Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

The Evolution Establishment’s War on Intelligent Design

Ben Stein may have the most interesting resume in America, having worked as a lawyer, presidential speechwriter (for Nixon and Ford), author, actor (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), and game show host (Win Ben Stein’s Money). Now he’s produced a documentary film on the persecution of scientists who ask hard questions about Darwinism and want to explore the evidence of intelligent design in nature. “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” will open in theatres in February 2008, but you can see exclusive clips and learn more about this controversial film at a Family Research Council Policy Lecture this Wednesday, November 28. Todd Norquist and Dairek Morgan will share about the film, and the event will feature a special guest appearance by Dr. Caroline Crocker, who lost her job as a biology professor at a major university after raising questions in class about evolutionary theory.

Family Policy Lecture on the film Expelled

Science Breakthrough

Ideology Trumps Science

As I reported last week, two studies show that human skin cells can be “reprogrammed” into embryonic-like stem cells, without creating embryos or cloning embryos to obtain the stem cells. We have President Bush to thank in large part for this new discovery. Had he not held the line on taxpayer-funded research on embryos there is a good chance this breakthrough would not have occurred. However, despite this new evidence, several members of Congress have made clear they will push forward with their legislation requiring taxpayers to fund research that destroys human embryos. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) reportedly stated that despite the groundbreaking announcement last week, he still hopes that embryonic stem cells may be found to be more powerful. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) said he will continue to push legislation to fund embryo-destructive research, as did Rep. Dianne DeGette (D-Colo.). Rather than accept the fact that these new reprogramming studies show tremendous promise for basic stem cell research, politicians plan to push their embryo-killing legislation even though they know they don’t have the votes to override the President’s veto. If Congress wants to seriously advance the ethical research embodied in these new studies, and increase stem cell research for patients being treated now with adult stem cells, then they should pass the Patients First Act. It would be a shame if ideology trumped the latest science.

Stem Cells, the Right Way [Michael Gerson, Washington Post]
Science breakthrough [Charleston Gazette]

Black Evangelicals Torn Between Parties

Taken for Granted

Today’s Washington Post has an interesting piece on how major issues like abortion and marriage are uniting African-Americans and allowing the Republican Party to make potential inroads into this community that generally tends to vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The story leads with my good friend Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. and how his High Impact Leadership Coalition of black pastors rejects the traditional party line and looks at the moral issues of today before deciding what they communicate to their congregations. Bishop Jackson, just like me and other people of faith of all colors, makes it clear we will not be beholden to any party. What is ironic is that while some leaders of the Democratic Party have started embracing the language of faith with the hopes of attracting religious voters, most still want to hold the party line of abortion on demand and remain estranged from traditional marriage. While the Republicans experienced the powerful pull of social issues on African-Americans in 2004 because of the marriage issue, they are increasingly distancing themselves from these key issues that speak the true language of faith and bring Christian voters into the fold. If issues that are important to so many Christians, both black and white, are ignored by both parties then ultimately both parties may find they are ignored by many Christians.

See: Politics of Race and Religion [Washington Post]

“Weaker” Twin Survives Attempted Abortion

LONDON, November 5, 2007 – After two attempts by doctors to end his life in the womb, Gabriel Jones refused to die and was born along with his twin brother.

The twins’ mother, Rebecca Jones, told the Daily Mail, “It really is a miracle. Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die – yet he hung on. It was unbelievable.”

When Rebecca and Mark Jones’ twin boys were at 20 weeks gestation, Doctors told them that a scan showed Gabriel had an enlarged heart and was only half the size of his brother. They said that Gabriel condition could threaten the life of his brother and that he was unlikely to survive outside the womb. Gabriel and Ieuan are now both seven months old, weighing, respectively, 12lb 6oz and 15lb.

At the first attempt to end Gabriel’s life, doctors tried unsuccessfully to sever his umbilical cord but it proved too thick to cut. Doctors then decided to cut the placenta in two to separate the two brothers’ food and oxygen supplies but were stunned to find the boy’s heart still beating the next day. Rebecca told the Daily Mail that dividing the placenta had redistributed the children’s nutrition supply, allowing Gabriel to grow stronger.

Gabriel and Ieuan were born by caesarean section five weeks after the surgery.

The UK’s Daily Mail carries a two-page photo spread showing Ieuan and Gabriel holding hands. Both children are perfectly healthy. Doctors had told the boys parents that Gabriel would not be able to live after birth and that it would “be kinder to let him die in the womb.”

Rebecca Jones told the Daily Mail, “Doctors carried out an operation to let Gabriel die – - – yet he hung on. It was unbelievable. When I felt him kicking madly the morning after the operation, I suddenly knew that he was going to hang on.”

“There is such a strong bond between them,” she said. “They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him. Doctors tried to break their bond in the womb, but they just proved it couldn’t be broken.”

By Hillary White (LifeSiteNews.com)

Framing Qwest/Shielding AT&T

“USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio’s attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn’t think the NSA program had legal standing.”

Documents Say Qwest Was Targeted

From Rocky Mountain News, October 11, 2007
By Sara Burnett and Jeff Smith

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

The documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio’s so-called “classified information” defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it.

The secret contracts — worth hundreds of millions of dollars — made Nacchio optimistic about Qwest’s future, even as his staff was warning him the company might not make its numbers, Nacchio’s defense attorneys have maintained. But Nacchio didn’t present that argument at trial.

The documents suggest U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham refused to allow Nacchio to present the argument about retaliation. Nottingham also said Nacchio would have to take the stand to raise the classified defense.

Prosecutors have said they were prepared to poke holes in Nacchio’s classified defense.

Nacchio was convicted last spring on 19 counts of insider trading for $52 million of stock sales in April and May 2001, and sentenced to six years in prison. He’s free pending appeal.

The partially redacted documents were filed under seal before, during and after Nacchio’s trial. They were released Wednesday.

Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.

The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.

The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.

USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio’s attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn’t think the NSA program had legal standing.

In the documents, Nacchio also asserts Qwest was in line to build a $2 billion private government network called GovNet and do other government business, including a network between the U.S. and South America.

The documents maintain that Nacchio met with top government officials, including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in 2000 and early 2001 to discuss how to protect the government’s communications network.

They portray U.S. government officials, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, worried about a “Pearl Harbor” type of attack on the Internet. As early as 1997, a three-star general talked to Nacchio about using Qwest’s new fiber-optic network for government purposes, according to the defense.

One key meeting with a government official was held at Qwest founder Phil Anschutz’s ranch near Greeley, with former Chief Financial Officer Robin Szeliga prevented from attending presumably because she lacked security clearance.

Nacchio was on a Bush-appointed national security telecommunications advisory panel. In March 2001, then-counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke asked the panel if it would be possible to build a private network for the government to protect it from cyberwarfare.

Nacchio piped up: “I already built this network twice” for other government agencies. The defense asserts Nacchio believed Qwest would be asked to build the network and that it could do so in six months.

But the contract didn’t materialize.

Looking ahead

DATES SET

Government’s response to Nacchio’s appeal brief is due Nov. 9. Nacchio could choose to file a reply to the government’s brief by Nov. 20. Oral arguments at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals are scheduled for Dec. 18 in Denver. In the meantime, Nacchio is free pending appeal.

APPELLATE COURT OPTIONS

• Uphold conviction (Nacchio could appeal to Supreme Court)

• Uphold conviction, reduce six-year sentence. (Nacchio could appeal to Supreme Court).

• Overturn conviction because evidence was insufficient to convict

• Order new trial based on errors made by U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham.

EXCERPTS FROM NACCHIO’S APPELLATE BRIEF

• “The indictment, trial and conviction of Joseph P. Nacchio took place in an atmosphere of prejudgment and vitriol.”

• “Many shareholders lost paper fortunes, employees lost jobs as the company downsized, and all demanded someone to blame.”

• “After years of investigation, prosecutors apparently concluded that they could not prove any crime based on the accounting restatement, and settled on insider trading.”

• “This is an unprecedented prosecution. The extraordinary charges here are based on the claim that Nacchio knew, eight months or more in advance, that Qwest might not make its year-end 2001 financial projections.”

• “The prosecution yoked an unprecedented theory to plainly insufficient facts, and hoped, in a bitter and vindictive atmosphere, that it would be enough to win a conviction from a Denver jury. It was.”

http://www.freepress.net/news/26944

October 11, 2007 4:16 PM PDT

Should AT&T Be Held

Responsible For NSA

 Cooperation?

Posted by Declan McCullagh

The Bush administration’s remarks about retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies show Washington has become an even more surreal place than usual.

First, President Bush said on Wednesday that federal law “must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks.”

Then Ken Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, waxed eloquent with a surfeit of “allegedlys”:

Here you have allegedly companies that stepped up and answered the government’s request to assist the government in efforts to protect against a second wave of attacks after 9/11 and protect against the ongoing terrorist threat… And any such companies who would have undertaken anything like that would have presumably done it for that very purpose. As far as I can see, there’s no real, you know, other ulterior motive or economic motive for doing it. And it just seems at sort of a gut level it seems to me to be unfair to now turn around and have them face, you know, not only the costs and difficult consequences of having to defend against litigation, but based on what I read, you know, potentially crushing liability, you know, to the tune of billions of dollars. And so it’s sort of a fairness matter. That’s where I come out.

I also, as we’ve mentioned before, this litigation does run the risk of disclosing secret information, very classified, sensitive information. Because as you know, all such operations, any alleged operations like this, would be very sensitive and be the kind of thing our adversaries would want to know about. And whenever you litigate something like this, you run the risk that you’re going to disclose this information.

And another thing that also resonates with me is that, you know, any companies that might allegedly have assisted us in the effort against terrorists might well not want it disclosed that, you know, for security reasons, that they did help us out. These would be–any such companies would be companies that would have valid concerns for the safety of their own assets and their own personnel.

Did you catch the last argument? AT&T and the other telecommunications companies that may have opened their networks to the Feds are worried about “the safety of their own assets and their own personnel” if word got out.

This is a fine example of McCullagh’s Law in action: Unless you vote my way, Americans will die. (Is the Bush administration really serious about this, by the way? Do they think that gun-toting privacy activists will start kidnapping or shooting AT&T network technicians?)

Anyway, maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but it strikes me that if a company violated the law, they should be held accountable. I might feel differently if the law is unjust, but I’m not convinced that’s the case here.

18 USC 2511 generally says that anyone who “intercepts” a private electronic communication or “discloses” the results of that interception shall be imprisoned for up to five years. In addition, 50 USC 1810 says that anyone “who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance” of this sort can sue for punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

AT&T and any other company that may have cooperated with the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping scheme knew these two laws existed to protect Americans’ privacy. Its executives knew that breaking the law carried civil and criminal penalties. If they nevertheless went along with the NSA’s secret requests–and violated their own customers’ privacy in the process — why shouldn’t their executives and shareholders pay the price?

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9796284-38.html

The Israel Lobby: VIDEO

The Israel Lobby. Portrait of a Great Taboo

The Power of the Israel Lobby in the United States

This is a must watch video

Tegenlicht, a documentary program by the Dutch public broadcast organization VPRO, allows several interesting opinion makers to speak on the future of the American and Israel relationship and the reception of John Mearsheimers and Steve Walts article “The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy.”

 Includes interviews with John Mearsheimer, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, cofounder of the Christians United for Israel lobbying group John Hagee, neoconservative Richard Perle and historian Tony Judt express their views in Marije Meermans and William de Bruijns documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98

Iranian Presdent Rises Above Bollinger’s Backstabbing Pettiness

Ahmadinejad Questions 9/11, Holocaust

By NAHAL TOOSI,
Associated Press Writer
38 minutes ago
 
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended Holocaust deniers and raised questions about who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in a tense showdown Monday at Columbia University where the school’s head introduced the visitor by calling him a “petty and cruel dictator.”

Ahmadinejad, appearing shaken by what he called “insults” from his host, sought to portray himself as an intellectual and argued that his regime had respect for reason and science. But the former engineering professor soon found himself drawn into the type of rhetoric that has alienated American audiences in the past.

He provoked derisive laughter by responding to a question about Iran’s execution of homosexuals by saying: “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country … I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”

At times, however, he drew audience applause, such as when he bemoaned the plight of the Palestinians.

But his first stab was at Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, who said in his introduction of Ahmadinejad: “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”

Ahmadinejad said Bollinger’s opening was “an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here.”

“There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully,” Ahmadinejad added, accusing Bollinger of falling under the influence of the hostile U.S. press and politicians.

Appearing agitated at times, Iran’s president often declined to offer the simple answers the audience sought, responding instead with his own questions or long discursions about history and justice.

Bollinger opened by aggressively taking on Ahmadinejad’s past statements about the Holocaust.

“In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as the fabricated legend,” he said. “One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.”

Bollinger said that might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

“When you come to a place like this, it makes you simply ridiculous. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history,” he said.

Ahmadinejad denied he had questioned the existence of the Holocaust.

“Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?” he said.

But Ahmadinejad went on to say that he was defending the rights of European scholars, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the Holocaust.

“There’s nothing known as absolute,” he said.

Asked why he had asked to visit the World Trade Center site — a request denied by New York authorities — Ahmadinejad said he wanted to express sympathy for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Then he appeared to question whether al-Qaida was responsible, saying more research was needed.

“If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly — why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved — and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined,” Ahmadinejad said.

Bollinger drew strong criticism for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia and had promised tough questions in his introduction. But the stridency of his attack on the Iranian leader took many by surprise.

“You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader’s Holocaust denial. “Will you cease this outrage?”

Bollinger’s introduction was “very harsh,” said Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University.

“Inviting him and then turning around and alienating and insulting an entire nation whose representative this man happens to be is simply inappropriate,” Dabashi said.

In Iran, Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia could be seen on Arabic satellite channels and state television’s Arabic-language service, but it did not appear on channels that broadcast in Farsi, the language of Iran.

During his prepared remarks, the Iranian president did not address Bollinger’s accusations directly, instead launching into quotes with the Quran and criticism of the Bush administration and past American governments, from warrant-less wiretapping to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

He said the Holocaust has been abused as a justification for Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.

“Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?” Ahmadinejad asked.

He closed his prepared remarks with a terse smile, to applause and boos, before taking questions from the audience.

Ahmadinejad claimed women have tremendous rights in Iran and insisted his country does not believe in nuclear weapons.

Asked about his country’s nuclear intentions, he insisted the program is peaceful, legal and entirely within Iran’s rights, despite attempts by “monopolistic,” “selfish” powers to derail it. “How come is it that you have that right, and we can’t have it?” he added.

President Bush said Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia “speaks volumes about, really, the greatness of America.”

He told Fox News Channel that if Bollinger considered Ahmadinejad’s visit an educational experience for Columbia students, “I guess it’s OK with me.”

But conservatives on Capitol Hill were critical. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said he thought the invitation to Ahmadinejad was a mistake “because he comes literally with blood on his hands.”

Thousands of people jammed two blocks of 47th Street across from the United Nations to protest Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly session. Organizers claimed a turnout of tens of thousands. Police did not immediately have a crowd estimate.

The speakers, most of them politicians and officials from Jewish organizations, proclaimed their support for Israel and criticized the Iranian leader for his remarks questioning the Holocaust.

“We’re here today to send a message that there is never a reason to give a hatemonger an open stage,” New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said.

Hundreds of protesters also assembled at Columbia. Dozens stood near the lecture hall where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak, linking arms and singing traditional Jewish folk songs about peace and brotherhood. A two-person band nearby played “You Are My Sunshine.”

Signs in the crowd displayed a range of messages, including one reading: “We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism.”

___

Associated Press writers Karen Matthews and Aaron Clark contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_re_us/

iran_us_60;_ylt=AhPKjK6jyjmt1d7IjcKqD00L1vAI

Son of Wolf

A Warning to Tony Blair

By Uri Avnery
Tel Aviv.
07/30/07

Last week, James Wolfensohn gave a long interview to Haaretz. He poured out his heart and summed up, with amazing openness, his months as special envoy of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN (the “Quartet”) in this country – the same job entrusted now to Tony Blair. The interview could have been entitled “A Warning to Tony”.Among other revelations, he disclosed that he was practically fired by the clique of Neo-cons, whose ideological leader is Paul Wolfowitz.

  James WolfensohnWhat Wolfensohn and Wolfowitz have in common is that both are Jews and have the same name: Son of Wolf, one in the German version and the other in the Russian one. Also, both are past chiefs of the World Bank.

But that’s where the similarity ends. These two sons of the wolf are opposites in almost all respects. Wolfensohn is an attractive person, who radiates personal charm. Wolfowitz arouses almost automatic opposition. This was made clear when they served, successively, at the World Bank: Wolfensohn was very popular, Wolfowitz was hated. The term of the first was renewed, a rare accolade, the second was dumped at the earliest opportunity, ostensibly because of a corruption affair: he had arranged an astronomical salary for his girl friend.Wolfensohn could be played by Peter Ustinov. He is a modern Renaissance man: successful businessman, generous philanthropist, former Olympic sportsman (fencing) and Air Force officer (Australia). In middle age he took up the cello (under the influence of Jacqueline du Pre). The role of Wolfowitz demands no more finesse than that of the average gunman in a western.

  Paul WolfowitzBut beyond personal traits, there is a profound ideological chasm between them. To me, they personify the two opposite extremes of contemporary Jewish reality.

Wolfensohn belongs to the humanist, universal, optimistic, world-embracing trend in Judaism, a man of peace and compromise, an heir to the wisdom of generations. Wolfowitz, at the other end, belongs to the fanatical Judaism that has grown up in the State of Israel and the communities connected with it, a man of overbearing arrogance, hatred and intoxication of power. He is a radical nationalist, even if it is not quite clear whether it is American or Israeli nationalism, or if he even distinguishes between the two.

Wolfowitz is a standard-bearer of the neo-cons, most of them Jews, who pushed the US into the Iraqi morass, promote wars all over the Middle East, advise the Israeli Prime Minister not to give up anything and are ready to fight to the last Israeli soldier.

To avoid misunderstanding: I don’t know either of the two personally. I have never seen Wolfowitz in person, and heard Wolfensohn only once, at a Jerusalem meeting of the Israeli Council for Foreign Relations. I admit that I liked him on sight.

Wolfensohn arrived in this country some months before the “separation plan” of Ariel Sharon. He says now that the separation would have succeeded “if the withdrawal had been accompanied by the second part of the separation, which, according to my understanding, would have created an independent entity that would become a Palestinian state.” He believes (mistakenly, I think) that this was the intent of Sharon, whom, unlike his successor as Prime Minister, he respects.

Wolfensohn envisioned a blooming Gaza Strip, flourishing economically, open in all directions, a model to the West Bank and a basis for the new state. To this purpose he raised eight billion dollars. Unlike other idealists, he invested several millions of his own money in the greenhouses left behind by the settlers, hoping to turn them into the basis of the Palestinian economy.

 He stood at Condoleezza Rice’s side during the signing ceremony for the document that was to prepare the way to a brilliant future: the agreement for the opening of the border crossings. The crossings between the Strip and Israel were to be again wide open, Israel undertook to fulfill at long last the obligation it took upon itself in the Oslo agreement (and has violated ever since): to open the vital passage between Gaza and the West Bank. On the border between the Strip and Egypt, a European unit was already taking control.

And then the whole edifice collapsed. The passage between the Strip and the West Bank remained hermetically sealed. The other border crossings were closed more and more frequently. The products of the greenhouses (together with Wolfensohn’s investment) went down the drain. The frail economy of the Strip disintegrated altogether, most of the 1.4 million inhabitants descended into misery, with 50 per cent and more unemployment. The inevitable result was the ascent of Hamas.

Wolfensohn’s complaint stresses the immense importance of the border crossings. Their closure – ostensibly for security reasons – spelled death to the Gaza economy, and, by extension, to the hope for peaceful relations between Israel and the Palestinians. Before the Hamas victory, Wolfensohn saw with his own eyes the awful corruption that governed the crossings. Relations between Israelis and Palestinians there were openly based on bribery. The Palestinian products could not cross without payment being made to the people in control on both sides.

Wolfensohn lays at least some of the responsibility for the ascent of Hamas on the Palestinian Authority – meaning Fatah – which was infected by the cancer of corruption. The victory of Hamas in the democratic elections both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip did not surprise him at all.

 What caused this idealistic person to resign?

He puts the main blame on one person, who belongs to the clique of Wolfowiz: Elliott Abrams. Like Wolfowitz, Abrams is a Jew, a neo-con, a radical Zionist beloved by the Israeli Right. He was appointed by President Bush as deputy advisor for national security, responsible for the Middle East. With this appointment, Wolfensohn says, “all the elements of the agreement achieved by Condoleezza Rice were destroyed”. The passages were closed, Hamas took over.

  Elliot AbramsWolfensohn accuses Abrams openly of undermining him, in order to get him out. True, the Quartet is not under the authority of Abrams, but a person in this position cannot function without solid American support. Abrams pushed him out in cooperation with Ehud Olmert and Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s confidant, whose plans were menaced by Wolfensohn’s activity. It was Weisglass, it will be remembered, who promised to “put the Palestinian issue in formaldehyde.”

 Dov Weisglass with Ariel SharonIn the eyes of Wolfensohn, both sides are to blame for the current situation, but he clearly blames Israel more, since it is the stronger and more active party. No doubt, Israel is very important for him. He had a lot of sympathy for it (In World War I, his father was a soldier in the Jewish battalions which were set up by the British army and sent to Palestine.) He gave the interview to the Israeli paper in order to voice a severe warning: time is not working for us.

The demographic clock is ticking. Today, Israel is surrounded by some 350 million Arabs. In another 15 years, it will be surrounded by 700 million. “I don’t see any argument that supports the idea the Israel’s situation will get better.”

As an expert on the global economy, with a world-wide perspective, Wolfensohn could also point out that the importance of the US in the world economy is gradually declining, with new giants like China and India rising.

We, the Israelis, like to think that we are the center of the world. Wolfensohn, a person with a world-wide outreach, sticks a pin into this egocentric balloon. Already now, he says, only the West considers the Israeli-Palestinian issue so important. Most of the world is indifferent. “I have visited more than 140 countries: you are not such a big deal there.”Even this limited interest will also evaporate. Wolfensohn rubs salt into the wound: “A moment will come when the Israelis and the Palestinians will be compelled to understand that they are a secondary performance … The Israelis and the Palestinians must get rid of the idea that they are a Broadway performance. They are only a play in the Village. Off-off-off-off-off Broadway.” Knowing that this is the worst one can tell an Israeli, he adds: “I hope that I am not getting into trouble by saying this, but, what the hell, that’s what I believe, and I am already 73 years old.”

I do believe him – and I, what the hell, am already 83.
The metaphor from the world of theater looks to me even more apt that Wolfensohn himself imagines.

What is happening now to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mostly theater, and not the best in town.

The actors drink from empty glasses, recite texts that nobody believes, put on false smiles and embrace heartily while loathing each other.

The best scene so far was the Gaza “separation”. Contrary to Wolfensohn’s belief, it was merely a performance, melodrama at its best, directed by Sharon and the chiefs of the settlers, the army and the police. Many tears, many embraces, many sham battles. This week the performance was again in the media, with a huge propaganda machine trying to show how immense was the pain, how the poor evacuees have remained without villas, how many more billions will still be needed. The intended conclusion: it is impossible to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank.

  Tony BlairThe new actor on the stage, Tony Blair, is exuding charm and joviality, embracing and kissing. We, the audience, know that his lot will be exactly like that of his predecessor. Like him, he is the “special envoy of the Quartet”. His terms of reference are exactly the same as those of Wolfensohn before him: much of nothing. He is supposed to help the Palestinians to build “democratic institutions”, after the US and Israel have systematically destroyed the democratic institutions that were set up after the last Palestinian elections.

Barak and OlmertHe has embraced Olmert, kissed Tzipi Livni, smiled at Ehud Barak, and we know that all three of them will do their utmost to disrupt his mission before he reaches a position that would enable him to realize his real dream: to conduct peace negotiations, as he successfully did in Northern Ireland.

All that is happening now is theater. Olmert pretends that he really wants to “save Abu Mazen”, while doing the opposite. At Bush’s request, he allowed the transfer of a thousand rifles, with a lot of fanfare, from Jordan to Abbas, so he can fight Hamas – understanding full well that to an ordinary Palestinian this will look like collaboration with the occupier against the resistance. He enlarges the settlements, keeps the “illegal outposts” and closes his eyes while the army is helping the settlers to put up more outposts. That is a foolproof recipe for a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, too.

Everybody knows that there is only one way to strengthen Abu Mazen: immediately to start rapid and practical negotiations for the establishment of the State of Palestine in all the occupied territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Not more discussions about abstract ideas, as proposed by Olmert, not another plan (No. 1001), not a “peace process” that will lead to “new political horizons”, and certainly not another hollow fantasy of that grand master of sanctimonious hypocrisy, President Shimon Peres.

  Shimon PeresThe next scene of the play, for which all the actors are now learning their lines, is the “international meeting” this autumn, according to the screenplay by President Bush. Condoleezza will chair, and it is doubtful whether Tony, the new actor, will be allowed to take part. The playwrights are still deliberating.

 Bush and OlmertIf all the world is a stage, as Shakespeare wrote, and all the men and women merely players who have their exits and their entrances, that is true even more for Israel and Palestine. Sharon exited and Olmert entered, Wolfensohn exited and Blair entered, and everything is, as Sakespeare wrote in another play, “words, words, words.”

Wolfensohn can view the next parts of the play with philosophical detachment. We, who are involved, cannot afford that, because our comedy is really a tragedy.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18096.htm

U.S. Bully Options

 

R7 Note:

 The U.S. with astonishing hubris continues to operate in Asia under the assumption that they, ‘the lone super power on planet Earth’, own the rights to invade any sovereign nation as they deem fit. Further, they have some enemy, real or imagine, that they call terrorist…which in turn gives them license to terrorize peoples and countries any where and at any time. These nations are, of course, third world countries. The bullies in Washington daren’t throw their’ lard around in say, China or Russia…no it’s countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, while salivating…fangs bared…for other weak countries like Syria and Pakistan.

The Washington gangstas together with their’ partners in crime, NATO, demand of these occupied or occupiable lands to cooperate with their’ criminal terrorization of the civilian citizenry.

Saudi Arabian malcontents took two planes, we are told, and flew them into the World Trade Center Towers in NYC…so the geniuses on Capitol Hill and in the Emperor’s Mansion (the infamous White House) decided to invade any country they saw fit…except, Saudi Arabia…seriously, I kid you not. Now the U.S. global overlords threaten third world nations as a matter of course…Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, the elected officials of the Palestinian people (Hamas), Syria, and, of course, Cuba which has always been in it’s crosshairs.

They are infamous for threatening to use nuclear weapons to bring these third worlders into obeisance to their’ global overlordship. “All options are on the table.” meaning, we will nuke you off the face of the planet if you don’t submit to our’ will. The threat is non-partisan…Condelleza, Biden, Cheney, Obama, etc. The threat is not en empty one…Nagasaki and Hiroshima can attest to that.

Now the bullies are telling Pakistan that they will launch attacks into Pakistan whenever they feel like it. The world is their’ oyster and the United Nations proves again it’s worthlessness and emasculation. The vultures fly rampant over Asia and Africa in search of victims to devour.

 

Pakistan Criticises White House For Careless Comments

Irish Sun
Saturday 21st July, 2007  

Pakistan says comments from the White House that U.S forces could unilaterally strike at militants within the country are irresponsible and dangerous.

Washington has stepped up the pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to hit Islamist militants along the Afghan border, and yesterday refused to rule out striking at suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Pakistan immediately stressed that recent military action had yielded good results in disrupting Al Qaeda, and some operations had led to the capture of its key leaders and operatives.

A spokesman for U.S President George Bush, when asked by reporters whether U.S forces could strike militants inside Pakistan, said he couldn’t rule out any options, including striking at actionable targets.

CNN has reported that the U.S administration had offered military assistance to Pakistan for its operations against Al Qaeda in tribal regions.

CNN added that Washington was offering both intelligence and U.S firepower, but not American troops.

It remains unclear if Pakistan has accepted the offer.

http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/

2411cd3571b4f088/id/266873/cs/1/

The People Should Decide

A Reform to Restore the People’s Power

By Paul Craig Roberts
07/13/07

 The American political system has failed. The fabled checks and balances of American politics were no match for a neoconservative administration with a secret agenda. The American people were deceived and tricked into supporting two invasions that are war crimes under the Nuremberg standard.US aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians have radicalized Muslims throughout the world and swelled the ranks of insurgents. Despite the “surge” and an additional 30,000 US troops in Baghdad, the US is unable to protect its own embassy. On July 10, the fortified Green Zone, which contains the US and British embassies and the puppet Iraqi government, came under intense mortar and rocket attack. Within the protected Green Zone, 18 people were wounded and 3 were killed. The US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus said that the US is a decade away from victory in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus could have added another truth and acknowledged that the US military lacks sufficient fresh troops to remain in the conflict. Last year Colin Powell said the US Army is “about broken.” The US military is exhausted by the insurgencies and will be driven out if not withdrawn.

Gen. Petraeus assumed command in January. Six months later, Petraeus says “the question is how can we gradually reduce our forces so we reduce the strain on the army.”

In the US Senate, Republican support for Bush’s wars is fading as senators face a hostile public that has had enough of Bush’s pointless and lost wars based on lies and deception. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq never had any valid reason. The US occupations of these countries have failed, and no purpose has been achieved except the enrichment of the military-security complex and the swelling of al-Qaeda’s ranks and credibility.

One trillion dollars has been totally squandered. Moreover, Bush’s wars have had to be financed by borrowing abroad. The result has been a reduction in the dollar’s value and an erosion of the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar has fallen to a new low against the Euro and has reached a 26-year low against the British pound.

The latest comprehensive worldwide Pew poll reveals the complete collapse of America’s standing in the world.

This is a huge price to pay for Bush’s childish ego, for the enrichment of Cheney’s cronies at Halliburton and merchants of death, and for Congress’ appeasement of AIPAC.

Bush’s and Cheney’s lies and assaults on the US Constitution and American civil liberty, their plans to attack Iran, and the war crimes for which they are responsible provide an open and shut case for their impeachments. The latest polls show that 54% of Americans support impeachment of Vice President Cheney, with only 40% opposed. Bush hangs on by a hair with 45% favoring his impeachment and 46% opposed. But Democrats, like Republicans, have failed the electorate and refuse to do their duty. Congress is a creature of special interests and no longer represents the American people.

Obviously, some new method is needed for removing incompetent or dictatorial presidents and vice presidents.

Constitutional reform might be next to impossible, but before dismissing the possibility consider that according to British news reports, Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, intends a wide-ranging program of constitutional reform, including giving up the prime minister’s power to declare war.

The London Telegraph says: “The measures are intended to restore trust in politics after the by-passing of Parliament and the Cabinet, as well as the culture of spin and media manipulation, that characterized the Blair decade.”

If America is to remain a democracy, the people need refurbished powers to hold “government of the people, by the people, for the people” accountable. One way of doing this would be a vote of confidence by the people. The question can be put to a national referendum: “Shall the President remain in office?” “Shall the Vice President remain in office?”

The state of Florida does this for judges, including Florida’s Supreme Court, so there is precedent for allowing the people to decide whether officials may remain in office.

As the American people can no longer rely on elected officials to respond to public opinion, the people must do what they can to gather power back into their hands before they become the subjects of tyrants.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18009.htm