executive Force in Gaza, but that still left it with far fewer fighters than Fatah.

In reality, however, Hamas had several advantages. To begin with, Fatah’s security forces had never really recovered from Operation Defensive Shield, Israel’s massive 2002 re-invasion of the West Bank in response to the second intifada. “Most of the security apparatus had been destroyed,” says Youssef Issa, who led the Preventive Security Service under Abbas.

The irony of the blockade on foreign aid after Hamas’s legislative victory, meanwhile, was that it prevented only Fatah from paying its soldiers. “We are the ones who were not getting paid,” Issa says, “whereas they were not affected by the siege.” Ayman Daraghmeh, a Hamas Legislative Council member in the West Bank, agrees. He puts the amount of Iranian aid to Hamas in 2007 alone at $120 million. “This is only a fraction of what it should give,” he insists. In Gaza, another Hamas member tells me the number was closer to $200 million.

The result was becoming apparent: Fatah could not control Gaza’s streets—or even protect its own personnel.

At about 1:30 p.m. on September 15, 2006, Samira Tayeh sent a text message to her husband, Jad Tayeh, the director of foreign relations for the Palestinian intelligence service and a member of Fatah. “He didn’t reply,” she says. “I tried to call his mobile [phone], but it was switched off. So I called his deputy, Mahmoun, and he didn’t know where he was. That’s when I decided to go to the hospital.”

Samira, a slim, elegant 40-year-old dressed from head to toe in black, tells me the story in a Ramallah café in December 2007. Arriving at the Al Shifa hospital, “I went through the morgue door. Not for any reason—I just didn’t know the place. I saw there were all these intelligence guards there. There was one I knew. He saw me and he said, ‘Put her in the car.’ That’s when I knew something had happened to Jad.”

Tayeh had left his office in a car with four aides. Moments later, they found themselves being pursued by an S.U.V. full of armed, masked men. About 200 yards from the home of Prime Minister Haniyeh, the S.U.V. cornered the car. The masked men opened fire, killing Tayeh and all four of his colleagues.

Hamas said it had nothing to do with the murders, but Samira had reason to believe otherwise. At three a.m. on June 16, 2007, during the Gaza takeover, six Hamas gunmen forced their way into her home and fired bullets into every photo of Jad they could find. The next day, they returned and demanded the keys to the car in which he had died, claiming that it belonged to the Palestinian Authority.

Fearing for her life, she fled across the border and then into the West Bank, with only the clothes she was wearing and her passport, driver’s license, and credit card.

“Very Clever Warfare”

Fatah’s vulnerability was a source of grave concern to Dahlan. “I made a lot of activities to give Hamas the impression that we were still strong and we had the capacity to face them,” he says. “But I knew in my heart it wasn’t true.” He had no official security position at the time, but he belonged to parliament and retained the loyalty of Fatah members in Gaza. “I used my image, my power.” Dahlan says he told Abbas that “Gaza needs only a decision for Hamas to take over.” To prevent that from happening, Dahlan waged “very clever warfare” for many months.

According to several alleged victims, one of the tactics this “warfare” entailed was to kidnap and torture members of Hamas’s Executive Force. (Dahlan denies Fatah used such tactics, but admits “mistakes” were made.) Abdul Karim al-Jasser, a strapping man of 25, says he was the first such victim. “It was on October 16, still Ramadan,” he says. “I was on my way to my sister’s house for iftar. Four guys stopped me, two of them with guns. They forced me to accompany them to the home of Aman abu Jidyan,” a Fatah leader close to Dahlan. (Abu Jidyan would be killed in the June uprising.)

The first phase of torture was straightforward enough, al-Jasser says: he was stripped naked, bound, blindfolded, and beaten with wooden poles and plastic pipes. “They put a piece of cloth in my mouth to stop me screaming.” His interrogators forced him to answer contradictory accusations: one minute they said that he had collaborated with Israel, the next that he had fired Qassam rockets against it.

But the worst was yet to come. “They brought an iron bar,” al-Jasser says, his voice suddenly hesitant. We are speaking inside his home in Gaza, which is experiencing one of its frequent power outages. He points to the propane-gas lamp that lights the room. “They put the bar in the flame of a lamp like this. When it was red, they took the covering off my eyes. Then they pressed it against my skin. That was the last thing I remember.”

When he came to, he was still in the room where he had been tortured. A few hours later, the Fatah men handed him over to Hamas, and he was taken to the hospital. “I could see the shock in the eyes of the doctors who entered the room,” he says. He shows me photos of purple third-degree burns wrapped like towels around his thighs and much of his lower torso. “The doctors told me that if I had been thin, not chubby, I would have died. But I wasn’t alone. That same night that I was released, abu Jidyan’s men fired five bullets into the legs of one of my relatives. We were in the same ward in the hospital.”

Dahlan says he did not order al-Jasser’s torture: “The only order I gave was to defend ourselves. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t torture, some things that went wrong, but I did not know about this.”

The dirty war between Fatah and Hamas continued to gather momentum throughout the autumn, with both sides committing atrocities. By the end of 2006, dozens were dying each month. Some of the victims were noncombatants. In December, gunmen opened fire on the car of a Fatah intelligence official, killing his three young children and their driver.

There was still no sign that Abbas was ready to bring matters to a head by dissolving the Hamas government. Against this darkening background, the U.S. began direct security talks with Dahlan.

“He’s Our Guy”

In 2001, President Bush famously said that he had looked Russian president Vladimir Putin in the eye, gotten “a sense of his soul,” and found him to be “trustworthy.” According to three U.S. officials, Bush made a similar judgment about Dahlan when they first met, in 2003. All three officials recall hearing Bush say, “He’s our guy.”

They say this assessment was echoed by other key figures in the administration, including Rice and Assistant Secretary David Welch, the man in charge of Middle East policy at the State Department. “David Welch didn’t fundamentally care about Fatah,” one of his colleagues says. “He cared about results, and [he supported] whatever son of a bitch you had to support. Dahlan was the son of a bitch we happened to know best. He was a can-do kind of person. Dahlan was our guy.”

Avi Dichter, Israel’s internal-security minister and the former head of its Shin Bet security service, was taken aback when he heard senior American officials refer to Dahlan as “our guy.” “I thought to myself, The president of the United States is making a strange judgment here,” says Dichter.

Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, who had been appointed the U.S. security coordinator for the Palestinians in November 2005, was in no position to question the president’s judgment of Dahlan. His only prior experience with the Middle East was as director of the Iraq Survey Group, the body that looked for Saddam Hussein’s elusive weapons of mass destruction.

In November 2006, Dayton met Dahlan for the first of a long series of talks in Jerusalem and Ramallah. Both men were accompanied by aides. From the outset, says an official who took notes at the meeting, Dayton was pushing two overlapping agendas.

“We need to reform the Palestinian security apparatus,” Dayton said, according to the notes. “But we also need to build up your forces in order to take on Hamas.”

Dahlan replied that, in the long run, Hamas could be defeated only by political means. “But if I am going to confront them,” he added, “I need substantial resources. As things stand, we do not have the capability.”

The two men agreed that they would work toward a new Palestinian security plan. The idea was to simplify the confusing web of Palestinian security forces and have Dahlan assume responsibility for all of them in the newly created role of Palestinian national-security adviser. The Americans would help supply weapons and training.

As part of the reform program, according to the official who was present at the meetings, Dayton said he wanted to disband the Preventive Security Service, which was widely known to be engaged in kidnapping and torture. At a meeting in Dayton’s Jerusalem office in early December, Dahlan ridiculed the idea. “The only institution now protecting Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in Gaza is the one you want removed,” he said.

Dayton softened a little. “We want to help you,” he said. “What do you need?”

“Iran-Contra 2.0”

Under Bill Clinton, Dahlan says, commitments of security assistance “were always delivered, absolutely.” Under Bush, he was about to discover, things were different. At the end of 2006, Dayton promised an immediate package worth $86.4 million—money that, according to a U.S. document published by Reuters on January 5, 2007, would be used to “dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza.” U.S. officials even told reporters the money would be transferred “in the coming days.”

The cash never arrived. “Nothing was disbursed,” Dahlan says. “It was approved and it was in the news. But we received not a single penny.”

Any notion that the money could be transferred quickly and easily had died on Capitol Hill, where the payment was blocked by the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Its members feared that military aid to the Palestinians might end up being turned against Israel.

Dahlan did not hesitate to voice his exasperation. “I spoke to Condoleezza Rice on several occasions,” he says. “I spoke to Dayton, to the consul general, to everyone in the administration I knew. They said, ‘You have a convincing argument.’ We were sitting in Abbas’s office in Ramallah, and I explained the whole thing to Condi. And she said, ‘Yes, we have to make an effort to do this. There’s no other way.’ ” At some of these meetings, Dahlan says, Assistant Secretary Welch and Deputy National-Security Adviser Abrams were also present.

The administration went back to Congress, and a reduced, $59 million package for nonlethal aid was approved in April 2007. But as Dahlan knew, the Bush team had already spent the past months exploring alternative, covert means of getting him the funds and weapons he wanted. The reluctance of Congress meant that “you had to look for different pots, different sources of money,” says a Pentagon official.

A State Department official adds, “Those in charge of implementing the policy were saying, ‘Do whatever it takes. We have to be in a position for Fatah to defeat Hamas militarily, and only Muhammad Dahlan has the guile and the muscle to do this.’ The expectation was that this was where it would end up—with a military showdown.” There were, this official says, two “parallel programs”—the overt one, which the administration took to Congress, “and a covert one, not only to buy arms but to pay the salaries of security personnel.”

Israel and the Palestinian territories. Map by Joyce Pendola.

In essence, the program was simple. According to State Department officials, beginning in the latter part of 2006, Rice initiated several rounds of phone calls and personal meetings with leaders of four Arab nations—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. She asked them to bolster Fatah by providing military training and by pledging funds to buy its forces lethal weapons. The money was to be paid directly into accounts controlled by President Abbas.

The scheme bore some resemblance to the Iran-contra scandal, in which members of Ronald Reagan’s administration sold arms to Iran, an enemy of the U.S. The money was used to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua, in violation of a congressional ban. Some of the money for the contras, like that for Fatah, was furnished by Arab allies as a result of U.S. lobbying.

But there are also important differences—starting with the fact that Congress never passed a measure expressly prohibiting the supply of aid to Fatah and Dahlan. “It was close to the margins,” says a former intelligence official with experience in covert programs. “But it probably wasn’t illegal.”

Legal or not, arms shipments soon began to take place. In late December 2006, four Egyptian trucks passed through an Israeli-controlled crossing into Gaza, where their contents were handed over to Fatah. These included 2,000 Egyptian-made automatic rifles, 20,000 ammunition clips, and two million bullets. News of the shipment leaked, and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, an Israeli Cabinet member, said on Israeli radio that the guns and ammunition would give Abbas “the ability to cope with those organizations which are trying to ruin everything”—namely, Hamas.

Avi Dichter points out that all weapons shipments had to be approved by Israel, which was understandably hesitant to allow state-of-the-art arms into Gaza. “One thing’s for sure, we weren’t talking about heavy weapons,” says a State Department official. “It was small arms, light machine guns, ammunition.”

Perhaps the Israelis held the Americans back. Perhaps Elliott Abrams himself held back, unwilling to run afoul of U.S. law for a second time. One of his associates says Abrams, who declined to comment for this article, felt conflicted over the policy—torn between the disdain he felt for Dahlan and his overriding loyalty to the administration. He wasn’t the only one: “There were severe fissures among neoconservatives over this,” says Cheney’s former adviser David Wurmser. “We were ripping each other to pieces.”

During a trip to the Middle East in January 2007, Rice found it difficult to get her partners to honor their pledges. “The Arabs felt the U.S. was not serious,” one official says. “They knew that if the Americans were serious they would put their own money where their mouth was. They didn’t have faith in America’s ability to raise a real force. There was no follow-through. Paying was different than pledging, and there was no plan.”

This official estimates that the program raised “a few payments of $30 million”—most of it, as other sources agree, from the United Arab Emirates. Dahlan himself says the total was only $20 million, and confirms that “the Arabs made many more pledges than they ever paid.” Whatever the exact amount, it was not enough.

Plan B

On February 1, 2007, Dahlan took his “very clever warfare” to a new level when Fatah forces under his control stormed the Islamic University of Gaza, a Hamas stronghold, and set several buildings on fire. Hamas retaliated the next day with a wave of attacks on police stations.

Unwilling to preside over a Palestinian civil war, Abbas blinked. For weeks, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had been trying to persuade him to meet with Hamas in Mecca and formally establish a national unity government. On February 6, Abbas went, taking Dahlan with him. Two days later, with Hamas no closer to recognizing Israel, a deal was struck.

Under its terms, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas would remain prime minister while allowing Fatah members to occupy several important posts. When the news hit the streets that the Saudis had promised to pay the Palestinian Authority’s salary bills, Fatah and Hamas members in Gaza celebrated together by firing their Kalashnikovs into the air.

Once again, the Bush administration had been taken by surprise. According to a State Department official, “Condi was apoplectic.” A remarkable documentary record, revealed here for the first time, shows that the U.S. responded by redoubling the pressure on its Palestinian allies.

The State Department quickly drew up an alternative to the new unity government. Known as “Plan B,” its objective, according to a State Department memo that has been authenticated by an official who knew of it at the time, was to “enable [Abbas] and his supporters to reach a defined endgame by the end of 2007 The endgame should produce a [Palestinian Authority] government through democratic means that accepts Quartet principles.”

Like the Walles ultimatum of late 2006, Plan B called for Abbas to “collapse the government” if Hamas refused to alter its attitude toward Israel. From there, Abbas could call early elections or impose an emergency government. It is unclear whether, as president, Abbas had the constitutional authority to dissolve an elected government led by a rival party, but the Americans swept that concern aside.

Security considerations were paramount, and Plan B had explicit prescriptions for dealing with them. For as long as the unity government remained in office, it was essential for Abbas to maintain “independent control of key security forces.” He must “avoid Hamas integration with these services, while eliminating the Executive Force or mitigating the challenges posed by its continued existence.”

In a clear reference to the covert aid expected from the Arabs, the memo made this recommendation for the next six to nine months: “Dahlan oversees effort in coordination with General Dayton and Arab [nations] to train and equip 15,000-man force under President Abbas’s control to establish internal law and order, stop terrorism and deter extralegal forces.”

The Bush administration’s goals for Plan B were elaborated in a document titled “An Action Plan for the Palestinian Presidency.” This action plan went through several drafts and was developed by the U.S., the Palestinians, and the government of Jordan. Sources agree, however, that it originated in the State Department.

The early drafts stressed the need for bolstering Fatah’s forces in order to “deter” Hamas. The “desired outcome” was to give Abbas “the capability to take the required strategic political decisions … such as dismissing the cabinet, establishing an emergency cabinet.”

The drafts called for increasing the “level and capacity” of 15,000 of Fatah’s existing security personnel while adding 4,700 troops in seven new “highly trained battalions on strong policing.” The plan also promised to arrange “specialized training abroad,” in Jordan and Egypt, and pledged to “provide the security personnel with the necessary equipment and arms to carry out their missions.”

A detailed budget put the total cost for salaries, training, and “the needed security equipment, lethal and non-lethal,” at $1.27 billion over five years. The plan states: “The costs and overall budget were developed jointly with General Dayton’s team and the Palestinian technical team for reform”—a unit established by Dahlan and led by his friend and policy aide Bassil Jaber. Jaber confirms that the document is an accurate summary of the work he and his colleagues did with Dayton. “The plan was to create a security establishment that could protect and strengthen a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with Israel,” he says.

The final draft of the Action Plan was drawn up in Ramallah by officials of the Palestinian Authority. This version was identical to the earlier drafts in all meaningful ways but one: it presented the plan as if it had been the Palestinians’ idea. It also said the security proposals had been “approved by President Mahmoud Abbas after being discussed and agreed [to] by General Dayton’s team.”

On April 30, 2007, a portion of one early draft was leaked to a Jordanian newspaper, Al-Majd. The secret was out. From Hamas’s perspective, the Action Plan could amount to only one thing: a blueprint for a U.S.-backed Fatah coup.

“We Are Late in the Ball Game Here”

The formation of the unity government had brought a measure of calm to the Palestinian territories, but violence erupted anew after Al-Majd published its story on the Action Plan. The timing was unkind to Fatah, which, to add to its usual disadvantages, was without its security chief. Ten days earlier, Dahlan had left Gaza for Berlin, where he’d had surgery on both knees. He was due to spend the next eight weeks convalescing.

In mid-May, with Dahlan still absent, a new element was added to Gaza’s toxic mix when 500 Fatah National Security Forces recruits arrived, fresh from training in Egypt and equipped with new weapons and vehicles. “They had been on a crash course for 45 days,” Dahlan says. “The idea was that we needed them to go in dressed well, equipped well, and that might create the impression of new authority.” Their presence was immediately noticed, not only by Hamas but by staff from Western aid agencies. “They had new rifles with telescopic sights, and they were wearing black flak jackets,” says a frequent visitor from Northern Europe. “They were quite a contrast to the usual scruffy lot.”

On May 23, none other than Lieutenant General Dayton discussed the new unit in testimony before the House Middle East subcommittee. Hamas had attacked the troops as they crossed into Gaza from Egypt, Dayton said, but “these 500 young people, fresh out of basic training, were organized. They knew how to work in a coordinated fashion. Training does pay off. And the Hamas attack in the area was, likewise, repulsed.”

The troops’ arrival, Dayton said, was one of several “hopeful signs” in Gaza. Another was Dahlan’s appointment as national-security adviser. Meanwhile, he said, Hamas’s Executive Force was becoming “extremely unpopular I would say that we are kind of late in the ball game here, and we are behind, there’s two out, but we have our best clutch hitter at the plate, and the pitcher is beginning to tire on the opposing team.”

The opposing team was stronger than Dayton realized. By the end of May 2007, Hamas was mounting regular attacks of unprecedented boldness and savagery.

At an apartment in Ramallah that Abbas has set aside for wounded refugees from Gaza, I meet a former Fatah communications officer named Tariq Rafiyeh. He lies paralyzed from a bullet he took to the spine during the June coup, but his suffering began two weeks earlier. On May 31, he was on his way home with a colleague when they were stopped at a roadblock, robbed of their money and cell phones, and taken to a mosque. There, despite the building’s holy status, Hamas Executive Force members were violently interrogating Fatah detainees. “Late that night one of them said we were going to be released,” Rafiyeh recalls. “He told the guards, ‘Be hospitable, keep them warm.’ I thought that meant kill us. Instead, before letting us go they beat us badly.”

On June 7, there was another damaging leak, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Abbas and Dayton had asked Israel to authorize the biggest Egyptian arms shipment yet—to include dozens of armored cars, hundreds of armor-piercing rockets, thousands of hand grenades, and millions of rounds of ammunition. A few days later, just before the next batch of Fatah recruits was due to leave for training in Egypt, the coup began in earnest.

Fatah’s Last Stand

The Hamas leadership in Gaza is adamant that the coup would not have happened if Fatah had not provoked it. Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas’s chief spokesman, says the leak in Al-Majd convinced the party that “there was a plan, approved by America, to destroy the political choice.” The arrival of the first Egyptian-trained fighters, he adds, was the “reason for the timing.” About 250 Hamas members had been killed in the first six months of 2007, Barhoum tells me. “Finally we decided to put an end to it. If we had let them stay loose in Gaza, there would have been more violence.”

“Everyone here recognizes that Dahlan was trying with American help to undermine the results of the elections,” says Mahmoud Zahar, the former foreign minister for the Haniyeh government, who now leads Hamas’s militant wing in Gaza. “He was the one planning a coup.”

Zahar and I speak inside his home in Gaza, which was rebuilt after a 2003 Israeli air strike destroyed it, killing one of his sons. He tells me that Hamas launched its operations in June with a limited objective: “The decision was only to get rid of the Preventive Security Service. They were the ones out on every crossroads, putting anyone suspected of Hamas involvement at risk of being tortured or killed.” But when Fatah fighters inside a surrounded Preventive Security office in Jabaliya began retreating from building to building, they set off a “domino effect” that emboldened Hamas to seek broader gains.

Many armed units that were nominally loyal to Fatah did not fight at all. Some stayed neutral because they feared that, with Dahlan absent, his forces were bound to lose. “I wanted to stop the cycle of killing,” says Ibrahim abu al-Nazar, a veteran party chief. “What did Dahlan expect? Did he think the U.S. Navy was going to come to Fatah’s rescue? They promised him everything, but what did they do? But he also deceived them. He told them he was the strongman of the region. Even the Americans may now feel sad and frustrated. Their friend lost the battle.”

Others who stayed out of the fight were extremists. “Fatah is a large movement, with many schools inside it,” says Khalid Jaberi, a commander with Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, which continue to fire rockets into Israel from Gaza. “Dahlan’s school is funded by the Americans and believes in negotiations with Israel as a strategic choice. Dahlan tried to control everything in Fatah, but there are cadres who could do a much better job. Dahlan treated us dictatorially. There was no overall Fatah decision to confront Hamas, and that’s why our guns in al-Aqsa are the cleanest. They are not corrupted by the blood of our people.”

Jaberi pauses. He spent the night before our interview awake and in hiding, fearful of Israeli air strikes. “You know,” he says, “since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise.”

The fighting was over in less than five days. It began with attacks on Fatah security buildings, in and around Gaza City and in the southern town of Rafah. Fatah attempted to shell Prime Minister Haniyeh’s house, but by dusk on June 13 its forces were being routed.

Years of oppression by Dahlan and his forces were avenged as Hamas chased down stray Fatah fighters and subjected them to summary execution. At least one victim was reportedly thrown from the roof of a high-rise building. By June 16, Hamas had captured every Fatah building, as well as Abbas’s official Gaza residence. Much of Dahlan’s house, which doubled as his office, was reduced to rubble.

Fatah’s last stand, predictably enough, was made by the Preventive Security Service. The unit sustained heavy casualties, but a rump of about 100 surviving fighters eventually made it to the beach and escaped in the night by fishing boat.

At the apartment in Ramallah, the wounded struggle on. Unlike Fatah, Hamas fired exploding bullets, which are banned under the Geneva Conventions. Some of the men in the apartment were shot with these rounds 20 or 30 times, producing unimaginable injuries that required amputation. Several have lost both legs.

The coup has had other costs. Amjad Shawer, a local economist, tells me that Gaza had 400 functioning factories and workshops at the start of 2007. By December, the intensified Israeli blockade had caused 90 percent of them to close. Seventy percent of Gaza’s population is now living on less than $2 a day.

Israel, meanwhile, is no safer. The emergency pro-peace government called for in the secret Action Plan is now in office—but only in the West Bank. In Gaza, the exact thing both Israel and the U.S. Congress warned against came to pass when Hamas captured most of Fatah’s arms and ammunition—including the new Egyptian guns supplied under the covert U.S.-Arab aid program.

Now that it controls Gaza, Hamas has given free rein to militants intent on firing rockets into neighboring Israeli towns. “We are still developing our rockets; soon we shall hit the heart of Ashkelon at will,” says Jaberi, the al-Aqsa commander, referring to the Israeli city of 110,000 people 12 miles from Gaza’s border. “I assure you, the time is near when we will mount a big operation inside Israel, in Haifa or Tel Aviv.”

On January 23, Hamas blew up parts of the wall dividing Gaza from Egypt, and tens of thousands of Palestinians crossed the border. Militants had already been smuggling weapons through a network of underground tunnels, but the breach of the wall made their job much easier—and may have brought Jaberi’s threat closer to reality.

George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice continue to push the peace process, but Avi Dichter says Israel will never conclude a deal on Palestinian statehood until the Palestinians reform their entire law-enforcement system—what he calls “the chain of security.” With Hamas in control of Gaza, there appears to be no chance of that happening. “Just look at the situation,” says Dahlan. “They say there will be a final-status agreement in eight months? No way.”

“An Institutional Failure”

How could the U.S. have played Gaza so wrong? Neocon critics of the administration—who until last year were inside it—blame an old State Department vice: the rush to anoint a strongman instead of solving problems directly. This ploy has failed in places as diverse as Vietnam, the Philippines, Central America, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, during its war against Iran. To rely on proxies such as Muhammad Dahlan, says former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, is “an institutional failure, a failure of strategy.” Its author, he says, was Rice, “who, like others in the dying days of this administration, is looking for legacy. Having failed to heed the warning not to hold the elections, they tried to avoid the result through Dayton.”

With few good options left, the administration now appears to be rethinking its blanket refusal to engage with Hamas. Staffers at the National Security Council and the Pentagon recently put out discreet feelers to academic experts, asking them for papers describing Hamas and its principal protagonists. “They say they won’t talk to Hamas,” says one such expert, “but in the end they’re going to have to. It’s inevitable.”

It is impossible to say for sure whether the outcome in Gaza would have been any better—for the Palestinian people, for the Israelis, and for America’s allies in Fatah—if the Bush administration had pursued a different policy. One thing, however, seems certain: it could not be any worse.

David Rose is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The Proof Is in the Paper Trail While reporting “The Gaza Bombshell,” David Rose acquired an extraordinary trove of documents showing how the U.S. pressured its Palestinian allies to take on Hamas—a strategy that proved disastrous when Hamas staged what appears to have been a pre-emptive coup in Gaza last June. Here are some of the key records he discovered. WEB EXCLUSIVE March 5, 2008 Web special: Michael Hogan interviews David Rose. var FO_hiddenPlayer = { movie:"/images/flash/media/HiddenPlayer.swf", width:"1", height:"1", majorversion:"7", build:"0", flashvars:"lcId="+MediaPlayer.getUid() }; UFO.create(FO_hiddenPlayer, "hiddenPlayer");

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

1 These “talking points” were left behind in Ramallah by a State Department envoy. Palestinian and American officials say they formed the basis for State Department official Jake Walles’s discussions with Palestinian president and Fatah party leader Mahmoud Abbas in late October or early November 2006. According to the memo, Walles urged Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-led government if Hamas refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, promising that the U.S. and its Arab allies would strengthen Fatah’s military forces to deal with the likely backlash from Hamas.

2 “Plan B” refers to a State Department strategy that was devised after Abbas made a deal in January 2007 to form a unity government with Fatah and Hamas—much to America’s dismay. This early, two-page draft, which has been authenticated by senior State Department officials who knew of its content at the time and by Palestinians who saw it in Abbas’s office, outlines possible scenarios for Abbas to expel Hamas from power and to boost his security forces to deal with the inevitable violent fallout.

3 Plan B evolved into this “action plan for the Palestinian Presidency”—a blueprint for a full-blown coup against Abbas’s own unity government. This was one of several drafts presented by a joint American-Jordanian team. Officials who were knowledgeable at the time say it originated with the State Department. Its security appendix reveals details of the secret talks between Palestinian strongman Muhammad Dahlan and Lieutenant General Keith Dayton.

4 The final draft of the action plan adopted large sections of the previous documents wholesale, but presented the plan as if it had been conceived from the beginning by Abbas and his staff. This draft has also been authenticated by officials knowledgeable at the time. Note especially the third section, on security.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love' (King, 1958, pp. 103-104)

Fire Is Born — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:06:22 EST

"One of this century's most celebrated nonviolent activists has been Martin Luther King Jr. The Alabama pastor achieved world prominence following his organisation of the Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s. Inspired by the example of Rosa Parks, Blacks, who were obliged to give up their seats to white passengers, started boycotting the bus system entirely. Under King's instructions to sustain 'Christian love'. the Blacks maintained nonviolent discipline in the face of terrorism from white extremists. Within a year the bus system had been desegregated.

King declared that 'The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love' (King, 1958, pp. 103-104); and he warned that the 'tactics of nonviolence without the spirit of nonviolence may become a new kind of violence' Yet, nonviolent tactics were important. Reflecting on matters in jail following his arrest during the Birmingham desegregation campaign, King responded to religious leaders of Alabama with a tone of despair. They had told him that 'When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets'. King, showing disillusionment with white moderates, answered in his acclaimed Letter From Birmingham City Jail that 'history is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily', hence the need for direct action."

Say No To War Toys - advice for after-holidays shopping

Fire Is Born — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:42:44 EST

Say No To War Toys

WAR IS NOT FUN & GAMES!!!
Every holiday season manufactures prey on our children with pro-war propaganda disguised as innocent toys. Don’t let your child be a victim of G.I. Joe! As you’re out buying holiday gifts, make a point this year to show little ones that war is not game. Set an example for the children in your life and use the opportunity to teach them non-violence. Below are great ideas and actions you can take to celebrate the Holidays ethically and Say NO to War Toys!
ATTENTION SHOPPERS!
Dress up in awesome pink camouflage gear or wear a fun holiday costume like an elf and stand outside stores that sell war toys with anti-war toy banners reminding gift buyers to shop responsibly. Hand out flyers to shoppers about why they shouldn't buy them and give them suggestions for alternative gifts they can purchase for the little ones in their lives. Click here to download flyers.

For even more holiday cheer sing some fun alterna-holiday songs.
Click here to download song sheets.
OPERATION STICK IT TO THEM…
Place "surgeon general-type" warning labels on war toys in the stores. Simple mailing labels that you can print off at home are perfect for this action. Use the samples below or get creative and design your own.
Download

Download

GET SOME CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Get a bunch of friends to go with you to each buy a war toy, and then go back to the store later to return them. Create long complaint lines, showing other customers (and hopefully you’ve called the media) why war toys are bad. Talk directly to store owners and managers and ask them to stop selling war toys. Tell them you and your friends are considering no longer shopping at the store if war toys continue to be sold. Make buttons that say, “Say No to War Toys” or “War is Not a Game” and offer them to the employees.

Promote stores that are not selling war toys and give those stores certificates of appreciation to put in their windows.

TEACH PEACE THROUGH PLAY
Ask your child’s teachers to talk about the negative impact of war toys and start a campaign to ban war toys on the school playground. Suggest a toy exchange for the school, where children turn in their war toys and get some cool, peaceful toy like a hot pink Frisbee. Make it a class project and involve the children in setting it up.

Click here to download a resource guide you can give to teachers to encourage them to use peaceful play alternatives in the classroom. POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
Talk to your child about violent toys and why they are harmful; then ask them to help you select a gift that promotes peaceful play to donate a gift to a program that provides holiday presents for children from families with limited resources.
GIVE A GIFT OF YOUR TIME
Rather than buying a gift for someone you love, make a beautiful coupon and give them a gift of your time ... either in the form of babysitting, helping to paint a room at their house or shoveling snow or garden work in the Spring, making them dinner, food shopping, teaching them some skill, or something else that they could really use help with! Your time with the gift recipient shows real caring, deepens your involvement with the recipient, and does not reward some manufacturer for making things that no one really needs (their tenth sweater or pocketbook or their newest hand-held electronic device).
GIVE AN INTANGIBLE GIFT
Your gift doesn’t have to end up in a landfill. Be creative: give dancing lessons, give tickets to the theater, invite friends to a movie or play that you all go together, or give a certificate for a massage!
MAKE SOMETHING
Have you ever wished you had more time to... draw, sew, paint, knit? If you can take some time, treat yourself to a local crafts course to learn to throw pots, knit scarves or make other personal items that you can give to people you love!
BUY LOCALLY
Find out about local merchants in your area to support, but go the extra step of finding out about the goods they carry and where they come from. Don’t shop at Wal-Mart! Look up specific brand names and where your dollars go:
http://www.responsibleshopper.org/orwww.coopamerica.org
BUY ETHICALLY
Globalize fair trade. If you don’t live in a hotbed of local merchants who give back to the community, you can still gift consciously. Check out Global Exchange's resources to help you find places where you can get fair trade gifts:http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade
OR, BUY NOTHING AT ALL!
Do you really need anything else? Why not exchange absolutely no presents at all! People may be put off for a moment at first, and you can see why. In the season of conspicuous consumption, asking for less, rather than more, is a radical act. They’ll understand when you show them this statement. For children, buy gifts that reflect your values--not violent gifts or violence-oriented video games. And sit down with your children to explain to them why the planet needs people to stop buying things that use up the planet's rapidly decreasing resources.

click click click!

Fire Is Born — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:22:34 EST

Rice, Bush, and Gaza - a very long April 2008 overview by David Rosen

Fire Is Born — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:26:46 EST

The Middle East

The Gaza Bombshell

by David Rose April 2008

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?printable=true&currentPage=all

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

by David Rose April 2008

To hear an interview with David Rose and to see documents he uncovered, click here.

Abu Dan had no way of knowing it, but his tormentors had a secret ally: the administration of President George W. Bush.

It’s “a tough situation,” Bush admitted. “I don’t know whether you can solve it in a year or not.” What Bush neglected to mention was his own role in creating this mess.

Preventive Security

Muhammad Dahlan at his office in Ramallah, January 2008. Photograph by Karim Ben Khelifa.

“Everyone Was Against the Elections”

In a speech in the White House Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, President Bush announced that American policy in the Middle East was turning in a fundamentally new direction.

The elections went forward as scheduled. On January 25, Hamas won 56 percent of the seats in the Legislative Council.

“Everyone blamed everyone else,” says an official with the Department of Defense. “We sat there in the Pentagon and said, ‘Who the fuck recommended this?’ ”

Afterward, according to the official, Rice underlined her position: “So we’re agreed? You’ll dissolve the government within two weeks?”

Rice got into her armored S.U.V., where, the official claims, she told an American colleague, “That damned iftar has cost us another two weeks of Hamas government.”

“We Will Be There to Support You”

The “talking points” memo, left behind by a State Department envoy, urging Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to confront Hamas. Enlarge this. Page 2.

The result was becoming apparent: Fatah could not control Gaza’s streets—or even protect its own personnel.

Fearing for her life, she fled across the border and then into the West Bank, with only the clothes she was wearing and her passport, driver’s license, and credit card.

“Very Clever Warfare”

There was still no sign that Abbas was ready to bring matters to a head by dissolving the Hamas government. Against this darkening background, the U.S. began direct security talks with Dahlan.

“He’s Our Guy”

“We need to reform the Palestinian security apparatus,” Dayton said, according to the notes. “But we also need to build up your forces in order to take on Hamas.”

Dayton softened a little. “We want to help you,” he said. “What do you need?”

“Iran-Contra 2.0”

The cash never arrived. “Nothing was disbursed,” Dahlan says. “It was approved and it was in the news. But we received not a single penny.”

Israel and the Palestinian territories. Map by Joyce Pendola.

Plan B

“We Are Late in the Ball Game Here”

The opposing team was stronger than Dayton realized. By the end of May 2007, Hamas was mounting regular attacks of unprecedented boldness and savagery.

Fatah’s Last Stand

“An Institutional Failure”

David Rose is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Recent links to "Hamas"

Fire Is Born — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:45:40 EST

I was moved and convinced by this article written by an Israeli who lives next to Gaza.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002661.html

“But I know the answer to our conflict will not come with this war. We will know peace only when we accept the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have every right to lives of dignity. We will know peace only when we recognize that we must negotiate with Hamas, our enemy, even if we are devastated that the Palestinians did not elect a more moderate party to lead them. We will know peace only when our leaders stop considering our lives cheap and expendable, and help us create a beautiful, green Negev, free of fear and despair.”

The writer is an Israeli, a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Work at the Sapir Academic College and program developer at the Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development.

Pinkslip Chenney here:

Fire Is Born — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:43:49 EST

Tell Cheney: SHAME ON YOU!

Cheney sees himself as top banana, and we need to tell him it's time to split.

Email Cheney this pink slip and tell him he's brought shame to the office and shame to our nation.

Cut and paste Cheney's email address in the form below: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Your Name: Your Email
(we will not record your email)

Review affirms President-elect's statement

Fire Is Born — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:52:47 EST

Statement from Obama Transition

Below is a statement from Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer:

"At the direction of the President-elect, a review of Transition staff contacts with Governor Blagojevich and his office has been conducted and completed and is ready for release. That review affirmed the public statements of the President-elect that he had no contact with the governor or his staff, and that the President-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions with the governor or his staff over the selection of his successor as US Senator.

"Also at the President-elect's direction, Gregory Craig, counsel to the Transition, has kept the US Attorney's office informed of this fact-gathering process in order to ensure our full cooperation with the investigation.

"In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release," said Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/statement_from_obama_transition/

Mexican mayhem: why we need smart, moderate drug decriminalization

Mike Serfas — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:55:26 EST

Today's news from Mexico is grimmer than ever: in the past two months gangs of thugs have gunned down 50 people in Tijuana, apparently in random terrorist attacks. This should remind us of the rampant violence in Nuevo Laredo in which at least 21 Americans were among those missing or were eventually found dead, thanks to a different drug cartel. Recent statistics credit as many as 5,400 deaths annually to the Mexican drug cartels, whose activities are primarily aimed at smuggling drugs into the U.S.

If we leave this issue to the traditional right wing, we know what they will offer us: higher walls, more border patrols, more money to Mexican anti-drug efforts. Never mind that the smugglers dig tunnels and many of the elite anti-narcotics officers trained at Fort Bennett are now called "Los Zetas", the vicious group responsible for the Nuevo Laredo trouble. The more money we throw at the problem the more violence and mayhem will ensue, but as long as those in power can tell their constituents that they are doing something, as long as they tell themselves that they are reassuring the public.

Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make good policy. Look at the history of China, which for millennia was the greatest empire on Earth. In 1729 the Emperor was annoyed by a few nobles smoking opium at court. By 1840 he was signing Unequal Treaties giving power to the drug smugglers. The harder the Chinese fought to ban drugs, the more profitable it became for the British to smuggle them in. The only thing that ended the nightmare was that the British, apparently no wiser than the Chinese, demanded after the second Opium War that the Chinese legalize the drug. About 40 years later the Chinese were producing all the opium they wanted, their opium usage began to decline, and other countries around the world started passing laws to prohibit the importation of opium... at which point, drug crimes began to plague the rest of the world.

After ninety years of Prohibition, groups like the Zetas have advanced military weapons and are beginning to pose a real threat to the U.S. that local police departments are hard-pressed to fight. Where will things go from here? Will we wait until they are crossing our borders and devastating whole towns, then copy the "security zone" policy Israel used in Lebanon and invade parts of Mexico? Will we wait until they have subverted branches of the government and have full use of weapons of mass destruction? Will we see the day when our country suffers the same national humiliation as the Chinese?

There is a better way. Though I think we should, we don't even have to legalize drugs. All we need to do is recognize a basic symmetry that is as clear as day to the source countries plagued by drug violence: in the international community, it is as irresponsible for a nation to be a net drug consumer as it is to be a drug producer. We should recognize that the extremely tough measures taken against people who grow or manufacture drugs in the U.S. have an effect on our neighbors to the south - a hill of corpses of innocent people from Tijuana and Laredo. We don't need to declare a full legalization to end this - just dial down enforcement against small scale domestic production of whatever people currently smuggle over the border from Mexico.

According to a 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article, smugglers buy marijuana in Mexico for $500 per kilogram and sell it for a little more than double that price in the U.S. All we have to do to put a complete stop to the smuggling is allow enough domestic production to lower the price here to $500 per kilogram. That isn't like a border interdiction policy where you stop 5% and 95% gets through - if the price is too low, no one can make a living by smuggling. All of these vicious gangs will be left with nothing to fight over. Smugglers also bring in methamphetamine, thanks to restrictive legislation that forces common cold medications to be sold behind the counter in the U.S. Since Mexico can't control precursors so carefully, a market has been created. Let's roll back those restrictions. I'm not saying that local "meth cooks" in American communities aren't a nuisance and a fire hazard, but according to an interview on A&E one of the more diligent drug makers was making $800 per week selling to 20 customers. That's not even a very good salary, let alone a threat to national security!

On the other end, we need to make sure that well-meaning efforts to be more compassionate on drug issues do not lead to increases in demand. However sensible it may be to allow drug users to get by with little or no penalty, it is not sensible to set this up while maintaining draconian penalties for those who fill this demand. Such a shortsighted approach can only lead to more crime and a backlash against "legalization". We must also speak out against cheerleaders for drug use, who are apt to turn up in the strangest places. For example, there has been an ongoing discussion of "neuroenhancement" at the leading scientific journal Nature, in which survey respondents and editorialists alike have been claiming that taking amphetamines like Adderall and Ritalin is a harmless way for college students to enhance their academic performance. I've added my comments to oppose this wild excess of misplaced enthusiasm - it's not easy to improve on evolution - but this cheerleading for amphetamine and related drugs has shown up in many news reports. Eventually this kind of glowing optimism will wind up in random shootings over trade routes to bring crude methamphetamine to people who have gotten addicted, unless we do something.

Obama, please: declare a goal of "no net import/export" for all drug contraband through moderate relaxation of prohibitions on domestic manufacture for drugs that are imported, or consumption for drugs that are exported.

Let's End Drug Prohibition. from WSJ By ETHAN A. NADELMANN

Fire Is Born — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:01:53 EST

THIS IS ANOTHER MUST READ, THIS TIME FROM A CONSERVATIVE "WALL STREET JOURNAL". LET'S BE AS RELENTLESS WITH ENDING THIS WAR AS WITH THE OTHERS.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

"(...}

Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

And look abroad. At Afghanistan, where a third or more of the national economy is both beneficiary and victim of the failed global drug prohibition regime. At Mexico, which makes Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park. And elsewhere in Latin America, where prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption undermine civil authority and public safety, and mindless drug eradication campaigns wreak environmental havoc.

All this, and much more, are the consequences not of drugs per se but of prohibitionist policies that have failed for too long and that can never succeed in an open society, given the lessons of history. Perhaps a totalitarian American could do better, but at what cost to our most fundamental values?(...)"

Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron estimates that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy

Fire Is Born — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:18:37 EST

"The war on drugs has helped turn the United States into the country with the world’s largest prison population. (Noteworthy statistic: The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population and around 25 percent of the world’s prisoners). Keen demand for illicit drugs in America, the world’s biggest market, helped spawn global criminal enterprises that use extreme violence in the pursuit of equally extreme profits.

Over the years, the war on drugs has spurred repeated calls from social scientists and economists (including three Nobel prize winners) to seriously rethink a strategy that ignores the laws of supply and demand.

Under the headline “The Failed War on Drugs,” Washington’s respected, middle-of-the-road Brookings Institution said in a November report that drug use had not declined significantly over the years and that “falling retail drug prices reflect the failure of efforts to reduce the supply of drugs.”

Cocaine production in South America stands at historic highs, the report noted.

Like other think tanks, Brookings stopped short of recommending a radical departure from past policies with a proven track record of failure such as spending billions on crop eradication in Latin America and Asia while allotting paltry sums in comparison to rehabilitating addicts.(...)"

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/12/03/einstein-insanity-and-the-war-on-drugs/

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

"Changes and progress very rarely are gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below. And the answer to what’s next depends on people like you."

Fire Is Born — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:10:19 EST

Noam Chomsky: “What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World”

World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discussed the meaning of President-Elect Barack Obama’s victory and the possibilities ahead for real democratic change at a speech last week in Boston. It was his first public appearance since the election. Chomsky has been a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for over a half-century and is the author of dozens of influential books. [includes rush transcript]

War on drugs in Mexico - last couple days

Fire Is Born — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:17:28 EST

Ex-crime chief arrested in Mexico

The ex-head of Mexico's anti-organised crime agency has been arrested as part of a probe into links to drug cartels.

Noe Ramirez Mandujano was held in an operation that has detained other senior officials.

The attorney general said Mr Ramirez accepted $450,000 (£304,000) from cartels and was offered a monthly fee for information.

Mexico's drugs crackdown this year has seen many arrests but thousands have also died in drugs-related violence.

Interpol head

The office of Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said Mr Ramirez had spoken to investigators voluntarily and was subsequently detained.

He took up his post as head of the Special Organised Crime Investigation Division in 2006 and resigned in July as part of a shake-up by President Felipe Calderon.

Mr Ramirez is the highest-ranking law official yet detained in Operation Clean-up, which was launched to try to curb corruption linked to drug smuggling.

Five senior officials and two federal agents have been held in the campaign. The arrests include the head of Mexico's Interpol office. Dozens of officials have been sacked.

On a visit to Chile on Friday, President Calderon said: "The Mexican government is firmly committed to the fight against organised crime and not just organised crime but corruption."

Mexican authorities have had success in arresting key members of drug cartels in recent months.

However across the country this year, more than 4,000 people have died in drug-related violence as gangs fight each other and the security forces.

The attorney general's office has particularly targeted links to the cartels of the Beltran Leyva brothers, who recently split from the Sinaloa organisation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7742409.stm

Published: 2008/11/21 16:35:14 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Heading for the First Hundred Days By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Fire Is Born — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:10:47 EST

"(...)CounterPunch Diary Heading for the First Hundred Days

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Looking back over the record since FDR, the pattern is discernible: declare war on something, or at least kill people; put a woman in the cabinet.

FDR: Day 1, declares war on fear; nominates Frances Perkins to be Secretary of Labor (the best we ever had).

Truman: Day 5, calls for Unconditional Surrender of Axis powers; Day 113, Drops A-bomb on Hiroshima.

Eisenhower: Day 23, refuses clemency to the Rosenbergs; Day 72, appoints Oveta Culp Hobby as head of HEW.

JFK: Day 41, announces Peace Corps and thousands of young Americans duly learn to sit crossed-legged on the ground, sowing seeds for bankruptcy of Medicare when knee replacements kick in 40 years later. Day 88, launches Bay of Pigs attack on Cuba.

LBJ: Day 8, creates a mass employment program known as the Warren Commission. Within hours tens of thousands of Americans are hard at work, challenging the Commission’s proceedings and drawing maps of Dealey Plaza.

Nixon: Day 57, launches secret bombing of Cambodia.

Ford: Day 4, declares war on inflation, “public enemy number one”.

Carter: Day 2, pardons Vietnam draft resisters; Day 89 announces National Energy Plan, raising domestic coal production to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Yes, President Obama, we have been here before. Better not stat talking about “malaise”.

Reagan: Day 66, declares war on corruption and inefficiency in government. This is going too far. Four days later Hinckley tries to kill him.

Bush Sr: Day 38, goes live on Chinese TV.

Clinton: Day 3, allows clinics to offer abortion counseling and abortions; Day 6, appoints Hillary head of his Health Reform task force.

Bush Jr: Day 3, ends funding of international centers offering abortion counseling an abortions. Day 40, declares big tax cuts for the rich; Day 47 bombs Baghdad.(...)"

READ ENTIRE DIARY HERE:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11142008.html

QUICL LINK IN COMMENTS:

"Strike Early; Think Big. What Obama Can Learn From FDR By ALLAN J. LICHTMAN "

Fire Is Born — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:04:59 EST

"(...) Now, we have a president-elect who possesses a complex, rich, rhythmic oratory, who often makes sense, and has added a progressive tone to a pragmatic outlook. Whatever his message, we may have to listen to Obama in a way we have not listened to a president in decades, not because some of his immediate predecessors have not been extremely gifted orators (both Clinton are), but because we may need to depend on this president more than we ever needed perhaps any president since FDR. Spare us a bunch of Slick Willies feeling our pain. Combining some elements of this campaign and time -- Obama’s rhetorical skill, the campaign themes and the sense of cause his campaign had to have to win, an economic situation looking chillingly like a depression, following a period of politics and government defined by the millennial trauma of 9/11, neglect of the people and reckless economic and imperial adventures -- it seems that Americans are trying to take back our government from plutocrats. The departing revolutionaries of the Right ended by displaying a deficient concept of justice and a strong preference for cash. One hopes that after the Democrats have finished their feeding frenzy of the spoils of office they will recognize the existence of a public with a few ideas of its own about justice and cash.(...)"

read the entire article here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lichtman11122008.html

THE BAILOUT SWINDLE

Fire Is Born — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:47:10 EST

Financing the Bailout A Holy Union for a Deuce of a Swindle

By ERIC TOUSSAINT

The bailing-out of private banks and insurances companies in September-October 2008 amounts to a strong political choice that was anything but unavoidable and that looms large on our future at several decisive levels.

First the cost of the bail-out is entirely supported by public instances, which will lead to a steep increase in the public debt[2]. The current capitalist crisis, which will extend over several years, possibly ten,[3] will result in a reduction of revenues for the governments while their liabilities will rise with the debt to be paid back. As a consequence, there will be strong pressures to reduce social expenditures.
North American and European governments replaced a rickety makeshift scaffolding of private debts with a crushing assembling of public debts. According to the Barclays’ bank in 2009 the euro zone European governments should issue new public debt securities to an amount of EUR 925 billion[4].

This is a staggering amount, which does not include new treasury bonds issued by the US, the UK, Japan, Canada, etc. Yet until recently these same governments agree that they had to reduce their public debts. Traditional parties all approved of this bailing-out policy that is intended to help large shareholders under the fallacious pretext that there was no other solution to protect people’s savings and to restore confidence in the credit system.

Such holy union means transferring the bill to most of the population, who will have to pay for the capitalists’ misbehaviour in several ways: less public services, fewer jobs, further decrease in purchasing power, higher contribution of patients to the cost of health care, of parents to the cost of their children’s education, less public investment… and a rise of indirect taxes.

How are bail-out operations currently financed in North America and Europe? The State gives good money to the banks and insurance companies on the verge of bankruptcy, either as recapitalisation or through the purchase of their toxic assets. What do the bailed-out institutions do with this money? They mainly buy safe assets to replace the toxic ones in the balance sheets. And what are the safest assets on the current market? Public debt securities issued by the governments of industrialised countries (treasury bonds issued in the US, in Germany, in France, in Belgium, you name it).

This is called looping the loop. The States give out money to private financial institutions (Fortis, Dexia, ING, French, British, US banks,...). To support this move they issue treasury bonds to which these same banks and insurance companies subscribe, while remaining private (since the States did not demand that the capital they injected give them any right to make decisions or even to be included in the voting process) and deriving new profits from lending out the money they have just received from the States[5] to these same States while of course demanding maximum return.[6]

This huge swindle is carried out under the law of silence. Omerta rules among protagonists: political leaders, crooked bankers, rogue insurers. The major media will not provide a full analysis of how the bail-out operations are financed. They dwell on details – trees hiding the forest. For instance the big question raised in the Belgian press about financing the recapitalisation of Fortis, which is taken over by BNP Paribas, runs as follows: how much will a Fortis share be worth in 2012 when the State intends to sell those it bought? Nobody of course can give a serious answer to such a question but this does not prevent newspapers from devoting whole pages to it. This is called distraction: the philosophy and mechanism of the bail-out operation are not analysed. We must hope that through the combined effect of alternative media, citizens’ organisations, trade union delegations, and political parties of the radical Left,[7] a growing proportion of the population will see through and expose this large-scale swindle. Yet it will not be easy to counter such systematic disinformation. (...)"

Columbia's minister of defenSe Juan Manuel Santos is "ready" to ask Barack Obama's team for more money for the failed "Plan Columbia" (BILINGUAL)

Fire Is Born — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:07:14 EST

"ONLY IN 2008 COLUMBIA RECEIVED US$543 millones - THAT'S FROM YOUR TAXES, AND THEIR PRODUCTION OF COCAINE HAS INCREASED BY 4% AND COCA LEAVES BY 12%. AND WE ARE PAYINE THEM FOR A PLAN TO DECREASE PRODUCTION BY 50 PRECENT.

WHO IS KIDDING WHO? fib

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Plan Colombia no cumplió
bbc.co

Jueves, 6 de noviembre de 2008

"Un informe dado a conocer este miércoles por el Congreso de Estados Unidos determinó que el Plan Colombia fracasó en algunos de sus objetivos para reducir los cultivos ilegales en ese país andino y recomendó además transferir al gobierno de Álvaro Uribe operaciones y fondos de algunos programas relacionados con la seguridad.

Según el documento, solicitado por el presidente de la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado, el vicepresidente electo Joe Biden, el objetivo de reducir el cultivo, procesamiento y distribución de drogas ilegales en un 50% durante seis años no se logró completamente.

"Desde el 2000 al 2006, los cultivos de amapola y la producción de heroína se redujeron un 50%, mientras que los cultivos de coca y los niveles de producción de cocaína se incrementaron un 15% y 4% respectivamente", dice el informe de la Oficina General de Contabilidad del Congreso (GAO por sus siglas en inglés).

Sin embargo, la GAO indica que Colombia mejoró "su clima de seguridad" gracias a las operaciones militares y policiales contra los grupos armados y contra sus finanzas.

Clima favorable

El informe se da a conocer en medio de un clima favorable a la reducción de la ayuda económica a Colombia, en parte por los graves problemas que atraviesa Estados Unidos a raíz de la crisis financiera global.

Sólo durante el 2008 Colombia ha recibido US$543 millones para el plan, lo que eleva a cerca de US$5.000 millones el monto desembolsado desde que fue implementado en 1999.

Algunos analistas también coinciden en afirmar que el escándalo en la cúpula militar colombiana debido a aparentes violaciones a los derechos humanos podría ser otro ingrediente que acelere la posibilidad de los recortes.

Este escándalo incluso le costó el cargo al comandante del Ejército, general Mario Montoya, quien se vio obligado a renunciar esta semana.

Aunque en Colombia no se ha producido una reacción oficial al informe, el gobierno defiende los logros del Plan Colombia y alega que esa estrategia ha impedido que la oferta de drogas ilícitas a Estados Unidos haya crecido en los últimos años. Y esta apreciación es respaldada por funcionarios de la agencia antidrogas DEA con los que ha hablado BBC Mundo.

Dará la pelea

Y en cuanto a un eventual recorte de los fondos que Estados Unidos aporta para el Plan Colombia, el corresponsal de BBC Mundo en Bogotá, Hernando Salazar, informa que el gobierno colombiano quiere dar la pelea.

El ministro de Defensa, Juan Manuel Santos, dijo que está dispuesto a ir a Washington para defender el Plan Colombia con el equipo del presidente electo de ese país, Barack Obama.

Santos dijo este miércoles que el gobierno colombiano espera que se mantenga "en lo posible" el nivel de fondos que aporta Estados Unidos a la estrategia, cuya segunda fase comenzó en 2007.

A diferencia de la primera fase, ahora la discusión por los aportes se hace cada año con las autoridades de Washington.

Nacionalización

Por otro lado, el informe de la GAO recomienda desarrollar un plan de nacionalización integral de programas dentro del Plan Colombia, lo que significa entregar responsabilidades y financiación de operaciones militares y no militares.

En todo caso, los esfuerzos de nacionalización deben concentrarse primero, según el informe de la GAO, en la brigada de aviación del Ejército y dos programas que incluyen a la Policía Nacional, también en su componente de aviación."

bbc.co

1654830

Religious leaders in Jerusalem are warning of dangerous consequences after a decision by Israel's Supreme Court to allow the destruction of part of an ancient Muslim cemetery.

Fire Is Born — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:15:45 EST

Row over Jerusalem Muslim cemetery

The Wiesenthal Center says the new building will cover only part of the cemetery

By Wyre Davies
BBC News, Jerusalem

Religious leaders in Jerusalem are warning of dangerous consequences after a decision by Israel's Supreme Court to allow the destruction of part of an ancient Muslim cemetery.

The graveyard has not been used for more than 50 years, but contains the bodies of some important Islamic figures.

Many of those bodies will now be disturbed to make way for a new Jewish "Museum of Tolerance".

Earlier this week hundreds of Muslims - young and old - marched through the centre of Jerusalem towards the city's Mamilla cemetery.

Police helicopters flew overhead and security was tight. The focus of the march, and of increasing Muslim anger, was the Israeli Supreme Court decision to sanction a controversial new building on part of the Muslim cemetery.

Outrage

Located just inside West Jerusalem, the cemetery is not used for burials any more but Muslim leaders made clear they still regard it as sacred, as they arrived for a rally reading verses from the Koran.

The $250m complex was designed by Frank Gehry (Image: Wiesenthal Center)

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Mohammad Hussein, led the peaceful but passionate demonstration.

He called the court's decision an "outrage" and "disrespectful of the dead".

The $250m (£160m) complex - designed by Frank Gehry - will be built by the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and is bold and ambitious.

Its sharp, futuristic lines will dominate the immediate area. In what is already a crowded city, Rabbi Marvin Hier, from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said the museum was a sensible use of "derelict land".

"Jerusalem is a city built on top of thousands of bones - Jewish and Muslim," he said. "If we declared the whole of Jerusalem one huge cemetery, we'd never be able to build anything."

He pointed out that only part of the graveyard would be demolished to make way for the new centre.

Mohammed al-Dejani says the cemetery is older than the US

Muslims disagree, and point out that the graveyard is still visited by the families of the dead.

"The cemetery is older than the United States - it's been used for hundreds of years," said Mohammed al-Dejani, whose great-grandfather is buried in the graveyard.

"Some of the warriors of Saladin [Muslim warrior who retook Jerusalem from the Crusaders] are buried there and other great Muslim leaders from many years ago."

Despite the strength of feeling among an increasing number of Muslims, there is no doubt that much of the cemetery is run-down.

Some graves have been vandalised - others are in a poor state of repair. The Simon Wiesenthal Center says that it will deal respectfully with any human remains it uncovers or graves disturbed by the building work.

Plans for cemetery have triggered angry protests Ruling in favour of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Supreme Court noted that no objections were lodged in 1960 when part of the graveyard was made into a car park.

Many of those opposed to the new building say that any proposal to build on top of a Jewish cemetery would never have been allowed.

Construction work has already begun in a corner of the graveyard. Dozens of bones have been dug up and no decision has been taken over what to do with them.

The cemetery is still a relatively quiet, peaceful place - but one which could become another dangerous flashpoint between Jews and Muslims in this divided city.

The War South of our border is escalating!

Fire Is Born — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:46:06 EST

IN THE LAST MONTHS I HAVE MADE SEVERAL POSTS ON THE SITUATION IN MEXICO, A COUNTRY WE BORDER WITH. IT IS NOT THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION THAT POSES THE GREATEST THREAT NOW. IN FACT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE CROSSING THE BORDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN CUT IN HALF, AS MANY REPORTS FROM THE BORDER TOWNS SEEM TO IMPLY. THE FENCE THAT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED THERE MAY WELL SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, ONE THAT HAS BECOME MORE ENGROSSING EVERY DAY.

DOES ANYONE PAY ATTENTION? ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE THE COSTLY WAR ON DRUGS THAT SOLVES NOTHING AND ONLY CREATES MORE OPPOSITION AND MORE INNOCENT CASUALTIES EVERYWHERE?

ADDICTION TO DRUGS IS ONE OF THE WORST SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF OUR TIMES. IT IS GROWING EVERYWHERE IN LATIN AMERICA WHEREEVER THE DRUGS COME FROM OR COME THROUGH. IT DECIMATES THE POOR IN THE POOREST AREAS NOT ONLY IN MEXICO, BUT everywhere.

ADDICTION IS NOT A CRIME!

ADDICTION TO ANY SUBSTANCE IS AN ILLNESS - PROGRESSIVE, DEADLY AND INCURABLE. THERE IS RECOVERY, YES, BUT NO CURE. YOU DIE FROM IT. OR GO TO JAIL. OR TO MENTAL INSTITUTION IN COUNTRIES WHERE SUCH LUXURIES ARE AVAILABLE. WHEN AN INCURABLE ILLNESS IS TREATED AS A CRIME IT IS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO RECOVER FROM IT.

LET'S END THE WAR ON DRUGS BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS IS A STEP TOWARD DECRIMINALIZATION OF OUR SOCIETY. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS WAR WHICH IS AS UNNECESSARY AS THE OTHER TWO.

Below I re-post an article by an anonimous author from today's SF Chronicle's Insight.

FIB

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Mexico's drug war can no longer be ignored

Sunday, November 9, 2008

"When the house next door is on fire, it's hard to ignore. Yet during a long American presidential campaign, Mexico's besieging drug war and its links to the United States drew little notice.

This is another war in which Washington has both a sizable stake and a serious chance of losing. In the past year, some 4,000 in Mexico have died via bombings, shootings and beheadings. A string of government officials, some handpicked for the fight, has been arrested for taking drug-gang payoffs. The violence, once spurred by drug-gang turf battles, is now aiming at random civilians as a warning to government leaders to back off.

Quelling this war won't be simple or easy, but it's essential. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has made ending narco-terrorism a centerpiece of his tenure. But he isn't winning. Surveys suggest Mexicans feel less safe than ever, as kidnappings and killings pile up. His efforts - which call for army troops to step in for corrupt local police - haven't yet paid off. When the country's interior minister died in a plane crash this week, the rumors instantly sprang up that it was the work of drug gangs, proof or not.

The Bush administration, which promised $400 million in helicopters and surveillance equipment last year, has yet to send the money because of a foot-dragging fight with Congress. This deadlock is about to end, and it's none too soon.

The recent months are the worst on record. Last weekend, 10 bodies were found in Tijuana, one of several border towns where ultraviolent gangs battle for control. But the pattern stretches nationwide: In August, 12 decapitated men were found in Yucatan state on the opposite end of the country. The next month, black-clad men tossed grenades into a crowd at an Independence Day gathering in the central Mexican city of Morelia, killing eight and injuring 100.

Consciously or not, the United States is fueling this fight. In this country, lax gun laws allow gangs to stock up on weaponry that matches that of the Mexican military. Border-state gun shops are armories for the gangs, and the sales have drawn protests by Mexican leaders to authorities in Washington.

Like guns, drugmaking chemicals flow south to aid the trade. More than anything, America's voracious desire for cocaine, heroin and meth feed the gangs that devise ever-changing drug routes through Mexico to a porous 2,000-mile border.

Mexican leader Calderon has sought to make the drug war a crusade. Along with deploying the army, he's pushed to rebuild the courts and law enforcement. He also favors wider drug treatment and easing penalties for small amounts of drugs. This lenience is a reflection of another drug-war reality: Addiction and drug abuse in Mexico has soared.

A string of White House figures - most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - has met with Mexican counterparts to share strategy. But these sessions aren't paying off. Drug gangs, ever more violent as longtime leaders are arrested and successors battle for control, are fighting back. Cross-border cooperation among law enforcement agencies to halt trafficking, gun sales and cash shipments is beginning to pay off, but the pace is still slow.

The easy answer is to paint Mexico as lawless and bought-off, a hopeless case when it comes to narco-terrorist crackdown. But the United States' problems with drug abuse, gang crime and even illegal immigration can't be solved without effective cooperation. The fire next door is too big to ignore."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/EDPI13TRD7.DTL

This article appeared on page G - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Libertarianism as tactic and goal

Mike Serfas — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:53:40 EST

It was a great feeling last night to join the cheering and applauding as we listened to the best speech John McCain has ever made. McCain changed his views on many, many issues to align with Bush, and in the end, he shared Bush's fate. But the next Republican assault will not come from this direction.

When we think of when the Republican Party was last increasing in power and prestige, it was in the time of Newt Gingrich, a candidate of great libertarian pretensions who spoke of free markets, balanced budgets and even a national referendum on drug legalization. One need only look to the lingering Ron Paul yard signs to recognize that this still carries a resonance with some Republicans. Of course, the Republicans never made any attempt to deliver on such rhetoric, and I don't believe they will in the future either, but I expect them to put on this masquerade and run a candidate who seeks to give this impression. (Note: I have since encountered http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/ - the prevalence of such ideas on that site even surpasses my expectations)

It isn't just to defeat the Republicans that Obama needs to seek libertarian input, but that certainly is a good reason on its own. He has said that he would reach across the aisle; but if he would contemplate appointing or seeking advice from any Republican he should consider the same for a Libertarian. (I should also note that the Green Party, despite its very different economics, also garners support from a libertarian stance on drug policy). I see three ways in which Obama and libertarians can work together to forestall the next Republican offensive.

I. Select sound libertarian proposals that Democrats are ready to hear right away. For example, we should emphasize the importance of allowing American companies free reign to experiment with low-THC industrial hemp beside Miscanthus and switch grass, because when one of these renewable biofuels reaches maturation we don't want to find out that all the crucial patents are held in China. Also, we should adopt the stance that a person suffering an addiction should be able to walk into a hospital and be assigned for treatment as easily as he could walk into a police station with his paraphernalia and be assigned to a cell.

II. Make the effort to describe traditional Democratic proposals in a more libertarian light. Don't say that we're "spending" money on a school; say that we are "investing" money in a school. Then make "quarterly reports" of how much classroom performance has improved, how many more kids are expected to make it to college, how their expected lifetime earnings potential has been increased, and how much estimated increase in tax return this should provide, so that you can actually tell the taxpayer that his investment is delivering a certain percent expected yield.

III. Outpace the Libertarians in libertarian theory. This is easier to do than you think. The Libertarian Party platform does not say one word about copyrights or patents. I have no idea what they think about Napster or Gnutella, YouTube or thumbnail images on a Google image search. But some individual Libertarians I've encountered have seemed unpleasantly dedicated to the maintenance of intellectual property rights even in preference to free speech rights. Ultimately, I think that easy trading of information online is forcing authorities to make a choice either to give up on the copyright mechanism of compensating authors or to give up on the idea of unmonitored free communications. I believe that in that choice the former option is by far the most preferable, since copyright can easily be replaced by other financial mechanisms with a strong free-market component. For example, people could be required to pay a tax equivalent on average to the sum of their current copyright royalty payments (such as on books, CDs, and movies) - then be given the choice to direct that money as they see fit to various organizations that compensate authors. By leading the Libertarians (and Republicans) in theory, the Democrats can gain control of how such issues are framed and debated.

I very much hope that Barack Obama will reach out to libertarian ideals, proposals, and voters before the Republicans do.

Sign Your Mail-in Ballot otherwise your vote won't be counted

Libertarians for Obama — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:33:31 EDT

Voters beware! please sign your absentee ballots or they will not count.

Supervisors of Elections across Florida are warning those with absentee ballots to sign the ballots themselves.

Many ballots canvassed today were rejected because they had no signature.

103 Hillsborough County FL absentee ballots flagged so far

Libertarians for Obama — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:21:49 EDT

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=11171@wfts.dayport.com

Reported by: Don Germaise
Email: dgermaise@abcactionnews.com

TAMPA, FL -- 103 absentee ballots out of 10,000 filed so far in Hillsborough County have been flagged for irregularities. The Hillsborough County Canvassing Board rejected 91 of those, saying they will not count in the November 4th General Election.

Canvassing Board member Kevin White told ABCActionNews.com that 51 of 103 ballots canvassed today were rejected because they had no signature.

White, who is a Hillsborough County Commissioner, is warning those with absentee ballots to sign the ballots themselves, or they will not count.

Other problems with the ballots were signatures that didn't match what was on file and signatures that didn't match the name on the ballot.

Concerns in Pinellas County FL about Early Voting Suppression, Long Lines

Libertarians for Obama — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:58:35 EDT

http://www.ercpinellas.org/newsblog.htm?blogentryid=4174770

Watch Video at YouTube

Concern in Pinellas County about early voting sites

Video

Reported by: Keith Baker
Email: kbaker@abcactionnews.com

Voters wait in line at a Largo early voting location

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL -- Some voters in Pinellas County are concerned about the number of locations for early voting with only three sites. As a result of the robust turnout, voters are upset, saying they feel their right to vote early is being suppressed.

More than 600,000 are registered to vote in Pinellas County, with many voters opting to vote early creating lines in some cases.

One voter says a woman in a wheelchair couldn't wait for the hour it was taking to move through so she left the line and was joined by two others.

A Democratic National Committee leader is calling for a Grand Jury to investigate Pinellas and Manatee Counties to find out why so few voting locations were assigned for early voting.

The Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections said she didn't feel there was any merit to the need for an investigation and is confident that the current early voting program is in the best interest of Pinellas County.

Manatee County has one early voting location. The other counties with the number of designated early voting locations in the Tampa Bay Region are:

Hillsborough 13

Sarasota 7

Pasco 7

Polk 6

Vote early! It is likely that you can.

Fire Is Born — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:33:38 EDT

Vote early! It is likely that you can.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/fib/gGgDcR

There IS early voting in California too!

Fire Is Born — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:20:42 EDT

Early Vote in California From now through November 3, you can cast your vote early. It's easy and convenient. Find your polling location now. I HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT TODAY ONLY. DO NOT BELIEVe WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU. THEY MAY BE IGNORANT. OR WORSE. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER AND CHECKED WITH MY SOS OF CALIFORNIA, AND I HAVE THE LIST OF ALL STATES' SOS ON MY BLOG TOO.
AND FROM TOMORROW ON WEAR ALL YOU OBAMA BUTTONS ON YOU! LET'S OUT-BUTTON THE OPPONENTS AND OUTSHINE EVEN THE HALLOWEEN PARTIERS.
THIS LINK ABOVE IS GREAT, BUT THEY ONLY GIVE YOU CAR DIRECTIONS TO THE PLACE. PEOPLE, GET GREENER FASTER! BESIDES, i DO NOT HAVE A CAR.
HAPPY EARLY VOTING! TELL YOUR FRIENDS TOO, PLEASE. THERE ARE MANY REASONS TO VOTE EARLY. ON NOVEMBER 4TH YOU WILL BE FREE TO HELP OTHERS VOTE. OBAMA/BIDEN 08

Even Conservative Republicans are favoring Obama

Libertarians for Obama — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:50 EDT

The rise of the Obamacons

Oct 23rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama

Illustration by KAL

IN “W.”, his biopic about his Yale classmate, Oliver Stone details Colin Powell’s agonies during George Bush’s first term. Throughout the film Mr Powell repeatedly raises doubts about the invasion of Iraq—and is repeatedly overruled by the ghoulish trio of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. In one of the final scenes, with his direst warnings proving correct, Mr Powell turns to Mr Cheney and delivers a heartfelt “F*** You”.

The real Colin Powell used more diplomatic language in endorsing Barack Obama on October 19th, but the impact was much the same. Mr Obama is a “transformational figure”, he mildly said, and his old friend John McCain had erred in choosing a neophyte as a running-mate. But you would have to be naive not to see the endorsement as a verdict on the Bush years.

Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement.

The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.

But the army has many other brigades, too: repentant neocons such as Francis Fukuyama, legal scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, and conservative talk-show hosts such as Michael Smerconish. And it is picking up unexpected new recruits as the campaign approaches its denouement. Many disillusioned Republicans hoped that Mr McCain would provide a compass for a party that has lost its way, but now feel that the compass has gone haywire. Kenneth Adelman, who once described the invasion of Iraq as a “cakewalk”, decided this week to vote for Mr Obama mainly because he regards Sarah Palin as “not close to being acceptable in high office”.

The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.

Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

How much do these Obamacons matter? More than Mr McCain would like to think. The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a “socialist”. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.

Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.

Don’t blame the rats

The more tantalising question is whether the rise of the Obamacons signals a lasting political realignment. In 1980 the rise of the neocons—liberal intellectuals who abandoned a spineless Democratic Party—was reinforced by the birth of working class “Reagan Democrats”. Is the Reagan revolution now going into reverse? There are reasons for scepticism. Will libertarians really stick with “Senator Government”, as Mr McCain labelled Mr Obama in the best slip of the tongue of the campaign? Will economic conservatives cleave to a president who believes in “spreading the wealth around”?

Much depends on how Mr Obama governs if he wins, and how the Republicans behave if they lose. Mr Obama talks about creating an administration of all the talents. He promises to take the cultural anxieties of Reagan Democrats seriously. For their part, hard-core Republicans are handling their party’s travails abysmally, retreating into elite-bashing populism and denouncing the Obamacons as “rats” who are deserting a sinking ship. If the Republican Party continues to think that the problem lies with the rats, rather than the seaworthiness of the ship, then the Obamacons are here to stay.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555

Why Libertarians (in swing states) should vote for Obama

Libertarians for Obama — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:36:45 EDT

Why Libertarians (in swing states) should vote for Obama as the lesser evil.

Article by Vaughn (Libertarian)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5264.html

Why Lovers of Liberty* Should Support Barack Obama

* In Swing States

Florida
Georgia
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Colorado
New Mexico
Virginia

I want to begin my first column for Nolanchart.com with a little personal history. In eight presidential elections since 1976, I've voted for one party Libertarian. In cases where a Libertarian wasn't available, I would usually vote for the Republican, considering that the lesser of the two evils. No longer. In the 2006 Congressional elections, I voted Democratic.

Why? In short, because George W. Bush and the Karl-Rove-dominated GOP has betrayed every ideal that Republicans and Libertarians have in common. They lied us into two unnecessary wars. They've busted the budget and bankrupted our country. They've gutted the Bill of Rights and spied on Americans, with the excuse of a hugely-exaggerated terrorist threat. And- this is probably most unforgivable - they've been complicit in the confiscations of guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

So it's my opinion that the GOP needs to be rebuked, strongly and decisively, even if it means voting for "the enemy." Now in my case, I may still vote Libertarian (despite my utter dislike of Bob Barr ) because I live in Arizona and I think it's quite unlikely that McCain will lose in his home state. The same goes in other states that are decisively for McCain or Obama . By all means, show your displeasure by voting third party, any third party.

But what about those states where the race is still up for grabs? In those states, I believe we should support the clear lesser evil: Barack Obama.

By now, all my Republican friends and colleagues are shouting "heresy!" (At the moment, I'm registered Republican myself- which I did so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary, naturally.) But I think I can list ten good reasons why libertarians and even conservatives should hold their noses and vote for Barack.

1. Much of the stuff going around about Obama on the internet is total nonsense. "He's a Muslim, he supports terrorism, he hates the flag." As Colonel Potter would say, "Horse-hockey!" I'll admit there's plenty to dislike about Obama's politics without resorting to lies. The man isn't THAT bad.

2.Obama has a more sane, even-tempered personality than McCain. McCain was a hot-head to begin with, then he spent five years in a POW camp, which will mess anyone up psychologically. I don't want John McCain's finger anywhere near the nuclear button.

3.Likewise, despite my strong dislike of Joe Biden, at least he's not Sarah Palin. The woman is unqualified to be dogcatcher, much less Vice President. She has indicated a willingness to go to war with Russia in support for Saakashvili's Georgia, a despotic regime in a small country with absolutely no strategic importance to the US.

4.The right-wingers say that despite Obama's flip-flops on the "war on terror" and US support for Israel, that he still holds to his radical anti-military views, and will immediately pull out of Iraq and end our "special relationship" with Israel. We can only hope! Look, we've got a presence in over a hundred countries, and we spend almost as much on our military as all other countries combined. Isn't that a little overkill?

5.Speaking of the Welfare Queen of the Mideast, if you've ever checked out the Israeli press online, the candidate who received the most vitriol was Ron Paul. The second most hated man was Barack Obama. Anyone who's that despised by the Israeli right wing can't be all bad. Look, I've got nothing against Israel, I'm just tired of supporting its government, which is influenced out of all proportion by the fanatical loud-mouthed Arab-hating settler community.

6.I'll admit it- either Obama or McCain could conceivably try to become dictator, but Obama is less likely to succeed. That's because the Right already hates him, and they're the ones with the guns. Anything McCain does, they're likely to accept like bleating sheep, because he's a "war hero" who will invoke patriotic rhetoric to justify his actions. His biggest foes would likely be in the Peace Movement. As much as I respect them, most of them are liberals who are far too wimpy to stage a revolution, should one (God forbid) become necessary.

7.With the public uproar over the bailout of Wall Street, it's likely we'll have a backlash against the Democrats in the House, the majority of whom supported that fiasco. So Congress could easily go to the Republicans. And a divided government is good for freedom =checks and balances and all that.

8.The American free enterprise system may not survive another corrupt big-government conservative administration. George W Bush has done more damage to capitalism than any president since FDR. His Social Security privatization plan was so flawed that it may be a generation or more before we have another crack at it. And the mortgage meltdown ? Forget the propaganda about the Community Reinvestment Act. The major cause was the Fed's super-easy money policy, enacted with Bush's support, to try to fix the economic damage caused by the Tech Bubble and the 9/11 attacks (which were in turn enabled by the criminal negligence of You Know Who.)

9.Obama is just plain smarter than McCain. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in the top ten percent of his class. McCain graduated from Annapolis near the bottom of his class. Voting for McCain is like telling your kids, "Don't study, do nothing but party in college, and you too can become President."

10.Our first Black President, how cool would that be? I'd rather it be Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or even Colin Powell- but still, it would say to the world that we're finally putting this racism stuff behind us.

-VT

"Real Libertarians" see Obama as a more "libertarian" choice than John McCain or Bob Barr

Libertarians for Obama — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:26:10 EDT

When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset for rational thinking. Combined this with his background as a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor who's favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War -- it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more "libertarian" than not.

A general definition of a libertarian is: "A libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."

Barack Obama's background favors many principles held by libertarians and Libertarian Party members.

Obama has the "libertarian" advantage over McCain (or Bob Barr for that matter):

-OBAMA Upholds the principals of individual liberty:

Advantage, Obama. For libertarians, Obama's heart seems to be in the right place overall.
Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and John McCain does NOT:

a ban on torture
gay rights
separation of church and state
privacy
free speech

-OBAMA Wants smaller government:

Advantage, Obama. Obama's favorable to withdrawl and ending the Iraq [war] occupation saving taxpayers $100 billion+ in war spending. McCain talks a good game on against earmarks and other wasteful spending. But, as Bleeding Heartland points out, the cost of earmarks in 2007 was about $17 billion. The cost of the Iraq war, which McCain wants to both continue and expand, is about $165 billion. And earmarks don't breed new government programs that destroy our civil liberties.

-OBAMA Supports lower taxes:

Advantage, Obama wants to lower taxes for MORE people (about 90-95% of taxpayers) that is everyone making less than $200,000 but raise taxes for those making over $250,000. McCain wants to lower taxes for the rich, and lower them less than Obama for the middle class. A hybrid plan would be nice, but unless you are in the "millonaire bracket" Obama's tax plan favors more people overall than McCain and one of McCain's top advisers recently said that, if elected, McCain plans to raise taxes too. (Historical Reminder: Republican George Bush Sr. said, "Read my Lips - No New Taxes" but eventually raised taxes after he was elected.)

-OBAMA Wants more personal freedom:

Advantage, Obama. Only one major candidate is pro-choice, against a ban on flag burning and wants to soften drug laws and reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences.

This week Barack Obama addressed the National Congress of American Indians' 65th Annual Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.

Fire Is Born — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:28:29 EDT

See the video here.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/nicole0827/gGgdMN/commentary#comment-gG2g5V

This was a very beautiful address! He will keep his promises as he has steadily built up his non-conformist and un-conventional relation with the tribes and his knowledge about them. In his address he has once again promised to support revitalization programs of Native American languages and other forms of tribal education.

Please donate through my fundraising which is dedicated to the linguistic diversity of America.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/FireIsBorn

Obama/Biden '08

Colin Powell endorsed Obama/Biden!!

James — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:22:48 EDT

Another Obamican!!

Yes We Can!!!!

Civic Duty

Tammy — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:05:05 EDT

Great advice from Eugene Jarecki of the Huffington Post on how to get more involved...

I recommend everyone take a few moments and choose to make a difference in your own sphere of influence.

Military Deployment Inside America???

Tammy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:05:23 EDT

Regardless of your party affiliation, I am asking everyone to stop a moment and think about the things you love that make this country great. I bet after you think a while, it all boils down to being able to live your live making your own choices and live what we think of as a normal life free of fear for making those choices: whether to be religious and how, having any kind of conversation with anyone, whether or not to own a gun, what kind of job you want, where you want to live, the kind of job or career you have, etc.

Let freedom ring again thoughout our great United States! For the last several years, we have been ruled by an administration that has instilled fear in us in order to rule us, an administration that has degraded the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution. Living in fear is not a free life and is instead a weakening of our great democratic republic. I ask you to contact your representatives and add your voice to mine. Say to them we want freedom, not fear, and demand they act to protect our freedoms. I share the below with you not to inspire fear, but instead to inspire patriotism.

I have recently heard some very disturbing news. On October 1st, what is sometimes called the Bush Brigade (brigade = 3000 - 4000 soldiers) was deployed somewhere inside the United States. this brigade reports directly to the president. In any other administration, I would give this action the benefit of the doubt. But our current president has shown that he has repeatedly been willing to lie to us and take illegal actions. Below is an excerpt from Naomi Wolfe's article on Huffington Post yesterday:

"First, the founding generation set a bright line to keep military from policing our streets in 1807 because they knew from their own experience how easily military forces -- King George's -- could subdue civilian society. The First Brigade is Bush's force: they are not answerable to Congress or to the Governors of states: they are answerable to the Commander in Chief. In an Alternet posting, I interviewed Air Force Colonel (retired) David Antoon who noted that the troops must obey the president, even if he asks them to arrest Congress or fire on civilians or attack media outlets. If they do not obey orders, he notes, they face five years in
prison.

We should not have to remind ourselves that these scenarios are unlikely to understand that this power is dangerous. Antoon himself calls the deployment 'ominous.' Troops on our streets makes us something less than a democracy: one definition of a police state is when a leader sends his own military units into civilian streets. Meanwhile the civilian policing of citizens is becoming more brutal. Hundreds of preemptive arrests took place in St Paul, dozens of journalists were arrested."

It is supposed to be illegal for these troops to enforce civil laws, but the president put a signing statement on the law that basically says he's going to ignore that portion of the law (found what I think is a conspiracy site after following a few links in the articles above, but the text quoted is directly from law documents). I'm not saying he has already used these troops, but the potential is there based on his disregard for personal liberties thus far:

"The use of U.S. troops in law enforcment duties is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, '(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'”

Again, I share this information not to cause panic or fear. I have faith in our people and our democracy, and we can choose to make a difference. Please support our lawful government, and contact your representatives.

McCain campaign tactics In a single word: Contrafalsy

Tammy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:18:02 EDT

Contrafalsy: a false controversy created to distract people from the more important issues at hand.

With the smears being laid thicker than usual by the McCain/Palin campaign in recent days, I had to coin a new term for them. And it's something that sadly, the McCain campaign might even proud of... Their VP candidate has become an expert at contrafalsy in record time.

Ayers and tonight's debate

Tammy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:29:28 EDT

Saw a lovely comment on MSNBC's First Read today that I just had to share:

Tonight is Barack Obama's chance to put the Bill Ayers distraction to rest. Even though candidates are "not supposed to ask each other direct questions" he can put McCain on the spot. Character issues will surely come up, and Obama can pivot to: "Senator McCain, weeks ago your campaign clearly implied that I called your running mate a pig when I used a common expression to describe your policies that you often used yourself. After creating quite an uproar, when later asked directly, you admitted that you didn't think I was referring to your running mate that way. Now she is going on and on about my Chicago neighbor who is very involved in education today but did some things I've described as despicable 40 years ago. So I ask you tonight to look me in the eye and tell me whether you think I share the beliefs that caused Bill Ayers to do what he did back when I was 8 years old." Make the Old Man put up or shut up.

Negative campaigning is an act of desperation and it won't work on the undecided voters who hold our future in their hands.

Obama/Biden '08

Tackman San Diego, CA (Sent Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:50 AM)

The Libertarian Case for Obama - 7 potential upsides to a hope-monger presidency

Libertarians for Obama — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:25:51 EDT

The Libertarian Case for Obama - Seven potential upsides to a hope-monger presidency

Terry Michael | September 19, 2008

For those who recognize that "libertarian Democrat" is no more oxymoronic than "libertarian Republican," a solid case can be made for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as a Leader of the Free World who won't take that American Exceptionalism conceit as seriously as "Country First" Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Sure, we'll have to endure four or even eight years of warbling by Barbra Streisand at White House dinners. And I am under no illusions: Obama has more Populist-Progressive than Madisonian inclinations. But, guys and gals, Ms. Wasilla is no less stomach-churning than Babs. And the actual Republican presidential candidate is even more authoritarian than his Progressive hero, Teddy Roosevelt. John McCain is no friend of Friedman.

Thus, seven reasons libertarians can hope for the best from Obama.

1. Sen. Obama has met at least one war he doesn't love. His early pronouncements against the criminal enterprise in Iraq are enough reason, in themselves, to vote his way on November 4. Anyone paying the least attention must conclude that Lt. McCain's "cause greater than self" always involves the Army, the Navy, and the United States Marines (not necessarily in that order.)

2. The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business, as I explained here.

3. One word: Osmosis. You couldn't live in Hyde Park or teach at the University of Chicago with the intellectual curiosity of a Barack Obama without gaining at least some understanding of libertarian economics. That can't be said for most of the reactionary left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party dominating Capitol Hill. But I believe Obama is educable on free markets and I'm convinced that Democrats are ripe for a return in the next decade to the liberalism of our party's founder, Thomas Jefferson (I made this case two years ago in my libertarian Democrat manifesto.)

4. Obama is the best hope for keeping government out of your bedroom and away from your body. As would any Democratic standard-bearer, the senator from Illinois represents the pro-choice, pro-gay rights side of the cultural divide. And he has at least made interesting soundings about reducing America's status as the world's number one jailer, much of which is tied to drug offenses and other crimes without victims. No libertarian can feel comfortable with a Republican candidate who doesn't echo the personal choices demanded by his supposed hero, Barry Goldwater.

5. The hidden hand did well this month punishing stupidity. But libertarians committed to free markets, not corporate oligarchs, must pause to consider the need for field-leveling regulation. More precisely, we should ask whether there was sufficient enforcement of reasonable restraints already in place. We need Republicans to stand against excessive tinkering in markets, of course. But my modest retirement fund may be safer with Democratic regulators in charge than rogue elephants.

6. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, we need to restore America's reputation around the world. Anybody who's traveled beyond the Atlantic and Pacific in the past eight years knows America needs a makeover. Whatever you think of Barack Obama—unless, like the mindless U!S!A! crowd, you don't care what the world thinks—he will restore much of the goodwill we have lost when he raises his hand on January 20, 2009. That's significant for libertarians who believe in the importance of the nation most committed to free markets and free minds—ours—leading by example. More-of-the-McSame in foreign policy is something we can't afford.

7. Finally, Barack Obama is smart enough to follow the aspirations of the Gen Y, Millenials, and Echo Boomers next up on the American political stage. They want choices in both their bank accounts and their bedrooms. I don't have much empirical evidence for that, though the college students I teach suggest that such libertarian leanings are on the rise. After all, a generation growing up with an explosion of mega-data-informed choices literally at its keyboard fingertips will resemble the self-sufficient, liberty-loving founders of the Agrarian Age more than they'll resemble the social welfare liberals of the Industrial Era who gave us one-size-fits-all central authority mandates.

The oldest candidate in American history won't inspire such potentially libertarian change—but the senator from Illinois can. It's change in which you and I can believe, whether or not we believe in any candidate, including Barack Obama.

Terry Michael is Director of the non-partisan Washington Center for Politics & Journalism and former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. He blogs at www.terrymichael.net.

Discuss this article online.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128902.html

The Language of Leadership

Tammy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:16:39 EDT

Deanie Mills makes some interesting observations about the qualities of fictional and factual leaders Huggington Post today:

"The seriousness of our situation has forced the media narrative to reflect reality for the first time, maybe, in a decade or more. The language of leadership is changing in a way that expresses that.

This is a moment in our history that will tell the true tale of our national character. Will we continue to indulge our weakness for mythology, or will we step up to who we really are as a people? We are made of much sterner stuff than it has seemed in recent years. Our politics has been dominated by the silly and the surreal, but those days are over.

That is not, as Obama says, who we are.

We are still the same people who struggled to settle a brutal new land, who fought against an occupying army for our independence, who bled and died to preserve the union and end slavery, who rode to the rescue of our allies in two terrible world wars, and who led the world in space-age innovation and crackling creativity.

We don't need fake heroes anymore. We are our own heroes. We've had enough drama and theatrics, and we know it. We're ready for a real leader, and we're ready to do our part to help save ourselves.

That is who we are. Not who the myth-makers pretend we are."

Right on Poway! From across the 15

Ron Paul Patriot — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:43:14 EDT

Post from POWAY for OBAMA!!!: Why you should hate the treasury bailoutBy Poway for Obama - Sep 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm EDT Also listed in: 10 groups Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content naked capitalism: Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal September 21st, 2008

I urge everyone to call your congress creatures and let them know this bailout plan is absolutely unacceptable. Paulson is nuts if he thinks anyone with a brain is going to agree to this. We need reasoned, rational, LEGAL control over this banking crisis, not a Treasury Secretary who thinks he is above the law. This entire Bush administration seems to be guilty of this, and I for one am damned sick of it. PLease go to the link and read the entire post — well worth it.

naked capitalism: Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal

A mere two weeks ago, the Fannie/Freddie rescue was called the mother of all bailouts by some commentators. If the plans of the Administration come to fruition, it will shortly be surpassed by the $700 billion mortgage rescue plan proposed by Hank Paulson late last week.

The increase of the request from the initial $500 billion and the release of the shockingly short, sweeping text of the proposed legislation has lead to reactions of consternation among the knowledgeable, but whether this translates into enough popular ire fast enough to restrain this freight train remains to be seen.

First, let s focus on the aspect that should get the proposal dinged or renegotiated regardless of any possible merit, namely, that it gives the Treasury imperial power with respect to a simply huge amount of funds. $700 billion is comparable to the hard cost of the Iraq war, bigger than the annual Pentagon budget. And mind you, $700 billion is not the maximum that the Treasury may spend, it s the ceiling on the outstandings at any one time. It s a balance sheet number, not an expenditure limit.

But here is the truly offensive section of an overreaching piece of legislation:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

This puts the Treasury’s actions beyond the rule of law. This is a financial coup d etat, with the only limitation the $700 billion balance sheet figure. The measure already gives the Treasury the authority not simply to buy dud mortgage paper but other assets as it deems fit. There is no accountability beyond a report contents undefined to Congress three months into the program and semiannually thereafter. The Treasury could via incompetence or venality grossly overpay for assets and advisory services, and fail to exclude consultants with conflicts of interest, and there would be no recourse. Given the truly appalling track record of this Administration in its outsourcing, this is not an idle worry.

But far worse is the precedent it sets. This Administration has worked hard to escape any constraints on its actions, not to pursue noble causes, but to curtail civil liberties: Guantanamo, rendition, torture, warrantless wiretaps. It has used the threat of unseen terrorists and a seemingly perpetual war on radical Muslim to justify gutting the Constitution. The Supreme Court, which has been supine on many fronts, has finally started to push back, but would it challenge a bill that sweeps aside judicial review? Informed readers are encouraged to speak up.

Richard Saunder has a good plan!

Ron Paul Patriot — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:27:14 EDT

Community Blogs Welcome, david.
Manage | Logout | Search Blogs Post from Richard Saunder's blog: Re. Richard Saunder's proposed alternative to the bailoutBy John from Conroe, TX - Sep 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm EDT Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Richard, I like your proposal to solve the current crisis. Seems like it would be much less costly than the bailout, without bailing anyone out:

Richard Saunders’ Alternative to the bailout

The current crisis is that the banks won't handle commercial paper because someone "broke the buck"- meaning they lost money on commercial paper. This commercial paper works like a lubricant in the engine of commerce. It's really not the fuel-or the spark- but is needed to keep the engine from seizing up.

The current plan is for the US to invest in bundled bad mortgages and hope that banks will provide liquidity. It is presented as the “only” option. physician. This is an expensive and rushed potential solution to a bad problem, and risky in four senses:

(1) It is very expensive, even in the best of scenarios

(2) It might not work

(3) It puts all of our eggs in one basket.

(4) It does not address the critical problem.

1. There are those who think we might get some of our money back; and staging the bailout in three phases might limit the cost. On the other hand, it still is an enormous initial outlay.

2. It might not work because it doesn't address the critical problem. It is a bit like telling a diabetic going into a coma they need a radical and expensive change in diet. In fact, while fixing the diet is important, in the short run they need a quick infusion of sugar.

3. It is unlikely that this is the only option. To present it as such creates the appearance of a rush to judgment.

4. The critical problem is the shortage of commercial paper. This current plan deals with what is one of the plausible antecedent causes of this shortage, but there are likely to be others. But the solution actually does not supply commercial paper, but deal with the plausible antecedent.

5. Richard Saunder’s Solution:

We should create a federal entity (“C-Fed”) to provide the lubricant for the engine of commerce. The C-Fed could issue short term “commercial paper” ("C-notes"). The C-Fed could charge for this service, and rates could be adjusted by the C-Fed just as the Fed adjusts the rates on T bills. The maximum cost to the taxpayers would be modest, the equivalent of the maximum outlay for a given day. The C-Fed could charge different rates based on how willing different users are to abide to certain rules. For example, one could give more favorable rates to smaller firms, or to domestic firms, or to firms that hire US workers, etc.

Under this plan, the involvement of the US government could float. For example, in good times, the entity could retract, letting Wall Street handle commercial paper. In bad times, such as the current crisis, the C-Fed would open the gates and let more flow. The key point is that the flow is more like a tide- in and out- rather than an "investment".

Advantages over the current proposal

1.: it is a nearly-zero-sum game. This is the function of an ideal friction-less lubricant. The C-fed isn't really trying to make money on the deal. It works more like the postmaster-making enough to pay for itself. It can't get too powerful because Wall Street can always use normal commericial paper if it wants to, and it is available. There is huge outlay.

2 It addresses the liquidity problem directly.

3. It could be adjusted to allow "monetary policy" to be implemented.

3) It isn't necessarily the only solution. Congress could decide to purchase some bad bundles, if it wanted to help "Wall Street". Or it could try a variety of tricks, none of which are all-or-nothing.

Comments:

No-one is "bailed out". Banks that were stupid pay for their stupidity, but the widget makers don't have to pay for that stupidity. No-one will be rewarded for greed, or stupidity.

There are certain problems with won't address. For example, investors whose life savings are tied up bad bundles, will still suffer. But that can be handled separately, through other governmental programs, if necessary.

Political advantages. We can get away from the term "bail-out". We can avoid a huge and obviously bad investment that will cripple the budget in the short term and might not even work in the long run. We avoid "nationalization". We keep a pile of money out of the hands of the executive branch. Instead of a huge one-time thing, we allow Congress or a C-Fed to make adjustments as needed. Philosophically, it is "merely" a modification of the cash system which no-one, seems to complain about. The C-Fed addresses the critical problem directly, rather than trying indirectly to solve the problem by solving a different problem. It thus is more transparent to everyone. Since there are no actual purchases of property, we don't have to wonder whose pockets are being lined in the process (???). We could have the chairman of the C-Fed be different from the chairman of the T-Fed, so power is better distributed.

Other advantages: it seems both "old" (in the sense of being an extension of the cash system, or of the Fed), and "new" (in the sense of not being on the table at present). It might allow Congress to use it to gain points on all sides.

Some liberals complain this doesn’t deal with the root causes of the problem. Surely it does not. Again, that is like saying that supplying sugar at the right time to a diabetic doesn’t deal with the root cause of diabetes. It does solve the critical problem of insufficient sugar in the brain. Some conservatives complain that this solution will nationalize a process properly given over to private enterprise. That is not identical to, but similar to, saying the federal government should not issue cash or T-bills. However, it should be emphasized that Saunder’s solution is a fix to a crisis, and should prevent similar crises in the future. Most importantly, no bank is nationalized.

What The People Are Searching For

Tammy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:54:39 EDT

My hat's off to Carrie Dan of NBC and National Journal for an article that explored an angle of politics I hadn't thought to wonder about... what are people really searching for about the candidates? Carrie Dan was emulating Russert in her let the facts tell the tale approach to this article. Thank you, Carrie Dann, for such a refreshingly professional piece of journalism!

The facts she reports present a very interesting narrative of the recent campaign season. See below for an excerpt...

"Fact versus Fiction
Yet web users' sometimes perverse pursuits provide an unfair picture of the legitimate issues and even bold questions sometimes asked of search engines' sophisticated logarithms.

During the week of September 13, for example, as America's economic underpinnings were starting to become un-pinned, the term "Obama view on economy" clocked in as one of the "fastest moving" (aka increasingly popular) searches driving traffic to Obama's website.

Last week, "John McCain Spain" debuted at number 10 on the list of "John McCain" search terms after the senator offered an unexpected answer to a Spanish-language radio host who asked if he would agree to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero. (McCain's unusually cool response led some to wonder if the candidate confused Zapatero with the leader of another country.)

The vast majority of searches for each candidate's name appear to be exploratory in nature, with general terms like "John McCain issues" or "Joe Biden info" acting as portals for information for users starting from scratch to learn more about the White House nominees.

Biographical information is also in high demand, particularly for Barack Obama, whose mother, father, sister, and wife are also all popular subjects for searches. Almost 20% of the top 100 search terms for Obama in the past month were ones seeking information on his age, family, and upbringing.

But interestingly, Obama is the only one of the four nominees for whom "affair" is not a popular search.

Hitwise data for the same time period showed that web users wondered feverishly about the extramarital exploits of Palin (rank No. 7 on her search term list), McCain (No. 29), and to a lesser extent Biden (No. 294). Web users also appear to be fascinated with McCain's first wife, whom he divorced after an overlapping courtship of the much younger Cindy McCain."

Step Up Barack, Stop the 2 Trillion $ Bailout!

Ron Paul Patriot — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:20:28 EDT

Liberals, Conservatives, Independents and Libertarians all recognize that the most important issue in this election is the Bailout and Barack must lead the nation to realize that the Bailout is a DISASTER AND MUST BE STOPPED!

62% of Americans are already against the bailout! http://efinancedirectory.com/articles/62_Percent_of_Americans_Against_Subprime_Mortgage_Bailout.html

Liberals would like to help distressed homeowners. This takes appropriations. Where are you going to find the money for your plans? THE BAILOUT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!

Conservatives would like new healthy banks to replace the corrupt rotting banks. THE BAILOUT WILL KEEP THE FAILED BANKS ALIVE FOR PLENTY OF TIME, preventing new ones that are solvent from financing the recovery. THE BAILOUT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!

Independents want new blood in Washington. Those failed and corrupt banks kept alive by the bailout will spend their govt largesse on lobbyists to keep their favorite corrupt congressmen on the take! THE BAILOUT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!

Libertarians know that the bailout will complete the dismemberment and destruction of our Constitution.

Barack, please speak out against this bill before McCain takes full credit for destroying it. SPEAK OUT NOW!

Ron Paul Patriot

We're targeting the wrong states.

Jesse Radin — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:42:17 EDT

Every time I log in to my account, I get notices about calling Colorado and New Mexico. These states are shifting blue fast, so our calls wouldn't really mean much. We should be calling the true swing states. Ohio and Indiana. And even Missouri and North Carolina. Maybe it's because I'm from California that I'm getting all these notices to call the West, but I think we should spread out. We could easily get 350 Electoral votes with our volutneer force!

The real reason for the debate gambit?

Tammy — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:05:45 EDT

Just saw this posted:

Breaking News from Big Eddie:
McCain Camp insiders say Palin "clueless"
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people
are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held
a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

Here's the site: http://www.bigeddieradio.com/

I don't know about you, but I've thought for a while that Palin didn't have near the experience even in campaigning to be vice president. As a woman, I'm insulted that McCain chose Palin when there were ever so many more experienced Republican women that could have been selected.

So, if what I've shown above is true, the McCain debate gambit seems to make much more sense... pospone the first presidential debate to the time for the vp debate, and then whoops... so sorry we can't find a date that works for the VP debate and Palin gets her get out of debate free card.

Your thoughts?

VIDEO THE VOTE We need your help to save American democracy

WANOBLICK SSGT USAF (Retired) Disabled Vietnam era veteran — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:17:36 EDT

Video the Vote is calling on you to help us document issues of voter
suppression and disenfranchisement on Election Day 2008 in Your
Community!!

We need strong leaders to serve as: Local Producers, Shooters and Team
Leaders on Election Day to protect the vote and ensure our civil
liberties!
We can stop vote suppression in it's tracks. I am member of Video the vote. The republicans are still very active in vote suppression. Also we can report problems with voting devices and to document any activity. We need your help to prevent another Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. We will have the time before the elctorial college votes to show the senate any irregularities during this election.

Video The Vote (www.videothevote.org) is a nonpartisan Voter
Protection project, which aims to protect the vote by being the eyes
and ears where ballots are cast and counted on Election Day 2008. With
the help of our partners (Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Common
Cause, Voter Action, People for the American Way, Color of Change,
Rock the Vote, Working Assets, many more), and an army of nation-wide
citizen dispatchers, videographers and reporters, we will document and
report any irregularities that occur at polling places and boards of
elections while they are happening, enabling the media and public to
watch-dog the electoral process and document issues of
voter-suppression across our country. Like any grassroots effort, this
campaign depends on the participation of as many people as possible.

Do MORE than vote on November 4, 2008! Video the Vote! Help protect
the vote! Protect your community! Visit www.videothevote.org or email
danie@videothevote.org to get involved today!!!

Why you should hate the treasury bailout

Poway for Obama — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:34:17 EDT

naked capitalism: Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal September 21st, 2008

naked capitalism: Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal

But here is the truly offensive section of an overreaching piece of legislation:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

We can't take the low road

Tammy — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:35:03 EDT

I just wrote a letter to the Obama campaign thanking them for their hard work on behalf of our candidate but asking them to be careful with their choices in advertising during the rest of the campaign.

What prompted this was an inaccurate Spanish language advertisement that I saw today. In the ad, it equated Rush Limbaugh's immigration policy with John McCain's. Now I'm not at all a John McCain fan, but I have to speak the truth here: Their policies are completely different, so different that it was why Limbaugh didn't initially support John McCain. To equate the two is a distortion of the facts, and honestly, I'm disappointed to see this tactic used by our campaign.

John McCain and his campaign have made too many blunders, lies and memory lapses for our campaign to need to use McCain's tactics of lies, distortion and taking things out of context. For once, the mainstream media has finally started calling McCain on his lies and distortions, so I asked the Obama campaign to please make sure the media don't have a reason to call us on the same carpet.

I am a passionate supporter of Barack Obama in part because of his promise to run a different kind of campaign, and I think the general public is beginning to see that Barack is focused on the issues, while McCain is focused on saying whatever he can that he thinks will get him elected.

So Obama campaign, let's continue what Barack has been doing this week on the campaign trail: staying focused on the important issues to all Americans and at the same time calling McCain on his lies or lapses. As you see, we have plenty to choose from: fundamentals of the economy are strong, Palin and her earmarks, Sunni/Shia confusion, Obama raising taxes, againat AIG bailout then for it, etc. These and the very many others are the reason John McCain doesn't have the judgment to be a good president.

We don't need to use John McCain's tactics against him... His own words will work just fine.

If you feel as I do, please contact our Obama campaign and share your views with them and ask your friends to do the same. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

1 single statement to correct people about Obama

Suhail from Alpharetta, GA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:29:27 EDT

There's a popular theme going around that Barack Obama never stood up against the Democratic party. This is wrong, on the most important issue of our generation, men such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinch, and Barack Obama stood up against EVERYONE who supported the invasion of Iraq. When nearly everyone was wrong, we have people who had the judgement on what was right. Make sure to counter all those rediculus claims that Barack never stood up against Democrats on anything important... nothing could be more important then standing up against the Iraq war. John McCain voted for the Iraq War. He voted for the Iraq war, but he was against the "way it was handled". Sorry big mac, you should have put more thought into that vote... I refuse to vote for an impulsive and emotional person like John McCain.

McCain's solution to Wall Street lol

Suhail from Alpharetta, GA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:00:36 EDT

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/mccain-calls-for-commission-to-study-wall-street-woes/

McCain suggests we need to make a commission to study the problems on wall street and then report to congress. How about McCain recall a question posed to him from Dr. Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw

This answer provided by John McCain clearly illustrates how McCain knows JACK SHIT about economic policies... when will the Obama camp bring this point up? He calls for a commission to investigate wall street when there's already a very influential group of experts reporting to the president.

I think Barack Obama should state that should he be president, he'll have weekly meetings with this group and allow this group to file a monthly report to congress and at least 1 day where members of congress can offiicially meet with these people and addressed their concerns on the record after reviewing their monthly reports.

More on McCain's Lies

Tammy — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:17:57 EDT

I stumbled upon this post at The Seferm Post that is also calling out McCain on his lies:

"If McCain were a blogger, he would have had to retract by now. But he's running for president of the United States, so he can say anything, lie about anything and not have to answer for it. Yesterday, John McCain lied on national television about something that no one disputes in the public record.

He was challenged by the only serious journalists on television right now - the hosts of 'The View' - about the large number of pork barrel earmarks Sarah Palin sought and secured as governor of Alaska, including the "Bridge to Nowhere" that Palin and McCain lied about and are still lying about in public. Here was his clear and irrefutable statement:

Palin's comments came after McCain sat for a feisty grilling on ABC's "The View," where he claimed erroneously that his running mate hadn't sought money for such pet projects. "Not as governor she didn't," McCain said, ignoring the record.

It has now been a day since McCain lied this explicitly in public. And he hasn't yet retracted his lie. This AP piece is dated as of this afternoon. Why not?"

I join him in asking why not. Why has there not been a widespread demand for a retraction from McCain?

Why is McCain still not being grilled on why he has continually confused Shia and Sunni groups in Iraq?

Those are but a few of McCain's mistakes. Why is he not be held accountable for them?

Give the Federal Reserve Credit for Bankrupting the USA

Ron Paul Patriot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:54:18 EDT

So far, Barack is mum on the US Treasury Bank bailouts, on reducing US bureaucracy, on abolishing the Federal Reserve moral hazard created when propping up the Wall Street sleaze that runs the nation.

We all know that McCain is simply a tool of the Wall Street and Washington lobbyists. If Barack wants to shake these bankers from their stranglehold on the taxpaying citizens why doesn't he speak up? He could garner quite a few libertarian supporters if he cared.

San Diego

New rules would give FBI more freedom in U.S. operations Agents would be allowed to conduct physical surveillance in a public location, recruit and deploy informants, and conduct interviews without identifying themselves. Civil libertarians are worried.

Fire Is Born — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:49:05 EDT

latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fbi13-2008sep13,0,4696825.story

From the Los Angeles Times

New rules would give FBI more freedom in U.S. operations
Agents would be allowed to conduct physical surveillance in a public location, recruit and deploy informants, and conduct interviews without identifying themselves. Civil libertarians are worried.

By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 13, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department is finalizing rules that would allow FBI agents to solicit informants and use other new techniques to bolster the agency's intelligence-gathering operation in the United States, officials said Friday.

The changes would expand rules the department enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks that permitted the FBI to conduct "assessments" of threats of terrorism and espionage even in instances where little or no proof existed of criminal activity.

Such assessments are separate from formal investigations, which can involve more invasive investigative methods but which require harder evidence.

Justice officials said the FBI had been hamstrung in carrying out the earlier mandate because the agency had been limited to "overt" intelligence-gathering techniques, such as permitting agents to conduct interviews only when they identified themselves.

But the proposed revisions have raised concerns among civil liberties groups that the FBI would have too much latitude to collect information on U.S. residents and would be allowed to track people based on their race or ethnicity.

The new rules are expected to be signed in the next several weeks by Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey. Meanwhile, FBI agents are already being trained as if the new rules are in effect. The House and Senate judiciary committees are expected to question FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III on the issue next week.

Justice officials discussing the changes requested anonymity so they could speak more freely about them and because the changes have not been finalized.

The revisions underscore the changing mandate of the FBI since the Sept. 11 attacks. While maintaining its traditional law enforcement functions, the agency has been trying to significantly boost its domestic intelligence-gathering capabilities to find terrorists before they can act.

That has led to different guidelines on the methods and techniques agents can use at different phases of investigations, depending on whether the probes involve potential crimes or national security concerns. In general, agents have been more constrained when working on national security matters.

"We view the distinction as illogical as a matter of policy," one of the Justice officials said. "It interferes with our ability to be an intelligence-driven agency."

The official cited a hypothetical example in which the FBI receives a tip about illegal activity in a bar.

If a tipster claims that a patron is dealing drugs, the guidelines for criminal investigations allow agents to conduct more intrusive preliminary interviews and take other action.

If the tipster claims the patron is raising money for a suspected terrorist group, an obvious national security concern, the alternative guidelines limit investigators to the more public methods, absent more evidence.

The officials said the new rules would also make it easier for the FBI to collect intelligence on the activities of foreign governments in the United States.

In assessing possible terrorist threats, agents now are limited to conducting interviews and gathering data through public sources, such as the Internet. The changes would allow them to conduct physical surveillance in a public location, recruit and deploy informants, and conduct interviews without identifying themselves.

The officials said those methods are already permitted in criminal cases. They said agents would be unable to use methods such as physical searches or wiretaps, which are limited by statute or require court approval.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, who were briefed on the rules Friday by Justice Department officials, said they feared that agents would use such factors as ethnicity or religion as the basis for a threat assessment.

They also questioned the wisdom of giving the agency new authority. The bureau has been criticized for how it has used some of the new powers it was granted after 9/11.

"Handing this kind of latitude to an organization already rife with internal oversight problems is a huge mistake," said Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU's Washington office. "Agents will be given unparalleled leeway to investigate Americans without proper suspicion, and that will inevitably result in constitutional violations."

Justice officials said investigations would not be opened based solely on a person's race or religion. But they also said that in many cases, such considerations cannot be ignored.

"It is simply not responsible to say that race may never be taken into account when conducting an investigation," said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse. He said that although the department remains sensitive to the profiling issue, "the reality is that a number of criminal and terror groups have very strong ethnic associations."

rick.schmitt@latimes.com

Blizzard of Lies

Tammy — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:45:52 EDT

Paul Krugman, thanks for calling a spade a spade in your op-ed in the NY Times today.

I sincerely hope the Obama campaign takes his words to heart and finds a way to really share this viewpoint... that is, that the way someone campaigns can give you insight into how they will govern. Below is an excerpt:

"...how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse."

I wholeheartedly agree with Krugman's hypothesis that McCain/Palin would be much worse than what we've seen the last 7 years.

Who Lies More? (It's Chain emails, McCain in distant second.)

Jesse Radin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:37:59 EDT

Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden.

Obama:

True 39 (39) 34.2%
Mostly True 24 (24) 21.1%
Half True 21 (21) 18.4%
Barely True 12 (12) 10.5%
False 18 (18) 15.8%
Pants on Fire

114 total claims. Note this includes the primaries.

I haven't gone through all of these, but I might do something in a few days.

Basically, Obama is VERY honest for a politican. I will call True/Mostly True/Half True Truth, and Barely True/False/Pants on Fire a lie.

So Obama
True: 73.7%
False: 26.3%

This looks good, so I will now do McCain.

True 25 (25) 22.1%
Mostly True 20 (20) 17.7%
Half True 19 (19) 16.8%
Barely True 21 (21) 18.6%
False 22 (22) 19.5%
Pants on Fire 6 0.5%

113 Claims.

Pants on Fire, are of course, the worst. It means a complete lie intentionally done. False may not be as intentional.

McCain:

True: 56.7%
Lie: 43.3%

So, the old adage about Politicians lying all the time is false, but Obama is significantly more honest than McCain.

Let me put it this way. It may not be that big of a difference, but theoretically, the odd of two Obama statements being true is 54.3% (73.3% squared), that is two statements. Almost as much as McCain's 1 true. Two McCain statements being true is a lot less. Only 32.1%.

The difference is less than 20% but in the long run it matters.

Now I will do the VP, but this is unfair to Biden because it includes anything he said over the entire primary season and Palin JUST entered the race.

Palin so far cannot be analyzed. They keep the woman silent for good reason. I mean she is a woman. Just kidding. There are female Republican senators. It's because she's a dumb hockey mom who doesn't know shit.

She's only made 8 statements and all of them are in the True range. That is not enough to measure. I will admit I am biased, but I'd say you'd need close to 100 to get a good idea.

She has flopped on Global Warming (or McCain told her, you're for fixing it or GTFO the Gay talk Express.") And on the bridge to nowhere.

Get it, Gay opposite of straight? :-P

Now Biden.

Actually, Biden has not had enough statements, but from what I saw he leaned toward the True side.

But Obama is more honest than McCain, and that gap will widen as McCain continues to let his campaign write his ads and put his "I approve that message" on them when he may not actually approve them himself, but decided to just let the Dark Lords take over and go against his old ways of being a good person and honest man.

In a monthi I will post an update to this and see who is being more honest.

And one more.

Chain emails.

True 2 (2) 5.1%
Mostly True 5 (5) 12.8%
Half True 2 (2) 5.1%
Barely True 3 (3) 7.6%
False 16 (16) 41%
Pants on Fire 11 28.2%

39 total.Yup.

True: 23%
False: 77%

So question for you. McCain and Obama each say three things, and a chain email says one. Who do you trust.

Obama: 40%
McCain: 18.2%

As you can see, Obama's gap becomes more important. If Obama tells you 3 things, there is a 40% chance that ALL THREE are true. it's late, so I won't do binomial probability here, but I will do a bit more.

Even at 4 statements, Obama is more likely to be true ALL FOUR TIMES than one chain email!

And at 5 statements, he's at 21.7%, just barely below one chain email.

This is important to people who care. All these claims are documented and graded.

Obama also has never had a Pants on Fire moment, meaning he doesn't make obvious horrible lies like McCain does. The Palin chain emails do, but that is not related to Obama. Blaming Obama for MoveOn is like blaming McCain for FreeRepublic.

Sorry for the blogs. I love Obama and people need to realize he really is different. Think about it. If I were to bet on 4 things being true said by Obama (all four) vs one chain email being true, it'd be wise to bet on Obama.

The straight talk express derailed. McCain is a bitter old man who realized that he couldn't be a moderate sane person and win the election. It's sad.

Labels:

Autism.

Jesse Radin — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:38:40 EDT

I have, or had, Asperger's Syndrome. My mom knew I was not quite right around 4, and I was diagnosed as being "almost borderline" at 8. At 4 she already did behavior modification therapy, so if I had been tested at 4 I would have probably been considered Asperger's.

At 8 my mom and I talked about how I wanted to change, and I did. The first year after changing was painful. I was aware people hated me, but the next year my life turned around. Autism IS a disease, whether you like it or not, however it has some positive benefits. If someone can be treated (not cured) very well they can be an almost-normal person with a few quirks, and a few amazing talents. That is where I am. I admit my obsession with politics and demographics is related to Asperger's.

My friend was diagnosed at 12. His mom yelled at him and told him to "get cured." He is doing well, but not as well as I was at his age. He was afraid to get a job at 19 and spent his summer playing World of Warcraft.

My other friend is 22 and may not have been diagnosed until recently, although the signs were there when he and I were friends at 11. His parents didn't want to admit to the problem, and they usually left him home alone. He's never driven and never had a job.

Earlier diagnosis and treatment means a better life for Autism/aspies. If I had been screened and discovered at 3 or 4 as being on the spectrum, my life would be even better than it is now, and I think it's pretty amazing.

Even though with severe autism can be trained to fit in. Just because they do not communicate verbally does not mean they are dumb. Obama knows this as do I.

I fully support him screening for Autism Spectrum disorders, and now that I have read his plan for them I will donate even more money to his campaign.

Hello District 15.

Jesse Radin — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:30:23 EDT

I actually live in the 14th. Sunnyvale, bordering on 15th, so I am joining here.

I am amazed with this site. I found grassroots levels at EVERY District. Four years ago, I had to have my mom arrnage for me to join a Santa Clara Democrats club that only used email. This is our future.

And anyone in the 14th district, look into Brian Holtz. He is a libertarian but he wants to reform the LP. If the LP were sane, I think a lot of Obama supporters would like them. We need third parties that are not extremists.

http://www.marketliberal.org is Holtz's site

The philosophy is that the market should be used to fix problems with minimal intervention. Such as Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes. (He is actually a geo-libertarian who would probably support the Flat Tax and then taxing pollution heavily, but that's far saner than most Libertarians who just want to be fascists in their home instead of the government doing it for them.)