Take Back the Media

“Of course the people do not want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism” Herman Goering-Nazi Leader-Nuremberg Trial

Name:
Location: United States

Monday, April 30, 2007

CIA E. Howard Hunt Spills Beans on JFK on Death Bed

JFK Murder Plot "Deathbed Confession" Aired On National Radio
Former CIA agent, Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt names the men who killed Kennedy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 30, 2007

The "deathbed confession" audio tape in which former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admits he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK was aired this weekend - an astounding development that has gone completely ignored by the establishment media.

Saint John Hunt, son of E. Howard Hunt, appeared on the nationally syndicated Coast to Coast AM radio show on Saturday night to discuss the revelations contained in the tape.

Hunt said that his father had mailed cassette the tape to him alone in January 2004 and asked that it be released after his death. The tape was originally 20 minutes long but was edited down to four and a half minutes for the Coast to Coast broadcast. Hunt promises that the whole tape will be uploaded soon at his website.

Click here to listen to a clip of the tape.

E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a "bench warmer" in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required.

Hunt alleges on the tape that then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the planning of the assassination and in the cover-up, stating that LBJ, "Had an almost maniacal urge to become president, he regarded JFK as an obstacle to achieving that."

Asked if his father followed the conspiracy theories into the Kennedy assassination, Saint John said the elder Hunt did follow the work of AJ Weberman, a New York freelance writer, who in the early 70's first accused Hunt of being one of three bums who were arrested in Dealy Plaza. The so-called bums were interrogated and later released by authorities shortly after the assassination. Weberman, one of the founders of the Youth International Party, the Vippies, published photographs of the tramps and found that two of them bore striking similarities to Hunt and Frank Sturgis, also named by Hunt in the tape as having been played a role in the assassination conspiracy.

Asked for his opinion as to whether his father was indeed one of the Dealy Plaza tramps, Saint John, in a stunning revelation, said one of the tramps indeed looked much like his father did in 1963.

Saint John Hunt said that shortly before his death, his father had felt "deeply conflicted and deeply remorseful" that he didn't blow the whistle on the plot at the time and prevent the assassination, but that everyone in the government hated Kennedy and wanted him gone in one way or another. Kennedy's promise to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter the remnants to the wind" was being carried out and this infuriated almost everyone at the agency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hunt also said that his mother's death in a December 8, 1972 plane crash in Chicago was suspicious and that there was evidence of a White House cover-up surrounding the circumstances of the alleged accident.

Investigators discovered $10,000 dollars in her luggage and Hunt alleged that his mother traveled around the country using Nixon campaign money to payoff the families of the Watergate burglars to keep them quiet about the involvement of the Nixon White House in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.

Hunt cited numerous coincidences surrounding the aftermath of the crash, including Nixon's appointment of his henchman, Egil Krough, to the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates plane crashes, the very day after the incident.

Eyewitnesses reported that the plane exploded above treetop level before it had even hit the runway.

Hunt said that "at least 20-25 FBI members," as well as numerous DIA agents were at the scene of the crash within minutes before rescue personnel had even arrived, and that this fact was attested to in a letter sent by the head of the Chicago FBI to investigator Sherman Skolnick.

Hunt said that his safety was guaranteed by the dissemination of the tape and that he had several copies and had mailed others to addresses both abroad and in the U.S.

"Once this information is out there's really no point in anyone trying to do me in or do me wrong - someone may try to discredit me but I have no skeletons in my closet," said Hunt.

As we have previously reported, the night before the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Baines Johnson met with Dallas tycoons, FBI moguls and organized crime kingpins - emerging from the conference to tell his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown that "those SOB's" would never embarrass him again.

Though Brown first went public on her 21-year relationship with Johnson in the early 80's, to this day her shocking revelations about how he had told her the Kennedy's "would never embarrass me again" the night before the assassination are often ignored by the media who prefer to keep the debate focused on issues which can't definitively be proven either way (or at least can be spun and whitewashed).

In addition, Barr McClellan, father of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a partner in the Austin law firm that represented Johnson, wrote in his 2003 book that LBJ was a key player in the organization of the assassination and its cover-up. McClellan's revelations were the subject of a subsequent History Channel documentary called The Guilty Men.

(With thanks to additional reporting by David Collins)

Volcanoes Triggered Ancient Warming Event

THIS AGAIN PROVES WHAT I THOUGHT IN TERMS HOW GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE, BUT HUMANS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF IT. ONE SINGLE VOLCANO ERUPTION CAN SPEW MORE TOXINS AND GASES THAN MAN CAN IN 100 YEARS!!!!!!!! SO, I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE PEOPLE AND CELEBRITIES COMING OUT AND SAYING THIS AND THAT WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN READ THE BASIC RESEARCH AND ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT WANT THIS GLOBAL TAX AND 1$ TAX ADDED TO THE GAS. THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY NOT ABOUT TRUTH. THEY SUPPRESS THE SCIENCE AND EDUCATORS AND EMPLOY YES MEN AND FOOLS. THIS IS THE WAY OF DICTATORS AND FASCIST SOCIETIES NOT REPUBLICS.


Ker Than
Live Science
Sunday, April 29, 2007

The same volcanic eruptions that sundered Greenland from Western Europe and created Iceland also triggered intense global warming 55 million years ago, scientists say.

“There has been evidence in the marine record of this period of global warming, and evidence in the geologic record of the eruptions at roughly the same time,” said study team member Robert Duncan, an oceanic scientist at Oregon State University, “but until now there has been no direct link between the two.”

During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), massive amounts of greenhouse gases were injected into the oceans and atmosphere, causing global sea surface temperatures to rise by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

The event changed global rainfall patterns, broiled and acidified the oceans, and killed up to 50 percent of the world’s deep-sea organisms. The warm climate also opened up new migration routes for horses and other mammals into North America and might have even fueled early primate evolution.

The PETM took roughly 100,000 years to peak, and it was another 100,000 years or so before the climate recovered. What triggered the PETM has been a topic of intense speculation by scientists. Theories have ranged from the extensive burning of peat and coal deposits to an impact by a carbon-rich comet.

Matching ash

In the new study, detailed in the April 27 issue of the journal Science, the researchers linked the PETM to volcanic eruptions occurring from 55 to 61 million years ago. Back then, Greenland was still fused to Europe as part of one vast supercontinent, and the Northern Atlantic Ocean did not exist yet.

The team matched the chemical composition and deposition date of ash layers in East Greenland amassed during the peak of the eruptions with ash found in marine sediments in the Atlantic Ocean.

The scientists speculate magma and hot outgassing from the North Atlantic volcanism heated decaying organic material rich in carbon deposited in low-lying basins.

“The hot magma worked its way up through the crust and invaded these basins, essentially cooking all this stuff and liberating a lot more greenhouse gases than was actually coming from the magma itself,” Duncan explained.

Only a trigger

But the volcanism was only a trigger. All the greenhouse gas emitted by the eruptions and the ensuing cooking of organic matter would still not have been enough to cause the changes in climate and ocean chemistry seen during the PETM.

Other scientists have proposed the North Atlantic volcanism might have warmed the oceans enough to liberate methane trapped in icy sediments—called “methane hydrate”—on the ocean floor.

“Volcanism could have served as a trigger to start the system moving toward warmer temperatures,” said James Zachos, a paleo-oceanographer at University of California, Santa Cruz. “Then the ocean passes some threshold for hydrate stability, and the hydrate starts to decompose.”

Zachos, who was not involved in the new study, called the findings the most compelling evidence yet for explaining the PETM.

Volcanic activity similar to that implicated in the PETM still occurs in regions like Yellowstone National Park and the Galápagos and the Hawaiian Islands.

“These hotspots are part of the everyday world,” Duncan told LiveScience. “It’s just that we don’t have volcanic events as catastrophic as what [occurred] in the North Atlantic on a continual basis. Thank God too, because it would be a very different world.”

Today's global warming

Research on the PETM not only sheds light on Earth’s ancient climate, but also provides clues about the potential long-term consequences of our current global warming.

The PETM is “one of the few examples in the natural record where we get changes in chemistry and temperature that are approaching what we’re seeing today,” Duncan said.

The United Nations recently released an authoritative report that concluded human activity could cause atmospheric temperatures to rise up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the close of the century.

Our species might achieve in 100 years what took 100,000 years to happen naturally. And if the PETM is any indication, Duncan said, it will also take our planet about that long to recover.

Rice Falsely Claims U.N. Inspectors Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD


In his new book, former CIA Director George Tenet alleges that there was “never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat,” suggesting the administration had made up its mind to go to war from an early stage.

On CNN’s Late Edition, Condoleezza Rice responded, “We all thought that the intelligence case was strong,” adding that even “the U.N weapons inspectors [thought] Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” She concluded, “So there’s no blame here of anyone.” Watch it:

Rice would like the public to believe that no one is to blame because everyone was misled by the intelligence. In fact, U.N. weapons inspectors declared weeks before the invasion that Hussein did not possess WMD. The inspectors publicly lambasted consistently false and misleading U.S. intelligence leading up to the war:

[On March 7, 2003], the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them. Mr Blix said: “By then, Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Niger was not authentic.” British intelligence falsely claimed Iraq had been trying to acquire uranium from Niger. [4/28/05]

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they’ve been getting as “garbage after garbage after garbage.” … The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they’ve found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong. [2/20/03]

Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council that his inspection teams had not found any “smoking guns” after visiting some 125 Iraqi sites. [1/9/03]

Transcript:

RICE: But let me go back to George on this one. I certainly don’t blame George for the slam dunk comment having the sense that that was the reason we went to war. I think the completeness reading of how, certainly, I read the slam dunk comment…

BLITZER: Does he deserve an apology?

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: You know, I was asked about this, and I was asked “Did he say slam dunk?” I said, “Yes, but we all thought that the intelligence case was strong.” To the degree that there was an intelligence problem here, it was not just an intelligence problem with George Tenet, it was not just an intelligence problem with U.S. intelligence.

It was an intelligence problem worldwide. We all thought — including U.N. inspectors — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So there’s no blame here of anyone.

Times: Trial by jury on verge of extinction, democracy at risk

Raw Story
Monday, April 30, 2007

According to a story in tomorrow's New York Times (reg. req.), trials by jury are "on the verge of extinction" and are being "replaced by settlements and plea deals, by mediations and arbitrations and by decisions from judges." In fact, "only 1.3 percent of federal civil cases ended in trials last year, down from 11.5 percent in 1962."

The Times points out in particular that "in criminal cases, the vast majority of prosecutions end in plea bargains" and quotes a judge as complaining that defendents "who have the temerity to 'request the jury trial guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution' ... face 'savage sentences' that can be five times as long as those meted out to defendants who plead guilty and cooperate with the government."

Excerpts:

#
The trends in criminal cases and in the state courts are broadly similar, though not always quite as striking. But it is beyond dispute that even as the number of lawyers has grown twice as fast as the population and even as the number of lawsuits has exploded, actual trials have become quite rare.

Instead of hearing testimony, ruling on objections and instructing jurors on the law, judges spend most of their time supervising the exchange of information, deciding pretrial motions and dealing with settlements and plea bargains.

The movement away from jury trials is not just a societal reallocation of resources or a policy choice. Rather, as Young put it, it represents a disavowal of "the most stunning and successful experiment in direct popular sovereignty in all history."

Indeed, juries were central to the framers of the Constitution, who guaranteed the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, and to the drafters of the Bill of Rights, who referred to juries in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. Jury trials may be expensive and time-consuming, but the jury, local and populist, is a counterweight to central authority and is as important an element in the constitutional balance as the two houses of Congress, the three branches of government and the federal system itself.

Cops Admit To Planting Marijuana on 92 Year Old Woman Killed in Botched Drug Raid

Harry R. Weber
Associated Press
Monday, April 30, 2007

ATLANTA — Two police officers pleaded guilty Thursday to manslaughter in the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid last fall. A third officer still faces charges.

Officer J.R. Smith told a state judge Thursday that he regretted what had happened.

"I'm sorry," the 35-year-old said, his voice barely audible. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation, making false statements and perjury, which was based on claims in a warrant.

Former Officer Gregg Junnier, 40, who retired from the Atlanta police in January, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation and making false statements. Both men are expected to face more than 10 years in prison.

In a hearing later in federal court, both pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to violate a person's civil rights, resulting in death. Their state and federal sentences would run concurrently.

The charges followed a Nov. 21 "no-knock" drug raid on the home of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her.

Fulton County prosecutor Peter Johnson said that the officers involved in Johnston's death fired 39 shots, striking her five or six times, including a fatal blow to the chest.

He said Johnston fired only once through her door and didn't hit any of the officers. That means the officers who were wounded likely were hit by their own colleagues, he said.

Junnier and Smith, who is on administrative leave, had been charged in an indictment unsealed earlier Thursday with felony murder, violation of oath by a public officer, criminal solicitation, burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and making false statements.

The third officer, Arthur Tesler, also on administrative leave, was charged with violation of oath by a public officer, making false statements and false imprisonment under color of legal process. His attorney, William McKenney, said Tesler expects to go to trial.

Tesler, 40, is "very relieved" not to face murder charges, McKenney said, "but we're concerned about the three charges."

Both men could have faced up to life in prison had they been convicted of murder. Instead, Junnier will face 10 years and one month and Smith 12 years and seven months. No sentencing date was immediately set, and the sentences are contingent on the men cooperating with the government.

The deadly drug raid had been set up after narcotics officers said an informant had claimed there was cocaine in the home.

When the plainclothes officers burst in without notice, police said, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Yonette Sam-Buchanan said Thursday that although the officers found no drugs in Johnston's home, Smith planted three bags of marijuana in the home as part of a cover story.

The case raised serious questions about no-knock warrants and whether the officers followed proper procedures.

Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington asked the FBI to lead a multi-agency probe. He also announced policy changes to require the department to drug-test its nearly 1,800 officers and require top supervisors to sign off on narcotics operations and no-knock warrants.

To get the warrant, officers told a magistrate judge that an undercover informant had told them Johnston's home had surveillance cameras monitored carefully by a drug dealer named Sam.

After the shooting, a man claiming to be the informant told a television station that he had never purchased drugs there, leading Pennington to admit he was uncertain whether the suspected drug dealer actually existed.

The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist who serves as a spokesman for Johnston's family, said the family was satisfied with Thursday's developments.

"They have never sought vengeance. They have only sought justice," he said.

Hutchins said the family is considering civil action against the police department.

"I think what happened today makes it very clear that Ms. Johnston was violated, that her civil rights were violated," he said.

Associated Press writer Jason Bronis in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Friday, April 27, 2007

US Attorney Under Attack for "Terror Trophy" Prosecutions


By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 27 April 2007

A small but increasingly vocal group of protesters is charging that a United States attorney in northern New York has pursued a series of terror-related "political prosecutions" to enhance his reputation as "a loyal Bushie" and thus avoid the fate of eight of his colleagues recently fired by Alberto Gonzales's Department of Justice.

A spokesman for the group, Madis Senner, claims that US Attorney Glenn Suddaby prosecuted Dr. Rafil Dhafir, Yassin Muhiddin Aref and his co-defendant, Mohammed Mosharref Hossain, and the so-called St. Patrick's Four, to win "political trophies" in the Global War on Terror.

The group has been holding a series of "witnesses" in Syracuse, New York, and other upstate communities to register their opposition to what they label "terror trophy" prosecutions by Suddaby.

"We are hoping to get [Sen. Charles] Schumer (D-New York) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) to look beyond the firing of those who would not play ball with the Bush administration, and to focus on those such as Suddaby who were all too willing to do whatever their master asked. If we can do that, it will help free Dhafir, Aref, Hossain and a lot of other Muslim and Arab-Americans who have been unjustly punished since 9/11," Senner told Truthout.

Suddaby has repeatedly denied that any of the prosecutions were politically motivated. He was not immediately available for comment.

The prosecution of Dr. Dhafir, an oncologist from Manlius, New York, a community near Syracuse, was arguably the most high-profile of these prosecutions. Dhafir was arrested in February 2003 in a raid that drew nationwide media coverage. Long before his trial began, he was labeled "a terrorist" by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and New York Governor George Pataki. But reference to terrorism or to Dhafir's Muslim faith was not permitted in court, and no terrorism charges were ever brought against him. His supporters claim he was "selectively prosecuted."

Dhafir was convicted in February 2005 of 59 criminal counts, including money laundering; conspiracy to violate US sanctions against Iraq; misusing $2 million that donors contributed to his unlicensed charity, Help the Needy; spending $544,000 for his own purposes; defrauding Medicare out of $316,000, and evading $400,000 in federal income tax payments by writing off the illegal charity donations.

Prosecutors said Dhafir's Syracuse-based charity solicited more than $5 million over the Internet and by mail between 1995 and February 2002, claiming it would help starving Iraqi orphans and poor children. The government was able to trace only about $160,000 in Iraq.

But according to Dhafir's attorney, Deveraux L. Cannick, "When the government failed to link him to any terrorists or terrorist groups, it charged him with fraud to save face. Other individuals and corporations that sent money to Iraq received only civil penalties, not criminal charges," he said.

Dhafir was denied bail four times - he was deemed a flight risk - and held for nearly two years while awaiting trial. Cannick said Dhafir's detention hindered his defense and violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union protested Dhafir's conviction and sentence. He is currently appealing. His supporters have set up several websites, including (www.loyalbushies.com) and (www.jubileeinitiative.org/FreeDhafir.htm).

Now 60, Dhafir is serving his 22-year prison sentence in the recently created Communications Management Unit, or CMU, at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. Most of the unit's initial group of inmates are Arab Muslims, including five members of the so-called Lackawanna Six, a group of Yemeni nationals who pleaded guilty in 2003 to attending an al-Qaeda training camp.

The CMU closely monitors all telephone calls and mail and limits the number of phone calls and visits at the unit. Inmate conversations must be conducted in English unless otherwise negotiated.

"The government targeted Dr. Dhafir to be a trophy in the war on terror," said protester Madis Senner.

"They called him a terrorist. They denied him bail. They made it so he couldn't even defend himself properly. This was all done on Mr. Ashcroft's watch. We want to hear his explanation," Senner said.

"We have to wonder whether the Bush administration selected, orchestrated and directed Dr. Dhafir's prosecution," Senner told the Associated Press.

Ashcroft recently spoke at Syracuse University's Goldstein Auditorium at the invitation of the school's College Republicans organization. The former US senator was attorney general from 2001 to 2005. He orchestrated the round-ups and detention of hundreds of Muslims and South Asians following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and played a leading role in passage of the USA Patriot Act.

Suddaby also prosecuted a group that came to be known as the St. Patrick's Four, because their arrest took place on St. Patrick's Day of 2003. The four peace activists from Ithaca, New York, poured their own blood on the walls, posters, windows and a US flag at a military recruiting center in order to try to stop the imminent invasion of Iraq.

The group admitted their actions, which claimed they were based on international law, then knelt in prayer and waited to be arrested.

Charged in state court, they convinced nine jurors that their actions were consistent with international law. Daniel Burns, 43; Clare Grady, 45; Teresa Grady, 38, and Peter DeMott, 57, are all members of the Magnificat Catholic Worker community in Ithaca.

They testified that they risked arrest in order to protect members of the US military and civilians in Iraq.

Following their acquittal, the local district attorney announced he would not reprosecute them. But the US attorney, Glenn Suddaby, stepped into the case and pressed four federal charges arising from the same incident: federal conspiracy "by force, intimidation, and threat" to impede an officer of the United States - a felony charge punishable by up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine - and criminal damage to property and two counts of trespass, charges punishable by up to an additional two years in prison.

A jury acquitted the four of the felony charges but convicted them of the lesser misdemeanor charges. They served prison sentences ranging from four to eight months. All have since been released.

According to Senner, the St. Patrick's Four (www.stpatricksfour.org) "were also selectively prosecuted." After a local jury could not convict them, "Suddaby's office brought federal conspiracy charges against them. Bill Quigley, the defense lawyer for the four, said he could find no similar case of federal conspiracy charges, going back to the Nixon era. He called it an attempt to 'hyper-criminalize dissent'."

In nearby Albany, New York, the state's capital, US Attorney Suddaby also led the prosecution of Yassin Muhiddin Aref, 36, and Mohammed Mosharref Hossain, 51, both of Albany. Aref was a local part-time ambulette driver and the imam, or spiritual leader, of the Central Avenue mosque. Hossain was an Albany pizzeria owner who also owned rental properties in the community.

The men were charged with promoting terrorism and conspiring to launder money with an FBI informant. The informant baited both men with a phony scheme to purchase a surface-to-air rocket launcher for a fictitious plot to assassinate a Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations.

They were denied bail as flight risks, despite a declaration by the judge in the case that there was "less than overwhelming evidence" against them. The judge said that the question of whether or not entrapment comes into play in the case is a matter for a jury to decide. However, he said, the "weight of evidence" against both defendants on their willingness to "associate themselves" with the rocket purchase and terrorist plot is another story entirely."

Hossain's attorney, Kevin Luibrand, said the government's entire case was based on entrapment, and that his client had been a hard-working American citizen for 10 years and had no criminal past over the 20 years he's spent in this country.

"Entrapment is the central issue here.... They (FBI) didn't go to a church or synagogue, they went to Muslims," said Luibrand. "This guy is an American citizen who works like a dog and could give a damn about terrorism."

"The Albany Muslim community finds the allegations against Yasin Aref and Mohammed Hossain deeply troubling," said Faisal Ahmed, a teacher at Masjid-As-Salam. "The idea that such (men) could be deliberately involved in violent activity is unbelievable."

After a month-long trial that ended in October 2006, both men were found guilty of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, money laundering, conspiracy to provide material support in connection with an attack with a weapon of mass destruction, two substantive acts of material support in connection with an attack involving a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to provide material support to a known terrorist organization, two acts of material support to a designated terrorist organization, and one count of lying to the FBI.

Each was sentenced to a to a 15-year prison term.

US Attorney Suddaby contended there was "ample justification to initiate a sting operation." He added, "The FBI has an obligation to use all available investigative tools, including a sting operation, to remove those ready and willing to help terrorists from our streets. The jury's verdict - representing the jury's thoughtful consideration of testimony and evidence presented during the month-long trial - makes clear that both Aref and Hossain fall into this category."

Suddaby denies he ever felt any pressure from the Justice Department to bring, or to decline to bring, any prosecution. But he readily acknowledges that counter-terrorism has been the number one DOJ priority.

In a recent interview, Syracuse Post-Standard reporter Hart Seely asked Suddaby how the 9/11 terrorist attacks affected the priorities and track record of his office.

Suddaby responded, "It changed everything. The FBI, the major federal investigative agency, all of a sudden, became a terrorism prevention agency.... A majority of their investigative resources have been focused on terrorism, and that includes a lot of times doing 'intel.' They don't generate cases, but they're out there, pounding the pavement, trying to develop sources, talking to people, trying to get the information flow of what's going on in the community of the Northern District. If there is a threat, they want to feel confident that they're going to hear about it, that they're going to get tipped off in some way."

But some legal authorities point out that there have been very few terrorism convictions since 9/11.

Independent activist Katherine Hughes, one of the leaders of the "Free Dhafir" movement, told Truthout, "When [Attorney General John] Ashcroft announced his resignation in November of 2004, he gave as evidence of success in the war on terror 211 criminal prosecutions, 478 deportations and $124 million in frozen assets. But what he neglected to mention was that virtually none of these cases were actual terrorism convictions. Like Dhafir, other charity associates were convicted of white-collar crime and sanctions violation. Indeed, at the time of Ashcroft's resignation there was only one bona fide terrorism conviction, that of the shoe bomber Richard Reid."

A former prosecutor who declined to be identified, but who is familiar with the inner workings of the Justice Department, told Truthout, "US attorneys are well aware of their bosses' priorities. Since 9/11, all of them have been under pressure to bring terrorism prosecutions. In many cases, that has led them and their superiors, as well as prominent politicians, to call high-profile press conferences where they announce terrorism charges against people, but when they show up in court, there are no actual terrorism charges."

US attorneys "are instead prosecuting cases against people for providing material support for terrorists or terrorist organizations. There's nothing illegal about that - it's authorized by the Patriot Act. The question is always whether they're stretching the evidence, or intentionally exploiting people's fears of another 9/11, or being overzealous to the point of committing prosecutorial misconduct. Just look at Jose Padilla - he was accused of being 'the dirty bomber' who was going to blow up an American city. But, after years in custody without charges, by the time he appeared in an actual courtroom, the dirty bomb charge had vanished."

Citizen pushback against overzealous prosecutors appears to be on the rise. It comes at a time when the controversy over the firings of US attorneys has become a contentious political issue that threatens to trigger the early departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The DOJ's credibility has been further damaged by accounts of increasing departures of DOJ lawyers. The National Law Journal reported this week, "The number of attorneys defecting from the US Department of Justice to private practice is mounting as the head of the agency continues to fend off calls for his ouster over the firing of eight US attorneys. In the last month alone, several attorneys in key posts at the DOJ have taken jobs at prominent law firms."

Internal Carlyle Group Memo: Market Good For 12-24 Months


Bob Chapman
International Forcaster

Friday April 27, 2007

Now hear this! What we are about to tell you comes from deep within the bowels of the Illuminati. This information runs parallel with what we have been forecasting in our issues of the IF.

In February, via an internal memo, the Carlyle Group said they see another 12 to 24-months or more of “excess liquidity,” which will drive further profits and growth and that the current liquidity environment cannot go on forever; and, that the longer it lasts the more money our investors will make; but also that the longer it lasts, the worse it will be when it ends”

In the missive it was stated that Carlyle’s fabulous profits were not solely a function of their investment genius, but have resulted in large part from a great market and the availability of enormous amounts of cheap debt. In fact, there has been and is so much liquidity in the world financial system that lenders, even their own lenders, are making very risky credit decisions. This sea of money and credit has allowed deals to be done that could never have been done otherwise.

They do not expect the Fed to reduce interest rates anytime soon.

What could bring this global liquidity to an end? Just that business would diminish their borrowing or could it be higher interest rates? Could it be a terrorist attack; $100 per barrel oil; trade protectionism; the absorption of excess skilled labor into the global economy; the US elections; Russian energy policies; a multi-billion dollar bankruptcy; a tightening by the Bank of Japan or the Fed; an end to the yen carry trade as a result; or perhaps the collapse of several hedge funds or a derivative collapse? All are possible and at least one is probable.

The strategy should be to take lower risk deals and earn lower returns rather than higher risk deals at only small incrementally higher returns. We should redouble our focus on deals with downside protection, asset coverage, multiple and early exit paths, strategic partners, debt pay down, government protection, consumer needs, controllable capital expenditures, defensible market positions, etc.

Carlyle is being careful because they know what is coming, just as we have been telling you here in the IF. Carlyle is the insider. What we have been busy doing for years is figuring out what these elitists will do before they do it.

This is exactly what we have been forecasting. If we and Carlyle are correct, we can expect more than ample liquidity until February of 2009. During the year to 1-1/2 years that follow liquidity will decline and inflation will diminish. After three months of declining liquidity or declining use of liquidity we will know it is time to sell all assets except gold bullion coins, quality gold shares and for those of you who have to have some liquidity, Swiss francs.


Now that foreclosures are going wild lots of crooks are defrauding homeowners. Here are some tips. Don’t pay upfront fees to any person or organization promising help. Don’t sign anything without have an independent lawyer review it. Seek out accredited financial counselors, using lists such as those kept by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Wild rescue offers that are too good to be true are just a scam.

This week the Supreme Court stepped into the subprime lending crisis with a potentially far-reaching ruling that limits the power of individual states to regulate mortgage lending. The elitists have to control everything in our lives.

The Supreme Court is allowing banks to offer new terms on mortgages in violation of the law.

This will have a big impact on the ability of states to act independently on predatory lending and throws the spotlight on federal authorities.

The Consumer federation of America said, “This is really disappointing news, it could work to the detriment of consumers.”

Applications for mortgages fell for the 5th straight week as ARMs fell to 18.1% of applications, the lowest since 7/03. A year ago they accounted for 30%. Refis were 2.5% lower wow, but they were up 10% yoy. Refi apps fell 0.3% and accounted for 44% of applications. The volume of loan applications to buy a home fell 4.2%, but purchase loans were down 3% yoy. US home sales are off 5.5% yoy. The average 30-year fixed rate mortgage rose from 6.16% to 6.22%, the highest in nine weeks. The 15’s rose 1 bps to 5.92% and the one-year ARMs rose 1 bps to 5.89%.

US foreclosure filings rose 47% in March yoy. That was 149,000 as California’s filings rose 31,434. Nevada and Colorado had the largest percentage gains. Those making late payments are at a four-year high and the failure of 55 subprime mortgage companies has tightened the supply of money for lending. Nevada’s foreclosures were triple yoy. That is one foreclosure for every 183 households, which is four times the national average. Colorado’s rate was one for every 292. Nationally it was one of every 775. California had 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rates, Stockton being the highest. The others were Vallejo-Fairfield, Modesto, Sacramento, Riverside-San Bernardino and Bakersfield. Greeley, Colorado and Detroit and Denver were also up near the top.

DOJ Stalls Anthrax Investigation [UPDATED]

Daily Kos
Friday April 27, 2007

Democratic Representative Rush Holt (NJ-12) has been stonewalled in his efforts to get answers from the DOJ and the FBI about the status of investigations into the 2001 anthrax attacks on the federal government. The anthrax letters originated from his district.

On December 11, 2006, Holt and a bipartisan group of Congressmen requested that Attorney General Gonzales “direct the FBI to provide Congress with a comprehensive briefing on the status of the five year-old anthrax investigation.” The DOJ refused.

On March 2, 2007, he sent this request to Henry Waxman and John Conyers:

“The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation have openly asserted their belief that Congress should be kept in the dark on this vital national security issue. Mr. Chairman, I ask for your help in determining why we have been unable to bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice. It is time to provide effective oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI.”

Why would the DOJ and FBI stonewall this Congressman's request for information on their investigations into a crime committed in his own district?

* cal in cali's diary :: ::
*

I was surprised and intrigued by a comment from DKos member 'joanneleon' that the anthrax attacks came around the time of the Patriot Act was passed. Was this true?

I did a quick little research and - surprise - it is true.

The anthrax letter sent to Democrat Tom Daschle was opened by an aide on October 15, 2001. Nine days later the House passed the Patriot Act. Apparently, some of them didn't read it -- or at least, didn't read it during the reauthorization in 2006, as we know from the revelation about the US Attorney clause that was slipped in by the DOJ.

Did the hysteria and fear caused by the anthrax attacks play a factor in the passage of the Patriot Act?

* Anthrax letters sent to Congress on October 9
* Tom Daschle letter opened on October 15
* 31 Capitol workers test positive for the presence of anthrax on October 17
* Patriot Act passed the House on October 24 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
* Patriot Act passed the Senate on October 25 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
* Patriot Act signed into law by President Bush on October 26

The 31 Capitol workers include five Capitol police officers, three of Democratic Senator Russ Feingold's staffers and 23 of Democratic Senator Tom Daschle's staffers. Including the victims of the earlier letters sent to media outlets, more than 22 people ultimately developed anthrax infections. Five people died from inhalation anthrax.

Rep. Holt says:

“The FBI’s refusal to brief Members of Congress raises serious concerns about the status of this investigation and whether it is a true priority of the FBI, which appears to be no closer to solving this act of bioterrorism than they were five years ago."

Holt wants answers about an act of bioterrorism conducted in his district. The FBI and DOJ refuse to answer. Since the DOJ benefited from the passage of the Patriot Act, isn't this just a little bit suspicious?

Don't we need some oversight into this?

[UPDATED: Wow. Thanks everyone for the great, informative responses (and not too much tinfoil-hattery).

The more I look into this issue, the more it seems like an excellent and needed subject of Congressional oversight. Talk about NOT PROTECTING American citizens! Democrats could make a really strong statement about who is really looking out for America's safety by demanding answers into why this investigation has been stalled under the Bush Administration. Let's ask Waxman and Conyers about it!]

The Assassination of JFK JF. or JON JON!!!!!!!!!!

Google
Video


Thursday, April 26, 2007 


A no-holds-barred investigation into the mysterious death of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy Jr. From the creators of JFK II: The Bush Connection.










PART 1










PART 2

Cover up? Iraq government quashes data on civilian deaths

Nedra Pickler
Raw Story
Thursday, April 26, 2007

A day after the United Nations criticized the Iraqi government for withholding periodically-reported data on the number of civilian deaths in the country, a top human rights group suggested the move was linked to political calculations in the United States.

"Is it a coincidence when George W. Bush appears on Charlie Rose and asserts as fact that sectarian violence was down in Baghdad?" Sarah Leah Whitson, Director of the Middle East Program at Human Rights Watch said to RAW STORY. "How is it that he's making that assertion, and for the first time, after the United Nations has published ten reports on the situation, this is the first that doesn't have the data?"

She added, "Is it just a coincidence that when we've established benchmarks for the Iraqi government to show they are in control of the security situation, they withhold the only evidence that might hold the answer?"

Yesterday, the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq released its latest update on violence in the country. The Government of Iraq withheld key data on the number of recorded deaths, and the manner of those deaths.

"Unlike previous reports, the new UNAMI Quarterly Human Rights report does not contain official statistics of violent deaths regularly gathered by the Ministry of Health and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad," according to a statement delivered by Michèle Montas, Spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. "This is because the Iraqi Government decided not to make such data available to UNAMI."

UN Human Rights Officer Ivana Vucco essentially accused the Iraqi government of attempting to cover up the true scale of the violence.

"Unofficially in follow-up meetings we were told that the government was concerned that people would misconstrue the figures to portray a grim situation," Vucco said in Baghdad.

The Secretary-General criticized the move, and said that UNAMI planned to encourage the Iraqi government to release the data.

"This is a matter of regret because UNAMI reports have been regarded as a credible source of information regarding developments in the human rights situation in Iraq," Ban's spokeswoman said. "The Mission will continue to speak with the Iraqi authorities and urge them to provide the necessary information."

Human Rights Watch's Whitson said that the move by the Iraqi government to hold up the statistics was similar to American policy on gathering wartime civilian death data.

"They're just taking a page from the US on this," she argued. "In the 1991 Gulf War, the US kept records of civilian casualties, but in this war, they've refused to do it. Parties to the conflict have a legal duty to keep this information because it goes directly to evidence on the impact of war. How can you pretend to be protecting civilians if you're not keeping records?"

RAW STORY contacted US Central Command in Baghdad Wednesday night for comment but did not receive a reply. However, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the US Embassy supported the decision of the Iraqi government to withhold data on civilian deaths.

"'There were sometimes concerns with political motivations' in the release of statistics, one U.S. Embassy official said, referring to the sectarian and ethnic polarization in Maliki's government," according to Tina Susman. "The prime minister's aim is to have 'one voice' from the government delivering numbers that have been consolidated and verified, to prevent such things as double-counting, the official said."

Human Rights Watch's Whitson responded that the Iraqi government had not itself made this case to the United Nations when it said it would withhold the data.

"It may be the same inadequate, shitty data that they had before, but they didn't respond to UNAMI, they didn't say they need to fix the data, they didn't give any reason for withholding it," she said.

The Human Rights Watch researcher also worried that the Iraqi government's next move could be to further cover up the scale of violence in Iraq.

"Unlike the US, Iraq has not refused to look at the facts, but now they're keeping it secret, and I wouldn't be surprised if their next step is to stop keeping records at all," Whitson warned.

In related news, the McClatchy-Tribune Newspapers reported yesterday that the Bush administration is no longer counting deaths from car bombings in its civilian fatality estimates.

"Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims," wrote the news service's Nancy Youssef. "President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. 'If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory,' he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose."

Court Asked to Limit Lawyers at Guantanamo


By William Glaberson
The New York Times

Thursday 26 April 2007

The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the request has become a central issue in a new legal battle over the administration's detention policies.

Saying that visits by civilian lawyers and attorney-client mail have caused "intractable problems and threats to security at Guantanamo," a Justice Department filing proposes new limits on the lawyers' contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases that would replace more expansive rules that have governed them since they began visiting Guantanamo detainees in large numbers in 2004.

The filing says the lawyers have caused unrest among the detainees and have improperly served as a conduit to the news media, assertions that have drawn angry responses from some of the lawyers.

The dispute is the latest and perhaps the most significant clash over the role of lawyers for the detainees. "There is no right on the part of counsel to access to detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country," the Justice Department filing argued.

Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantanamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee's case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.

The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.

Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees - in a single visit - that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators.

Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a lawyer who has helped to coordinate strategy for the detainees, said the government was trying to disrupt relationships between the lawyers and their clients and to stop the flow of public information about Guantanamo, which he described as a "legal black hole" before the courts permitted access for the lawyers in 2004.

"These rules," Mr. Hafetz said, "are an effort to restore Guantanamo to its prior status as a legal black hole."

The dispute comes in a case in which detainees are challenging decisions by military panels that they were properly held as enemy combatants. The Justice Department's proposed rules could apply to similar cases that lawyers say are likely to eventually involve as many as 300 of the roughly 385 detainees now held at Guantanamo.

Some of the detainees' lawyers say the Justice Department proposal is only the latest indication of a long effort to blunt their effectiveness, which they say was evident in statements of a senior Pentagon official early this year. The official, Charles D. Stimson, deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, resigned after he was criticized for suggesting that corporations should consider severing business ties with law firms that represented Guantanamo detainees.

Under the current rules, legal mail is inspected for contraband but is not read. The lawyers, who have security clearances, are presumed to be entitled to review classified evidence used against their clients.

There is no limit on the number of times lawyers can visit their clients. Some say that they have been to Guantanamo 10 or more times and that they have needed the time to work with clients who are often suspicious and withdrawn.

Justice Department officials would not comment on the proposal, which is scheduled to be the subject of a court hearing on May 15.

The filing used combative language, saying lawyers had been able to "cause unrest on the base" and mentioned hunger strikes, protests and disobedience. An affidavit by a Navy lawyer at Guantanamo, Cmdr. Patrick M. McCarthy, that accompanied the filing, said lawyers had gathered information from the detainees for news organizations. Commander McCarthy also said the lawyers had provided detainees with accounts of events outside Guantanamo, like a speech at an Amnesty International conference and details of terrorist attacks.

"Such information," his affidavit said, "threatens the security of the camp, as it could incite violence among the detainees."

Several detainees' lawyers involved in some of the incidents denied that they had caused security problems. Neil H. Koslowe, a lawyer at Shearman & Sterling in Washington, called the assertion a "McCarthy-era charge" that was not supported by the evidence.

The dispute over the lawyers' role is one of the first issues the appeals court in Washington will have to decide as it opens a new chapter of the legal battle over Guantanamo. In 2005, Congress designated that court as the forum for detainees to challenge directly decisions made by the Pentagon's combatant status review tribunals designating them as enemy combatants.

But many detainees' lawyers have resisted filing petitions to review those decisions because Congress narrowly defined the arguments the appeals court could consider. The law said the court could review whether a panel's decision "was consistent with the standards and procedures" set forth by the Pentagon.

Instead, many detainees' lawyers pursued habeas corpus petitions, using the centuries-old legal proceeding to ask a judge for release from imprisonment. But after a complex trip through the courts, Congress last year passed a provision intended to strip courts of the authority to hear habeas corpus cases involving Guantanamo detainees.

A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington upheld that provision in February. And early this month, the United States Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Two justices, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, said that before the Supreme Court could again consider whether Congress was permitted to strip the courts of the ability to consider the habeas corpus cases, the detainees had to try to complete the appeals court review of their enemy combatant decisions.

As a result, much of the focus in the legal battle is now shifting to the appeals court. Scores of petitions seeking review of the combatant-status rulings are expected to be filed in the coming weeks, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy group that has been coordinating the detainees' lawyers. The May 15 arguments will focus on rules that could apply to all of those cases.

Lawyers say they are pressing ahead with the more limited review process in the appeals court as part of an effort to set the stage for a return to the Supreme Court. Some lawyers said that while they may lose, that would allow them to argue to the Supreme Court that the reviews were so limited that the detainees needed the more sweeping consideration permitted in habeas corpus cases.

But government lawyers, too, are developing new strategies in the wake of the Supreme Court action this month. They say that Congress and the courts have determined that expansive habeas corpus petitions are not available to the detainees.

As a result, they say, rules like those that allowed unlimited visits with detainees are no longer necessary as the detainees pursue the more limited appeals court review.

But, while arguing that detainees have no right to lawyers, the Justice Department filing said the government was giving the Guantanamo detainees enough access to lawyers so that "the court's review will be assisted by having informed counsel."

Senate Passes Iraq War Bill Requiring Pullout


By Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times

Thursday 26 April 2007

Washington - The Senate narrowly passed a $124 billion war spending bill early this afternoon after an emotional debate about the best way forward in Iraq. The vote will send the measure to President Bush, who has vowed to veto it because it would require American troops to begin withdrawing by Oct. 1.

The 51-46 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Mr. Bush's veto, came after a morning-long debate in which supporters of the bill called it a way to make the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security, while opponents called it a blueprint for defeat.

But the outcome was regarded as certain all along, with the White House saying the president might not even comment on it today, given the absence of suspense.

Still, there was plenty of feeling in evidence in the Senate as it debated the bill, which the House of Representatives narrowly approved on Wednesday.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, called the bill one that "we can and will proudly send to the president," and one that charts a new course in Iraq while honoring America's fighting forces.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the measure is "the only way to make Iraqis take responsibility" for their own destiny. Mr. Kennedy said the president has been wrong all along on Iraq. "Now, he is wrong to threaten to veto this bill," the senator said. "We cannot repeat the mistake of Vietnam."

Another Democratic supporter, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the conflict is "a war that never should have started, and on this president's watch may never end" without a timetable for American withdrawal.

But Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who lost the Democratic nomination last year at least partly because of his support for the war, called the bill "a deadline for defeat" and said it would have "exactly the opposite effect that its supporters expect" because it would discourage the Iraqis.

And Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said it was high time to "look beyond the politics of this thing, and do the right thing" by letting Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, a chance to finish the job.

General Petraeus himself acknowledged this morning that the situation in Iraq is "exceedingly complex and very tough."

"Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many problems," the general said at a Pentagon briefing.

At the White House, meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the president, Dana Perino, said that Mr. Bush would veto the measure "very soon," so that "we can take the next step." The next step, presumably, would be more back-and-forth between the White House and the Capitol, since backers of the bill have nowhere near the two-thirds majority required in each chamber to override a veto.

Asked if Mr. Bush planned to comment, Ms. Perino said, "Look, this is a little bit of a foregone conclusion, a little bit anti-climactic," she said.

The veto will be the second of Mr. Bush's presidency, and the first since Democrats gained control of Congress. Last year, Mr. Bush vetoed a stem-cell research bill.

On Wednesday, only hours after General Petraeus told lawmakers he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of the recent troop buildup there, the House approved the measure by 218 to 208."Last fall, the American people voted for a new direction in Iraq," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do their jobs, but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely, and soon."

Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a "date certain" for America's defeat in Iraq and capitulating to terrorism.

"This bill is nothing short of a cut and run in the fight against Al Qaeda," said Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky.

On the final vote, 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the bill; 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed it. The legislation provides more than $95 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30, with the money conditioned on the administration's willingness to accept a timetable for withdrawal and new benchmarks to assess the progress of the Iraqi government.

Democratic leaders plan to send the bill to the White House early next week - coinciding with the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's May 1, 2003, speech aboard an aircraft carrier, when he declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, under a banner that said "Mission Accomplished."

With the outcome essentially preordained, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were readying campaigns to try to shape public opinion as the showdown unfolds.

Groups aligned with the Democrats plan to capitalize on the connection between the veto and the "mission accomplished" anniversary. Americans United for Change has produced a television commercial that replays scenes of Mr. Bush on the carrier and says: "He was wrong then. And he's wrong now. It's the will of one nation versus the stubbornness of one man."

Allies of the president are mobilizing as well. The conservative Web site Townhall.com was organizing an online "no surrender" petition, and urging visitors to the site to tell the Democratic Party's "rogues' gallery that we will not stand for their defeatism," adding, "While they may lack courage, our troops do not and they deserve the resources needed to win this war."

With the vote barely behind them, House Democrats were already considering how to respond legislatively to Mr. Bush's veto. Though there are differing ideas, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, said his preference would be to "robustly fund the troops for two months," and include benchmarks but no timetable for withdrawal.

In addition to General Petraeus, lawmakers in the House and Senate heard on Wednesday from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As they walked into the House briefing, the officials were greeted by about a dozen war protesters, some of whom shouted: "War criminal! War criminal!" One woman walked alongside the general, urging him in a softer tone to consider her point of view.

After the briefing, whose substance was classified, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, disputed criticisms that Democrats were trying to end the war before giving the administration's plan a chance to succeed.

"Nobody is saying, 'Get out tomorrow,' " Mr. Hoyer said, noting that the legislation would allow American troops to remain in Iraq to battle terrorist groups.

He and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, differed on what emerged from the briefing as the most significant cause of violence in Iraq. Mr. Hoyer attributed it to sectarian strife, while Mr. Boehner cited Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, calling the group "the major foe that we face in Iraq today."

Democrats sought to portray their approach as reasonable and called for Mr. Bush to reconsider before sending the bill back to Congress.

"I believe that this legislation, if people were to just take their time and read it, is the exit strategy that the president ought to be pleased to receive," said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip.

But Republicans called it a dubious attempt at micromanaging the war and said Democrats were also seizing the opportunity to stuff the bill with home-state spending.

The president's allies, aware of public dissatisfaction with the war, acknowledged the difficulties on the ground in Iraq while portraying the Democratic approach as a prescription for defeat.

"It's been ugly, it's been difficult, it has been very painful," said Representative David Dreier, Republican of California. "We all feel the toll that has been taken and are fully aware of the price we are paying, especially in a human sense. But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning the mission."

The House vote on Wednesday and the preceding debate closely resembled those of one month ago, when the House passed its initial version 218 to 212.

-----------

David Stout and Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Russia Withdraws From European Conventional Forces Treaty — Putin


Mos News
Thursday April 26, 2007

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday he was suspending Russia’s obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, the Reuters news agency reports. The Russian President linked the move to U.S. plans for a missile defence shield in Europe.

Putin, in a hawkish annual speech to both houses of parliament, said the NATO signatories to the 1990 treaty were not respecting it, and the U.S. plan to put missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic made matters worse.

He said Russia would look at withdrawing from the treaty altogether if negotiations he proposed with NATO countries failed to resolve Russia’s grievances.

Russia says the missile shield plan —- which Washington says is intended to protect from attacks by so-called “rogue states” -- is a threat to its national security.

“(NATO countries) are ... building up military bases on our borders and, more than that, they are also planning to station elements of anti-missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic,” Putin said.

“In this connection, I consider it expedient to declare a moratorium on Russia’s implementation of this treaty —- in any case, until all countries of the world have ratified and started to strictly implement it,” Putin said.

He made the announcement as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and NATO counterparts prepared to meet Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a NATO-Russia meeting in Oslo.

“I propose discussing this problem in the NATO-Russia Council, and, should there be no progress in the negotiations, to look at the possibility of ceasing our commitments under the CFE treaty,” he said.