Blair set to earn £40m after emotional farewell

BENEDICT BROGAN and JANE MERRICK
UK Daily Mail
Friday May 11, 2007

Tony Blair is waving goodbye to Downing Street - and hello to a staggering £40million from book deals and lecture tours.

The shape of his future emerged as he bade an emotional farewell to loyal supporters in his Sedgefield constituency, remaining the showman to the end.

The ex-premier will create a charitable foundation to forge "greater understanding" between faiths and help bring Israelis and Palestinians together.



Don't you just love me! Tony Blair milking the applause following his farewell speech in Trimdon Labour Club

But as one of the architects of the Iraq war, his decision to position himself as a peace campaigner in the region will surprise many.

As an ex-prime minister, Mr Blair will travel the world promoting his new cause. But he will make sure there is plenty of space in his diary for speaking engagements at up to £125,000 a time.

Cherie Blair, repeatedly accused of cashing in on her husband’s name with lucrative speaking tours, is likely to "piggy back" on his bankability by arranging her own lecture dates to coincide with his schedule.

The international speaking circuit which will provide the Blairs with the long-term income to top up the Prime Minister’s £117,500 a year pension and £90,000 annual ‘public service’ allowance which are his for life.

Mr Blair’s thirst for peace in the Middle East is said to have been reinvigorated by the success of restoring power-sharing to Northern Ireland.

He wants his foundation to concentrate on the world’s most intractable conflict, rather than Africa, because there would be too much of an overlap with his old friend Bill Clinton’s work and the Gates Foundation of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates and his wife Melinda.

On Thursday Mr Blair brought the curtain down on his 13 years as Labour leader - and the longest goodbye in political history - with a grudging apology and a tear-stained plea for understanding.

Pursued by the horrors of Iraq, one of the most remarkable politicians of his age was reduced to begging for his place in history, mixing sentimentality with defiance.

He offered the British people "apologies to you for the times I have fallen short" but insisted: "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right".

Yet even as he spoke in the Trimdon Labour Club, where his political career began in 1983, his trademark "New Labour New Britain" logo was being airbrushed from the party website.

It was replaced by a white rose on a purple background, recalling the logo used by Neil Kinnock. A party spokesman denied, however, that this heralded a return to more traditional policies, while Gordon Brown said he knew nothing about the switch.

Hounded out of office by the party he led to an unprecedented three general election victories, Mr Blair tried to make a virtue of his departure, saying: "Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down." But he could not get around the issue of Iraq.

He insisted it was right to remove Saddam but admitted: "The blowback has been fierce, unrelenting and costly.

"For many it can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through.

"The terrorists who threaten us here and around the world will never give up if we give up. It is a test of wills and we can't fail."

Mr Blair's announcement that he will stand down as Prime Minister on June 27 triggered a six-week march to Gordon Brown's coronation at a Labour conference on June 24.

This perfect storm will finally destroy the neocon project

Americans are sick of the unrepentant arrogance of this elite. But the realisation has come at a very heavy cost

Geoffrey Wheatcroft
London Guardian
Friday May 11, 2007

Now and again people have found themselves in places where the course of history was dramatically changed: Paris in 1789, Petrograd in 1917, Berlin in 1989. Sometimes the feeling of momentous change is illusory. When Tony Blair won his first election 10 years ago, perfectly sane people proclaimed that "these are revolutionary times". As most of us realised long before his ignominious departure, that was just what they weren't.

And yet to visit the US at present, as I have done, is to experience an overwhelming sensation of drastic impending change. It's not merely that President Bush, to whom Blair so disastrously tethered himself, is "in office but not in power". Most Americans can't wait for him to go, Congress is beyond his control, and the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, has told him that the war in Iraq is lost - for which statement of the obvious Reid was accused of "defeatism" by the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Besides that the portents range from Paul Wolfowitz's travails at the World Bank to the Senate interrogation of Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, and the trial of Conrad Black. This might sound like the "succession of small disasters, oh trifling in themselves", in Alan Bennett's Forty Years On ("a Foreign Secretary's sudden attack of dysentery at the funeral of George V, an American ambassador found strangled in his own gym-slip...") And yet there really is an observable pattern.

Along with the collapse of Bush's authority, all these episodes are connected to the great disaster in Iraq. And all illustrate the hubristic, impenitent arrogance of the people who have been guiding America's destiny - as well as ours, alas - for the past six years. What one senses so acutely are the conditions building for a political perfect storm, which will engulf and destroy the whole neoconservative project.

In Washington I took part in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, my old sparring partner and drinking companion (mots justes, all of them), who supports Bush with a defiance worthy of a better cause. He surpassed himself by insisting that his friend Wolfowitz is a wronged man. A World Bank committee reportedly disagrees, and has found that Wolfowitz did violate the bank's rules in the matter of his lady friend's salary.

But in any case everyone else in Washington says the same thing: Wolfowitz cannot survive. His appointment was widely resented in the first place - the German, French, Dutch and Scandinavian governments have warned that they might withhold funds if he stays in office; and severe damage is being done to the organisation he claims to have at heart by his refusal to accept reality.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft is the author of Yo, Blair!

CREW Chief on Fitzgerald and the Missing Emails

By Matt Renner and Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 18 April 2007

A couple of weeks before I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers was told that an internal White House probe determined that millions of administration emails dating back to 2003 were lost.

Miers immediately informed Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate whether administration officials knowingly leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, about the administration's lost emails, a government watchdog group has claimed, but Miers may not have told Fitzgerald the extent of the White House's email problem.

During a wide-ranging interview with Truthout on Monday, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and CREW's Chief Counsel Anne Weismann said they believe Miers did not fully inform Fitzgerald about the millions of emails the White House lost between 2003 and 2005. As a result, the CREW attorneys said it's likely that Fitzgerald did not obtain all of the evidence related to the leak investigation - particularly emails sent during that time period by Karl Rove that may further implicate the White House political adviser in the Plame Wilson leak.

The latest revelation by CREW provides new insight into how Fitzgerald first became aware that some emails related to the leak investigation were not turned over to FBI investigators in the fall of 2003, which the special prosecutor disclosed in a court filing in January 2006.

"We assume this is what [Fitzgerald] was referring to [in his court filing], but we do not know how deep the briefing given to him by Miers was," Sloan said.

In a story first reported by Truthout last year, Fitzgerald revealed that his investigative team "learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system," according to the January 2006 court filing. Less than two weeks after Fitzgerald revealed that emails from the White House were missing, 250 pages of emails from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's offices were turned over to investigators working for the special prosecutor - more than two years after the investigation had begun.

The White House offered no official explanation concerning the circumstances regarding the sudden reappearance of the emails it turned over to Fitzgerald on February 6, 2006. At the time, a White House spokeswoman would only say that staffers "discovered" the batch of documents during a search.

In October of 2005, the White House Office of Administration discovered that White House emails had not been archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, according to Sloan. The Office of Administration briefed Miers about the lost emails and Miers is said to have immediately informed Fitzgerald's staff about the issue due to the fact that Fitzgerald had subpoenaed White House emails sent in 2003. However, according to Sloan, Fitzgerald's staff was briefed before a complete audit of the email records could be taken.

The Office of Administration audit concluded that more than five million emails had been lost. Sloan, who said her organization had obtained information about the extent of the emails the White House lost from two sources - one a former Bush administration official - believes this "suggests that Fitzgerald might not have gotten the complete story."

In late January 2004, Fitzgerald suspected that Rove had either hidden or destroyed an important document tying him to the leak, as well as the effort to discredit Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been a vocal critic of the Iraq war and accused the Bush administration of twisting pre-war Iraq intelligence. The document that Fitzgerald believed Rove had either hidden or destroyed was an email Rove sent to Stephen Hadley, then-deputy national security adviser, in early July 2003. The email proved Rove had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about issues related to the CIA leak. Rove did not disclose that conversation when he was first interviewed by the FBI three months after he had emailed Hadley.

Curiously, the email Rove sent to Hadley did not show up during a search ordered by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in September 2003. Gonzales enjoined all White House staff members to turn over any communication pertaining to Plame Wilson and her husband. Gonzales's directive came twelve hours after senior White House officials had been told of the pending investigation.

"It looks like Karl Rove may well have destroyed evidence that implicated him in the White House's orchestrated efforts to leak Valerie Plame Wilson's covert identity to the press in retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson," Sloan said last week. "Special Counsel Fitzgerald should immediately reopen his investigation into whether Rove took part in the leak, as well as whether he obstructed justice in the ensuing leak investigation."

In light of the revelations Thursday that thousands of emails Rove sent over a four-year period via an email account maintained by the Republican National Committee may have been destroyed, questions as to why an email Rove sent to Hadley was not initially found in the 10,000 pages of documents and emails turned over to the special counsel has resurfaced. Additionally, there are also questions about the veracity of statements Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, made to Fitzgerald more than two years ago regarding why that email to Hadley wasn't found.

On April 12, CREW published a report entitled, "WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and Violations of the Presidential Records Act," outlining the widespread failures by the White House to retain its emails. In its report, CREW said that "although [then-] White House counsel [Harriet Miers] was provided a detailed briefing of this analysis, and a plan of action to recover the missing email was developed, the plan has never been executed."

During a press briefing on Monday, White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration is "aware that there could have been some emails that were not automatically archived because of a technical issue."

"We have talked with the Office of Administration about that, and we're looking into those details," Perino said. "But given the complex nature of this issue, it might take us a little while to identify those. We do, however, know that most - all of those emails should be available on backup tapes."

Last week, CREW sent a letter to Fitzgerald urging him to reopen his investigation in light of revelations that thousands of emails Rove sent via an email account maintained by the Republican National Committee had been lost. CREW serves as legal counsel to Joseph and Valerie Wilson in their civil suit against Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice earlier this year for his role in the leak of Plame's identity.

Fitzgerald has not responded to CREW's letter, Sloan said.

Weismann, chief counsel for CREW, said the fact that Rove and other White House officials have sent emails through their Republican National Committee (RNC) accounts raises new questions about the integrity of Fitzgerald's investigation.

"Rove admitted to using the RNC servers for 95% of his correspondence," Weismann said. "Was Fitzgerald aware of this prior to closing the case? Did [Fitzgerald] know emails were being deleted from the RNC server?"

Until 2004, the RNC deleted emails from its server after 30 days. However, administration officials with RNC accounts could still independently access and delete email from the RNC server. The RNC said Rove was blocked from deleting emails from his RNC account during the CIA leak investigation.

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee, has been investigating the use of unofficial email accounts by Bush administration officials. On Thursday, Waxman's staff met behind closed doors with RNC Counsel Rob Kelner to discuss the issue. In a letter to Gonzales on Thursday, Waxman said that the RNC has email archives dating back to 2004, but "has apparently destroyed all email records from White House officials from 2001, 2002 and 2003."

According to Waxman's letter, the RNC had special email procedures for Rove. According to Kelner, the RNC does not have any archived emails prior to 2005 for Rove. This, despite the reports that Rove uses his RNC account for the majority of his correspondence. Waxman said that Kelner "did not give any explanation for the emails missing from Mr. Rove's account, but he did acknowledge that one possible explanation is that Mr. Rove personally deleted his emails from the RNC server."

Sloan and Weismann said CREW has no direct evidence proving that Rove intentionally withheld emails from Fitzgerald's probe. But the CREW attorneys doubt that Rove and the White House has been forthcoming about Rove's involvement in the Plame Wilson leak in light of the fact that millions of emails during the height of the leak have not been recovered. Moreover, Sloan said it's difficult to determine whether Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has been forthcoming with Fitzgerald about the changing stories that Rove and Luskin told the special prosecutor regarding Rove's role in the Plame Wilson leak and the discovery of the email Rove sent to Hadley.

"He is a well-known lawyer and I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way to know if he was telling the truth or not at this point," Sloan said.

The Plot Thickens

by mcjoan
Daily Kos
Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:48:46 AM PDT

Murray Waas has a new report at the National Journal that could get Rove, et al. in serious hot water. According to Waas, the Bush administration has withheld information from Congress that would reveal efforts by senior officials at the White House and Justice Department to conceal Karl Rove’s role in naming Timothy Griffin to be the new U.S. Attorney in Arkansas.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin’s appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove’s role in supporting Griffin.

In one of the letters that Sampson drafted, dated February 23, 2007, the Justice Department told four Senate Democrats it was not aware of any role played by senior White House adviser Rove in attempting to name Griffin to the U.S. attorney post. A month later, the Justice Department apologized in writing to the Senate Democrats for the earlier letter, saying it had been inaccurate in denying that Rove had played a role....

The withheld e-mails show that Sampson’s draft was forwarded for review to Chris Oprison, an associate White House counsel, who approved the language saying that Justice was not aware of Rove having played any role in supporting Griffin. But an earlier e-mail from Sampson to Oprison that has already been made public indicates that the two men discussed Rove and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers as being at the forefront of Griffin’s nomination.

Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel’s office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official, who said that the administration has inappropriately kept many of them from Congress.

Ruh-roh, Rove.

Gonzales testimony contradicts White House, revealing Bush 'conversation' over US attorney firings

Michael Roston
Published: Thursday May 10, 2007
The Raw Story

Weeks after the White House ruled out the involvement of President George W. Bush in any discussions on the firing of 8 US Attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Thursday morning that the President had discussed the matter with advisers in an October 2006 meeting.

"I've now been made aware of the fact that there was a conversation with the President that basically mentioned the same thing in October of 2006," the Attorney General said while answering a question from Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA).

"The same thing" referred to voter fraud cases in three US Attorneys' districts, which Gonzales earlier acknowledged had been raised by Karl Rove in a meeting "sometime in the Fall of 2006."

Gonzales' statement varied from remarks by White House spokespersons that the President had not been involved in any discussions of firing US Attorneys.

"I have said on the record for several weeks now that there is no indication that the President knew about any of the ongoing discussions over the two years, nor did he see a list or a plan before it was carried out," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino on March 27, 2006.

Furthermore, in a March 21 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow had been asked about a Nov. 15, 2006 e-mail from former Gonzales chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers asking "Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"

Snow was then asked "did the President have to sign off on this?" referring to the firing of the Attorneys, to which he responded, "The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him."

A reporter later clarified, "Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?"

Snow answered, "Yes, the removal – yes, that is correct."

RAW STORY was awaiting a reply from the White House at press time on whether or not they agreed that Gonzales' remark contradicted earlier White House statements.

An aide to Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), one of the Judiciary Committee members who is leading the investigation of the firings of the Attorneys, said Gonzales' remark prompted a need for further inquiry.

"You can be sure that the Committee will look for more information on this meeting and any other interactions the White House had with DoJ on the firings," the aide told RAW STORY in an e-mail Thursday afternoon.

While the White House had not commented to RAW STORY, a March 13 press conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett made note of the October discussion between Gonzales and Bush.

"Over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...in a conversation he had with the Attorney General in October of 2006, in which, in a wide-ranging conversation on a lot of different issues, this briefly came up and the President said, I've been hearing about this election fraud matters from members of Congress, want to make sure you're on top of that, as well," Bartlett told reporters.

But he insisted that the firing of US Attorneys was not discussed.

"There was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that. That would be under the prerogative of the Justice Department to take a look at those issues, as they obviously were doing," he said.

However, Gonzales' remarks seemed to put the October discussion in a new light. The Attorney General linked a question about the White House seeking the firing of US Attorneys with the Bush conversation that Bartlett insisted had no 'directive' for firings.

Rep. Scott had asked the Attorney General if the White House sought the removal of any Attorneys.

"Did the White House ask you to seek the removal of any US Attorney?" the Virginia Democrat asked.

"I have recollection of Mr. Rove raising concerns about prosecutors and voter fraud cases in three districts," Gonzales answered.

He then brought up the October 2006 conversation with the President as another instance in which 'the same thing' had been discussed.

Blair will stand down on 27 June

BBC NEWS

Tony Blair has announced he will stand down as prime minister on 27 June.

He made the announcement in a speech to party activists in his Sedgefield constituency, after earlier briefing the Cabinet on his plans.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been "very blessed" to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

In an emotional speech, Mr Blair said he had been prime minister for 10 years which was "long enough" for the country and himself.

He thanked the British people for their support and apologised for when "I have fallen short".

Olbermann: Coverage of GOP Reps Begging Bush for Honesty

At the time of this posting, NBC news has been disclosing the remarkable details of a meeting between eleven GOP congressmen, who told the president he must be more honest and forthcoming on the Iraq war. One told him, "My district is prepared for defeat" in the war, and he was also told that neither he or Cheney should speak publicly about the war's progress, citing no credibility from this White House. Powerful stuff, which the Washington Post's Dana Milbank called "a turning point." Time will tell, but it's obvious that bipartisan support for the war is now waning.

Bush Gets a Scolding

by mcjoan
Daily Kos
Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:11:32 PM PDT

Believe it or not, some Republicans on the Hill are unhappy with Bush. Eleven of them met with Bush, Gates, Rice, Rice, Rove, and Snow, and they told him they're not happy about Iraq. Here's Tim Russert's NBC report via Think Progress (you can watch the video there):

[O]ne said "My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President." The president responded, "I don’t want to pass this off to another president. I don’t want to pass this off, particularly, to a Democratic president," underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

Brian, the Republican congressman then went on to say, "The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus." The meeting lasted an hour and 15 minutes and was, in the words of one, "remarkable for the bluntness and no-holds-barred honesty in the message delivered by all these Republican congressmen."

Russert says this "may have been a defining pivotal moment" in the Iraq debate. I'm not holding my breath. For one thing, Petraeus is ropa doping for all he's worth in that always moving target date for when we know when anything might be working on the ground. He and Gates aren't on the same page at all, so the Republicans putting all their trust in his hands is not encouraging.

Now if these 11 can round up 60 more disgrunted GOP Representatives and 17 Senators, then maybe we can start talking "pivotal." Until then, I doubt they're going to budge Bush.

Bush Flashes 'El Diablo' Hand Signal During Queen's Visit

Iraqi Parliament Hates this War

by mcjoan
Daily Kos

Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:36:16 PM PDT
Think Progress points to a story that you're not seeing much of in the traditional media:

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum)....

What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.

Are we going to be disinvited from Iraq before we have a chance to decide to leave?

Philly 9/11 Truth takes control of the A28 Impeachment Rally

9/11 Blogger
Wednesday May 09, 2007

April 28, 2007, thousands of patriots gathered around the nation calling for impeachment of the Bush administration. Philly 9/11 Truth joined their local event and with the approval of the host, World Can't Wait, delivered a powerful speech educating the open minded about state sponsored terrorism and 9/11. After an array of speakers and performers the event transmuted into a march through the streets of Philadelphia. As the crowd of enthusiastic patriots streamed through the city resounding chants and radiating an intense image, Philly 9/11 Truth seized the stream of impeachment and converted it into a river of truth by co-opting chants and emancipating minds. The following footage is exemplary of how a concerted effort by a small 9/11 Truth brigade can do the work of one hundred men.

"Protect America, Not George Bush"

by mcjoan
Daily Kos
Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:22:12 AM PDT

One of the favorite GOP talking points is that Congress shouldn't be making decisions for troops on the ground, that Bush listens to his generals and that they determine the course of action in Iraq. Three retired generals, John Batiste, Paul Eaton, and Wesley Clark, and a veteran of Afghanistan are taking to the airwaves to dispute that claim in a new series of ads sponsored by VoteVets. The ads are intended to force Congress, and particularly GOP members who have continually rubberstamped this war, to do its job and end this war.

The ads will run on broadcast and cable in markets targeting Senators Susan Collins, John Sununu, John Warner, and Norm Coleman, and Representatives Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh, Heather Wilson, Jo Ann Emerson, Tim Johnson, Mike Rogers, Fred Upton, and Mike Castle in their home districts. From the VoteVets press release:

The first in the series of three ads features Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The division was deployed to north-central Iraq from February 2004 until February 2005 and included 22,000 soldiers from active and reserve component units from throughout the United States. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican....

"For too long, the President has maintained that he’s just listening to commanders on the ground, which is utterly false. These ads set the record straight, directly from the mouths of those men," said Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran and Chairman and Co-Founder of VoteVets.org. "The President isn’t listening, he hasn’t listened, and he hasn’t shown an interest in listening to commanders on the ground in Iraq. If the President won’t listen to commanders, then Congress must. They must force about a surge in diplomacy, and not allow a war without end."

Here's the first ad.

We Weren't Soldiers

Bush won't give up military option on Iran: Rice

Tue May 8, 2007 10:33AM EDT

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will keep a military option on the table as he seeks a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear plans, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

"The American president will not abandon the military option and I believe that we do not want him to do so," Rice said in an interview with Al Arabiya television, part of which was broadcast on Tuesday.

Iran is embroiled in a standoff with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The West suspects it is seeking to develop atomic weapons but Tehran says it wants only to generate electricity so that it can export more of its oil and gas.

Rice in remarks dubbed in Arabic said Bush remained "committed to the diplomatic option. If the world remained strong, there would be a chance for the success of the diplomatic option".

Two sets of United Nations sanctions have been imposed on Iran since December and major powers have warned a third, tougher resolution might be needed if Tehran did not halt uranium enrichment.

"I say to the Iranians ... there are two options -- isolation and dialogue," she said.

Analysts say the measures, including arms and financial sanctions, are hurting business and deterring foreign investment in the Islamic state, which despite its oil wealth is struggling with inflation and unemployment.

Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected Western demands to halt work to enrich uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear power plants or make atom bombs if refined further.

Rice reiterated that Washington would change its policy against Tehran, adopted after anti-U.S. Iranian clerics toppled the U.S.-allied Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in an Islamic revolution in 1979.

"The international community has made its demands through the United Nations; Iran should stop nuclear enrichment, after that there would be a change in the U.S. policy that has been going on for 27 years and then I can talk to them about any issue."

Washington severed its ties with Tehran in 1980 after students seized the U.S. embassy there and held 52 hostages for 444 days.

Iraq protest camp shortlisted for Turner Prize

By Nigel Reynolds, Arts Correspondent
Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:05am BST 09/05/2007

Video

Politics not paint are set to dominate this year's Turner Prize after the announcement today of a four-strong shortlist of artists more exercised by issues such as the Iraq war, terrorism and religious strife than images of beauty.

Leading the way is Mark Wallinger, a veteran of the Sensation generation of British artists.

He has been shortlisted for his controversial £90,000 work, State Britain, in which he meticulously recreated Brian Haw’s long-running anti-Iraq war peace demonstration outside Parliament, in galleries at Tate Britain at the start of the year.

Wallinger, 48, who also created Ecce Homo, a striking Christ-like figure for Trafalgar Square’s vacant fourth plinth in 1999, is likely to be the public favourite for the controversial £25,000 prize which is traditionally dominated by conceptual artists.

Wallinger was also shortlisted twelve years ago when he named a working racehorse A Real Work of Art. The horse was something of an also-ran and Wallinger was beaten to the Turner Prize by Damien Hirst.

Note: The Turner Prize is an annual prize for a work of conceptual art and the winning exhibit often proves to be controversial. These have included Damien Hirst’s Shark in formaldehyde and Tracey Emin’s reconstruction of her untidy bedsit with her bed unmade and a used condom on the floor. When asked why her work constituted Art, she replied, “because I say it’s art”. Wallinger’s entry has a more serious intent than the usual rubbish.

The Ron Paul Effect

Congressman Seeks Republican Nomination Backed by Libertarian Faithful

By RICK KLEIN
abcNEWS
May 7, 2007 —


Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.

That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.

ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)

So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn -- a libertarian nicknamed "Dr. No" because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution's original intent -- poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?

Not likely. What's more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of "viral marketing," using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

The Ron Paul Effect

Since online polls aren't scientific -- people choose to take them, and many people vote multiple times -- doing well in them doesn't necessarily mean a campaign is on the move.

But Internet buzz can have a carry-over effect, said Peter Greenberger, an online strategist at New Media Strategies and a former Democratic political operative.

"It's evidence of something -- either passionate supporters, active supporters, or just one very savvy supporter who's able to vote several thousand times," Greenberger said. "If it leads to one or two stories in the mainstream media, that could lead to a bounce online, and could lead to some fundraising successes."

With strong support among libertarians who are unhappy with the top-tier Republican contenders, Paul has a robust online presence.

His MySpace profile boasts nearly 12,000 "friends." Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez.

After Thursday night's debate, the comment sections of several major news organizations -- including ABC's -- were inundated with pro-Paul messages.

Viewers raved about Paul's commitment to abolishing the IRS, his steadfast opposition to a national ID card, and a forthright tone that bloggers said set him apart from the other candidates onstage.

The Paul campaign did not immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail message seeking comment.


Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

John Edwards Confronted About 911 and WTC7

One small voice in the corner of the room musters the courage to ask John Edwards the difficult question about WTC7. This is a good thing because (apparently) John Edwards never heard about what happened to World Trade Center 7.

'The Net' shoves Ron Paul right down ABC's throat!

Alaska Intel Report
Tuesday May 08, 2007

Whether ABC purposely left Cong. Ron Paul out of their poll, or whether they're just so arrogant that they just assumed that they know who the candidates are, or should be, they got a cold slap in the face the other day.

After deciding to ignore the 800 pound gorilla on the debate the other night, they thought by not including Mr. Paul in their 'poll', they could steer the results in the direction they wanted.

Wrong !

It didn't take long ! Pretty soon the net erupted and they were swamped with calls and emails demanding that Ron Paul be included.
Well it didn't take ABC long to figure it out, they knew they were busted. They then did the only thing they could, they scrambled to get out in front of it by quickly including him in the list which resulted in these results ! View Here !

Now given that some Paul supporters may have voted more then once, though I believe cookies were dropped to prevent this, that's one hell of a lot of votes !

Even using MSNBC's own numbers, it was a blowout ! View Here !
Ron Pauls amazing come from behind win on the debate embarrassed the bought and paid for media whores so badly that they went into overdrive trying to bury this story.
It would seem like ABC is learning a valuable lesson that DIGG.com just recently learned about modern day America. Americans talk back. And when enough of us talk back and say the same thing, they listen. If they don't listen, we tell the world. Then they listen.

Regardless of whose poll numbers you use, it has become obvious to anyone willing to look, that Americans all over this country, responded to Cong. Ron Paul's message and his straight forward programs to rescue this train wreck that The United States has become. Immigration, The Economy, The War, as you go down the list, his common sense approach and singly focused view of what is best for America within the framework of what the Constitution says, makes him stand out from the rest of the group of professional liars, thieves, and grade B actors like a bonfire on a dark night!

I wouldn't want to be Ron Paul. I've heard that he has some real concerns about his safety should he become a serious contender. And I must admit that we as a country don't have a great record when it come to protecting our leaders when they don't go along with the Bankers and other corporate Godfathers.
I have no inside information about what the future holds for the good congressman, but one thing I CAN say by way of observation ..

"Cong. Paul may not be able to walk on water, but he has already demonstrated that he is fully capable of swimming with the sharks!"

Paisley and McGuinness sworn in as power-sharing revived

Matt Weaver and agencies
Tuesday May 8, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness today became Northern Ireland's first minister and deputy first minister at the start of a new era of power-sharing in the province.

With the prime minister, Tony Blair, the Irish taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and other VIPs watching in the public gallery of the Northern Ireland assembly, the Democratic Unionist leader and the former IRA commander swept aside decades of enmity as they were sworn into office.

Profile: Ian Paisley

Profile: Martin McGuiness

Brown reeling amid ballot chaos

By George Jones, Brendan Carlin and Toby Helm
Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 4:40pm BST 05/05/2007

The political map of Britain was reshaped dramatically last night after the Scottish National Party ended Labour's 50-year dominance of Scotland and cast a shadow over Gordon Brown's expected "coronation" as Prime Minister.

The pro-independence SNP snatched a wafer-thin victory - becoming the biggest party in the devolved Scottish Parliament at Holyrood winning a total of 47 of the 129 seats, with Labour just one behind on 46.

It was a highly symbolic defeat for Labour, which took a beating from voters across Britain in the final electoral verdict on Tony Blair's decade at Number 10.

It was also a body blow for Mr Brown, who regards Scotland as his political power base, after he had taken a central role in Labour's unsuccessful campaign to halt the nationalist advance.

Last night the Chancellor appeared to attempt to distance himself from Labour's setback.

While other cabinet ministers, including John Reid, the Home Secretary, and Hazel Blears, the party chairman, gave television and radio interviews, Mr Brown issued a press release in which he promised that Labour would "listen and learn" the lessons of its defeat.

The SNP's historic victory, within weeks of the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union between Scotland and England, was marred by a chaotic voting system which resulted in as many as 100,000 votes for the Scottish Parliament and councils north of the border being declared invalid.

The embarrassing technical failures, confusion about how to fill in ballot papers and problems with postal votes were described by Sir David Steel, the Scottish Parliament's first presiding officer, as worse than elections in the Third World.

And an international observer who attended described the process as "totally unacceptable".

Robert Richie, executive director of US-based Fair Vote, was present at the invitation of the Electoral Reform Society, compared the problems with the notorious US presidential election in Florida in 2000.

"There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned there and voters would be justified in being frustrated," he said.

Last night Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said Labour had lost its "divine right" to rule Scotland. "Scotland has changed for good and forever," he declared. But he faces days of political horse-trading as he attempts to put together a coalition that will enable him to become Scotland's First Minister. The SNP's narrow victory threatens uncertainty and potential instability, particularly if Mr Salmond seeks confrontation with a Government led by Mr Brown.

Mr Salmond will need the support of at least two other parties - probably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens - to form a majority government. A stumbling block to the support of other parties will be Mr Salmond's commitment to hold a referendum on independence within four years. However, yesterday the SNP leader said there was scope for "flexibility".

There was a "new mood" in Scotland and his party would govern in the "national interest" if it formed the next Scottish Executive, Mr Salmond added.

However, Jack McConnell, the Scottish Labour leader and current First Minister, refused to concede defeat last night. He pledged to "keep all options open" and said Labour would be "reflecting" on how best to move forward.

Mr Blair attempted to put a brave face on the worse electoral performance of his premiership, claiming it provided "a perfectly good springboard to go on and win the next General Election".

David Cameron passed his first big electoral test as the Conservatives won 860 council seats in England and emerged with the strongest showing in local government for almost 30 years.

The Tories swept Labour out power in the south, reversed a Liberal Democrat advance into its heartlands and began the long haul of rebuilding a power base in the north.

ongressman Ehlers Identifies Lack of Space the Problem

by BarbinMD
Daily Kos
Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:12:29 PM PDT

Another failure to plan:

In a grim sign of the times, the "Wall of the Fallen," set up by House Republican leaders in June, is almost full. The mounting death toll from Iraq has forced U.S. House staffers to study how to reconfigure the display in the lobby of the Rayburn Building - the largest office building for members of Congress - to squeeze in more names.

...New names are added to the display every few months, but none have been added since November. [...]

In the current format, there is space for about 130 more names, but 506 Americans have died since mid-November.

Apparently a member of the, "no one could have anticipated" club, Republican Rep. Vernon Ehlers said that he recently realized:

Boy, we could have a problem. More space is needed.

More space. Yes, that's the problem.

The real scandal at the World Bank: The Bank is killing thousands of the poorest people in the world

by Johann Hari
Global Research, May 3, 2007
The Independent - 2007-04-27

While the world's press has been fixated on the teeny-weeny scandal over whether the World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz helped to get his girlfriend a $300,000-a-year gig next door, they have been ignoring the rancid stench of a far bigger scandal wafting from Wolfie's Washington offices.

This slo-mo scandal isn't about apparent petty corruption in DC. It's about how Wolfowitz's World Bank is killing thousands of the poorest people in the world, and knowingly worsening our worst crisis - global warming - every day.

Pope: Iran entitled to use nuclear energy

Press TV
Sat, 05 May 2007 17:16:56

Pope Benedict XVI has said Iran is entitled to have access to peaceful nuclear energy and that there should be no double standards in this regard.

The pope was speaking in a meeting in the Vatican with former Iranian president and head of the International Center of Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations Mohammad Khatami on Friday.

Like other big states, Iran should use peaceful nuclear energy, he said.

He pointed to freedom of religions in Iran and added there was peaceful coexistence and respect among religions in the country.

He said he was informed that religious minorities have MPs in Iran's parliament and their rights are respected.

Referring to escalation of tension and aggravation of political and security problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the occupied Palestine, the pope said Europe is well aware of Iran's constructive power in the region.

By relying on its peaceful policies, said the pope, Iran can play an important role in resolving regional problems and crises.

Meanwhile, Khatami said, "Today, Muslims, Christians and followers of other religions should stress their commonalties and strive to maintain unity in the face of insecurity and violence."

The former president regarded lack of kindness and justice as the root cause of main problems for mankind.

Stressing Iran's right to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, he said, "Execution of unfair and double standards are among realities which create problems."

Pointing to problems in Palestine, the former president said, "It should be admitted that peace plans set forth for Palestine so far have not been fair.

"Those who claimed they were implementing the plans were not fair and impartial," he said.

Khatami also criticized continued occupation of Iraq by the US and its allies, and said it has given rise to insecurity, extremism, terrorism and caused massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the country.

Only Mike Gravel and Ron Paul Get It

Trying to Catch Up with the Voters
Alexander Cockburn
Counterpunch
Weekend Edition
May 5 / 6, 2007

Both Democratic and Republican politicians are becoming uncomfortably aware that they may have seriously miscalculated just how unpopular the war in Iraq is with a very large number of American voters. And the implosion of the Republican Party--battered by one tempest after another--is getting to be bad as it was in 1932 or 1964. Of course the political system will adapt. Already the National Review's Bruce Bartlett is writing that the party's candidate for the presidency is doomed in 2008 and prudent Republicans should rally behind Hillary Clinton.

Both for Republicans and Democrats fence-straddling on the war, let alone calls to "stay the course" are being seen as increasingly dangerous or fatal options.

Take John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, former POW in Vietnam and until recently deemed a sound bet to win his party's nomination as presidential candidate. McCain saw his task as the simple one of banging the war drum more loudly than his rival, Rudy Giuliani and deriding the Democrats as wimps and traitors to the flag.

Today the McCain bandwagon is axle deep in news stories freighted with grim talk about his "doomed bid". Mockery greeted his carefully planned photo-op last month in a Baghdad market, where ­- wearing body armor and amid a huge armed escort -- he proclaimed that at last the tide was turning and the US press was ignoring the good news from Iraq. After that debacle, remembering the success of his jaunty call for bombing of Serbia in the mid-90s, "Lights out in Belgrade!" McCain then tried out a Beach Boy-type jingle, "Bomb, bomb Iran" which did him no good either.

His problems and those of Giuliani can be boiled down to the message of an Iowa poll released earlier this week: 56 per cent of registered Republicans want the troops out of Iraq within six months. The message? This electoral season any candidate shouting "Stay the course in Iraq" is doomed. So do the Republicans have a candidate with a simple call to bring the troops home now? Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has been saying this for months, but thus far he's dithered on the edge of an announcement that he's in the race.

After recapturing Congress last November the Democrats paid plenty of lip service to "the message from the voters" about getting out of Iraq. Substantively they didn't plan to do much. Then the Democratic leadership discovered that the voters really had sent them a very explicit message and didn't want to be fobbed off with set up some vague, non-binding resolutions about withdrawal deadlines. Candidates like Hilary Clinton are finding that brawny talk about "leaving all options on the table" (i.e., nuke Iran if necessary) isn't at all popular with the solid liberal base they can't afford to offend in the long march to the nomination.

By far the best performance at a recent Democratic candidates' debate organized by MSNBC was by a very distant outsider, Mike Gravel, a 77-year former US senator from Alaska, well known nearly 40 years ago for his opposition to the war in Vietnam. In some electrifying tirades, he flayed Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and the others as two-faced on the absolute imperative of getting out of the war in Iraq and not getting into one in Iran. "They frighten me", Gravel shouted, gesturing at his rivals. "You know what's worse than one US soldier dying in vain in Iraq. It's two soldiers dying in vain. In Vietnam they all died in vain."

So the Democrats are edgy too, though not quite so much as McCain, whose only option is to turn on a dime and come out against the war at the end of the summer. What the Democrats fear is that a very significant number of voters are in a testy mood, ready to punish anyone--Democrat as well as Republican--who doesn't have a clear, simple plan to bring the troops back home. So now they are openly conceding they misunderstood the public mood. But they are also aware that if they seriously tilt towards Gravel's position about the insanity these overseas interventions they will be savaged by the political establishment on every talk show and every piece of political analysis in the mainstream press. So they are caught between the public mood and the imperial imperative and the latter will prevail in their calculations and thus--absent a prodigious orgy of doublespeak -alienate their political base.

There's no serious Third Party peace candidate yet, but the possibility of one emerging haunts both sides. Ross Perot doomed George Bush in 1992. There isn't a Democrat who doesn't believe Ralph Nader sank Al Gore in 2000, whatever the actual truth may be.

Cuurent Edition of Private Eye Front Cover

Ron Paul Goes From Near Last To FIRST After 'Debate'

From Frank Gonzalez
5-4-7


Given the huge field of the early Republican lineup of candidates that prevented Paul from elaborating much more on what makes him so very different from the rest of the pack, and the scant 90 minutes afforded the public to know who they are, Paul did as well as he possibly could going from near last to FIRST place.
BEFORE the Republican 'Debate'

1. Giuliani 41%

2. McCain 31%

3. Romney 28%

4. Huckabee 14%

5. Thompson 11%

6. Tancredo 10%

7. Brownback 10%

8. Paul 9%

9. Hunter 7%

10. Gilmore 4%

AFTER the Republican 'Debate' at 9:28am the next morning:

1. Paul 35%

2. Romney 30%

3. Giuliani 25%

4. McCain 20%

5. Huckabee 16%

6. Tancredo 10%

7. Brownback 9%

8. Thompson 9%

9. Hunter 8%

10. Gilmore 7%

Frank J. Gonzalez
For US House in '08 vs. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL's D21
786-287-7491
voteliberty@bellsouth.net
MySpace link: www.myspace.com/gonzalezforcongress
Updates & commentary: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/gofrank/

GOP Debate: Ron Paul Speaks Truth About Iraq And Conservative Values

Crooks And Liars
Friday May 04, 2007

RNC talking points rule the day so far in the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate on MSNBC - with the exception of Ron Paul (R-TX). Paul talked about true conservative values, all of which run counter to the current reincarnation of the Republican Party.

Ron Paul Rides High In Polls After GOP Debate

Prison Planet
Friday, May 4, 2007

Ron Paul is currently riding high in the polls after last night's GOP Presidential debate, jockeying for first position with Mitt Romney and ahead of both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.


A major MSNBC poll currently has Paul at 30% approval, compared to Romney at 31%. McCain and Giuliani are at 21% and 27% respectively.

Here's a link to an earlier screenshot of the poll, showing Ron Paul at 47%.

Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Government's 9/11 Story is Crazy

George Washington's Blog
Friday May 04, 2007

Should people who question the government's version of the events of 9/11 have their heads examined?

Well, the following psychiatrists and psychologists have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University Gwendolyn Atwood,

Psychology researcher, M.A., Psychology Victoria Ashley

Psychotherapist, M.S. Clinical Psychology, Greg Henricks

M.S. in educational psychology, Roy Holcombe

M.A. in Counseling Psychology Tova Gabrielle

There are literally thousands of other mental health professionals who have reached the same conclusions. So who is out of touch with reality: those who question 9/11 or those who believe the government's version without question?

"These People Frighten Me": The Candor of Mike Gravel

MARGARET KIMBERLY
Counterpunch
Thursday May 03, 2007

During the first Democratic presidential debate a little known candidate, former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, ended up with one of the most memorable lines of the evening:

"And I got to tell you, after standing up with them, some of these people frighten me--they frighten me. When you have mainline candidates that turn around and say that there's nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that's code for using nukes, nuclear devices.

"I got to tell you, I'm president of the United States, there will be no preemptive wars with nuclear devices. To my mind, it's immoral, and it's been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy."

Of the eight candidates on that stage in South Carolina, only Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich will say that there is no reason for the American people to incinerate the Iranian people with nuclear weapons.

When Senator Barack Obama repeated the lie that Iran is on the verge of attaining nuclear capability only Kucinich would call him out. He politely said that Obama's assertions were in dispute.

Obama: I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran.
But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region.

Kucinich: (OFF-MIKE)

Obama: I understand that, but they're in the process of developing it. And I don't think that's disputed by any expert. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism...

Kucinich: It is disputed by...

Obama: ... Hezbollah and Hamas.

Kucinich: It is disputed.

Obama: And there is no contradiction, Dennis, between...

Kucinich: It is disputed.

Obama: Let me finish.

Kucinich would have been correct if he had called Obama a liar. Gravel is right, most of the Democrats are very frightening indeed.

BREAKING: 3 US Reps Support Cheney Impeachment

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (April 29, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – H Res 333, the bill introducing Articles of Impeachment against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, now has two co-sponsors, for a total of 3 current total supporters, including sponsor US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

Bush's Illegal Use of Signing Statements is Impeachment Reason No. 1

by David Chard

In a Pulitzer Prize-winning article in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage courageously published details of Bush's outrageous "signing statements" added to new legislation. As you can see from the examples quoted from Savage's story(Boston Globe, April 30, 2007) below, the intention of each statement is to allow an "executive loophole" whereby "the W" can essentially ignore the effect of the legislation. In other words, Bush has been assuming the powers of a dictator, ruling by decree, under our noses.

This is quoted directly from Savage's story:

"Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

IS THERE STILL ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND ABOUT THE NEED TO IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH?

Honeybee Die-Off Threatens U.S. Food Supply

By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP
Updated:2007-05-03 01:40:18


BELTSVILLE, Md. (May 3) - Unless someone or something stops it soon, the mysterious killer that is wiping out many of the nation's honeybees could have a devastating effect on America's dinner plate, perhaps even reducing us to a glorified bread-and-water diet.

Honeybees don't just make honey; they pollinate more than 90 of the tastiest flowering crops we have. Among them: apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus, broccoli, celery, squash and cucumbers. And lots of the really sweet and tart stuff, too, including citrus fruit, peaches, kiwi, cherries, blueberries, cranberries, strawberries, cantaloupe and other melons.

In fact, about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Even cattle, which feed on alfalfa, depend on bees. So if the collapse worsens, we could end up being "stuck with grains and water," said Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for USDA's bee and pollination program.

"This is the biggest general threat to our food supply," Hackett said.

The Real Face of the European Union

The EU has been sold to Britain as our best hope for the future . . . But behind the scenes, has another, more unsettling agenda been ... all » unfolding? The European Economic Community (EEC) began for Britain as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today's European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force and even its own national anthem. In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every British citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against Britain's participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront.

Cover-Up Fears Grow With Delays For Diana Inquest

Padraic Flanagan
Daily Express
Monday, April 30, 2007

The fight for the truth about the death of Princess Diana was hit yesterday by fears of a new Establishment plot to delay the inquests.

A highly-placed insider warned that the hearings will not go ahead until next year, 11 years after the death of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed in a Paris car crash, causing Princes William and Harry further anguish.

Legal sources warned that last week’s decision by Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to quit as coroner will almost certainly prevent the hearing taking place before a jury this year.

The delays and legal obstacles hampering the inquest process have prompted allegations of an Establishment cover-up. Those fears are echoed in recent polls, with the vast majority of the public believing the deaths were not the result of a simple accident.

Notes: I was no great fan of Princess Di when she was alive. But her death affected people in this nation like no other.

My reaction, when on waking up to hear the news that she had died was, as someone who lost his own mother in a car crash (I was 3 at the time and still remember it as I was in the car, or rather, found myself lying on the grass verge of the M1 next to my sister after it had happened in view of an upturned car), was, of course, to feel immensely sorry for her boys. I watched her funeral on TV and remember the moment when a TV camera caught a zoom-shot of the lonely funeral hearse with police outriders bringing her “home” to Althorp in Northamptonshire on the M1, the very road on which my mother died. I was overcome with this strange urge to drive to one of the bridges crossing the M1 to watch the hearse go by and to say goodbye. Why? I had never much cared for Diana when she was alive. I suppose it was the urge to say goodbye to the person I never had a chance to say goodbye to when I was a child.


During the funeral, thousands of people who had never known Diana grieved openly. Oliver James, a kind of celebrity psychologist, said that the extraordinary outpouring of grief was probably as a result of people’s private, personal tragedies. I think I know what he means. As I said, I didn’t have much time for Diana when she was alive, but grieved with the rest of my fellow countrymen on the day of her funeral. But I think there was a further reason for people’s sadness. Most fairy-tales end with the words, “And they lived happily ever after.” But this marriage, which had seemed to begin like a fairy tale, was to have no such ending.


When Al Fayed, owner of the world famous London store, Harrods, started mooting the idea that the accident in which his son, Dodi, was killed in the crash along with Diana and the driver, Henry Paul, was no “accident”, I dismissed it as a sad attempt by a father who’d lost his son to find someone to blame. Ten years later, as I’ve begun to look more deeply into events surrounding the “accident”, I’m not so sure.

Canadian Action Party Leader Calls 9/11 a "Trick on a Massive Scale"

Connie Fogal, the redoubtable leader of the Canadian Action Party, delivers a hard hitting and passionate warning to all who refuse to ... all » believe that our democracy is being usurped by an elite few and is being sold off, brick by brick, to the highest bidder. Our very own elected politicians are in collusion with powerful private corporate interests, working together behind closed doors to bring in the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership’ by “stealth” – as one proponent of the agreement put it – without public knowledge or consultation. In this presentation, she argues that Canadian sovereignty is very much at stake and she urges us to become informed and to take action before we ignorantly surrender all of our freedoms and public services to foreign corporate rule.



© 2007 Lazarus Productions

Impeach the Beech

A Bush appointee goes after the White House

Prosecutor Scott J. Bloch, a committed conservative, is turning heads with his investigation of the administration's political operation, headed by Karl Rove.

By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
May 1, 2007

WASHINGTON — At first glance, Scott J. Bloch seems to fit the profile of the "loyal Bushie," the kind of person the White House salted through the Washington bureaucracy to make sure federal agencies heeded administration priorities.

But Bloch, 48, is a man who defies expectations.

The lifelong Republican runs an agency — the Office of Special Counsel — that is turning its investigative spotlight on the White House, in particular the political operation headed by Karl Rove.

His office is investigating whether Bush administration personnel violated civil statutes by inserting GOP electoral politics into Cabinet agency meetings, firing at least one U.S. attorney, and discussing some of the activities in private e-mails that are missing.

Ex-CIA analyst: Forged 'yellowcake' memo 'leads right back to' Cheney

David Edwards
The Raw Story
Published: Monday April 30, 2007

A former CIA analyst claims that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Appearing on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show, Ray McGovern who served in the CIA for twenty-seven years, said, "the [forged] memo leads right back to the doorstep of the Vice President of the United States."

According to McGovern, former CIA Director George Tenet told his "coterie of malleable managers" at the CIA to create a National Intelligence Estimate "to the terms of reference of Dick Cheney's speech of August 26, 2002, where Dick Cheney said for the first time Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon in a year, he's got all kinds of chemical, he's got all kinds of biological weapons."

Blair's bloody legacy: Iraq

On the 10th anniversary of Tony Blair's election as Prime Minister, an exclusive poll reveals 69 per cent of Britons believe that, when he leaves office, his enduring legacy will be the bloody conflict in Iraq

By Andrew Grice
The Independent
Published: 01 May 2007

Seven out of 10 people believe that Iraq will prove to be Tony Blair's most enduring legacy, according to an opinion poll for The Independent to mark the 10th anniversary today of the election victory that brought him to power.

As the Prime Minister prepares to announce his resignation next week, the survey by CommunicateResearch reveals that 69 per cent of the British public believe he will be remembered most for the Iraq war. Remarkably, his next highest "legacy rating" - just 9 per cent - is for his relationship with the American President, George Bush.