Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
West will need to look again at pipeline routes
When Dick Cheney, the US vice president, visits the Caucasus next week he will bring a message of support for Georgia in its struggle with Russia for control of its separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
But, during talks in both Georgia and Azerbaijan, he will express Washington's deep concern about the vulnerability of strategic oil export routes across the Caucasus to the west in the wake of the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
The east-west pipeline corridor from Azerbaijan across Georgia to Turkey serves the US's twin goals in the Caspian: to loosen Russia's stranglehold over oil exports from the region and to further isolate Iran by discouraging oil exporters from selecting Iranian export routes.
No pipelines were damaged during the brief war, although, coincidentally, an explosion in Turkey the day before hostilities broke out halted oil transport through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to the Mediterranean, the main artery for Azerbaijan's exports to the west.
Kurdish separatists have claimed responsibility for the incident on the pipeline, which at the time was carrying 850,000 barrels a day of oil.
Georgia's main east-west railway line was disabled by an explosion on a bridge near the town of Gori last week, choking off oil deliveries to Georgian Black Sea ports.
Meanwhile, Russian forces occupied an oil port at Poti after bombing a nearby Georgian military base, preventing ships from docking.
Kazakhstan evacuated Batumi, a Georgian oil port it owns on the Black Sea.
BP, the operator of Azerbaijan's biggest oilfield, resumed exports through the BTC pipeline on Monday, but has not reopened a pipeline from Baku to Supsa on the Georgian Black Sea it closed last week.
BP has not confirmed Georgian claims that Russian warplanes attempted to blow up the pipeline to Supsa during the war.
Georgian Railways has repaired track damaged when a train carrying oil products hit a mine on Sunday near Gori, a Georgian town attacked by Russian aircraft and then occupied during the war.
But a railway bridge near Gori destroyed by an explosion last week is still down.
Russia has denied Georgian accusations that it was responsible for the attack on the bridge
Alexander Lomaia, the secretary of Georgia's national security council, welcomed the reopening of the BTC pipeline, saying "Russia had failed" in one of its main goals in the conflict - "to gain control of Caspian and central Asian oil export routes across the Caucasus".
But analysts said the dispute would prompt Caspian oil producers to shy away from Caucasus export routes in future.
Russia invited Azerbaijan to ship additional oil through a pipeline from Baku to the Russian Black Sea as soon as fighting in Georgia erupted.
Gazprom is pressing Azerbaijan to commit future gas production to Russian export routes rather than the planned Nabucco pipe-line across the Caucasus to Europe. Nabucco is at the core of the European Union's strategy to reduce its dependence on Russian gas.
Azerbaijan said this week it would temporarily export oil to Iran to help ease constraints in the Georgian oil transit system.
Russia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan already supply oil to Iran in exchange for supplies of Iranian oil on the Gulf.
US sanctions against Iran prevent American oil companies from exporting Caspian oil to Iran without first obtaining a waiver from Washington.
But Michael Carter, the chief executive of Visor Capital, a Kazakh investment bank, said: "If Georgia is perceived to be a de facto Russian export route, the west may have to reassess its relations with Iran."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
And None Dare Call It Treason
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Who is Randy Scheunemann?
He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.
But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.
He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.
From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 — pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.
What were Mikheil’s marching orders to Tbilisi’s man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.
Scheunemann came close to succeeding.
Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann’s client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.
U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections?
Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.
That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality — namely, that Russia’s control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.
If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war.
Not only did Scheunemann’s two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.
Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there.
The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the “near abroad” when the Soviet Union broke apart.
Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out.
This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.
Scheunemann’s resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9-11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9-11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq,” a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.
Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain’s camp.
The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.
Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?
Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence … a free people ought to be constantly awake,” Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.
Who is Randy Scheunemann?
He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.
But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.
He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.
From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 — pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.
What were Mikheil’s marching orders to Tbilisi’s man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.
Scheunemann came close to succeeding.
Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann’s client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.
U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections?
Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.
That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality — namely, that Russia’s control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.
If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war.
Not only did Scheunemann’s two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.
Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there.
The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the “near abroad” when the Soviet Union broke apart.
Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out.
This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.
Scheunemann’s resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9-11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9-11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq,” a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.
Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain’s camp.
The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.
Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?
Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence … a free people ought to be constantly awake,” Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.
Russians don’t think Bush’s end game is a bit funny
NEW YORK — “The Cold War is over,” Condi Rice said last week. This may be true. She and her lame duck boss seem to be starting a hot war instead.
Imagine Russian or Chinese military bases in Tijuana or Cuidad Jaurez, across the Mexican border from El Paso. Add some more in Toronto and Vancouver. Now imagine that Russia managed to persuade Canada and Mexico to join it in some new Eastern bloc military alliance whose purpose was to oppose the U.S., and then placed a battery of long-range missiles in one or both countries. How long would it take before we went to war?
Of course, you don’t need an imagination. The U.S. didn’t tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba, and is still trying to overthrow its government.
Given America’s refusal to accept an unfriendly regime in its neighborhood — remember Grenada? — you’d think it would know enough to stay out of Russia’s hair. You’d be wrong.
Driven by its twin original sins of greed and arrogance, the United States began nibbling at Russia’s edges soon after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Clinton administration wooed oil-rich ex-Soviet states such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. It’s as if Florida were to declare independence, and then cozied up to Iran.
Efforts to de-Russ-ify the old Soviet sphere of influence accelerated under Bush, who used 9/11 and the “war on terror” as a pretext to establish permanent military bases in the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Bush’s CIA even funded a coup d’état in Kyrgyzstan, which overthrew Central Asia’s only democratically elected president.
Central Asia, under Russia’s sphere of influence for more than 150 years, began playing host to CIA “black sites” and other U.S. torture facilities.
The U.S. invited ex-Soviet bloc states — the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states — to join NATO, the Cold War-era anti-Russian military alliance. Recently, it even encouraged the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia to apply for membership, emboldening Georgia in its recent conflict with Russia.
Now the Bush administration has convinced Poland to base 10 RIM-161 Standard Interceptor Missiles (SM-3) along Russia’s western border.
Republics that were once part of or fell under the influence of the Soviet Union are sovereign states. They are legally and morally permitted to form alliances with any other nation they choose, including the United States. Still, you have to wonder: Don’t these guys own a map? Doesn’t it make more sense to suck up to the superpower next door than the one an ocean away?
More to the point, from our perspective: Why would the U.S. think provoking Russia by encroaching on its traditional sphere of influence is a good idea?
For Russia, using newfound oil wealth to rebuild its military, the Polish-American missile deal is the last straw. Annual defense budget increases of 20 percent or more, which should bring at least half of its hardware up to modern standards by 2015, have transformed the dying dog of Yeltsin-era “shock economics” back into a growling bear.
“Poland, by deploying (U.S. missiles) is exposing itself to a (nuclear) strike — 100 percent,” says top Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn. The Russian government stood by his threat.
The U.S. claims the Russians have nothing to fear. “It (the missile system) is not aimed in any way at Russia,” says Condi. Indeed, interceptor missiles are designed to shoot down other missiles, not launch attacks. But the Russians don’t want to see their ability to strike first — a right also reserved by the U.S. — degraded by an anti-missile system. They also worry about the slippery slope: What new weapons will the U.S. place in Eastern Europe later on?
Russia’s concerns are no different than ours would be if they were the ones arming Canada against us. But Condi’s reassurances are too cute by half.
Shortly before signing the missile deal with Poland, she commented: “This will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea.” Sounds reasonable — for geography.
Nearly 2,000 miles separates Iran and Poland. North Korea is nearly 5,000 miles away from Poland. But Iran’s longest-range missile, the Shahab-3, can only go 1,200 miles — about the same as North Korea’s equivalent. When you factor in the fact that America’s Poland-based SM-3s only travel about 300 miles, it is mathematically impossible for them to intercept anything launched by Iran or North Korea.
The U.S. is occupying two of the largest nations bordering Iran — Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn’t building a missile shield there make a zillion times more sense? As for North Korea, well, we have a base in Okinawa, not to mention 25,000 troops in South Korea.
Meanwhile, Condi is trying to recruit more former Soviet republics for NATO.
“We are going to help rebuild Georgia into a strong Georgian state,” Rice told Fox News. “The Russians will have failed in their effort to undermine Georgia. And we will be looking at what we can do with the states around that region as well.”
Are the Bushies trying to create a “national emergency” pretext for canceling the presidential election? Or are they just crazy? No one knows their motives. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that, after lying us into two losing wars, Cheney & Co. are using their closing months to try to provoke the mother of them all.
Imagine Russian or Chinese military bases in Tijuana or Cuidad Jaurez, across the Mexican border from El Paso. Add some more in Toronto and Vancouver. Now imagine that Russia managed to persuade Canada and Mexico to join it in some new Eastern bloc military alliance whose purpose was to oppose the U.S., and then placed a battery of long-range missiles in one or both countries. How long would it take before we went to war?
Of course, you don’t need an imagination. The U.S. didn’t tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba, and is still trying to overthrow its government.
Given America’s refusal to accept an unfriendly regime in its neighborhood — remember Grenada? — you’d think it would know enough to stay out of Russia’s hair. You’d be wrong.
Driven by its twin original sins of greed and arrogance, the United States began nibbling at Russia’s edges soon after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Clinton administration wooed oil-rich ex-Soviet states such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. It’s as if Florida were to declare independence, and then cozied up to Iran.
Efforts to de-Russ-ify the old Soviet sphere of influence accelerated under Bush, who used 9/11 and the “war on terror” as a pretext to establish permanent military bases in the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Bush’s CIA even funded a coup d’état in Kyrgyzstan, which overthrew Central Asia’s only democratically elected president.
Central Asia, under Russia’s sphere of influence for more than 150 years, began playing host to CIA “black sites” and other U.S. torture facilities.
The U.S. invited ex-Soviet bloc states — the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states — to join NATO, the Cold War-era anti-Russian military alliance. Recently, it even encouraged the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia to apply for membership, emboldening Georgia in its recent conflict with Russia.
Now the Bush administration has convinced Poland to base 10 RIM-161 Standard Interceptor Missiles (SM-3) along Russia’s western border.
Republics that were once part of or fell under the influence of the Soviet Union are sovereign states. They are legally and morally permitted to form alliances with any other nation they choose, including the United States. Still, you have to wonder: Don’t these guys own a map? Doesn’t it make more sense to suck up to the superpower next door than the one an ocean away?
More to the point, from our perspective: Why would the U.S. think provoking Russia by encroaching on its traditional sphere of influence is a good idea?
For Russia, using newfound oil wealth to rebuild its military, the Polish-American missile deal is the last straw. Annual defense budget increases of 20 percent or more, which should bring at least half of its hardware up to modern standards by 2015, have transformed the dying dog of Yeltsin-era “shock economics” back into a growling bear.
“Poland, by deploying (U.S. missiles) is exposing itself to a (nuclear) strike — 100 percent,” says top Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn. The Russian government stood by his threat.
The U.S. claims the Russians have nothing to fear. “It (the missile system) is not aimed in any way at Russia,” says Condi. Indeed, interceptor missiles are designed to shoot down other missiles, not launch attacks. But the Russians don’t want to see their ability to strike first — a right also reserved by the U.S. — degraded by an anti-missile system. They also worry about the slippery slope: What new weapons will the U.S. place in Eastern Europe later on?
Russia’s concerns are no different than ours would be if they were the ones arming Canada against us. But Condi’s reassurances are too cute by half.
Shortly before signing the missile deal with Poland, she commented: “This will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea.” Sounds reasonable — for geography.
Nearly 2,000 miles separates Iran and Poland. North Korea is nearly 5,000 miles away from Poland. But Iran’s longest-range missile, the Shahab-3, can only go 1,200 miles — about the same as North Korea’s equivalent. When you factor in the fact that America’s Poland-based SM-3s only travel about 300 miles, it is mathematically impossible for them to intercept anything launched by Iran or North Korea.
The U.S. is occupying two of the largest nations bordering Iran — Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn’t building a missile shield there make a zillion times more sense? As for North Korea, well, we have a base in Okinawa, not to mention 25,000 troops in South Korea.
Meanwhile, Condi is trying to recruit more former Soviet republics for NATO.
“We are going to help rebuild Georgia into a strong Georgian state,” Rice told Fox News. “The Russians will have failed in their effort to undermine Georgia. And we will be looking at what we can do with the states around that region as well.”
Are the Bushies trying to create a “national emergency” pretext for canceling the presidential election? Or are they just crazy? No one knows their motives. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that, after lying us into two losing wars, Cheney & Co. are using their closing months to try to provoke the mother of them all.
Feds: Fire took down WTC7
Well that was easy, it took seven years to sum this mystery up, boy the NIST are really smart and I believe every word they say. Evidently, Larry Silverstein is happy about the news as well. However, this new report about WTC7 completely contradicts what he said on the September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds'.
GAITHERSBURG, Md. (AP) — Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.
The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.
Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.
"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.
Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.
A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.
"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.
In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."
"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."
On the Net:
National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/
9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/
GAITHERSBURG, Md. (AP) — Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.
The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.
Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.
"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.
Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that internal column failure brought down the building.
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.
A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.
"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.
In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."
"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."
On the Net:
National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/
9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/
Thursday, August 21, 2008
John McCain and his advisors
McCain advisor supports terrorism – against America:
The assassination of Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto in late December was an "unfortunate event," Charlie Black told Fortune, but it boosted McCain's stock in the fast-approaching New Hampshire Republican primary that he absolutely, positively had to win. The candidate's "knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander in chief. And it helped us," Black said.
Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."
McCain advisor has strong ties to Georgia (the country that started WWIII):
The issue this time is advisor Randy Scheunemann and his business partner, who apparently lobbied McCain or his staff dozens of times on behalf of -- and getting paid by -- Georgia. As the Associated Press summed it up: "On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm."
McCain advisor labels Americans as “Whiners” in response to economy.
In an interview with the Washington Times, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm termed the current economic slowdown "a mental recession."
He added: "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."
And then he showed why his own presidential bid in 1996 quickly crashed and burned, calling the United States "a nation of whiners."
The assassination of Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto in late December was an "unfortunate event," Charlie Black told Fortune, but it boosted McCain's stock in the fast-approaching New Hampshire Republican primary that he absolutely, positively had to win. The candidate's "knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander in chief. And it helped us," Black said.
Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."
McCain advisor has strong ties to Georgia (the country that started WWIII):
The issue this time is advisor Randy Scheunemann and his business partner, who apparently lobbied McCain or his staff dozens of times on behalf of -- and getting paid by -- Georgia. As the Associated Press summed it up: "On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm."
McCain advisor labels Americans as “Whiners” in response to economy.
In an interview with the Washington Times, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm termed the current economic slowdown "a mental recession."
He added: "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."
And then he showed why his own presidential bid in 1996 quickly crashed and burned, calling the United States "a nation of whiners."
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Who Started Cold War II?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for
having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.
Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South
Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in
the Caucasus, where Moscow's superiority is as great as U.S.
superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.
If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity
of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag
the United States into war.
From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert
Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with
Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.
Truman refused to use force to break Stalin's Berlin blockade. Ike
refused to intervene when the Butcher of Budapest drowned the
Hungarian Revolution in blood. LBJ sat impotent as Leonid
Brezhnev's tanks crushed the Prague Spring. Jimmy Carter's response
to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow
Olympics. When Brezhnev ordered his Warsaw satraps to crush
Solidarity and shot down a South Korean airliner killing scores of
U.S. citizens, including a congressman, Reagan did -- nothing.
These presidents were not cowards. They simply would not go to war
when no vital U.S. interest was at risk to justify a war. Yet, had
George W. Bush prevailed and were Georgia in NATO, U.S. Marines
could be fighting Russian troops over whose flag should fly over a
province of 70,000 South Ossetians who prefer Russians to Georgians.
The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy
is today on display. By bringing three ex-Soviet republics into
NATO, we have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost
to within artillery range of the old Leningrad.
Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of
the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of
the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S.
Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far.
And can we not understand how a Russian patriot like Vladimir Putin
would be incensed by this U.S. encirclement after Russia shed its
empire and sought our friendship? How would Andy Jackson have
reacted to such crowding by the British Empire?
As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan
belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder
as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of
the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West?
For a dozen years, Putin & Co. watched as U.S. agents helped to
dump over regimes in Ukraine and Georgia that were friendly to
Moscow.
If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us?
The swift and decisive action of Putin's army in running the
Georgian forces out of South Ossetia in 24 hours after Saakashvili
began his barrage and invasion suggests Putin knew exactly what
Saakashvili was up to and dropped the hammer on him.
What did we know? Did we know Georgia was about to walk into
Putin's trap? Did we not see the Russians lying in wait north of
the border? Did we give Saakashvili a green light?
Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this
U.S. humiliation.
The war in Georgia has exposed the dangerous overextension of U.S.
power. There is no way America can fight a war with Russia in the
Caucasus with our army tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor
should we. Hence, it is demented to be offering, as John McCain and
Barack Obama are, NATO membership to Tbilisi.
The United States must decide whether it wants a partner in a
flawed Russia or a second Cold War. For if we want another Cold
War, we are, by cutting Russia out of the oil of the Caspian and
pushing NATO into her face, going about it exactly the right way.
Vladimir Putin is no Stalin. He is a nationalist determined, as
ruler of a proud and powerful country, to assert his nation's
primacy in its own sphere, just as U.S. presidents from James
Monroe to Bush have done on our side of the Atlantic.
A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the
United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes
some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard
or on the front porch of Mother Russia.
Who rules Abkhazia and South Ossetia is none of our business. And
after this madcap adventure of Saakashvili, why not let the people
of these provinces decide their own future in plebiscites conducted
by the United Nations or the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe?
As for Saakashvili, he's probably toast in Tbilisi after this
stunt. Let the neocons find him an endowed chair at the American
Enterprise Institute.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for
having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.
Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South
Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in
the Caucasus, where Moscow's superiority is as great as U.S.
superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.
If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity
of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag
the United States into war.
From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert
Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with
Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.
Truman refused to use force to break Stalin's Berlin blockade. Ike
refused to intervene when the Butcher of Budapest drowned the
Hungarian Revolution in blood. LBJ sat impotent as Leonid
Brezhnev's tanks crushed the Prague Spring. Jimmy Carter's response
to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow
Olympics. When Brezhnev ordered his Warsaw satraps to crush
Solidarity and shot down a South Korean airliner killing scores of
U.S. citizens, including a congressman, Reagan did -- nothing.
These presidents were not cowards. They simply would not go to war
when no vital U.S. interest was at risk to justify a war. Yet, had
George W. Bush prevailed and were Georgia in NATO, U.S. Marines
could be fighting Russian troops over whose flag should fly over a
province of 70,000 South Ossetians who prefer Russians to Georgians.
The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy
is today on display. By bringing three ex-Soviet republics into
NATO, we have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost
to within artillery range of the old Leningrad.
Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of
the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of
the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S.
Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far.
And can we not understand how a Russian patriot like Vladimir Putin
would be incensed by this U.S. encirclement after Russia shed its
empire and sought our friendship? How would Andy Jackson have
reacted to such crowding by the British Empire?
As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan
belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder
as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of
the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West?
For a dozen years, Putin & Co. watched as U.S. agents helped to
dump over regimes in Ukraine and Georgia that were friendly to
Moscow.
If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us?
The swift and decisive action of Putin's army in running the
Georgian forces out of South Ossetia in 24 hours after Saakashvili
began his barrage and invasion suggests Putin knew exactly what
Saakashvili was up to and dropped the hammer on him.
What did we know? Did we know Georgia was about to walk into
Putin's trap? Did we not see the Russians lying in wait north of
the border? Did we give Saakashvili a green light?
Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this
U.S. humiliation.
The war in Georgia has exposed the dangerous overextension of U.S.
power. There is no way America can fight a war with Russia in the
Caucasus with our army tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor
should we. Hence, it is demented to be offering, as John McCain and
Barack Obama are, NATO membership to Tbilisi.
The United States must decide whether it wants a partner in a
flawed Russia or a second Cold War. For if we want another Cold
War, we are, by cutting Russia out of the oil of the Caspian and
pushing NATO into her face, going about it exactly the right way.
Vladimir Putin is no Stalin. He is a nationalist determined, as
ruler of a proud and powerful country, to assert his nation's
primacy in its own sphere, just as U.S. presidents from James
Monroe to Bush have done on our side of the Atlantic.
A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the
United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes
some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard
or on the front porch of Mother Russia.
Who rules Abkhazia and South Ossetia is none of our business. And
after this madcap adventure of Saakashvili, why not let the people
of these provinces decide their own future in plebiscites conducted
by the United Nations or the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe?
As for Saakashvili, he's probably toast in Tbilisi after this
stunt. Let the neocons find him an endowed chair at the American
Enterprise Institute.
New Jersey now forces Flu Shots on children
Clothes: check. Crayons: check. Lunch box: check. Flu vaccine: Huh?
That's right. New Jersey now requires flu vaccines for preschoolers and children attending licensed child care centers. Now parents will have an additional item to cross off their checklists once the school bells ring in September.
The flu vaccine requirement, along with three additional immunizations, was approved last December. According to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, studies suggest that young children are "particularly efficient in transmitting influenza to their close contacts," including other children, adults and the elderly.
New Jersey is the only state that requires flu vaccines for preschoolers or older students, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Children from 6 months to 59 months old who attend a child-care center or preschool have from Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 to receive the flu vaccine. The state now also requires preschoolers to get a pneumococcal vaccine and sixth-graders to get a whooping cough booster shot and a meningitis shot.
Some doctor's offices are preparing for an increased demand for the flu vaccine, which is available in shot and nasal spray form.
Princeton Nassau Pediatrics ordered about 10 percent more of the vaccine than last year and expects to deliver between 9,000 and 10,000 doses this year, according to Dr. Adam Naddelman, the group's executive vice president.
New Jersey's new requirement is getting resistance from some parent groups who worry about the safety of giving young children vaccine doses.
"I do not think that this should in any way be required for young children," Sue Collins, co-founder of the New Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice in Vaccination. "There have not been adequate safety studies on this. We don't know how children are going to react to this vaccine."
Currently, the health department only grants religious and medical exemptions to the vaccine requirement. Some parents are urging support for legislation that would allow an exemption for personal or philosophical reasons.
"It's being able to be given the risks, be given the benefits and decide what's appropriate for your child," said Sandra Holbrook of New Providence, who has a 2-year-old starting preschool this year.
Holbrook, who's involved with New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice, said her son won't be getting the flu vaccine and is considering her options _ including moving out of state.
According to the health department, schools are responsible for ensuring that children have their immunizations or have a valid exemption. Local health departments enforce the requirements at schools and perform audits. A school can be fined for not complying with requirements.
That's right. New Jersey now requires flu vaccines for preschoolers and children attending licensed child care centers. Now parents will have an additional item to cross off their checklists once the school bells ring in September.
The flu vaccine requirement, along with three additional immunizations, was approved last December. According to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, studies suggest that young children are "particularly efficient in transmitting influenza to their close contacts," including other children, adults and the elderly.
New Jersey is the only state that requires flu vaccines for preschoolers or older students, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Children from 6 months to 59 months old who attend a child-care center or preschool have from Sept. 1 to Dec. 31 to receive the flu vaccine. The state now also requires preschoolers to get a pneumococcal vaccine and sixth-graders to get a whooping cough booster shot and a meningitis shot.
Some doctor's offices are preparing for an increased demand for the flu vaccine, which is available in shot and nasal spray form.
Princeton Nassau Pediatrics ordered about 10 percent more of the vaccine than last year and expects to deliver between 9,000 and 10,000 doses this year, according to Dr. Adam Naddelman, the group's executive vice president.
New Jersey's new requirement is getting resistance from some parent groups who worry about the safety of giving young children vaccine doses.
"I do not think that this should in any way be required for young children," Sue Collins, co-founder of the New Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice in Vaccination. "There have not been adequate safety studies on this. We don't know how children are going to react to this vaccine."
Currently, the health department only grants religious and medical exemptions to the vaccine requirement. Some parents are urging support for legislation that would allow an exemption for personal or philosophical reasons.
"It's being able to be given the risks, be given the benefits and decide what's appropriate for your child," said Sandra Holbrook of New Providence, who has a 2-year-old starting preschool this year.
Holbrook, who's involved with New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice, said her son won't be getting the flu vaccine and is considering her options _ including moving out of state.
According to the health department, schools are responsible for ensuring that children have their immunizations or have a valid exemption. Local health departments enforce the requirements at schools and perform audits. A school can be fined for not complying with requirements.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Imperial Geography
David Barsamian breaks down the history and geography in the Holy Land. A must view if your interested in the topic.
N. Jersey police armed to the hilt
North Jersey police are stockpiling some of the most sophisticated tactical and assault weapons on the market, but some residents question the need for such firepower in sleepy suburban towns.
Nearly half the agencies in a Record survey of 44 police departments said they own tactical weapons or plan to purchase them in the near future. Most departments are buying semiautomatic guns capable of one to three shots per trigger pull, while a handful of departments have fully automatic weapons capable of firing 10 bullets a second. A few have military-grade M16s or urban rifles that can blast through body armor.
"You're not looking at major crime in these towns," said Eric Krasnov, a 26-year-old from Harrington Park who works in Tenafly.
Krasnov and his colleagues were surprised to learn that Tenafly, a town with fewer than 15,000 people and with just a handful of violent crimes in the last few years, has an emergency tactical unit armed with fully automatic submachine guns.
"Our taxpayer money is not going to good use for these automatic weapons," Krasnov said.
Police insist, however, that they must beef up their arsenals to keep pace with criminals and prepare for school shooters, terrorist attacks and other threats.
Experts say North Jersey's weapons proliferation matches a national trend that began in the 1990s, sparked by events such as the North Hollywood bank shootout in California and the Columbine school massacre in Colorado. Fears of terrorism after 9/11 accelerated the transformation of police from patrol and investigative roles into that of "first responders."
Keeping up with criminals
"There is a trend around the country of police departments getting more and more sophisticated weapons," said Closter resident Maki Haberfeld, professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "The reason is that we have the same trend with our criminals, who are arming themselves with these weapons.
"After 9/11, police departments became much more militarized in terms of response," she added. "Tactical units were no longer just looked upon as a response to a situation with a couple of hostages, but more of a counterterrorism unit. There is this feeling that we now live in an era of counterterrorism, and the feeling is that you need to be prepared."
Such fears come as crime rates are declining nationwide, Haberfeld said. New Jersey's rate of nearly 17 violent crimes per 10,000 people ranks just above the median, according to 2006 crime statistics reported by local agencies to the FBI. Passaic County has 12 violent crimes per 10,000 people when excluding Passaic and Paterson, and 53 per 10,000 when those two cities are included.
Bergen County has fewer than 11 violent crimes per 10,000 people, and many of its more affluent towns fall far below that level.
Yet semiautomatic tactical guns are cropping up in towns such as Alpine, Closter and Norwood - where median incomes exceed $100,000 and where a total of eight violent crimes took place in 2005 and 2006.
Alpine beefed up its arsenal in the last year with a pair of Heckler & Koch UMP .40s, the most popular new weapon among the departments surveyed. The UMP, which costs $1,300, uses bullets that are interchangeable with officers' handguns. But the UMPs are more accurate and powerful and can fire two-round bursts. Closter and Norwood have identical weapons, though their versions can only fire a single bullet per trigger pull.
"The criminals outgun us nowadays," said Alpine police Lt. Michael LaViola. "Plus there are situations in the schools that have happened across the country. We practice active shooter scenarios these days, and these weapons are the best ones to handle these types of situations."
Six of the police agencies surveyed have specialized tactical units, while the remaining towns rely on regional SWAT teams. In Passaic County, Clifton, Paterson and West Milford have SWAT-like units, said Bill Maer, Passaic County Sheriff's Department spokesman. Wayne phased out its tactical team in recent years but has an arsenal that includes semiautomatic UMP .45s.
Police in Pompton Lakes also rely on county SWAT, although they have ordered four M4 urban rifles capable of piercing body armor.
"Paterson, Passaic and Clifton should be armed to the teeth because there are a whole lot more weapons found in those areas," Pompton Lakes Detective Sgt. Steve Seifried said. "Up here, we need to have them in case we have a situation like in the North Hollywood robbery. ... I don't think in an area like this it would be feasible to have every officer have weapons like this in the trunk of their vehicle."
In Bergen County, even towns with their own tactical weapons continue to rely on the Bergen County Police Department SWAT team and, occasionally, on a tactical unit from the Sheriff's Office. The police SWAT team handles roughly 10 incidents per year, typically involving "high-risk" arrests and barricaded subjects, said Officer Scott Williams, a weapons instructor and 10-year veteran of the SWAT team.
He said SWAT members have not had to shoot a single person in the course of 400 jobs since the team's creation in 1974.
"We're very fortunate that we've come to some very peaceful conclusions to most of the jobs over the years in Bergen County," Williams said.
Rarely used
Police in Bergen County towns also rarely use their weapons outside of training, according to firearms discharge reports filed with the county Prosecutor's Office. In 2006 and 2007 combined, police officers in Bergen County fired 13 bullets: 10 shots to kill sick or dangerous animals (most of them in Norwood), and three accidental firings during the disassembly or inspection of a gun.
Such statistics hardly obviate the need to prepare for school shooters and other emergencies, according to local police chiefs, who say police cannot wait in such situations for the county SWAT team to arrive. Police chiefs even dismissed the idea of having clusters of towns rely on nearby agencies for first-response services - a move that could help smaller departments save on the costs of weapons and training.
"If you have to wait for somebody to go to Paramus to pick up a UMP it absolutely defeats the purpose," Ramsey Police Chief Bryan Gurney said. His 30-member department has UMP-style weapons and shotguns.
"These weapons have to be deployed immediately," he said. "It's not like a firetruck or a street sweeper you can schedule. It's a piece of equipment that has to be readily available to an officer at a moment's notice."
That philosophy has led North Arlington's tactical squad to acquire one of the most diverse arsenals in the region, complete with shotguns, fully automatic submachine guns, high-powered urban rifles and M16s, a fully automatic military rifle.
"I wouldn't care if they had tanks if they needed them," said Bob Henke, a 52-year-old postal worker from North Arlington. "I'm for having everything at your disposal as long as it's used cautiously and in a measured way."
Matthew Marinaro, 40, wasn't convinced of the need for such weapons.
"I think the police have the right to protect themselves the best they can," Marinaro said. "But it's not like the movies. This is North Arlington. I could see it in New York City, but it's relatively quiet here."
Friday, August 15, 2008
PJB: Blowback from Bear Baiting
By Patrick Buchanan
Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.
Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.
Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.
Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.
Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.
American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.
Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.
True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?
Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?
Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?
When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?
Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?
That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.
When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?
American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.
Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.
When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?
The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.
We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic “revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.
Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.
Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.
How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?
For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost — in Tbilisi.
Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.
Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.
Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.
Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.
Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.
American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.
Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.
True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?
Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?
Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?
When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?
Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?
That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.
When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?
American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.
Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.
When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?
The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.
We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic “revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.
Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.
Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.
How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?
For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia’s space and getting into Russia’s face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost — in Tbilisi.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match
Federal investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe.
FBI agents and U.S. Postal Service inspectors analyzed the data in an effort to place Fort Detrick, Md., scientist Bruce E. Ivins at the mailbox from which bacteria-laden letters were sent to Senate offices and media organizations, the sources said.
The hair sample is one of many pieces of evidence over which researchers continue to puzzle in the case, which ended after Ivins committed suicide July 29 as prosecutors prepared to seek his indictment.
Authorities released sworn statements and search warrants last week at a news conference in which they asserted that Ivins was their sole suspect. But the materials have not dampened speculation about the merits of the investigative findings and the government's aggressive pursuit of Ivins, a 62-year-old anthrax vaccine researcher. Conspiracy theories have flourished since the 2001 attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others.
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it will call FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to appear at an oversight hearing Sept. 17, when he is likely to be asked about the strength of the government's case against Ivins. A spokeswoman for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a vocal FBI critic, said he would demand more information about how authorities narrowed their search.
The House Judiciary panel, meanwhile, is negotiating to hold a separate oversight hearing in September with bureau officials, in a session that could mark the first public occasion in which Mueller faces questions about the FBI's handling of the anthrax case.
Friends and former colleagues of Ivins, who died before he could see the full array of evidence prosecutors had gathered, continue to demand information about the DNA advances that authorities say led them to a flask in Ivins's lab.
Defense lawyer Paul F. Kemp yesterday said he wonders "where Ivins could have possibly stored this anthrax without any employees seeing it, or if he took it home, why there was no trace" of the deadly spores, despite repeated FBI searches over the past two years of Ivins's car, his work locker, a safe-deposit box and his house.
Meanwhile, government sources offered more detail about Ivins's movements on a critical day in the case: when letters were dropped into the postal box on Princeton's Nassau Street, across the street from the university campus.
Investigators now believe that Ivins waited until evening to make the drive to Princeton on Sept. 17, 2001. He showed up at work that day and stayed briefly, then took several hours of administrative leave from the lab, according to partial work logs. Based on information from receipts and interviews, authorities say Ivins filled up his car's gas tank, attended a meeting outside of the office in the late afternoon, and returned to the lab for a few minutes that evening before moving off the radar screen and presumably driving overnight to Princeton. The letters were postmarked Sept. 18.
Nearly seven years after the incidents, however, investigators have come up dry in their efforts to find direct evidence to place Ivins at the Nassau Street mailbox in September and October 2001.
FBI agents and U.S. Postal Service inspectors analyzed the data in an effort to place Fort Detrick, Md., scientist Bruce E. Ivins at the mailbox from which bacteria-laden letters were sent to Senate offices and media organizations, the sources said.
The hair sample is one of many pieces of evidence over which researchers continue to puzzle in the case, which ended after Ivins committed suicide July 29 as prosecutors prepared to seek his indictment.
Authorities released sworn statements and search warrants last week at a news conference in which they asserted that Ivins was their sole suspect. But the materials have not dampened speculation about the merits of the investigative findings and the government's aggressive pursuit of Ivins, a 62-year-old anthrax vaccine researcher. Conspiracy theories have flourished since the 2001 attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others.
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it will call FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to appear at an oversight hearing Sept. 17, when he is likely to be asked about the strength of the government's case against Ivins. A spokeswoman for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a vocal FBI critic, said he would demand more information about how authorities narrowed their search.
The House Judiciary panel, meanwhile, is negotiating to hold a separate oversight hearing in September with bureau officials, in a session that could mark the first public occasion in which Mueller faces questions about the FBI's handling of the anthrax case.
Friends and former colleagues of Ivins, who died before he could see the full array of evidence prosecutors had gathered, continue to demand information about the DNA advances that authorities say led them to a flask in Ivins's lab.
Defense lawyer Paul F. Kemp yesterday said he wonders "where Ivins could have possibly stored this anthrax without any employees seeing it, or if he took it home, why there was no trace" of the deadly spores, despite repeated FBI searches over the past two years of Ivins's car, his work locker, a safe-deposit box and his house.
Meanwhile, government sources offered more detail about Ivins's movements on a critical day in the case: when letters were dropped into the postal box on Princeton's Nassau Street, across the street from the university campus.
Investigators now believe that Ivins waited until evening to make the drive to Princeton on Sept. 17, 2001. He showed up at work that day and stayed briefly, then took several hours of administrative leave from the lab, according to partial work logs. Based on information from receipts and interviews, authorities say Ivins filled up his car's gas tank, attended a meeting outside of the office in the late afternoon, and returned to the lab for a few minutes that evening before moving off the radar screen and presumably driving overnight to Princeton. The letters were postmarked Sept. 18.
Nearly seven years after the incidents, however, investigators have come up dry in their efforts to find direct evidence to place Ivins at the Nassau Street mailbox in September and October 2001.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Campaign for Liberty August 31 - September 2
The Rally for the Republic is our premier event and the official kickoff to the Campaign for Liberty. Ron Paul will be headlining the event with a speech that will define our place in history. Musicians and speakers will fill the line-up for this all day event at the Target Center. Doors will open at 11:30am‚ and the Rally will start at 12:30pm.
Internationally renowned musicians will headline the musical portion of the show. They will join NBC’s Tucker Carlson‚ Barry Goldwater Jr.‚ Gov. Gary Johnson‚ conservative stalwart Grover Norquist‚ former Reagan deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein‚ presidential historian Doug Wead‚ former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura and many other special guests to be announced soon. Ron Paul is scheduled to speak at 7:00pm!
This promises to be the most spirited and provocative political event of the year!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
NJ Small Town's Fortified Arsenal
DUMONT NJ planned purchase of a half-dozen submachine guns may make it one of the better-armed small towns in the region. But it also raises familiar questions about the wisdom of maintaining scores of little police forces, all preparing for highly dangerous situations that are highly unlikely to occur in their jurisdictions.
The town plans to spend about $16,000 on six .40-caliber Heckler & Koch UMPs, powerful semiautomatic weapons typically used by SWAT and military special operations units. They feature 30-round magazines and can fire at a rate of 650 rounds per minute.
Dumont police asked for the big new guns partly because they have worn out their old single-shot rifles. Don't worry, though, there was no crime wave. The 2-square-mile borough of about 17,500 saw a total of 10 violent crimes in 2006, up from eight in 2005.
In fact, none of the department's eight-year-old arsenal of Ruger Carbine rifles has ever been fired in action. Rather, they were exhausted by training exercises and car rides. Police Chief Brian Venezio said the guns have endured firing "thousands of rounds" during firearms certifications as well as "the wear and tear of being stored in police vehicles." As a result, they have become vulnerable to jamming and accidental discharge.
One of the new submachine guns will be aboard each of the borough's six patrol cars for "heightened emergency situations." As one detective told The Record, the "bad guys" are getting them, so the police "need to keep up."
We're all for fully equipping the good guys. But we wish they would take more advantage of their potential for organizational superiority over the bad guys. For example, we have often been told that regional forces exist so our scores of small suburban departments don't need specialized units and equipment. And yet Dumont officials point out that the Bergen County Police Department has the same submachine guns they plan to buy.
This is a relatively small example of a questionable duplication of law enforcement services. But it makes us wonder how many more we don't know about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
Sixburgh
