Gerard Henderson 'evenhandedly' defends Israel and blames Hezbollah: Henderson is not a journalist or even a commentator, he is a propagandist for modern state corporate rule, ie neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

Like the rest of us, a tool like Henderson would not be informed as to which country is going to be attacked next, and when, but he knows that when the attack goes in, his job is to propagandise for it. This made for some hard going over the blatantly unacceptable and disastrous Iraq war, but undeterred, he soldiers on v Lebanon. Take this latest piece, which is phrased as an attack on the Hiroshima Day peace rally.

Gerard Henderson 'evenhandedly' defends Israel and blames Hezbollah: Henderson is not a journalist or even a commentator, he is a propagandist for modern state corporate rule, ie neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

Like the rest of us, a tool like Henderson would not be informed as to which country is going to be attacked next, and when, but he knows that when the attack goes in, his job is to propagandise for it. This made for some hard going over the blatantly unacceptable and disastrous Iraq war, but undeterred, he soldiers on v Lebanon. Take this latest piece, which is phrased as an attack on the Hiroshima Day peace rally.

A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons: Interesting article describes Hezbollah training, tactics and equipment, and helps explain their remarkable success. All so ominous for Israel.

A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons: Interesting article describes Hezbollah training, tactics and equipment, and helps explain their remarkable success. All so ominous for Israel.

Poll: Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD: "The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

"Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story."

There has hardly ever been a bigger official lie than this rubbish about the 'weapons of mass destruction'. Chomsky & Herman have been proven correct. The corporate media system is a propaganda tool - it leads the public believe lies and nonsense, ie what the rulers want the public to believe. In this sense it is comparable to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin's 'Factory of Lies.' But all too many people in Western countries have either not perceived this as yet, or find the very idea incredible.

Poll: Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD: "The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

"Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story."

There has hardly ever been a bigger official lie than this rubbish about the 'weapons of mass destruction'. Chomsky & Herman have been proven correct. The corporate media system is a propaganda tool - it leads the public believe lies and nonsense, ie what the rulers want the public to believe. In this sense it is comparable to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin's 'Factory of Lies.' But all too many people in Western countries have either not perceived this as yet, or find the very idea incredible.

Juan Cole discusses Peak Oil and the Lebanon war: "I floated the fungibility [market access] of petroleum as a reason for which the Iraq War could not be only about oil".

And then in the very next paragraph Cole says:

"In a worst case scenario, Washington would like to retain the option of military action against Iran, so as to gain access to its resources and deny them to rivals."

This is self-contradictory. Its not about access, its about control. The US seeks a 'strategic veto' over other industrial powers. Japan and Europe will be obliged to align their policies with the US (if not become client states) if the US has 'control' over energy reserves.

This is the 'hegemonic' argument Chomsky has been making for years. I dont see why it should not be adopted or indeed regarded as other than obvious.

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are the key regimes one wants as clients. Other regimes such as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and even as far away as Cyprus, Greece, Italy etc are also strategically important in terms of geopolitical control.

The US obviously lusts to convert Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran into client states. It has NOTHING to do with democracy (or WMDs, or 'terror'). These regimes represent an inherent threat to US hegemony. So does Iraq and if the US is forced to retreat from Iraq it would represent a stunning imperial defeat in the most crucial region of the world.

As for war (or empire for that matter) 'not making any sense', that is the nature of the beast. It is destructive, dangerous and can precipitate a catastrophe.

Juan Cole discusses Peak Oil and the Lebanon war: "I floated the fungibility [market access] of petroleum as a reason for which the Iraq War could not be only about oil".

And then in the very next paragraph Cole says:

"In a worst case scenario, Washington would like to retain the option of military action against Iran, so as to gain access to its resources and deny them to rivals."

This is self-contradictory. Its not about access, its about control. The US seeks a 'strategic veto' over other industrial powers. Japan and Europe will be obliged to align their policies with the US (if not become client states) if the US has 'control' over energy reserves.

This is the 'hegemonic' argument Chomsky has been making for years. I dont see why it should not be adopted or indeed regarded as other than obvious.

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are the key regimes one wants as clients. Other regimes such as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and even as far away as Cyprus, Greece, Italy etc are also strategically important in terms of geopolitical control.

The US obviously lusts to convert Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran into client states. It has NOTHING to do with democracy (or WMDs, or 'terror'). These regimes represent an inherent threat to US hegemony. So does Iraq and if the US is forced to retreat from Iraq it would represent a stunning imperial defeat in the most crucial region of the world.

As for war (or empire for that matter) 'not making any sense', that is the nature of the beast. It is destructive, dangerous and can precipitate a catastrophe.

Ayn Rand and the teenage worldview: Digby and commenters have some incisive insights into Randism. Its tripe but they get 'em young.

Ayn Rand and the teenage worldview: Digby and commenters have some incisive insights into Randism. Its tripe but they get 'em young.

LEBANON: Israeli terrorism: "Three days after Israel’s “justice” minister, Haim Ramon, told Israeli Army Radio on July 27 that “everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist”"

This is the sort to thing that needs to be thoroughly documented, and then followed up. I mean date, time, name of program; transcript and audio if possible. And then the Minister and Government questioned about the statement.

Could he really have said such a thing? You know what that means? What they do to 'terrorists'? This means that the Israeli Government is openly proclaiming its intention to either kill or ethnically cleanse the entire population - men, women, children, old, sick, disabled. A major war crime.

Some say the Israeli plan is to ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, colonise it with Jews, and annex it to Israel. This cant be, surely?

LEBANON: Israeli terrorism: "Three days after Israel’s “justice” minister, Haim Ramon, told Israeli Army Radio on July 27 that “everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist”"

This is the sort to thing that needs to be thoroughly documented, and then followed up. I mean date, time, name of program; transcript and audio if possible. And then the Minister and Government questioned about the statement.

Could he really have said such a thing? You know what that means? What they do to 'terrorists'? This means that the Israeli Government is openly proclaiming its intention to either kill or ethnically cleanse the entire population - men, women, children, old, sick, disabled. A major war crime.

Some say the Israeli plan is to ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, colonise it with Jews, and annex it to Israel. This cant be, surely?

The Hiroshima Myth and the real reason the bomb was dropped: Basically it was a massive warcrime. The bomb(s) was dropped simply to demonstrate the US's power and ruthlessness and to intimidate the Soviet Union and anyone else watching. "We've got a big bomb and we're gonna drop it on a whole city. And if you didnt get the message the first time we're gonna do it again. Got that?"

The Hiroshima Myth and the real reason the bomb was dropped: Basically it was a massive warcrime. The bomb(s) was dropped simply to demonstrate the US's power and ruthlessness and to intimidate the Soviet Union and anyone else watching. "We've got a big bomb and we're gonna drop it on a whole city. And if you didnt get the message the first time we're gonna do it again. Got that?"

Achcar: Israeli-lebanon war: "The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) is a shadow of its former self, of what it used to be in the 70s and 80s. It was one of the most important Communist Parties in the Arab world, relative to the size of the country, and one of the major actors in the civil war of 1975-1990. The LCP was the first to launch attacks against the Israeli occupation in 1982, after the invasion settled down, in the name of the 'national resistance'. Only later were the 'Islamic resistance' and Hizbollah launched. Hizbollah dealt with the LCP as a rival since the latter's main social base was among Shiites and in southern Lebanon, that is among Hisbollah's target constituency. Hizbollah built itself partially through fighting the LCP over this constituency and managed to prevail. In that, it was greatly helped by Iranian backing and by the fact that it played on the dominant ideological trend in the region that was in favour of Islamic fundamentalism since the 1970s, whereas the LCP lacked political boldness and was deeply affected by the unfolding crisis of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s the LCP itself went into deep crisis, splitting and fragmenting. What remains is not completely invisible, but it is no longer in a position to play an important role -- unfortunately, as it is the major left-wing grouping in the country. Hence, Lebanon is no exception to the general rule in the area: the historical failure of nationalist forces and the failure of the left have created a vacuum that has been filled by Islamic fundamentalists."

"This question [Israeli vulnerability] relates to a point long made by Jewish critics of Zionism. Far from becoming the sanctuary for the Jews of the world that the Zionists promised, Israel is more and more turning into a deadly trap for its Jewish inhabitants. The old warning by anti-Zionist Jews is getting more and more relevant because of the evolution in destructive techniques and weaponry. Israel is exposing its own population to huge risks. Israel's ruthless, barbaric way of dealing with the Palestinians and the Lebanese feeds hatred against it in the whole area. This will certainly result in many people wanting to inflict on the Israelis the most painful damage possible, compared to which Hizbollah's Katyusha rockets might look quite benign. It takes some 50 Hizbollah rockets to kill one Israeli on average in the ongoing confrontation. But what if devices could be made to inflict mass destruction on Israel? That is what Israel is inciting against itself."

Achcar: Israeli-lebanon war: "The Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) is a shadow of its former self, of what it used to be in the 70s and 80s. It was one of the most important Communist Parties in the Arab world, relative to the size of the country, and one of the major actors in the civil war of 1975-1990. The LCP was the first to launch attacks against the Israeli occupation in 1982, after the invasion settled down, in the name of the 'national resistance'. Only later were the 'Islamic resistance' and Hizbollah launched. Hizbollah dealt with the LCP as a rival since the latter's main social base was among Shiites and in southern Lebanon, that is among Hisbollah's target constituency. Hizbollah built itself partially through fighting the LCP over this constituency and managed to prevail. In that, it was greatly helped by Iranian backing and by the fact that it played on the dominant ideological trend in the region that was in favour of Islamic fundamentalism since the 1970s, whereas the LCP lacked political boldness and was deeply affected by the unfolding crisis of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s the LCP itself went into deep crisis, splitting and fragmenting. What remains is not completely invisible, but it is no longer in a position to play an important role -- unfortunately, as it is the major left-wing grouping in the country. Hence, Lebanon is no exception to the general rule in the area: the historical failure of nationalist forces and the failure of the left have created a vacuum that has been filled by Islamic fundamentalists."

"This question [Israeli vulnerability] relates to a point long made by Jewish critics of Zionism. Far from becoming the sanctuary for the Jews of the world that the Zionists promised, Israel is more and more turning into a deadly trap for its Jewish inhabitants. The old warning by anti-Zionist Jews is getting more and more relevant because of the evolution in destructive techniques and weaponry. Israel is exposing its own population to huge risks. Israel's ruthless, barbaric way of dealing with the Palestinians and the Lebanese feeds hatred against it in the whole area. This will certainly result in many people wanting to inflict on the Israelis the most painful damage possible, compared to which Hizbollah's Katyusha rockets might look quite benign. It takes some 50 Hizbollah rockets to kill one Israeli on average in the ongoing confrontation. But what if devices could be made to inflict mass destruction on Israel? That is what Israel is inciting against itself."

RIAA Goes after LimeWire: "It was bound to happen. I mean, look at the people they have sued (from Wiki): The RIAA has been criticised in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old grandmother who had died in December of 2004 [23]. Mrs. Walton stood accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year-old sculptor residing in Boston, Massachusetts. They alleged that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The RIAA dropped the suit when it was discovered that she was a computer novice. The case was dismissed, but without prejudice. The RIAA has also been criticised for bringing lawsuits against children, such as 12 year old Brianna LaHara in 2003 [24]. The RIAA also attempted to sue Candy Chan of Michigan, for the alleged actions of her daughter, 13 year old Brittany Chan. The court dismissed Priority Records v. Chan [25] because it was ruled that the mother could not be sued for the alleged infringements of her daughter. [26] When the court ruled in favor of the mother, dismissing the case, the RIAA proceeded to sue her child. However, prosecuting a minor is more difficult, and many previous adult defendants have said that the P2P software installation and copyright infringement was done without their knowledge by one of their children. And on a related note: The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4th story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, 'the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.'[27] Is that PATHETIC or what?! RIAA/MPAA needs to die. The world would be a better place."

RIAA Goes after LimeWire: "It was bound to happen. I mean, look at the people they have sued (from Wiki): The RIAA has been criticised in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old grandmother who had died in December of 2004 [23]. Mrs. Walton stood accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year-old sculptor residing in Boston, Massachusetts. They alleged that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The RIAA dropped the suit when it was discovered that she was a computer novice. The case was dismissed, but without prejudice. The RIAA has also been criticised for bringing lawsuits against children, such as 12 year old Brianna LaHara in 2003 [24]. The RIAA also attempted to sue Candy Chan of Michigan, for the alleged actions of her daughter, 13 year old Brittany Chan. The court dismissed Priority Records v. Chan [25] because it was ruled that the mother could not be sued for the alleged infringements of her daughter. [26] When the court ruled in favor of the mother, dismissing the case, the RIAA proceeded to sue her child. However, prosecuting a minor is more difficult, and many previous adult defendants have said that the P2P software installation and copyright infringement was done without their knowledge by one of their children. And on a related note: The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4th story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, 'the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.'[27] Is that PATHETIC or what?! RIAA/MPAA needs to die. The world would be a better place."

Pape: Clue for Bush and the 'why do they hate us' crowd: "In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

"What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force."

Why do they hate us? The dumbest question from the dumbest President ever. They are resisting occupation and foreign oppression. This is also another clue for PM Howard who appeared genuinely surprised and angered at a suggestion that Hizbullah be delisted as a terrorist organisation: it is an indigenous resistance movement. You might do the same if it was your country, little johnny.

Pape: Clue for Bush and the 'why do they hate us' crowd: "In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

"What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force."

Why do they hate us? The dumbest question from the dumbest President ever. They are resisting occupation and foreign oppression. This is also another clue for PM Howard who appeared genuinely surprised and angered at a suggestion that Hizbullah be delisted as a terrorist organisation: it is an indigenous resistance movement. You might do the same if it was your country, little johnny.

Ilan Pappe on the dark tragedy of Zionism and Occupation: "I believe what Israel is doing will destroy the Jewish people in the near or distant future as well. Even with 250 nuclear weapons and the support of the world’s only superpower. For the sake of Jews and Arabs, the world has to play a role in dismantling apartheid. The world has to help. And the only way short of violence, which I am against, is pressure."

Ilan Pappe on the dark tragedy of Zionism and Occupation: "I believe what Israel is doing will destroy the Jewish people in the near or distant future as well. Even with 250 nuclear weapons and the support of the world’s only superpower. For the sake of Jews and Arabs, the world has to play a role in dismantling apartheid. The world has to help. And the only way short of violence, which I am against, is pressure."

Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Why the Democrats Are Still Doomed Matt Taibi musters some fine rhetoric with which to savage the Democrat party

Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Why the Democrats Are Still Doomed Matt Taibi musters some fine rhetoric with which to savage the Democrat party

Stop For The Sake Of Stopping: "I couldn't believe it when George Bush, talking about Israel's attack on Lebanon, said he was against 'stopping for the sake of stopping.'"

These are so tiresome, these sourceless and referenceless commondreams.org articles, modelled presumably on the 'op-ed' tradition in American newspaper journalism.

As if anybody could seriously be 'surprised' at bush's attitude. It is the US that vetoed a UN Security Council resolution of 13 July calling for an immediate ceasefire, and then proceeded to re-supply the Israeli airforce their depleted bombs and fuel, in addition to already being the single biggest US recipient of diplomatic, financial and weapons aid. What does that tell you?

The official US policy is 'sustainable ceasefire' (unrestricted warfare).

Critics of government policy must express the reality and document it: that is, deconstruct the lies and document the reality. Instead of the miserable kissinger alternative of 'formulating what people think'.

Stop For The Sake Of Stopping: "I couldn't believe it when George Bush, talking about Israel's attack on Lebanon, said he was against 'stopping for the sake of stopping.'"

These are so tiresome, these sourceless and referenceless commondreams.org articles, modelled presumably on the 'op-ed' tradition in American newspaper journalism.

As if anybody could seriously be 'surprised' at bush's attitude. It is the US that vetoed a UN Security Council resolution of 13 July calling for an immediate ceasefire, and then proceeded to re-supply the Israeli airforce their depleted bombs and fuel, in addition to already being the single biggest US recipient of diplomatic, financial and weapons aid. What does that tell you?

The official US policy is 'sustainable ceasefire' (unrestricted warfare).

Critics of government policy must express the reality and document it: that is, deconstruct the lies and document the reality. Instead of the miserable kissinger alternative of 'formulating what people think'.

Qana bomb made in the US: "It has been revealed that the bombs used in the attacks Israel launched on the southern Lebanese village of Qana were produced by the US. At least 60 civilians, most of whom were children had been killed in the attack.... the bombs used in the attacks were laser-controlled BSU 37/B bunker busters manufactured by the US.... The same type bomb had been used in last week’s attack that killed four UN observers. The Bush administration had shipped 2.5 tons, 100 GBU-28 “bunker busters” to the region after the operation began on 12 July."

Qana bomb made in the US: "It has been revealed that the bombs used in the attacks Israel launched on the southern Lebanese village of Qana were produced by the US. At least 60 civilians, most of whom were children had been killed in the attack.... the bombs used in the attacks were laser-controlled BSU 37/B bunker busters manufactured by the US.... The same type bomb had been used in last week’s attack that killed four UN observers. The Bush administration had shipped 2.5 tons, 100 GBU-28 “bunker busters” to the region after the operation began on 12 July."

Brent Scowcroft endorses two-state solution: Scowcroft's plan is a variant on the fundamentals of the two-state solution which has been available for a long time now, as far back as 1971 and Sadat's original peace offer: Withdrawal of Jewish soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line; minor and mutually agreed border modifications; a practical resolution of the refugee problem.

This solution is available for adoption by the US or Israel anytime they wish, for the moment. The US evidently prefers Israel as the 'cop on the beat', the 'Israeli Sparta', the 'militarised dependency.' And Israel, it seems, lacks all sense of danger and security, and believes in the unreconstructed folly of Zionism and the hubristic madness of permanent regional hegemony. US interest in the region runs out with the oil in 30-40 years tops, maybe much sooner, especially if it suffers a defeat in Iraq. Israel's interest is to negotiate a comprehensive peace from a position of strength, and that means NOW. There will come a time (perhaps fairly soon) when the tide finally turns and the Arabs will no longer be prepared to concede as much as they might now.

Brent Scowcroft endorses two-state solution: Scowcroft's plan is a variant on the fundamentals of the two-state solution which has been available for a long time now, as far back as 1971 and Sadat's original peace offer: Withdrawal of Jewish soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line; minor and mutually agreed border modifications; a practical resolution of the refugee problem.

This solution is available for adoption by the US or Israel anytime they wish, for the moment. The US evidently prefers Israel as the 'cop on the beat', the 'Israeli Sparta', the 'militarised dependency.' And Israel, it seems, lacks all sense of danger and security, and believes in the unreconstructed folly of Zionism and the hubristic madness of permanent regional hegemony. US interest in the region runs out with the oil in 30-40 years tops, maybe much sooner, especially if it suffers a defeat in Iraq. Israel's interest is to negotiate a comprehensive peace from a position of strength, and that means NOW. There will come a time (perhaps fairly soon) when the tide finally turns and the Arabs will no longer be prepared to concede as much as they might now.

Tehran editorial: UN Security Council or U.S. Security Council?: "China and Russia made a major concession to the United States in UN Resolution 1696. A day before the adoption of the resolution, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had said Moscow opposed any deadline, sanctions, or threats against Iran. China had adopted similar stances. The resolution implies that these powers made a backdoor deal, a fact which Iranian officials should take into consideration."

"Even if the international community accepts that the Security Council adopted the resolution to maintain world peace and security, how can it accept its shameful silence over the massacre of the Lebanese and Palestinian children by Israel?

"There is one likely answer. In the eyes of the Security Council, the regime that is free to produce nuclear weapons is also free to butcher hundreds of defenseless women and children. The Security Council, which has kept mum about the massacre of defenseless children in Qana, Lebanon but has passed a resolution against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program within the framework of international law, is not the Security Council, it is the Insecurity Council! It is not the UN Security Council, rather it is the U.S. Security Council."

"From the legal point of view, it is not acceptable that in the second paragraph of the resolution, the Security Council states that it “Reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalls the right of states party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”, and deprives a country of its right while it has not violated the NPT.The resolution is proof that the five major nuclear powers are using international bodies as tools to impose their demands on Iran."

So Iran continues its battle (virtually alone) against White Western hegemony. Iranian President Ahmadinejad launches into some blunt criticism: "'The United States and Britain are responsible for Israel's killing of civilians in Lebanon and should not be trusted with seats on the U.N. Security Council'.... Iran regularly blames Britain, as a creator of Israel, and the United States, as the state that bankrolls and protects it, for deaths in conflicts in the Middle East. "They are not competent to be members of the Security Council or to have the power of veto ... They are criminals and should be put on trial," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the northeastern town of Bojnurd.... Ahmadinejad accused Israeli forces of being part of a British and U.S. plan to recreate a colonial Middle East."

Tehran editorial: UN Security Council or U.S. Security Council?: "China and Russia made a major concession to the United States in UN Resolution 1696. A day before the adoption of the resolution, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had said Moscow opposed any deadline, sanctions, or threats against Iran. China had adopted similar stances. The resolution implies that these powers made a backdoor deal, a fact which Iranian officials should take into consideration."

"Even if the international community accepts that the Security Council adopted the resolution to maintain world peace and security, how can it accept its shameful silence over the massacre of the Lebanese and Palestinian children by Israel?

"There is one likely answer. In the eyes of the Security Council, the regime that is free to produce nuclear weapons is also free to butcher hundreds of defenseless women and children. The Security Council, which has kept mum about the massacre of defenseless children in Qana, Lebanon but has passed a resolution against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program within the framework of international law, is not the Security Council, it is the Insecurity Council! It is not the UN Security Council, rather it is the U.S. Security Council."

"From the legal point of view, it is not acceptable that in the second paragraph of the resolution, the Security Council states that it “Reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalls the right of states party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”, and deprives a country of its right while it has not violated the NPT.The resolution is proof that the five major nuclear powers are using international bodies as tools to impose their demands on Iran."

So Iran continues its battle (virtually alone) against White Western hegemony. Iranian President Ahmadinejad launches into some blunt criticism: "'The United States and Britain are responsible for Israel's killing of civilians in Lebanon and should not be trusted with seats on the U.N. Security Council'.... Iran regularly blames Britain, as a creator of Israel, and the United States, as the state that bankrolls and protects it, for deaths in conflicts in the Middle East. "They are not competent to be members of the Security Council or to have the power of veto ... They are criminals and should be put on trial," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the northeastern town of Bojnurd.... Ahmadinejad accused Israeli forces of being part of a British and U.S. plan to recreate a colonial Middle East."

Bakhtiari addresses the Australian Senate Committee: A few of the interesting points made in this testimony:

Peak oil is here: "Over the next 14 years present global production of 81 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32 per cent, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."

What to do: "Every preparative step taken today will prove far cheaper than any step taken tomorrow."

Anti-science attitude of the ruling elite: "Maybe one explanation could be that they are interested parties and we are disinterested parties."

The importance of gas: "Fortunately, Australia has an enormous amount of gas, and I believe this is going to become very handy."

"Senator MILNE— Australia, as you know, has just signed up to long-term gas exports to China at a fixed price. Given what you have just said, that looks like an increasingly bad deal.

"Dr Samsam Bakhtiari—At a fixed price?

"Senator MILNE—That is what I said. Yes, I can see that you are not impressed by the brilliance of that and neither are we."

Transport Fuel Efficiency: "the future is to rails because rails are the most fuel efficient system.... At tonne kilometres per litre of fuel, aeroplanes are between two and three, cars are between 10 and 22, trucks are between 65 and 85 and trains are around 320.... Aeroplanes will be the first casualty in the system. They are already making losses. I do not know how they can carry on because the jet fuel is directly proportional to the increases in crude oil."

ie, rail is four and a half times more efficient that trucks, 21 times more efficient than cars and up to 160 times more efficient that air. Shipping is more fuel efficient still.

So we have a Federal Government that invades Iraq, sells gas at a low fixed price to China, and says it will be an energy superpower by mining and selling uranium and taking back the waste. And a State Government that refuses to build rail and light rail networks and builds no end of motorways. Could it get any more irresponsible?

Bakhtiari addresses the Australian Senate Committee: A few of the interesting points made in this testimony:

Peak oil is here: "Over the next 14 years present global production of 81 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32 per cent, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020."

What to do: "Every preparative step taken today will prove far cheaper than any step taken tomorrow."

Anti-science attitude of the ruling elite: "Maybe one explanation could be that they are interested parties and we are disinterested parties."

The importance of gas: "Fortunately, Australia has an enormous amount of gas, and I believe this is going to become very handy."

"Senator MILNE— Australia, as you know, has just signed up to long-term gas exports to China at a fixed price. Given what you have just said, that looks like an increasingly bad deal.

"Dr Samsam Bakhtiari—At a fixed price?

"Senator MILNE—That is what I said. Yes, I can see that you are not impressed by the brilliance of that and neither are we."

Transport Fuel Efficiency: "the future is to rails because rails are the most fuel efficient system.... At tonne kilometres per litre of fuel, aeroplanes are between two and three, cars are between 10 and 22, trucks are between 65 and 85 and trains are around 320.... Aeroplanes will be the first casualty in the system. They are already making losses. I do not know how they can carry on because the jet fuel is directly proportional to the increases in crude oil."

ie, rail is four and a half times more efficient that trucks, 21 times more efficient than cars and up to 160 times more efficient that air. Shipping is more fuel efficient still.

So we have a Federal Government that invades Iraq, sells gas at a low fixed price to China, and says it will be an energy superpower by mining and selling uranium and taking back the waste. And a State Government that refuses to build rail and light rail networks and builds no end of motorways. Could it get any more irresponsible?

Remembering Hiroshima: A horrifying warcrime. This article traces the genesis of the myth that it was necessary to 'save millions of American boys'.

Remembering Hiroshima: A horrifying warcrime. This article traces the genesis of the myth that it was necessary to 'save millions of American boys'.

Torvalds rejects GPLv3: "Torvalds ' who insists on calling his software 'open' to make a distinction from, and avoid association with, 'free software' advocates ' said the discussions of GPLv3 have not allowed for real opposition. He also criticized an earlier version of the GPLv3, calling it a 'crusade.'"

Plainly Torvalds doesnt care about 'free software' or the GPL. In which case he simply doesnt get it. Its not about Torvalds, 'Linux' or 'open' software, its about freedom, Stallman and the GPL.

There are some harsh comments about Torvalds on Slashdot, perhaps not unjustified:

"Linus' problem is that he never really agreed with these ideals [freedom]. He originally licensed Linux as free for non-commerical use, but then released it under the GPL as a result of pressure from the community. Linus calls himself a pragmatist, which is a polite way of saying socially short-sighted.... Linus' view is the equivalent of saying 'Why should we want to outlaw slavery? I'm not a slave.'"

"Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by."

"It makes me sad to see Linus' mind rotting like this but I can't support that attitude in any way."

"Clearly Linus has sold out.... He doesn't care, all the evidence suggests that Linus became a whore turning tricks for corporate masters a long time ago. This public outcry against pro-consumer/modder yet anti-profiteer clauses of the GPLv3 can only be the result of payoffs from corporate masters. It isn't really suprising that Linus has sold out, who knows, maybe any of us would do it in his position. But there is no reason the community has to support him in this."

There seems to be an interminable debate among software developers between the free software advocates (Stallman & co) and those who 'dont get it' (Torvalds & co). Stallman needs political support.

It seems people should stop going to Torvalds for philosophical comment, and also stop calling it 'Linux'. Call it unix or ubuntu and be done with it. Torvalds is a programmer, not a leader.

Torvalds rejects GPLv3: "Torvalds ' who insists on calling his software 'open' to make a distinction from, and avoid association with, 'free software' advocates ' said the discussions of GPLv3 have not allowed for real opposition. He also criticized an earlier version of the GPLv3, calling it a 'crusade.'"

Plainly Torvalds doesnt care about 'free software' or the GPL. In which case he simply doesnt get it. Its not about Torvalds, 'Linux' or 'open' software, its about freedom, Stallman and the GPL.

There are some harsh comments about Torvalds on Slashdot, perhaps not unjustified:

"Linus' problem is that he never really agreed with these ideals [freedom]. He originally licensed Linux as free for non-commerical use, but then released it under the GPL as a result of pressure from the community. Linus calls himself a pragmatist, which is a polite way of saying socially short-sighted.... Linus' view is the equivalent of saying 'Why should we want to outlaw slavery? I'm not a slave.'"

"Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by."

"It makes me sad to see Linus' mind rotting like this but I can't support that attitude in any way."

"Clearly Linus has sold out.... He doesn't care, all the evidence suggests that Linus became a whore turning tricks for corporate masters a long time ago. This public outcry against pro-consumer/modder yet anti-profiteer clauses of the GPLv3 can only be the result of payoffs from corporate masters. It isn't really suprising that Linus has sold out, who knows, maybe any of us would do it in his position. But there is no reason the community has to support him in this."

There seems to be an interminable debate among software developers between the free software advocates (Stallman & co) and those who 'dont get it' (Torvalds & co). Stallman needs political support.

It seems people should stop going to Torvalds for philosophical comment, and also stop calling it 'Linux'. Call it unix or ubuntu and be done with it. Torvalds is a programmer, not a leader.

Children killed in Qana outrage: Blair is a kind of Saruman of the West - No.2 who wanted to be no.1 because (he believes) he is smarter, better and more deserving. No.1 (Cheney) is obviously unimpressed.

And after his evil has been fully exposed to devastating effect, Blair is repeatedly offered opportunities to repent, but he refuses and viciously turns back to his stupid and self-destructive ways.

Children killed in Qana outrage: Blair is a kind of Saruman of the West - No.2 who wanted to be no.1 because (he believes) he is smarter, better and more deserving. No.1 (Cheney) is obviously unimpressed.

And after his evil has been fully exposed to devastating effect, Blair is repeatedly offered opportunities to repent, but he refuses and viciously turns back to his stupid and self-destructive ways.

Hopeless Courage: "Tolkien had eternal respect for such figures who fought against evil not for the promise of any eternal reward (there was none; Valhalla was but a training ground for the final battle in which the forces of good would be obliterated once and for all), but for the simple reason that it was the right thing to do. The hopeless struggle of good against evil evokes a world in which heroes are able to attain a nobility of character unparalleled in other traditions and mythologies."

Hopeless Courage: "Tolkien had eternal respect for such figures who fought against evil not for the promise of any eternal reward (there was none; Valhalla was but a training ground for the final battle in which the forces of good would be obliterated once and for all), but for the simple reason that it was the right thing to do. The hopeless struggle of good against evil evokes a world in which heroes are able to attain a nobility of character unparalleled in other traditions and mythologies."

Uri Avnery Q & A on the Israel/Hizbollah war: Some plain speaking on the subject, not very flattering to the civilian and military Israeli leadership.

Uri Avnery Q & A on the Israel/Hizbollah war: Some plain speaking on the subject, not very flattering to the civilian and military Israeli leadership.

No ceasefire 'for weeks' as Lebanon talks stall: "“Could the Prime Minister really not speak up for the simple proposition that the slaughter of innocent people in Lebanon, the destruction of their country and the ruin of half a million lives were wrong and should stop immediately?”"

Put that up on Blair's tombstone as an epitaph, right along with the 'weapons of mass destruction'.

No ceasefire 'for weeks' as Lebanon talks stall: "“Could the Prime Minister really not speak up for the simple proposition that the slaughter of innocent people in Lebanon, the destruction of their country and the ruin of half a million lives were wrong and should stop immediately?”"

Put that up on Blair's tombstone as an epitaph, right along with the 'weapons of mass destruction'.

UN observers begged Israelis to stop shelling their position: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the killing of 4 unarmed UN peacekeepers (including a Chinese soldier) as 'apparently deliberate'.

This war has highlighted the arrogance and militarism of Israel, and produced some of the most disastrous publicity for it. Who was the military genius who decided to bomb Beirut International airport as one of the first acts of the war? This immediately left stranded thousands upon thousands of foreign nationals, who began screaming into their TV cameras to get them the hell out of the place, producing a seemingly endless barrage of negative publicity.

Isreal seems more and more like the Prussia of the Middle East: a small country with a large military that believes war is the answer. The military overwhelms the civilian leadership, pulling Schlieffen plans out of the draw to execute without apparent regard to the negative political and diplomatic consequences of bombing the airport, the UN or the civilian infrastructure generally, not to mention the consequences of a war which is lost or only partly won.

And when Condi Rice appeared in Beirut, Israeli bombing temporarily stopped. Here's a suggestion: send her back to Beirut or 'somewhere in southern Lebanon.'

The US vetoed a resolution in the Security Council and has a position calling for a 'sustainable ceasefire'. This Orwellian phrase simply means no ceasefire at all but a green light for Israel to continue attacking, including attacks on peacekeepers, civilians and civilian infrastructure, as long as it likes. Howard, predictably, echoes the US line. One wonders whether he is in touch with the US to pick up directly the US/Israeli talking points.

And its a duplicitous game that Howard is playing:

Australia apparently voted with the rest of the world in the General Assembly, but Howard publicly supports the US/UK/Israeli position of a sustainable ceasefire (unrestricted warfare). What can explain this inconsistency? I would venture that Howard does not want Australia to be seen to be globally isolated in the General Assembly in support of an indefensible position, but at the same time because Assembly votes are generally ignored no one outside the chamber will notice if he publicly supports the UKUSIS (UK/US/Israel) position.

Diplomacy and votes in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are not reported as promptly and prominently as they ought, except for one dramatic recent exception: the massive reporting on the Security Council debate over Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction.' And that of course explains why there is little reporting: that affair was a devastating diplomatic and political defeat for the United States. Day after day, week after week the lack of credibility of the US position and its nakedly aggressive agenda was held up for the whole world to see. With Powell gone and yo Blair! the poodle despised, Bush & co will be sure not to make that mistake again. Cheney and Rumsfeld didnt want to do it in the first place. Which is precisely why the UN should get full attention in progressive reporting.

UN observers begged Israelis to stop shelling their position: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described the killing of 4 unarmed UN peacekeepers (including a Chinese soldier) as 'apparently deliberate'.

This war has highlighted the arrogance and militarism of Israel, and produced some of the most disastrous publicity for it. Who was the military genius who decided to bomb Beirut International airport as one of the first acts of the war? This immediately left stranded thousands upon thousands of foreign nationals, who began screaming into their TV cameras to get them the hell out of the place, producing a seemingly endless barrage of negative publicity.

Isreal seems more and more like the Prussia of the Middle East: a small country with a large military that believes war is the answer. The military overwhelms the civilian leadership, pulling Schlieffen plans out of the draw to execute without apparent regard to the negative political and diplomatic consequences of bombing the airport, the UN or the civilian infrastructure generally, not to mention the consequences of a war which is lost or only partly won.

And when Condi Rice appeared in Beirut, Israeli bombing temporarily stopped. Here's a suggestion: send her back to Beirut or 'somewhere in southern Lebanon.'

The US vetoed a resolution in the Security Council and has a position calling for a 'sustainable ceasefire'. This Orwellian phrase simply means no ceasefire at all but a green light for Israel to continue attacking, including attacks on peacekeepers, civilians and civilian infrastructure, as long as it likes. Howard, predictably, echoes the US line. One wonders whether he is in touch with the US to pick up directly the US/Israeli talking points.

And its a duplicitous game that Howard is playing:

Australia apparently voted with the rest of the world in the General Assembly, but Howard publicly supports the US/UK/Israeli position of a sustainable ceasefire (unrestricted warfare). What can explain this inconsistency? I would venture that Howard does not want Australia to be seen to be globally isolated in the General Assembly in support of an indefensible position, but at the same time because Assembly votes are generally ignored no one outside the chamber will notice if he publicly supports the UKUSIS (UK/US/Israel) position.

Diplomacy and votes in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are not reported as promptly and prominently as they ought, except for one dramatic recent exception: the massive reporting on the Security Council debate over Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction.' And that of course explains why there is little reporting: that affair was a devastating diplomatic and political defeat for the United States. Day after day, week after week the lack of credibility of the US position and its nakedly aggressive agenda was held up for the whole world to see. With Powell gone and yo Blair! the poodle despised, Bush & co will be sure not to make that mistake again. Cheney and Rumsfeld didnt want to do it in the first place. Which is precisely why the UN should get full attention in progressive reporting.

'Israel is to the US what Serbia was to Russia in The Summer of 1914 - by William S. Lind: "If Hezbollah and Hamas win – and winning just means surviving, given that Israel's objective is to destroy both entities – a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat".

But Israel already suffered a new and major kind of defeat in Lebanon - Sharon's 1982 invasion led to the creation of Hezbollah (where nothing existed before) which then proceeded to expel Israel from Lebanon altogether.

"So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israel's assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms."

"Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which states think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. One can only imagine how this resonated worldwide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something."

"Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, "I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason." This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against?"

'Israel is to the US what Serbia was to Russia in The Summer of 1914 - by William S. Lind: "If Hezbollah and Hamas win – and winning just means surviving, given that Israel's objective is to destroy both entities – a powerful state will have suffered a new kind of defeat".

But Israel already suffered a new and major kind of defeat in Lebanon - Sharon's 1982 invasion led to the creation of Hezbollah (where nothing existed before) which then proceeded to expel Israel from Lebanon altogether.

"So far, Hezbollah is winning. As Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israel's assault on Hamas, another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for the loss of one Hezbollah fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on even terms."

"Hezbollah then pulled off two more firsts. It responded effectively to terror bombing from the air, which states think is their monopoly, with rocket barrages that reached deep into Israel. One can only imagine how this resonated worldwide with people who are often bombed but can never bomb back. And, it attacked another state monopoly, navies, by hitting and disabling a blockading Israeli warship with something."

"Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, referring to the initial Hezbollah raid, said, "I want to make clear that the event this morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked Israel without reason." This is an obvious fiction, as the state of Lebanon had nothing to do with the raid and cannot control Hezbollah. But it is a necessary fiction for Israel, because otherwise who can it respond against?"

Avnery: The Real Aim: "THE REAL aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US."

Avnery: The Real Aim: "THE REAL aim is to change the regime in Lebanon and to install a puppet government. That was the aim of Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It failed. But Sharon and his pupils in the military and political leadership have never really given up on it. As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US."

Hizbollah's Response Reveals Months Of Planning By Robert Fisk

Hizbollah's Response Reveals Months Of Planning By Robert Fisk

Putin rejects Bush's Iraq democracy model: "During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.

"'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same,' Bush said."

"Putin replied, 'We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.'" Very droll...

Putin rejects Bush's Iraq democracy model: "During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.

"'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same,' Bush said."

"Putin replied, 'We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.'" Very droll...

Two Palestinians in Gaza Kidnapped By Israel before the capture of Israeli soldier: If you've been watching the corporate media (goddamit but its hard to avoid) the Israeli spokesmen have been demanding the release of the soldier every day but how much has been reported of the kidnapped Palestinians?

"Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words "retaliation", "escalation", "pressure", "kidnap" and "hostage" are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label "terrorists" for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June. In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy."

Two Palestinians in Gaza Kidnapped By Israel before the capture of Israeli soldier: If you've been watching the corporate media (goddamit but its hard to avoid) the Israeli spokesmen have been demanding the release of the soldier every day but how much has been reported of the kidnapped Palestinians?

"Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words "retaliation", "escalation", "pressure", "kidnap" and "hostage" are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label "terrorists" for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June. In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy."

Reinhart: Attack on Gaza (and Lebanon?) pre-meditated: "Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army's war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.... Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel's view, the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel's demands."

The corporate media, of course, takes the Israeli narrative at face value.

Reinhart: Attack on Gaza (and Lebanon?) pre-meditated: "Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army's war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.... Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel's view, the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel's demands."

The corporate media, of course, takes the Israeli narrative at face value.

Noam Chomsky in Lebanon May 2006 - first ever visit to Lebanon: Interesting summary of his 8 day visit. Includes a meeting with Hizbollah leader Nasrallah.

Noam Chomsky in Lebanon May 2006 - first ever visit to Lebanon: Interesting summary of his 8 day visit. Includes a meeting with Hizbollah leader Nasrallah.

Latest Hersh on Iran: The Pentagon is trying to warn Bush against war with Iran: "A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’”"

Iran is warning the Gulf states: "Iran’s message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has been that it will respond, and “you are on the wrong side of history.”"

Latest Hersh on Iran: The Pentagon is trying to warn Bush against war with Iran: "A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’”"

Iran is warning the Gulf states: "Iran’s message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has been that it will respond, and “you are on the wrong side of history.”"

Karzai: Revealed, Reviled, Orphaned, and at Bay - by Bahlol Lohdi: Article on the slow and probably unstoppable disintegration of the Afghan occupation, with a focus on Karzai, "an incompetent foreign puppet of no intellect, and totally corrupt."

Of note is a remarkable incident involving Cheney:

"The first overt sign of the changed circumstances in Afghanistan became apparent when Cheney visited Kabul to participate in the inauguration of Afghanistan's "first freely elected parliament." As Cheney's motorcade approached the parliament compound, the guards allowed his car to pass but firmly closed the gates in the face of the rest of his entourage. All of Cheney's staff members, men and women, were forced to disembark, made to face the wall, and enthusiastically body-searched. The situation turned more tense and ugly when the guards insisted on rummaging through the military aide's brief case, which contained the codes for unleashing a nuclear war. Fortunately, after a brief tussle, the Afghan security detail relented and Cheney's staff was allowed to enter the bastion of Afghan democracy. Surprisingly, the American media ignored this unprecedented and grossly insulting behavior toward the vice president of the United States."

Karzai: Revealed, Reviled, Orphaned, and at Bay - by Bahlol Lohdi: Article on the slow and probably unstoppable disintegration of the Afghan occupation, with a focus on Karzai, "an incompetent foreign puppet of no intellect, and totally corrupt."

Of note is a remarkable incident involving Cheney:

"The first overt sign of the changed circumstances in Afghanistan became apparent when Cheney visited Kabul to participate in the inauguration of Afghanistan's "first freely elected parliament." As Cheney's motorcade approached the parliament compound, the guards allowed his car to pass but firmly closed the gates in the face of the rest of his entourage. All of Cheney's staff members, men and women, were forced to disembark, made to face the wall, and enthusiastically body-searched. The situation turned more tense and ugly when the guards insisted on rummaging through the military aide's brief case, which contained the codes for unleashing a nuclear war. Fortunately, after a brief tussle, the Afghan security detail relented and Cheney's staff was allowed to enter the bastion of Afghan democracy. Surprisingly, the American media ignored this unprecedented and grossly insulting behavior toward the vice president of the United States."

Revealed: how Downer waged war with US to protect Iraq wheat trade: "They show that more than six months before the outbreak of war, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, suggested that military support for the US in Iraq would benefit Australia's commercial position. Once war had broken out, he was concerned the US would use its battle deaths as justification for seizing Australia's wheat trade.

At a meeting in August 2002 in Mr Downer's Canberra office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, senior government officials and executives from the wheat exporter AWB discussed the outlook for Australia's sales.

"The documents reveal an idea was floated at the meeting whereby Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade was protected. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade record of conversation shows Mr Downer suggested Australian support for the US would benefit 'Australia's commercial position in Iraq'."

"In one dispatch, a Foreign Affairs official reported Mr Downer telling Mr Powell words to the effect that the US could 'forget Aussie support in future' if America flooded Iraq with wheat after the war. Mr Downer stipulated that his request for Australia's Iraqi sales to be protected be formally recorded in the minutes of his meetings with Mr Powell. Senior Australian officials in Washington were instructed to press the issue at every opportunity.

"Once the war began, the wheat issue was never far from the Government's mind."

I thought the purpose of the war was to find the weapons get Saddam for 9/11 build democracy, not to fix up big wheat contracts. The cynicism of our ruling elite is such that it wouldn't surprise me if Downer more or less proudly admitted that the substance of this report is correct.

Revealed: how Downer waged war with US to protect Iraq wheat trade: "They show that more than six months before the outbreak of war, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, suggested that military support for the US in Iraq would benefit Australia's commercial position. Once war had broken out, he was concerned the US would use its battle deaths as justification for seizing Australia's wheat trade.

At a meeting in August 2002 in Mr Downer's Canberra office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, senior government officials and executives from the wheat exporter AWB discussed the outlook for Australia's sales.

"The documents reveal an idea was floated at the meeting whereby Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade was protected. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade record of conversation shows Mr Downer suggested Australian support for the US would benefit 'Australia's commercial position in Iraq'."

"In one dispatch, a Foreign Affairs official reported Mr Downer telling Mr Powell words to the effect that the US could 'forget Aussie support in future' if America flooded Iraq with wheat after the war. Mr Downer stipulated that his request for Australia's Iraqi sales to be protected be formally recorded in the minutes of his meetings with Mr Powell. Senior Australian officials in Washington were instructed to press the issue at every opportunity.

"Once the war began, the wheat issue was never far from the Government's mind."

I thought the purpose of the war was to find the weapons get Saddam for 9/11 build democracy, not to fix up big wheat contracts. The cynicism of our ruling elite is such that it wouldn't surprise me if Downer more or less proudly admitted that the substance of this report is correct.

Gleen Greenwald post on redstate hatespeech: This is an all too typical example of degraded political discourse in the US. Hatespeech and violent political rhetoric are intrinsically dangerous and as such should be strongly and consistently condemned by every civilised person. But I remain to be convinced that the current manisfestations are anything other than political rhetoric.

One of the features of Hitler's rise to power was that the whole effort was dedicated from the outset to establishing a dictatorship led by Hitler himself - party, SA, SS, stormtroopers, streetfighters, propaganda, everything. Surely Rove & co cannot seriously be entertaining overtfascism. They can exploit this kind of nasty rhetoric for political purposes but it may leave them nowhere to go in the end. Or could there be a stumbling and accidental descent into fully-fledged fascism?

Gleen Greenwald post on redstate hatespeech: This is an all too typical example of degraded political discourse in the US. Hatespeech and violent political rhetoric are intrinsically dangerous and as such should be strongly and consistently condemned by every civilised person. But I remain to be convinced that the current manisfestations are anything other than political rhetoric.

One of the features of Hitler's rise to power was that the whole effort was dedicated from the outset to establishing a dictatorship led by Hitler himself - party, SA, SS, stormtroopers, streetfighters, propaganda, everything. Surely Rove & co cannot seriously be entertaining overtfascism. They can exploit this kind of nasty rhetoric for political purposes but it may leave them nowhere to go in the end. Or could there be a stumbling and accidental descent into fully-fledged fascism?

Israel: an adolescent with nukes: "By the age of 58 a country - like a man - should have achieved a certain maturity. After nearly six decades of existence we know, for good and for bad, who we are, what we have done and how we appear to others, warts and all. We acknowledge, however reluctantly and privately, our mistakes and our shortcomings. And though we still harbor the occasional illusion about ourselves and our prospects, we are wise enough to recognize that these are indeed for the most part just that: illusions. In short, we are adults.

"But the State of Israel remains curiously (and among Western-style democracies, uniquely) immature. The social transformations of the country - and its many economic achievements - have not brought the political wisdom that usually accompanies age. Seen from the outside, Israel still comports itself like an adolescent: consumed by a brittle confidence in its own uniqueness; certain that no one 'understands' it and everyone is 'against' it; full of wounded self-esteem, quick to take offense and quick to give it. Like many adolescents Israel is convinced - and makes a point of aggressively and repeatedly asserting - that it can do as it wishes, that its actions carry no consequences and that it is immortal."

"Even the inauguration of the illegal settlements and the disastrous invasion of Lebanon, while they strengthened the arguments of Israel's critics, did not yet shift the international balance of opinion. As recently as the early 1990s, most people in the world were only vaguely aware of the "West Bank" and what was happening there. Even those who pressed the Palestinians' case in international forums conceded that almost no one was listening. Israel could still do as it wished.

"But today everything is different. We can see, in retrospect, that the victory of Israel in June 1967 and its continuing occupation of the territories it conquered then have been the Jewish state's very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe. Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified and publicized the country's shortcomings and displayed them to a watching world. Curfews, checkpoints, bulldozers, public humiliations, home destructions, land seizures, shootings, "targeted assassinations," the separation fence: All of these routines of occupation and repression were once familiar only to an informed minority of specialists and activists. Today they can be watched, in real time, by anyone with a computer or a satellite dish - which means that Israel's behavior is under daily scrutiny by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The result has been a complete transformation in the international view of Israel.... It has become commonplace to compare Israel at best to an occupying colonizer, at worst to the South Africa of race laws and Bantustans."

"the long cultivated persecution mania - "everyone's out to get us" - no longer elicits sympathy. Instead it attracts some very unappetizing comparisons: At a recent international meeting I heard one speaker, by analogy with Helmut Schmidt's famous dismissal of the Soviet Union as "Upper Volta with Missiles," describe Israel as "Serbia with nukes."

Israel: an adolescent with nukes: "By the age of 58 a country - like a man - should have achieved a certain maturity. After nearly six decades of existence we know, for good and for bad, who we are, what we have done and how we appear to others, warts and all. We acknowledge, however reluctantly and privately, our mistakes and our shortcomings. And though we still harbor the occasional illusion about ourselves and our prospects, we are wise enough to recognize that these are indeed for the most part just that: illusions. In short, we are adults.

"But the State of Israel remains curiously (and among Western-style democracies, uniquely) immature. The social transformations of the country - and its many economic achievements - have not brought the political wisdom that usually accompanies age. Seen from the outside, Israel still comports itself like an adolescent: consumed by a brittle confidence in its own uniqueness; certain that no one 'understands' it and everyone is 'against' it; full of wounded self-esteem, quick to take offense and quick to give it. Like many adolescents Israel is convinced - and makes a point of aggressively and repeatedly asserting - that it can do as it wishes, that its actions carry no consequences and that it is immortal."

"Even the inauguration of the illegal settlements and the disastrous invasion of Lebanon, while they strengthened the arguments of Israel's critics, did not yet shift the international balance of opinion. As recently as the early 1990s, most people in the world were only vaguely aware of the "West Bank" and what was happening there. Even those who pressed the Palestinians' case in international forums conceded that almost no one was listening. Israel could still do as it wished.

"But today everything is different. We can see, in retrospect, that the victory of Israel in June 1967 and its continuing occupation of the territories it conquered then have been the Jewish state's very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe. Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified and publicized the country's shortcomings and displayed them to a watching world. Curfews, checkpoints, bulldozers, public humiliations, home destructions, land seizures, shootings, "targeted assassinations," the separation fence: All of these routines of occupation and repression were once familiar only to an informed minority of specialists and activists. Today they can be watched, in real time, by anyone with a computer or a satellite dish - which means that Israel's behavior is under daily scrutiny by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The result has been a complete transformation in the international view of Israel.... It has become commonplace to compare Israel at best to an occupying colonizer, at worst to the South Africa of race laws and Bantustans."

"the long cultivated persecution mania - "everyone's out to get us" - no longer elicits sympathy. Instead it attracts some very unappetizing comparisons: At a recent international meeting I heard one speaker, by analogy with Helmut Schmidt's famous dismissal of the Soviet Union as "Upper Volta with Missiles," describe Israel as "Serbia with nukes."

Counter-terrorism experts: US losing 'war on terror'.: "Asked whether the United States is 'winning the war on terror,' 84 percent said no and 13 percent answered yes. Asked whether the war in Iraq is helping or hurting the global antiterrorism campaign, 87 percent answered that it was undermining those efforts."

You have to wonder about the 13% who said the US is 'winning'. Presumably they think terrorism is decreasing; resentment against the US falling away; and positive approval ratings for Bush and the US in Islamic countries is on the rise.

Counter-terrorism experts: US losing 'war on terror'.: "Asked whether the United States is 'winning the war on terror,' 84 percent said no and 13 percent answered yes. Asked whether the war in Iraq is helping or hurting the global antiterrorism campaign, 87 percent answered that it was undermining those efforts."

You have to wonder about the 13% who said the US is 'winning'. Presumably they think terrorism is decreasing; resentment against the US falling away; and positive approval ratings for Bush and the US in Islamic countries is on the rise.

The American Political Tradition: "Kinzer does not buy into the myth of an American Century in which the forces of freedom fought those of totalitarianism. His alternative version of that century, running from the 1890s to the present day, recounts the generally sorry record of US efforts to subvert and overthrow foreign governments that failed to meet with American approval. His new book catalogues fourteen such episodes, beginning with the 'revolution' concocted by wealthy American planters in 1893 to depose Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani and culminating with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq 110 years later."

"Overthrow makes it abundantly clear that far from being some innovation devised in the aftermath of 9/11, 'regime change' has long been a mainstay of American statecraft.

"When targeting some offending potentate for retirement, Kinzer notes, Washington has seldom if ever acted for altruistic reasons. 'Every time the United States has set out to overthrow a foreign government, its leaders have insisted that they are acting not to expand American power but to help people who are suffering.' In reality, however, the suffering of the oppressed has never figured as more than an afterthought. 'What distinguishes Americans from citizens of past empires,' writes Kinzer, 'is their eagerness to persuade themselves that they are acting out of humanitarian motives.' But Kinzer recognizes this as poppycock; like any great power, the United States has set its policy according to self-interest. Whether in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific or the Persian Gulf, the United States has seen regime change as a means for improving economic access, shoring up political stability and enhancing American control."

Its amazing the extent to which Americans, and even some non-Americans, are prepared to believe that the US 'acts out of humanitarian motives', and not self interest. The rules of human nature and history have been repealed, and suddenly, for the first time, in this one case alone, a power acts for humanitarian motives and not self-interest.

The American Political Tradition: "Kinzer does not buy into the myth of an American Century in which the forces of freedom fought those of totalitarianism. His alternative version of that century, running from the 1890s to the present day, recounts the generally sorry record of US efforts to subvert and overthrow foreign governments that failed to meet with American approval. His new book catalogues fourteen such episodes, beginning with the 'revolution' concocted by wealthy American planters in 1893 to depose Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani and culminating with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq 110 years later."

"Overthrow makes it abundantly clear that far from being some innovation devised in the aftermath of 9/11, 'regime change' has long been a mainstay of American statecraft.

"When targeting some offending potentate for retirement, Kinzer notes, Washington has seldom if ever acted for altruistic reasons. 'Every time the United States has set out to overthrow a foreign government, its leaders have insisted that they are acting not to expand American power but to help people who are suffering.' In reality, however, the suffering of the oppressed has never figured as more than an afterthought. 'What distinguishes Americans from citizens of past empires,' writes Kinzer, 'is their eagerness to persuade themselves that they are acting out of humanitarian motives.' But Kinzer recognizes this as poppycock; like any great power, the United States has set its policy according to self-interest. Whether in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific or the Persian Gulf, the United States has seen regime change as a means for improving economic access, shoring up political stability and enhancing American control."

Its amazing the extent to which Americans, and even some non-Americans, are prepared to believe that the US 'acts out of humanitarian motives', and not self interest. The rules of human nature and history have been repealed, and suddenly, for the first time, in this one case alone, a power acts for humanitarian motives and not self-interest.

Observer Foreign Editor makes a fool of himself with 'superb demolition' of Chomsky: I think it is a good thing when journalists or editors try to 'take on' Chomsky: they almost invariably makes fools of themselves and advance Chomsky's credibility.

Comments to the article contain a range of for and against. One of my favourites is:

"In particular, the complaint about Chomsky creating 'a moral - or rather immoral - equivalence between the US and the greatest criminals in history' is crashingly stupid, because the Chomsky quote that is supposed to illustrate this explicitly says exactly the opposite."

The only way for the establishment to deal with Chomsky is through complete silence - no mention or discussion ever, because to mention or debate him can only backfire. This tactic worked for a long time through the 70s, 80s and 90s, but with the advent of the internet the control of discourse has broken down and even newspapers have been forced to address the topic and the complaints from their readers and ex-readers.

Observer Foreign Editor makes a fool of himself with 'superb demolition' of Chomsky: I think it is a good thing when journalists or editors try to 'take on' Chomsky: they almost invariably makes fools of themselves and advance Chomsky's credibility.

Comments to the article contain a range of for and against. One of my favourites is:

"In particular, the complaint about Chomsky creating 'a moral - or rather immoral - equivalence between the US and the greatest criminals in history' is crashingly stupid, because the Chomsky quote that is supposed to illustrate this explicitly says exactly the opposite."

The only way for the establishment to deal with Chomsky is through complete silence - no mention or discussion ever, because to mention or debate him can only backfire. This tactic worked for a long time through the 70s, 80s and 90s, but with the advent of the internet the control of discourse has broken down and even newspapers have been forced to address the topic and the complaints from their readers and ex-readers.

Chomsky interviewed by a Norwegian, classic Chomsky:

Danish cartoons and freedom of speech: "While defending the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten’s legal right to publish the cartoons (“The New York Times should have the right to publish anti-Semitic Nazi caricatures on the front page.”) he argues that the Jyllandsposten’s decision to publish had nothing to do with press freedom whatsoever. “This is just ordinary racism under cover of freedom of expression,” he says, before attacking the European press in general. “In Europe freedom of speech and freedom of the press are barely protected, in fact barely understood.” Chomsky refers to the Blair government’s attempt to push a law making it a crime to glorify terrorism. “When a Muslim cleric was imprisoned recently on charges of having glorified terrorism, the London Guardian had a lead editorial praising the judicial decision because people shouldn’t be permitted to spew hatred and to glorify violent acts, they should be stopped. Under that law virtually all the British press and publishers should be closed down. Do they incite hatred and violence? Yes. Do they support invading Iraq? Yes. That is supporting hatred and violence,” he says before concluding: “Nobody cares about freedom of speech. What they care about is using state power to shut down the kind of speech they don’t like. Even Stalin would have agreed with that.”"

Bush and Iran: "The Bush administration has engaged in a policy of aggressive militarism and threat. There has been a vast increase in our offensive military capacity, even moving on towards the militarisation of space. All this generates countermeasures. The Russians have sharply increased military spending on offensive military capacity, China is doing the same and Iran may be developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Every one of these steps increases the threat of even accidental nuclear war. Offensive nuclear armed missiles are on computer-controlled alert. We know that our own control systems are inaccurate, the Russians are much worse. As the threat increases, as the preparation for war increases, the threat of accidental war increases."

"That is going to go a long way towards solving the problem of nuclear war. There is only one problem, the US won’t accept it. The treaty did come to a vote, at the UN, it was November 2004, the vote was 147 to one, with two abstentions: Israel, which flexibly goes along with the US, and Britain, which was more interesting. The British Ambassador explained, he said Britain is in favour of the treaty, but can’t vote for this version, because it divides the international community – namely 147 to one. In other words for Britain it’s more important to shine the shoes of their master than to save the human species from destruction, which is basically what it comes down to. If there are no controls over fissile material production the chances of human survival are negligible. That’s were it stands. Actually there is one country in the world, one that has said it accepts ElBaradei’s proposal. That’s Iran. I’m sure it wasn’t published in Norway, it certainly wasn’t published here."

Bush in Iraq: Question: I spent some time with the US marines outside Falluja, and met a soldier who was totally against the war

Chomsky: Do you know any army in history where the soldiers didn’t say that? If you had interviewed German soldiers in Norway during the Second World War, what do you think they would have said? It’s not the fault of the soldier, that’s why they didn’t try soldiers at Nuremberg. They tried Von Ribbentrop and they hanged him, for one reason, because he supported the pre-emptive war against Norway. What does that imply?

"The US has created a military catastrophe in Iraq which I think is without historic parallel, I can’t think of any. I mean, Germany had less problems running occupied Europe than the US has running Iraq, which is mind-boggling. Germany was at war, resistance in Iraq has no support from outside to speak of, it’s marginal. The partisans in Europe would have been wiped out in no time if they didn’t have British and American support."

"the nightmare in Washington, is an independent, loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world’s oil. That’s almost the worst nightmare they can think of. There is a worse one. This loose alliance might decide to turn towards to the East. To turn towards the Asian energy system which is developing basically around China, it’s the core of it. China, Russia and maybe India will go along, it’s not clear, in working on an energy security grid, if they can draw Iran into it, which is possible. By geographic accident most Middle East oil happens to be in Shia areas, and if that moves along, it is for the US an utter disaster. But you can’t talk about this in the West, for we are not allowed to admit that oil had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. We are supposed to believe that the US and Britain would have liberated Iraq even if its main export was pickles. And that most of the oil was in the South Pacific. That’s a kind of doctrine that has to be adhered to by Western intellectuals kind of North Korean style, the Dear Leader said so, so it’s true. If anybody had one brain cell functioning, they’d know that establishing a major base in the centre of the world’s energy system was the prime reason for the invasion."

Chomsky interviewed by a Norwegian, classic Chomsky:

Danish cartoons and freedom of speech: "While defending the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten’s legal right to publish the cartoons (“The New York Times should have the right to publish anti-Semitic Nazi caricatures on the front page.”) he argues that the Jyllandsposten’s decision to publish had nothing to do with press freedom whatsoever. “This is just ordinary racism under cover of freedom of expression,” he says, before attacking the European press in general. “In Europe freedom of speech and freedom of the press are barely protected, in fact barely understood.” Chomsky refers to the Blair government’s attempt to push a law making it a crime to glorify terrorism. “When a Muslim cleric was imprisoned recently on charges of having glorified terrorism, the London Guardian had a lead editorial praising the judicial decision because people shouldn’t be permitted to spew hatred and to glorify violent acts, they should be stopped. Under that law virtually all the British press and publishers should be closed down. Do they incite hatred and violence? Yes. Do they support invading Iraq? Yes. That is supporting hatred and violence,” he says before concluding: “Nobody cares about freedom of speech. What they care about is using state power to shut down the kind of speech they don’t like. Even Stalin would have agreed with that.”"

Bush and Iran: "The Bush administration has engaged in a policy of aggressive militarism and threat. There has been a vast increase in our offensive military capacity, even moving on towards the militarisation of space. All this generates countermeasures. The Russians have sharply increased military spending on offensive military capacity, China is doing the same and Iran may be developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Every one of these steps increases the threat of even accidental nuclear war. Offensive nuclear armed missiles are on computer-controlled alert. We know that our own control systems are inaccurate, the Russians are much worse. As the threat increases, as the preparation for war increases, the threat of accidental war increases."

"That is going to go a long way towards solving the problem of nuclear war. There is only one problem, the US won’t accept it. The treaty did come to a vote, at the UN, it was November 2004, the vote was 147 to one, with two abstentions: Israel, which flexibly goes along with the US, and Britain, which was more interesting. The British Ambassador explained, he said Britain is in favour of the treaty, but can’t vote for this version, because it divides the international community – namely 147 to one. In other words for Britain it’s more important to shine the shoes of their master than to save the human species from destruction, which is basically what it comes down to. If there are no controls over fissile material production the chances of human survival are negligible. That’s were it stands. Actually there is one country in the world, one that has said it accepts ElBaradei’s proposal. That’s Iran. I’m sure it wasn’t published in Norway, it certainly wasn’t published here."

Bush in Iraq: Question: I spent some time with the US marines outside Falluja, and met a soldier who was totally against the war

Chomsky: Do you know any army in history where the soldiers didn’t say that? If you had interviewed German soldiers in Norway during the Second World War, what do you think they would have said? It’s not the fault of the soldier, that’s why they didn’t try soldiers at Nuremberg. They tried Von Ribbentrop and they hanged him, for one reason, because he supported the pre-emptive war against Norway. What does that imply?

"The US has created a military catastrophe in Iraq which I think is without historic parallel, I can’t think of any. I mean, Germany had less problems running occupied Europe than the US has running Iraq, which is mind-boggling. Germany was at war, resistance in Iraq has no support from outside to speak of, it’s marginal. The partisans in Europe would have been wiped out in no time if they didn’t have British and American support."

"the nightmare in Washington, is an independent, loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world’s oil. That’s almost the worst nightmare they can think of. There is a worse one. This loose alliance might decide to turn towards to the East. To turn towards the Asian energy system which is developing basically around China, it’s the core of it. China, Russia and maybe India will go along, it’s not clear, in working on an energy security grid, if they can draw Iran into it, which is possible. By geographic accident most Middle East oil happens to be in Shia areas, and if that moves along, it is for the US an utter disaster. But you can’t talk about this in the West, for we are not allowed to admit that oil had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. We are supposed to believe that the US and Britain would have liberated Iraq even if its main export was pickles. And that most of the oil was in the South Pacific. That’s a kind of doctrine that has to be adhered to by Western intellectuals kind of North Korean style, the Dear Leader said so, so it’s true. If anybody had one brain cell functioning, they’d know that establishing a major base in the centre of the world’s energy system was the prime reason for the invasion."

Australia already being poisoned by nuclear waste: "When asked in the Australian Senate about whether or not the US would be using DU in its bombing of Australian sites, Defence Minister Senator Hill said, 'In relation to Depleted Uranium used by our allies we have said that, if they believe it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.' Senator Hill has since retired from Australian politics and has taken up residence as the Australian UN Ambassador in New York."

Note the utterly servile manner of this expression, in effect: 'if they (ie, US) believe it is ok to do it, who are we to question.'

"According to Leuren Moret, it is simply no longer possible to go to Afghanistan or the Middle East without being contaminated. How long before that is also true of Australia?"

Australia already being poisoned by nuclear waste: "When asked in the Australian Senate about whether or not the US would be using DU in its bombing of Australian sites, Defence Minister Senator Hill said, 'In relation to Depleted Uranium used by our allies we have said that, if they believe it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.' Senator Hill has since retired from Australian politics and has taken up residence as the Australian UN Ambassador in New York."

Note the utterly servile manner of this expression, in effect: 'if they (ie, US) believe it is ok to do it, who are we to question.'

"According to Leuren Moret, it is simply no longer possible to go to Afghanistan or the Middle East without being contaminated. How long before that is also true of Australia?"

The Iraq War in Context: A Strategy Paper Calling for the Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops: "'The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against enemies, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged.'
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model for the world.
President George W. Bush

The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq…What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.
Gwynne Dyer

We had to create a false rational for going in [to Iraq] to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: 'General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?' I said: 'No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those.'
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Retired)"

The Iraq War in Context: A Strategy Paper Calling for the Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops: "'The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against enemies, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged.'
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model for the world.
President George W. Bush

The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq…What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.
Gwynne Dyer

We had to create a false rational for going in [to Iraq] to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: 'General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?' I said: 'No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those.'
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Retired)"

Gawenda: America's liberals need to loosen up: Do we really need to have Rovian extreme right-wing propaganda printed as 'opinion' in an Australian newspaper? Or is this to be the new official policy and rhetoric of the Howard Government?

"This liberal base of the [Democrat] party is essentially animated by a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush and everything he stands for and has done."

If that were all critics of Bush and his policies were motivated or 'animated' by then it would not be worth taking seriously. But of course it is not the case. This is a rhetorical device which sets out to make any or preferably all criticism of Bush and his policies illegitimate by a simple device: people who criticise Bush are motivated by hate; that is an illegitimate response to the government; all criticism can therefore be dismissed. I suspect you will see this device employed over and over again.

"Liberals - and, by implication, the moderate left in Europe and Australia - do not have a coherent position on the security challenges facing the US and the world since September 11.... Bush, and conservatives in general, at least have a coherent story to tell about the world in the wake of the September 11 attacks. America, which represents good, is in an epic struggle against evil, and liberals and leftists in general are constantly trying to undermine the "moral clarity" of America, rein in American power and make Americans question their faith in their country's exceptionalism."

"Liberals end up sounding wholly negative, motivated purely by anti-Americanism and hatred of Bush, more outraged by Bush and his Administration than by indiscriminate terrorist violence, the oppression of women and the religious intolerance and anti-democratic ideology of America's, and liberal democracy's, enemies."

Bush's aggression has killed 10,000 people in Afghanistan and 100,000 people in Iraq already by 2004, which is many more than were killed on 9/11. And presumably few or none of these people killed had anything to do 9/11. In the process of doing this the Administration has violated international law and the US constitution, and taken distinct steps towards a police state, including establishing and legitimising the use of torture, concentration camps, detention without trial and extra-judicial killings. The motive for all these actions is essentially wealth and power, ie control of Mideast energy reserves and power and wealth for US corporations and the US ruling elite. Terrorism (just as with WMDs) is simply a convenient pretext. There were of course no WMDs, which was apparent before the aggression against Iraq; and the invasion of Iraq has led to a predictable jump in 'terrorist' activity.

It is the duty of a citizen of the US or an allied country to oppose these actions and seek to change policy. If the writer cannot or will not see these facts and duties and instead acts as a propagandist for the government, that merely reflects on him. He is a crucial tool in the great machine, and bears his share of personal responsibility for the tragedy and suffering.

Gawenda: America's liberals need to loosen up: Do we really need to have Rovian extreme right-wing propaganda printed as 'opinion' in an Australian newspaper? Or is this to be the new official policy and rhetoric of the Howard Government?

"This liberal base of the [Democrat] party is essentially animated by a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush and everything he stands for and has done."

If that were all critics of Bush and his policies were motivated or 'animated' by then it would not be worth taking seriously. But of course it is not the case. This is a rhetorical device which sets out to make any or preferably all criticism of Bush and his policies illegitimate by a simple device: people who criticise Bush are motivated by hate; that is an illegitimate response to the government; all criticism can therefore be dismissed. I suspect you will see this device employed over and over again.

"Liberals - and, by implication, the moderate left in Europe and Australia - do not have a coherent position on the security challenges facing the US and the world since September 11.... Bush, and conservatives in general, at least have a coherent story to tell about the world in the wake of the September 11 attacks. America, which represents good, is in an epic struggle against evil, and liberals and leftists in general are constantly trying to undermine the "moral clarity" of America, rein in American power and make Americans question their faith in their country's exceptionalism."

"Liberals end up sounding wholly negative, motivated purely by anti-Americanism and hatred of Bush, more outraged by Bush and his Administration than by indiscriminate terrorist violence, the oppression of women and the religious intolerance and anti-democratic ideology of America's, and liberal democracy's, enemies."

Bush's aggression has killed 10,000 people in Afghanistan and 100,000 people in Iraq already by 2004, which is many more than were killed on 9/11. And presumably few or none of these people killed had anything to do 9/11. In the process of doing this the Administration has violated international law and the US constitution, and taken distinct steps towards a police state, including establishing and legitimising the use of torture, concentration camps, detention without trial and extra-judicial killings. The motive for all these actions is essentially wealth and power, ie control of Mideast energy reserves and power and wealth for US corporations and the US ruling elite. Terrorism (just as with WMDs) is simply a convenient pretext. There were of course no WMDs, which was apparent before the aggression against Iraq; and the invasion of Iraq has led to a predictable jump in 'terrorist' activity.

It is the duty of a citizen of the US or an allied country to oppose these actions and seek to change policy. If the writer cannot or will not see these facts and duties and instead acts as a propagandist for the government, that merely reflects on him. He is a crucial tool in the great machine, and bears his share of personal responsibility for the tragedy and suffering.

Why respond to Malkin & Coulter?: Hume's ghost explains why

Why respond to Malkin & Coulter?: Hume's ghost explains why

US tortures mentally ill man: "'This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.'"

Was this before or after the torture, one might ask.

"Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations ... And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques."

US tortures mentally ill man: "'This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.'"

Was this before or after the torture, one might ask.

"Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations ... And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques."

Wingnut Ted: Digby posts an email from someone she calls 'Wingnut Ted'. On first reading I'm not convinced this isn't a troll or a joke from some clever kid. But most (including Digby) seem to take it as genuine.

If genuine, it is bizarre, and frightening. People have been completely brainwashed, believing nonsense, unaware that that is the case. It is a deep insight into the crisis of modern American politics. Progressives often argue that Ann Coulter should be ignored. I disagree. Coulter and her followers are a remarkable and important phenomenon that should be brought to the centre of discussion (and the ugliness identified with the Administration, if possible). The nearest thing we have in Australia would be Piers Akerman, Miranda Devine or Andrew Bolt, who I regard as paid propagandists, not journalists. They get their talking points from some rightwing thinktank (or Howard's press office) and off they go. Sometimes it is patently insincere (as well as hateful), such as when Akerman recently talked about 'man and dog' and 'man and goat' in reference to gay marriage on the ABC Insiders program. I dont believe Akerman (or Howard or Abbott for that matter) give two hoots about gays and gay marriage. They are simply working the political and propaganda advantage, no doubt influenced to some extent by the successful tactics of the US Republican party.

Digby's commenters, as usual, are as good as Digby:

boil: I don't get Ann Coulter's or Rush's shtick. Unfortunately I have lots of loved ones who do, and I'm always trying to understand. Their defenders say that they are not to to be taken literally, that they are satirists, humorists, etc. I don't get the joke. I also don't get how it is that Democrats hate America, when what Democrats are constantly fighting for is to uphold the Constitution. The America of the wingnutters seems to be divorced from the Constitution. It's some gung-ho far west ideal that has nothing to do with the laws that were meant to guarantee the freedom of American citizens. Government wiretapping without a warrant is against the law, yet to point that out is somehow un"American". Torture is against the law, yet to point that out is somehow to give comfort to the enemy. POinting out that criminals have rights that are spelled out in the Constitution is somehow to pander to pedophiles. I can see why rich pigs like Rush and Ann continue to shovel this shit, because hey profit from it, but what does it profit my Mom to toe the Repub line? She doesn't get any tax breaks, but boy she will not hesitate to call Russ Feingold a traitor. She claims to love America, but anyone who exercises their right to free speech at a Bush gathering deserves to go to jail. WTF?

Republicant:

boil,

For your sake, I am glad you do not understand it. Let me sum it up for you:

The new improved shiny Republican party of today believes America is a nation of men not laws. The "men" in this case is G.W. Bush and everyone who agrees absolutely with him and will toe the line no matter how absurd or ridiculous the policy may be.

That is: Bush = good.
Not Bush = bad.

Conservatism be damned, this is a cult of personality, an authoritarian and reactionary (and I might add spoiled and adolescent) personality at that. It is that simple.
I suspect that your loved who have these views also believe that men are inherently evil and cannot be trusted to do the right thing unsupervised. They are projecting their own weaknesses and faults onto everyone else. Too bad for them. Too bad for the rest of us too because unfortunately they are the people who keep theses bastards in power.

Alderaan: "Their defenders say that they are not to to be taken literally, that they are satirists, humorists, etc."

No, they are "kidding" the same way the racist guy in the office or around the dinner table is "kidding": not kidding at all, but he knows what he says is now socially unacceptable to the mainstream without pretending they don't really mean it.

[Bernard]: My view is that you have to call people on racism, hatespeech, fascism etc. It has to be not just socially, but also politically unacceptable, ie vocally condemned by both right and left. The right tactic was used orignally re Howard and Hanson, when Howard was called upon to publicly condemn her remarks. Howard of course, didnt condemn Hanson, but evaded the issue by talking about 'free speech', and ultimately profited enormously from Hanson. This is the distinguishing feature of his Prime Ministership. In time however, the right/conservatives must again condemn publicly and unequivocally the statement or exploitation of racist and fascist hatespeech.

Fencer X: The rightwing has mastered the art of simplification in it's debating tactics. They are capable of simplifying things so much that they no longer have any meaning, only emotional context - and I believe that is the point. They have taken Orwellian Doublespeak, used it to strip all meaning from many words in the English language and then replaced their meaning with emotional context. Everything they don't agree with can be lumped into a simple emotional category, "Bad/Scary/Dangerous." And since they have been so successful in removing rational thought from every day discussion in this country they are free to conflate anything that falls under the Bad/Scary/Dangerous emotional meme. This is what allows them to call Liberals terrorists and traitors, it allows them to say that Nazis and Communists are lionized by the ivory tower liberal elite, it empowers hate spewing, intellectually crippled serial liars like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and creates an enviornment completely hostile to rational discourse. Liberal arguments are automatically dismissed because we're the enemy, we hate America and we want the terrorists to win. So anything we say must be some subtle ploy to undermine America's will to fight those damn dirty Arab terrorists who want to destroy our American way of life (mom, apple pie and all). The villification of intellectuals only further complicates the matter. Informed discourse is seen as haughty, possibly subversive and probably manipulative.

Wingnut Ted: Digby posts an email from someone she calls 'Wingnut Ted'. On first reading I'm not convinced this isn't a troll or a joke from some clever kid. But most (including Digby) seem to take it as genuine.

If genuine, it is bizarre, and frightening. People have been completely brainwashed, believing nonsense, unaware that that is the case. It is a deep insight into the crisis of modern American politics. Progressives often argue that Ann Coulter should be ignored. I disagree. Coulter and her followers are a remarkable and important phenomenon that should be brought to the centre of discussion (and the ugliness identified with the Administration, if possible). The nearest thing we have in Australia would be Piers Akerman, Miranda Devine or Andrew Bolt, who I regard as paid propagandists, not journalists. They get their talking points from some rightwing thinktank (or Howard's press office) and off they go. Sometimes it is patently insincere (as well as hateful), such as when Akerman recently talked about 'man and dog' and 'man and goat' in reference to gay marriage on the ABC Insiders program. I dont believe Akerman (or Howard or Abbott for that matter) give two hoots about gays and gay marriage. They are simply working the political and propaganda advantage, no doubt influenced to some extent by the successful tactics of the US Republican party.

Digby's commenters, as usual, are as good as Digby:

boil: I don't get Ann Coulter's or Rush's shtick. Unfortunately I have lots of loved ones who do, and I'm always trying to understand. Their defenders say that they are not to to be taken literally, that they are satirists, humorists, etc. I don't get the joke. I also don't get how it is that Democrats hate America, when what Democrats are constantly fighting for is to uphold the Constitution. The America of the wingnutters seems to be divorced from the Constitution. It's some gung-ho far west ideal that has nothing to do with the laws that were meant to guarantee the freedom of American citizens. Government wiretapping without a warrant is against the law, yet to point that out is somehow un"American". Torture is against the law, yet to point that out is somehow to give comfort to the enemy. POinting out that criminals have rights that are spelled out in the Constitution is somehow to pander to pedophiles. I can see why rich pigs like Rush and Ann continue to shovel this shit, because hey profit from it, but what does it profit my Mom to toe the Repub line? She doesn't get any tax breaks, but boy she will not hesitate to call Russ Feingold a traitor. She claims to love America, but anyone who exercises their right to free speech at a Bush gathering deserves to go to jail. WTF?

Republicant:

boil,

For your sake, I am glad you do not understand it. Let me sum it up for you:

The new improved shiny Republican party of today believes America is a nation of men not laws. The "men" in this case is G.W. Bush and everyone who agrees absolutely with him and will toe the line no matter how absurd or ridiculous the policy may be.

That is: Bush = good.
Not Bush = bad.

Conservatism be damned, this is a cult of personality, an authoritarian and reactionary (and I might add spoiled and adolescent) personality at that. It is that simple.
I suspect that your loved who have these views also believe that men are inherently evil and cannot be trusted to do the right thing unsupervised. They are projecting their own weaknesses and faults onto everyone else. Too bad for them. Too bad for the rest of us too because unfortunately they are the people who keep theses bastards in power.

Alderaan: "Their defenders say that they are not to to be taken literally, that they are satirists, humorists, etc."

No, they are "kidding" the same way the racist guy in the office or around the dinner table is "kidding": not kidding at all, but he knows what he says is now socially unacceptable to the mainstream without pretending they don't really mean it.

[Bernard]: My view is that you have to call people on racism, hatespeech, fascism etc. It has to be not just socially, but also politically unacceptable, ie vocally condemned by both right and left. The right tactic was used orignally re Howard and Hanson, when Howard was called upon to publicly condemn her remarks. Howard of course, didnt condemn Hanson, but evaded the issue by talking about 'free speech', and ultimately profited enormously from Hanson. This is the distinguishing feature of his Prime Ministership. In time however, the right/conservatives must again condemn publicly and unequivocally the statement or exploitation of racist and fascist hatespeech.

Fencer X: The rightwing has mastered the art of simplification in it's debating tactics. They are capable of simplifying things so much that they no longer have any meaning, only emotional context - and I believe that is the point. They have taken Orwellian Doublespeak, used it to strip all meaning from many words in the English language and then replaced their meaning with emotional context. Everything they don't agree with can be lumped into a simple emotional category, "Bad/Scary/Dangerous." And since they have been so successful in removing rational thought from every day discussion in this country they are free to conflate anything that falls under the Bad/Scary/Dangerous emotional meme. This is what allows them to call Liberals terrorists and traitors, it allows them to say that Nazis and Communists are lionized by the ivory tower liberal elite, it empowers hate spewing, intellectually crippled serial liars like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and creates an enviornment completely hostile to rational discourse. Liberal arguments are automatically dismissed because we're the enemy, we hate America and we want the terrorists to win. So anything we say must be some subtle ploy to undermine America's will to fight those damn dirty Arab terrorists who want to destroy our American way of life (mom, apple pie and all). The villification of intellectuals only further complicates the matter. Informed discourse is seen as haughty, possibly subversive and probably manipulative.

Soil erosion: devastating threat: "The United States is losing soil 10 times faster -- and China and India are losing soil 30 to 40 times faster -- than the natural replenishment rate.

As a result of erosion over the past 40 years, 30 percent of the world's arable land has become unproductive."

Soil erosion: devastating threat: "The United States is losing soil 10 times faster -- and China and India are losing soil 30 to 40 times faster -- than the natural replenishment rate.

As a result of erosion over the past 40 years, 30 percent of the world's arable land has become unproductive."

Turkey's biggest budget ever movie to be released in the US: "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq starts off factually enough, with a depiction of a July 4, 2003, incident in which around 100 soldiers from the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade stormed the barracks of a Turkish special forces office in Iraq, arresting 11 Turks who allegedly were planning to assassinate the Kurdish governor of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The Americans not only handcuffed the Turks but also forced hoods over their heads and held them in custody for more than two days. The U.S. government later apologized, explaining that its soldiers couldn't tell the difference between Turks and Iraqi insurgents because the Turks were not in uniform. Turkey didn't buy it, and this blockbuster is the payback.

"As the flick takes a sharp turn toward fiction, one of the 11 Turks in the 2003 debacle commits suicide to regain his warrior honor. His suicide note is sent to Polat Alemdar, the Turkish intelligence officer who stars in the Valley of the Wolves television show. Alemdar heads to Iraq to find U.S. Special Forces Cmdr. Sam William Marshall (played by Billy Zane), who, in his role as a self-described 'peacekeeper of God,' is busy leading a massacre of machine-gun fire on unsuspecting civilians at an Iraqi wedding. Survivors are sent to a facility where a Jewish-American doctor (played by Gary Busey) pulls out human hearts with Mengelian apathy and sells them to aristocrats in London, New York, and Tel Aviv. When one of the American soldiers expresses concern that a truckful of Iraqi civilians are packed in too tight to breathe, a fellow soldier stops the car and bullet-soaks the trailer and its human cargo. 'I was making sure they could breathe,' he quips, pointing to the holes in the truck."

While rooted in truth, it is the very excesses and caricatures of films such as this which will undoubtedly contribute to their popular success. As the Hollywood system finally breaks down and 'third world' movies and culture rise, one of the biggest casualties will be US imperialism and its international reputation.

Turkey's biggest budget ever movie to be released in the US: "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq starts off factually enough, with a depiction of a July 4, 2003, incident in which around 100 soldiers from the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade stormed the barracks of a Turkish special forces office in Iraq, arresting 11 Turks who allegedly were planning to assassinate the Kurdish governor of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The Americans not only handcuffed the Turks but also forced hoods over their heads and held them in custody for more than two days. The U.S. government later apologized, explaining that its soldiers couldn't tell the difference between Turks and Iraqi insurgents because the Turks were not in uniform. Turkey didn't buy it, and this blockbuster is the payback.

"As the flick takes a sharp turn toward fiction, one of the 11 Turks in the 2003 debacle commits suicide to regain his warrior honor. His suicide note is sent to Polat Alemdar, the Turkish intelligence officer who stars in the Valley of the Wolves television show. Alemdar heads to Iraq to find U.S. Special Forces Cmdr. Sam William Marshall (played by Billy Zane), who, in his role as a self-described 'peacekeeper of God,' is busy leading a massacre of machine-gun fire on unsuspecting civilians at an Iraqi wedding. Survivors are sent to a facility where a Jewish-American doctor (played by Gary Busey) pulls out human hearts with Mengelian apathy and sells them to aristocrats in London, New York, and Tel Aviv. When one of the American soldiers expresses concern that a truckful of Iraqi civilians are packed in too tight to breathe, a fellow soldier stops the car and bullet-soaks the trailer and its human cargo. 'I was making sure they could breathe,' he quips, pointing to the holes in the truck."

While rooted in truth, it is the very excesses and caricatures of films such as this which will undoubtedly contribute to their popular success. As the Hollywood system finally breaks down and 'third world' movies and culture rise, one of the biggest casualties will be US imperialism and its international reputation.

The Left and the Blathersphere: Alexander Cockburn gets in some sharp jabs at the left 'blogosphere'. There is a lot of good stuff there but a significant element of it seems to be increasingly dedicated to Democrat election campaigns. Who could be interested in that? Not even many Americans, much less the rest of the world. The blogosphere is not radical enough. I think they underestimate the importance of solidarity and grassroots consciousness raising. As some blogs become progressively more involved in Democrat politics they also become progressively less interesting and less progressive altogether. Of course under the primitive US electoral system, with no preferential voting (not to mention proportional representation) there is a strong disincentive to the building of any alternative. Its largely Democrats or nothing.

The Left and the Blathersphere: Alexander Cockburn gets in some sharp jabs at the left 'blogosphere'. There is a lot of good stuff there but a significant element of it seems to be increasingly dedicated to Democrat election campaigns. Who could be interested in that? Not even many Americans, much less the rest of the world. The blogosphere is not radical enough. I think they underestimate the importance of solidarity and grassroots consciousness raising. As some blogs become progressively more involved in Democrat politics they also become progressively less interesting and less progressive altogether. Of course under the primitive US electoral system, with no preferential voting (not to mention proportional representation) there is a strong disincentive to the building of any alternative. Its largely Democrats or nothing.

Interesting interview with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov: The US seems to have been checkmated over Iran, or as Lavrov puts it the May 31 offer from Washington is "a victory of common sense".

Interesting interview with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov: The US seems to have been checkmated over Iran, or as Lavrov puts it the May 31 offer from Washington is "a victory of common sense".

'Wash Post' Obtains Shocking Memo from U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Details Increasing Danger and Hardship: The frank memo signed Khalilzad describes a thoroughly disastrous situation, eg, "Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials."

Ambassador Khalilzad's memo also says: "More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate." Sounds like a mission on the brink of complete collapse....

Digby's commenters are, again, too good not to quote:

Tupharsin: You want it straight? Try this from Gwynne Dyer, the former naval officer, historian and lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (Britain's West Point)...

"It is not enough that the United States lose in Iraq. It must be seen to lose by the American public, for otherwise the project that lay behind the invasion of Iraq will soon enough be resurrected by some other administration, and not necessarily a Republican one."

Bruce Emory: Although it may give succor to the rightwing to quote these thoughts, I feel that an unequivocal failure in Iraq is the best outcome for America's future. Unless and until we see the preemptive war doctrine rejected out of hand, it can only cause greater and greater misery throughout the world. Better it fail in its maiden voyage than be arguably successful enough to attempt again.

James E. Powell: The fact that this cable is not getting massive coverage, and I mean Monica's blue dress level coverage, is revealing.

What it reveals is something understood here and on other left and center-left blogs: the corporate press/media is nothing more or less than the propaganda ministry of the Republican Party. But this is not understood by the great mass of Americans who spend little or no time acquiring information about Iraq, and who get 100% of their information from the corporate press/media.

[Bernard]: Powell is right to condemn the corporate media as a propaganda institution, but I also believe this is a common error in the left blogosphere. I dont think the media coverage would really be much different on this and other issues if the Democrats were in charge, eg if Hillary were President and Kerry/Murtha controlled the Congress. The Democrat policy of corporate imperialism is essentially the same, although they would naturally like to claim they are competent at it, unlike Bush. Media coverage will only really change when the US corporate/ruling elite finally concludes that the Iraq venture is a disastrous failure and has to be ended. Look for the signs. Is the recent Marine massacre coverage, similar to My Lai, such a sign? Withdrawal will be a particularly difficult decision to make. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq and the mideast has vast strategic significance. At present the war is only costing taxpayer's money (which is getting largely channelled to defence contractors) and soldier's blood (poverty draft cannon fodder). That could be willingly expended for some time yet in the hope the situation turns around. It is also, of course, costing Bush poll support, but that will not concern the elite as much as if the leading Democrat candidate plumbed for withdrawal before the official say-so. Hillary obviously has no intention of doing that.

[Powell continues]: I have little faith that a disastrous outcome will effect any change. It is hard to think of a more disastrous adventure than the Viet Nam War, yet the prevailing belief about that war is that it was a noble cause that was betrayed and sabotaged by weak and traitorous elements in our own country. As the last president election showed, one's opposition to the Viet Nam War is a major political liability. One's vocal support of it, even if one dodged the draft, is a political asset.

What can we expect? If history is any guide, nothing good for a long while. How many years did it take for Western Europeans to become convinced that jingoism and nationalist dreams of conquest are political diseases and that politicians who advocate wars of conquest are to be shunned? How many people had to die to drive home this simple truth?

joejoejoe: Instead of covering this remarkably stark cable from our US Amb. to Iraq Khalilzad to our Secretary of State the WaPo puts this on A4:

"Bush's Gut Feeling On Maliki Is Positive"

Enough with the Psychic Friends Network foreign policy. The highest ranking US official in Iraq, an Arabic speaking PhD holding, old-fashioned diplomat cables Foggy Bottom and calmly mentions things like 'ethnic cleansing' and 'kidnapping' and admits most US allies in Iraq don't even tell their family members where they work. And the Post buries it. Meanwhile President Bush looks into more eyes and sees more souls.

'Wash Post' Obtains Shocking Memo from U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Details Increasing Danger and Hardship: The frank memo signed Khalilzad describes a thoroughly disastrous situation, eg, "Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials."

Ambassador Khalilzad's memo also says: "More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate." Sounds like a mission on the brink of complete collapse....

Digby's commenters are, again, too good not to quote:

Tupharsin: You want it straight? Try this from Gwynne Dyer, the former naval officer, historian and lecturer at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (Britain's West Point)...

"It is not enough that the United States lose in Iraq. It must be seen to lose by the American public, for otherwise the project that lay behind the invasion of Iraq will soon enough be resurrected by some other administration, and not necessarily a Republican one."

Bruce Emory: Although it may give succor to the rightwing to quote these thoughts, I feel that an unequivocal failure in Iraq is the best outcome for America's future. Unless and until we see the preemptive war doctrine rejected out of hand, it can only cause greater and greater misery throughout the world. Better it fail in its maiden voyage than be arguably successful enough to attempt again.

James E. Powell: The fact that this cable is not getting massive coverage, and I mean Monica's blue dress level coverage, is revealing.

What it reveals is something understood here and on other left and center-left blogs: the corporate press/media is nothing more or less than the propaganda ministry of the Republican Party. But this is not understood by the great mass of Americans who spend little or no time acquiring information about Iraq, and who get 100% of their information from the corporate press/media.

[Bernard]: Powell is right to condemn the corporate media as a propaganda institution, but I also believe this is a common error in the left blogosphere. I dont think the media coverage would really be much different on this and other issues if the Democrats were in charge, eg if Hillary were President and Kerry/Murtha controlled the Congress. The Democrat policy of corporate imperialism is essentially the same, although they would naturally like to claim they are competent at it, unlike Bush. Media coverage will only really change when the US corporate/ruling elite finally concludes that the Iraq venture is a disastrous failure and has to be ended. Look for the signs. Is the recent Marine massacre coverage, similar to My Lai, such a sign? Withdrawal will be a particularly difficult decision to make. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq and the mideast has vast strategic significance. At present the war is only costing taxpayer's money (which is getting largely channelled to defence contractors) and soldier's blood (poverty draft cannon fodder). That could be willingly expended for some time yet in the hope the situation turns around. It is also, of course, costing Bush poll support, but that will not concern the elite as much as if the leading Democrat candidate plumbed for withdrawal before the official say-so. Hillary obviously has no intention of doing that.

[Powell continues]: I have little faith that a disastrous outcome will effect any change. It is hard to think of a more disastrous adventure than the Viet Nam War, yet the prevailing belief about that war is that it was a noble cause that was betrayed and sabotaged by weak and traitorous elements in our own country. As the last president election showed, one's opposition to the Viet Nam War is a major political liability. One's vocal support of it, even if one dodged the draft, is a political asset.

What can we expect? If history is any guide, nothing good for a long while. How many years did it take for Western Europeans to become convinced that jingoism and nationalist dreams of conquest are political diseases and that politicians who advocate wars of conquest are to be shunned? How many people had to die to drive home this simple truth?

joejoejoe: Instead of covering this remarkably stark cable from our US Amb. to Iraq Khalilzad to our Secretary of State the WaPo puts this on A4:

"Bush's Gut Feeling On Maliki Is Positive"

Enough with the Psychic Friends Network foreign policy. The highest ranking US official in Iraq, an Arabic speaking PhD holding, old-fashioned diplomat cables Foggy Bottom and calmly mentions things like 'ethnic cleansing' and 'kidnapping' and admits most US allies in Iraq don't even tell their family members where they work. And the Post buries it. Meanwhile President Bush looks into more eyes and sees more souls.

Gabriel Kolko: Why a Global Economic Deluge Looms: "Financial liberalization has produced a monster"

Gabriel Kolko: Why a Global Economic Deluge Looms: "Financial liberalization has produced a monster"

Bin Laden's jihadi spring: "It often comes as a surprise to people to discover that bin Laden has never claimed that al-Qaeda can or would defeat the US, much less that al-Qaeda's goal was to destroy the 'American way of life' or 'Western civilization'."

They could only be surprised if they took seriously the pronouncements of the Anglo-saxon governments, a mistake that no informed observer should be making by this time.

"He is not a man given to grandiose pronouncements and has limited his goal to incrementally increasing the pain inflicted on the US and its allies to force them to disengage from the Middle East to the greatest extent possible. If achieved, bin Laden believes, this would then allow al-Qaeda and its allies to focus on its main targets: the tyrannies that rule most Arab states, and the State of Israel."

Bin Laden's jihadi spring: "It often comes as a surprise to people to discover that bin Laden has never claimed that al-Qaeda can or would defeat the US, much less that al-Qaeda's goal was to destroy the 'American way of life' or 'Western civilization'."

They could only be surprised if they took seriously the pronouncements of the Anglo-saxon governments, a mistake that no informed observer should be making by this time.

"He is not a man given to grandiose pronouncements and has limited his goal to incrementally increasing the pain inflicted on the US and its allies to force them to disengage from the Middle East to the greatest extent possible. If achieved, bin Laden believes, this would then allow al-Qaeda and its allies to focus on its main targets: the tyrannies that rule most Arab states, and the State of Israel."

Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Stolen US elections of 2000 and 2004 are or should be big news. But they are not.

Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Stolen US elections of 2000 and 2004 are or should be big news. But they are not.

Greens Senator Christine Milne: Australia to be nuclear waste dump under Howard's plan: "Make no mistake: the current debate about nuclear power in Australia is a furphy. The real agenda is the development of a nuclear enrichment industry and a global nuclear waste dump to store huge volumes of depleted uranium and to take high-level waste from all over the world, including the United States."

Greens Senator Christine Milne: Australia to be nuclear waste dump under Howard's plan: "Make no mistake: the current debate about nuclear power in Australia is a furphy. The real agenda is the development of a nuclear enrichment industry and a global nuclear waste dump to store huge volumes of depleted uranium and to take high-level waste from all over the world, including the United States."

Howard’s real nuclear agenda: "Prime Minister John Howard says he is 'yet to be convinced' of the economic and other arguments in favour of nuclear power generation in Australia. 'All I am wanting is this country being open minded enough to look at the alternatives', he said again last week. However, while the PM may have doubts about the financial attractions of nuclear power in Australia, he is plainly as keen as mustard to see Australia’s nuclear industries expand into other areas such as enrichment and the storage of nuclear waste. Details have recently come to light about just how Australia could fit into US President George W Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and how our island continent might become a one stop nuclear shop. And of course, what Dubbya wants, Johnny will bend over backwards to deliver."

"Australia and Canada have been invited to join this [US-led] "partnership" in which Australia’s role would be to mine and enrich uranium for export in the form of fuel rods for nuclear power generation to rapidly expanding economies like India and China. It would then accept the spent fuel rods back for storage. Australia would thus "lease" the nuclear fuel rods to customers."

Howard doesnt want a debate, he wants a smokescreen. Nothing that man says can be believed.

There's no debate, the nuclear debate was ended decades ago. This was nicely illustrated on this morning's Sunday panel discussion on the topic, which sported a number of aged gents advocating nukes: These old fossils backed the wrong horse a long time ago, but they have been wheeled out for one mad final fling in the nuclear cycle. Nuclear power is a failed industry if ever there was one. And if they are going to have a proper debate, can they please stop giving time to industry lobbyists in green drag? Green lipstick on a corporate pig. There is substantial and credible opposition to the nuclear power industry in the form of genuine opponents of nuclear and supporters of renewables, and those are the environmentalists who should be invited and quoted.

Sunday interview with Howard: when asked about dangers of nukes, Howard said that there are dangers elsewhere, as in windpower. I find this a revealing statement. So windpower incinerated 100,000 people in an instant? Or contaminated thousands of hectares in Ukraine rendering them unfit for human habitation? The statement on the face of it is absurd, and shows Howard's basic contempt and low regard for renewables and the environment.

Nuclear power is toxic, costly, dangerous, non-renewable and not the answer. The answer is renewable energy, and we need a 100% commitment to research and development of multiple forms of renewable energy, as well as a carbon tax to make alternatives more competitive, begin the phasing out of coal stations, and provide funds for research and other essential purposes. A carbon tax should be introduced immediately at a low rate with no exemptions, the rate rising gradually over time in order to be more effective in achieving its goals.

Any time or money spent on any nuclear 'debate' or 'inquiry' is simply time and money wasted. If the Labor party had the guts to decisively oppose Howard's initiative, together with the Greens they could crush Howard and the nuclear lobby at the same time.

Further questions for Howard: if Australia develops nuclear power, will it develop nuclear weapons? Will Howard rule that out? If Australia develops nuclear power as we are entitled to under the terms of the NPT, will we support Iran's right to do the same? Or will we rule out participating in any form in any US bombing or sanctions against Iran so long as it complies with the NPT? Or would Australia itself be liable for bombings or sanctions itself if it enriches uranium? Will other countries in the region, eg Indonesia, also go nuclear, and face the same issues?

There might be one benefit of everyone going nuclear, however. It might terminate once and for all the utterly foolish remarks of Downer and Howard about launching 'preemptive strikes' against Indonesia. But nuclear or non-nuclear, terrorists or no terrorists, Australia will not be making any unprovoked military attack on Indonesia, or any neigbouring country, please God. (I'm trying real hard right now to forget about Iraq). In the event that such an order was given, one might hope that the Defence forces would disobey, at least until such time as cabinet or parliament could convene and remove the Ministers responsible. Or perhaps the Governer-General could intervene and have the said Ministers taken into psychiatric care.

On cost alone, nuclear power is ruled out. Uranium ore is a limited resource, and at current rates of consumption is expected to deplete in about 40-50 years, sooner if the industry expands. But as the ore depletes, its price will go up. Australia has about 40% of known uranium ore reserves. A motza could be made in the export business. The whole 'debate' is simply a smokescreen for Howard to lobby for the mining industry.

Howard’s real nuclear agenda: "Prime Minister John Howard says he is 'yet to be convinced' of the economic and other arguments in favour of nuclear power generation in Australia. 'All I am wanting is this country being open minded enough to look at the alternatives', he said again last week. However, while the PM may have doubts about the financial attractions of nuclear power in Australia, he is plainly as keen as mustard to see Australia’s nuclear industries expand into other areas such as enrichment and the storage of nuclear waste. Details have recently come to light about just how Australia could fit into US President George W Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and how our island continent might become a one stop nuclear shop. And of course, what Dubbya wants, Johnny will bend over backwards to deliver."

"Australia and Canada have been invited to join this [US-led] "partnership" in which Australia’s role would be to mine and enrich uranium for export in the form of fuel rods for nuclear power generation to rapidly expanding economies like India and China. It would then accept the spent fuel rods back for storage. Australia would thus "lease" the nuclear fuel rods to customers."

Howard doesnt want a debate, he wants a smokescreen. Nothing that man says can be believed.

There's no debate, the nuclear debate was ended decades ago. This was nicely illustrated on this morning's Sunday panel discussion on the topic, which sported a number of aged gents advocating nukes: These old fossils backed the wrong horse a long time ago, but they have been wheeled out for one mad final fling in the nuclear cycle. Nuclear power is a failed industry if ever there was one. And if they are going to have a proper debate, can they please stop giving time to industry lobbyists in green drag? Green lipstick on a corporate pig. There is substantial and credible opposition to the nuclear power industry in the form of genuine opponents of nuclear and supporters of renewables, and those are the environmentalists who should be invited and quoted.

Sunday interview with Howard: when asked about dangers of nukes, Howard said that there are dangers elsewhere, as in windpower. I find this a revealing statement. So windpower incinerated 100,000 people in an instant? Or contaminated thousands of hectares in Ukraine rendering them unfit for human habitation? The statement on the face of it is absurd, and shows Howard's basic contempt and low regard for renewables and the environment.

Nuclear power is toxic, costly, dangerous, non-renewable and not the answer. The answer is renewable energy, and we need a 100% commitment to research and development of multiple forms of renewable energy, as well as a carbon tax to make alternatives more competitive, begin the phasing out of coal stations, and provide funds for research and other essential purposes. A carbon tax should be introduced immediately at a low rate with no exemptions, the rate rising gradually over time in order to be more effective in achieving its goals.

Any time or money spent on any nuclear 'debate' or 'inquiry' is simply time and money wasted. If the Labor party had the guts to decisively oppose Howard's initiative, together with the Greens they could crush Howard and the nuclear lobby at the same time.

Further questions for Howard: if Australia develops nuclear power, will it develop nuclear weapons? Will Howard rule that out? If Australia develops nuclear power as we are entitled to under the terms of the NPT, will we support Iran's right to do the same? Or will we rule out participating in any form in any US bombing or sanctions against Iran so long as it complies with the NPT? Or would Australia itself be liable for bombings or sanctions itself if it enriches uranium? Will other countries in the region, eg Indonesia, also go nuclear, and face the same issues?

There might be one benefit of everyone going nuclear, however. It might terminate once and for all the utterly foolish remarks of Downer and Howard about launching 'preemptive strikes' against Indonesia. But nuclear or non-nuclear, terrorists or no terrorists, Australia will not be making any unprovoked military attack on Indonesia, or any neigbouring country, please God. (I'm trying real hard right now to forget about Iraq). In the event that such an order was given, one might hope that the Defence forces would disobey, at least until such time as cabinet or parliament could convene and remove the Ministers responsible. Or perhaps the Governer-General could intervene and have the said Ministers taken into psychiatric care.

On cost alone, nuclear power is ruled out. Uranium ore is a limited resource, and at current rates of consumption is expected to deplete in about 40-50 years, sooner if the industry expands. But as the ore depletes, its price will go up. Australia has about 40% of known uranium ore reserves. A motza could be made in the export business. The whole 'debate' is simply a smokescreen for Howard to lobby for the mining industry.

Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be A Major Energy Source

Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be A Major Energy Source

Nightmare Scenario for US: Defeat and ejection from Iraq.

Nightmare Scenario for US: Defeat and ejection from Iraq.

The New York Review of Books: What Does Olmert Want?: Amos Elon discusses the tragic and absurd "'settlement project' in the occupied territories, now often described as the great historical mistake of 1967.... The settlement project remains a main, some say the main, impediment to a historic compromise to end a hundred-year war between two national movements over the same piece of real estate."

The New York Review of Books: What Does Olmert Want?: Amos Elon discusses the tragic and absurd "'settlement project' in the occupied territories, now often described as the great historical mistake of 1967.... The settlement project remains a main, some say the main, impediment to a historic compromise to end a hundred-year war between two national movements over the same piece of real estate."

Jennifer Loewenstein: Setting the Record Straight on Hamas: Loewenstein documents the Hamas record on the two-state solution. The issue is, not whether Palestine will recognise Israel, but whether Israel will recognise Palestine on the 67 borders. If it did, that would essentially resolve the conflict. Kadima is an acknowledgement that Israel has finally abandoned any attempt to annex Gaza or the whole of the West Bank, just as it had earlier effectively abandoned the Sinai or 'from the Nile to the Euprates', but Israel has given no sign of surrendering the rest of the Occupied Territories. Thus the conflict will continue indefinitely, which appears to be the long term policy.

Jennifer Loewenstein: Setting the Record Straight on Hamas: Loewenstein documents the Hamas record on the two-state solution. The issue is, not whether Palestine will recognise Israel, but whether Israel will recognise Palestine on the 67 borders. If it did, that would essentially resolve the conflict. Kadima is an acknowledgement that Israel has finally abandoned any attempt to annex Gaza or the whole of the West Bank, just as it had earlier effectively abandoned the Sinai or 'from the Nile to the Euprates', but Israel has given no sign of surrendering the rest of the Occupied Territories. Thus the conflict will continue indefinitely, which appears to be the long term policy.

Text of Palestinian Prisoners' Document - National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners - by Marwan Barghouthi, Abdul Khaleq al Natsheh and Coalition of Prisoners: Palestinian endorsement of the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders (the 'green line'). Eminently just and reasonable, except that they might be more forthright about a pragmatic solution to the refugee problem; and they might have paid more attention to a solidarity movement in Israel, the US and the world. The problem for the Palestinians is that Zionist Israel now has and has never had any intention of ever withdrawing from the Occupied Territories (except when forced to). On the contrary the whole point of colonialist zionism is to take Arab lands by force, kill or expel the local population, bulldoze or destroy their farms and houses, and build Jewish-only settlements.

Text of Palestinian Prisoners' Document - National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners - by Marwan Barghouthi, Abdul Khaleq al Natsheh and Coalition of Prisoners: Palestinian endorsement of the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders (the 'green line'). Eminently just and reasonable, except that they might be more forthright about a pragmatic solution to the refugee problem; and they might have paid more attention to a solidarity movement in Israel, the US and the world. The problem for the Palestinians is that Zionist Israel now has and has never had any intention of ever withdrawing from the Occupied Territories (except when forced to). On the contrary the whole point of colonialist zionism is to take Arab lands by force, kill or expel the local population, bulldoze or destroy their farms and houses, and build Jewish-only settlements.

Transport efficiency: "The Russians finished electrifying the Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to the Pacific, in 2002 and electrified to the Arctic Ocean port of Murmansk several months ago. Almost all of Japan and the continental European Union (EU) have already electrified their railroads – so there are no technical limitations. Electric railroads are cheaper to operate and can carry more freight because they accelerate and brake faster (and can generate electricity while braking, saving energy) and have no delays for refueling.... railroads are 8 times more energy efficient than heavy trucks and also are more labor-efficient."

If this is the case then how did the inefficient transport system get off the ground in the first place? What kind of broken politico-economic system really is capitalism? It can be noted that years and decades of 'microeconomic' 'neoliberal' 'trade' and 'market' reforms don't appear to have done anything to address the problem.

Transport efficiency: "The Russians finished electrifying the Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to the Pacific, in 2002 and electrified to the Arctic Ocean port of Murmansk several months ago. Almost all of Japan and the continental European Union (EU) have already electrified their railroads – so there are no technical limitations. Electric railroads are cheaper to operate and can carry more freight because they accelerate and brake faster (and can generate electricity while braking, saving energy) and have no delays for refueling.... railroads are 8 times more energy efficient than heavy trucks and also are more labor-efficient."

If this is the case then how did the inefficient transport system get off the ground in the first place? What kind of broken politico-economic system really is capitalism? It can be noted that years and decades of 'microeconomic' 'neoliberal' 'trade' and 'market' reforms don't appear to have done anything to address the problem.

The Gift of the Nile: "Having experienced a Cairo summer the first time I was in Egypt, I really can't imagine how life goes on in Baghdad now that the power is down to an unreliable hour or two a day. It's closer to hell than any human being who isn't Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld should ever have to go."

"In both the old and the new villages, however, many of the houses appeared only half built, with bouquets of steel rebar sprouting from their top-most, unfinished stories. Later I was told this look is a byproduct of the intersection of Egyptian-style family planning and tax planning.... – buildings under construction paying a much lower rate of property tax than finished homes."

"Egypt once had huge landed estates, originally owned by the Khedive (the Turkish governor – nominally loyal to the Ottoman Sultan but in practice an independent, hereditary ruler) and his cronies. These were later seized and sold by the Khedive’s European creditors when he was unable to service his debts, creating a cotton-growing aristocracy of foreigners and their native collaborators – what Trotsky called the comprador class.... One of Nasser’s early reforms – and one of the sources of his enormous popularity – was to expropriate the estates and parcel the land out to the fellaheen – the Egyptian peasantry."

The Gift of the Nile: "Having experienced a Cairo summer the first time I was in Egypt, I really can't imagine how life goes on in Baghdad now that the power is down to an unreliable hour or two a day. It's closer to hell than any human being who isn't Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld should ever have to go."

"In both the old and the new villages, however, many of the houses appeared only half built, with bouquets of steel rebar sprouting from their top-most, unfinished stories. Later I was told this look is a byproduct of the intersection of Egyptian-style family planning and tax planning.... – buildings under construction paying a much lower rate of property tax than finished homes."

"Egypt once had huge landed estates, originally owned by the Khedive (the Turkish governor – nominally loyal to the Ottoman Sultan but in practice an independent, hereditary ruler) and his cronies. These were later seized and sold by the Khedive’s European creditors when he was unable to service his debts, creating a cotton-growing aristocracy of foreigners and their native collaborators – what Trotsky called the comprador class.... One of Nasser’s early reforms – and one of the sources of his enormous popularity – was to expropriate the estates and parcel the land out to the fellaheen – the Egyptian peasantry."

Will biofuels always be hopeless?: "Fossil fuel emissions were up to about 8Gt/year and climbing fast.... Plants absorb about 120 Gt of carbon/year and turn it into sugars via photosynthesis (and then onto other materials). This is the gross primary production of photosynthesis in the biosphere."

"I do know that we've reached the point where defending our right to emit carbon on the scale we're doing it is several steps down the moral ladder from defending tobacco companies as innocent of causing cancer. On the contrary, I believe we are committing evil in emitting so much carbon, and we need to change. We are heading for disaster after disaster."

Will biofuels always be hopeless?: "Fossil fuel emissions were up to about 8Gt/year and climbing fast.... Plants absorb about 120 Gt of carbon/year and turn it into sugars via photosynthesis (and then onto other materials). This is the gross primary production of photosynthesis in the biosphere."

"I do know that we've reached the point where defending our right to emit carbon on the scale we're doing it is several steps down the moral ladder from defending tobacco companies as innocent of causing cancer. On the contrary, I believe we are committing evil in emitting so much carbon, and we need to change. We are heading for disaster after disaster."

Guardian Ombudsman rules in favour of Chomsky and against Aaronovitch and Kamm: There is some justice in the world. These sorts of attacks have been going on for years but it always seems to be the same to me: Chomsky is a person of integrity and in fact one of the greats, whereas his enemies are dishonest hacks and/or paid propagandists.

Guardian Ombudsman rules in favour of Chomsky and against Aaronovitch and Kamm: There is some justice in the world. These sorts of attacks have been going on for years but it always seems to be the same to me: Chomsky is a person of integrity and in fact one of the greats, whereas his enemies are dishonest hacks and/or paid propagandists.

Proportional Representation: Quota Notes reports on the British Columbia referendum, which gained 57% of the Vote for a change to STV, but narrowly failed to meet the difficult 60% double majority requirement.

QN also reports on Blair's victory in the British general election of 2005. With 35.2% of the vote, New Labor retained government with 55.1% of the seats in the House of Commons. "Coupled with the relatively low turnout of 61.3%, this was the lowest level of expressed support for a government since the 1832 Reform Act, and prompted The Independent newspaper to begin a “Campaign for Democracy” spearheaded by a petition for proportional representation."

This type of lopsided result is inherent in first past the post or single member systems, dearly beloved by the party or grouping that magically manages to transform a minority of votes into an absolute majority of parliament, but liked not so much by the majority of votes that acquired a minority. In these conditions, reform finally may become possible.

Proportional Representation: Quota Notes reports on the British Columbia referendum, which gained 57% of the Vote for a change to STV, but narrowly failed to meet the difficult 60% double majority requirement.

QN also reports on Blair's victory in the British general election of 2005. With 35.2% of the vote, New Labor retained government with 55.1% of the seats in the House of Commons. "Coupled with the relatively low turnout of 61.3%, this was the lowest level of expressed support for a government since the 1832 Reform Act, and prompted The Independent newspaper to begin a “Campaign for Democracy” spearheaded by a petition for proportional representation."

This type of lopsided result is inherent in first past the post or single member systems, dearly beloved by the party or grouping that magically manages to transform a minority of votes into an absolute majority of parliament, but liked not so much by the majority of votes that acquired a minority. In these conditions, reform finally may become possible.

Taleban: 'Do not send your children here. We will kill them': "WE RAN into the Taleban guerrillas only 24km (15 miles) south of the British base at Gereshk, half a dozen of them brazenly manning a checkpoint on a road to Lashkar Gah. They were bristling with weaponry and had belts of ammunition slung over their shoulders. They ordered us to stop, surrounded our four-wheel-drive vehicle and demanded to know who we were."

"“Our country has been occupied by infidels,” said the commander as he sat in the shade of an apricot tree. “The Americans, the British, Canadians and others have destroyed Afghanistan. We are hunting every individual who supports this imposed democracy . . . We will also hunt the puppet Afghans who are the rented bicycle for the infidels.”"

Taleban: 'Do not send your children here. We will kill them': "WE RAN into the Taleban guerrillas only 24km (15 miles) south of the British base at Gereshk, half a dozen of them brazenly manning a checkpoint on a road to Lashkar Gah. They were bristling with weaponry and had belts of ammunition slung over their shoulders. They ordered us to stop, surrounded our four-wheel-drive vehicle and demanded to know who we were."

"“Our country has been occupied by infidels,” said the commander as he sat in the shade of an apricot tree. “The Americans, the British, Canadians and others have destroyed Afghanistan. We are hunting every individual who supports this imposed democracy . . . We will also hunt the puppet Afghans who are the rented bicycle for the infidels.”"

Soil erosion, salinity: Devastating problems The illustration shows dramatically the enormous global extant of soil erosion, a problem which has been noted from ancient times: "Attica yielded far more abundant produce. In comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left. But in the primitive state of the country, the mountains were high hills covered with soil, and plains were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains. Of this last traces still remain, for although some of the mountains now only afford sustenance to bees, not so very long ago there were still to be seen roofs of timber cut from trees growing there, which were of such a size sufficient to cover the largest houses; and there were many other high trees, cultivated by man and bearing abundance of food for cattle.

"Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of the annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea, but, having an abundant supply in all places, and receiving it into herself and treasuring it up in the close clay soil, it let off into the hollows the streams which it absorbed from the heights, providing everywhere abundant fountains and rivers, of which there may still be observed sacred memorials in places where fountains once existed; and this proves the truth of what I am saying. (Plato)"

The EB article says "Erosion in some regions it is so great that a tonne of produce comes at a cost of 20 tonnes of topsoil." This can rightly be compared to wood 'production' on Easter Island. The workforce is larger, tonnage and income and profits are up, according to the conventional measures. There is an obvious and urgent need to reformulate the national accounts to incorporate the value of the environment, so that destructive if not suicidal activities such as these are shown immediately as loss of value and national impoverishment.

Soil erosion, salinity: Devastating problems The illustration shows dramatically the enormous global extant of soil erosion, a problem which has been noted from ancient times: "Attica yielded far more abundant produce. In comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left. But in the primitive state of the country, the mountains were high hills covered with soil, and plains were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains. Of this last traces still remain, for although some of the mountains now only afford sustenance to bees, not so very long ago there were still to be seen roofs of timber cut from trees growing there, which were of such a size sufficient to cover the largest houses; and there were many other high trees, cultivated by man and bearing abundance of food for cattle.

"Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of the annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea, but, having an abundant supply in all places, and receiving it into herself and treasuring it up in the close clay soil, it let off into the hollows the streams which it absorbed from the heights, providing everywhere abundant fountains and rivers, of which there may still be observed sacred memorials in places where fountains once existed; and this proves the truth of what I am saying. (Plato)"

The EB article says "Erosion in some regions it is so great that a tonne of produce comes at a cost of 20 tonnes of topsoil." This can rightly be compared to wood 'production' on Easter Island. The workforce is larger, tonnage and income and profits are up, according to the conventional measures. There is an obvious and urgent need to reformulate the national accounts to incorporate the value of the environment, so that destructive if not suicidal activities such as these are shown immediately as loss of value and national impoverishment.

Osama bin Laden humiliates US - again: "I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers – Allah have mercy upon them – with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.... Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and had he known anything – however little – about the September 11th group, we would have told the brother Commander Mohamed Atta and his brothers – Allah have mercy upon them – to leave America immediately before their affair was exposed."

"I state the fact, about which I also am certain, that all the prisoners of Guantanamo, who were captured in 2001 and the first half of 2002 and who number in the hundreds, have no connection whatsoever to the events of September 11th, and even stranger is that many of them have no connection with al-Qaida in the first place, and even more amazing is that some of them oppose al-Qaida’s methodology of calling for war with America."

"...Bush and his administration are aware of this fact, but they avoid mentioning it, for reasons not hidden to the discerning. Among these reasons is that it is necessary to create justifications for the massive spending of hundreds of billions on the Defense Department and other agencies in their war against the Mujahideen. My mentioning of these facts isn’t out of hope that Bush and his party will treat our brothers fairly in their cases, because that is something no rational person expects, but rather it is meant to expose the oppression, injustice and arbitrariness of your administration in using force and the reactions that result from that. This is from one perspective, and from another perspective, perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it."

Bush has killed 10,000 or more people in Afghanistan, and 100,000 or more in Iraq, none of whom had any connection with 9/11. Who is the greater terrorist? But of course, the crimes of our side are not counted, while we focus with laser-like precision on the crimes of official enemies. And things have reached a pretty pass when a mass murdering terrorist like Bin Laden has more credibility and coherence than the President of the United States.

List of tapes from Bin Laden since 9/11

Osama bin Laden humiliates US - again: "I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers – Allah have mercy upon them – with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.... Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and had he known anything – however little – about the September 11th group, we would have told the brother Commander Mohamed Atta and his brothers – Allah have mercy upon them – to leave America immediately before their affair was exposed."

"I state the fact, about which I also am certain, that all the prisoners of Guantanamo, who were captured in 2001 and the first half of 2002 and who number in the hundreds, have no connection whatsoever to the events of September 11th, and even stranger is that many of them have no connection with al-Qaida in the first place, and even more amazing is that some of them oppose al-Qaida’s methodology of calling for war with America."

"...Bush and his administration are aware of this fact, but they avoid mentioning it, for reasons not hidden to the discerning. Among these reasons is that it is necessary to create justifications for the massive spending of hundreds of billions on the Defense Department and other agencies in their war against the Mujahideen. My mentioning of these facts isn’t out of hope that Bush and his party will treat our brothers fairly in their cases, because that is something no rational person expects, but rather it is meant to expose the oppression, injustice and arbitrariness of your administration in using force and the reactions that result from that. This is from one perspective, and from another perspective, perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it."

Bush has killed 10,000 or more people in Afghanistan, and 100,000 or more in Iraq, none of whom had any connection with 9/11. Who is the greater terrorist? But of course, the crimes of our side are not counted, while we focus with laser-like precision on the crimes of official enemies. And things have reached a pretty pass when a mass murdering terrorist like Bin Laden has more credibility and coherence than the President of the United States.

List of tapes from Bin Laden since 9/11

Hundreds turn out for Chomsky lecture: "Chomsky gave a lecture to a packed house at the University of Cyprus last night on ‘Imminent Crises’, which was attended by at least 500people inside and outside, where a projector had been set up, you could have heard a pin drop as the audience clung to his every word.... Human survival was now at stake only no one seemed to care.

"He blamed this on what he called a prevailing moral and intellectual crisis, which was at the root of all the others “and is scarcely discussed at all”."

"Chomsky said the two countries were at the heart of the world’s major energy reserves and were recognised by Washington 60 years ago “to be a stupendous source of strategic power, the strategically most important area of the world and one of the greatest material prizes in world history and constitute critical leverage against industrial rivals Europe and Asia.”

"“For years the pretext was that the threat was Russia but that was a routine reflex all over the world and rarely stands up to scrutiny,” he said. “The huge military system is no longer meant to contain Russia but it has to be expanded because of the technological sophistication of third-world powers.”"

"Chomsky also said the US was eerily able to intimidate Europe when it “shakes its fist” but he said China refuses to be intimidated. “They have a 4,000 year history of contempt for the barbarians,” he said, adding that Washington’s biggest fear is that at current growth rates China will match the US economy in a decade."

"He said the Eastern Mediterranean had evolved in much the same framework. “Turkey is serving that plan right now. Cyprus of course was of course a major British military base and was used for the overthrow of the regime in Iran in 1953, for the Suez invasion in 1956, and for the US-British military actions in response to the coup in Iraq in 1958,” said Chomsky. “As British Prime Minster Anthony Eden put it: ‘Without Cyprus Britain would have no certain facilities to protect our oil’. Of course ‘our oil’ just happens to be somewhere else by accident.”

"Asked specifically about Cyprus, Chomsky said: “The strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must and the rest of the theory of international relations is either footnote or disguises.”"

"Chomsky said the current moral and intellectual crisis in the West was nothing more than subservience to power."

Hundreds turn out for Chomsky lecture: "Chomsky gave a lecture to a packed house at the University of Cyprus last night on ‘Imminent Crises’, which was attended by at least 500people inside and outside, where a projector had been set up, you could have heard a pin drop as the audience clung to his every word.... Human survival was now at stake only no one seemed to care.

"He blamed this on what he called a prevailing moral and intellectual crisis, which was at the root of all the others “and is scarcely discussed at all”."

"Chomsky said the two countries were at the heart of the world’s major energy reserves and were recognised by Washington 60 years ago “to be a stupendous source of strategic power, the strategically most important area of the world and one of the greatest material prizes in world history and constitute critical leverage against industrial rivals Europe and Asia.”

"“For years the pretext was that the threat was Russia but that was a routine reflex all over the world and rarely stands up to scrutiny,” he said. “The huge military system is no longer meant to contain Russia but it has to be expanded because of the technological sophistication of third-world powers.”"

"Chomsky also said the US was eerily able to intimidate Europe when it “shakes its fist” but he said China refuses to be intimidated. “They have a 4,000 year history of contempt for the barbarians,” he said, adding that Washington’s biggest fear is that at current growth rates China will match the US economy in a decade."

"He said the Eastern Mediterranean had evolved in much the same framework. “Turkey is serving that plan right now. Cyprus of course was of course a major British military base and was used for the overthrow of the regime in Iran in 1953, for the Suez invasion in 1956, and for the US-British military actions in response to the coup in Iraq in 1958,” said Chomsky. “As British Prime Minster Anthony Eden put it: ‘Without Cyprus Britain would have no certain facilities to protect our oil’. Of course ‘our oil’ just happens to be somewhere else by accident.”

"Asked specifically about Cyprus, Chomsky said: “The strong do as they can and the weak suffer as they must and the rest of the theory of international relations is either footnote or disguises.”"

"Chomsky said the current moral and intellectual crisis in the West was nothing more than subservience to power."

Nuclear debate a diversion: Garrett: "'The prime minister's creating one his great false debates, flying kites, making mischief, and covering up for the fact that he's done absolutely zip on climate change - nothing in the budget for it,' Mr Garrett told ABC radio.

"'(He) abolishes the Australian Greenhouse Office. We've seen half a billion dollars worth of investment in wind farms and alternative technologies go overseas because of this government's lack of action. 'The prime minister comes back from America as a nukes enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his own deficiencies.... more importantly, why isn't this government investing in technologies that are good for the country?'"

Since when did Howard, who joined with Bush in refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty and invading Iraq, care about global warming? There's a suggestion that its a tactic to divide the Labor party, which looks likely to succeed with its rudderless leadership and lack of commitment.

Nuclear debate a diversion: Garrett: "'The prime minister's creating one his great false debates, flying kites, making mischief, and covering up for the fact that he's done absolutely zip on climate change - nothing in the budget for it,' Mr Garrett told ABC radio.

"'(He) abolishes the Australian Greenhouse Office. We've seen half a billion dollars worth of investment in wind farms and alternative technologies go overseas because of this government's lack of action. 'The prime minister comes back from America as a nukes enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his own deficiencies.... more importantly, why isn't this government investing in technologies that are good for the country?'"

Since when did Howard, who joined with Bush in refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty and invading Iraq, care about global warming? There's a suggestion that its a tactic to divide the Labor party, which looks likely to succeed with its rudderless leadership and lack of commitment.

Prodi: War in Iraq Was 'Grave' Mistake: "Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said Thursday the war in Iraq was a 'grave' mistake, but said Italy would remain on the front lines in the war against terror.

"'We consider the war and occupation in Iraq a grave error that hasn't solved _ but has complicated _ the problem of security,' Prodi said in his first address to the Senate as prime minister. 'Terrorism has found a new base and new excuses for internal and external terrorist action.'

"Prodi said his government would participate in anti-terror operations if they are sanctioned by international organizations, such as the United Nations. 'We are convinced participants in the war against terrorism, even militarily, when it is legitimized by an international organization to which we belong.'"

The statement is generally true but he should drop the 'War on Terror' terminology - there is no such thing as a 'war on terror' and such language legitimates real wars such as the invasion of Iraq (which has nothing to do with terror).

Prodi: War in Iraq Was 'Grave' Mistake: "Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said Thursday the war in Iraq was a 'grave' mistake, but said Italy would remain on the front lines in the war against terror.

"'We consider the war and occupation in Iraq a grave error that hasn't solved _ but has complicated _ the problem of security,' Prodi said in his first address to the Senate as prime minister. 'Terrorism has found a new base and new excuses for internal and external terrorist action.'

"Prodi said his government would participate in anti-terror operations if they are sanctioned by international organizations, such as the United Nations. 'We are convinced participants in the war against terrorism, even militarily, when it is legitimized by an international organization to which we belong.'"

The statement is generally true but he should drop the 'War on Terror' terminology - there is no such thing as a 'war on terror' and such language legitimates real wars such as the invasion of Iraq (which has nothing to do with terror).

We must move to nuclear fuel: PM: "Nuclear power costs twice as much as coal power ... Academics at NSW University and the University of Technology Sydney said no private investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies.... The NSW Greens MLC Ian Cohen said that after 50 years, the nuclear industry still had not found a way to store its waste safely. "We don't want it back and we don't want to create it here.""

No figures given on the real solution, renewable energy.

We must move to nuclear fuel: PM: "Nuclear power costs twice as much as coal power ... Academics at NSW University and the University of Technology Sydney said no private investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies.... The NSW Greens MLC Ian Cohen said that after 50 years, the nuclear industry still had not found a way to store its waste safely. "We don't want it back and we don't want to create it here.""

No figures given on the real solution, renewable energy.