Good News: Feds Are Tracking Your Border Crossings!

If you travel internationally and return by land, you'll be pleased to know about a newly announced federal weapon in the war on terror -- a program which has already begun recording (and will continue to record) all your land entrances into the US in a database designed to protect the nation from people like you.

You know who you are, don't you? You probably drive a car, or maybe you ride on a bus or a train. You go to Canada or Mexico, for day trips or vacations.

You don't go to Europe or Asia, or the Caribbean, not to mention Australia or New Zealand. You can't afford to travel by plane, and you don't own your own yacht, so you must be up to no good. Or at least that's what we have to assume.

By enabling the government to track when, where and how often you return to the US, the national database will help to protect us from indescribable dangers which can only be averted by enabling the government to track when, where and how often you return to the US.

By keeping this data over a long period of time and mining it aggressively, the government will be able to identify the dangerous people who cross the border often, or seldom, or at the same time every day, or at different times every day. This sort of analysis works best with a massive collection of data, so you will be very happy to hear that this is exactly what they're building.

Fortunately, the information gathered by border inspection officers and stored in this national database will be kept for at least fifteen years, so we can all be confident that the enormous effort devoted to data collection and storage won't be wasted -- instead the data-mining opportunities will be maximized.

Fortunately as well, the information in the database will not be selfishly hoarded by the federal government; on the contrary, it could be made available to foreign governments trying to decide whether or not to let you in, corporations trying to decide whether to hire or fire you, and/or law enforcement officers trying to decide whether or not you're an unlawful enemy combatant. These provisions will help keep us safe from hazards so awful I'd prefer not to describe them.

Furthermore, you'll be thrilled to know that the newly announced federal program is not a violation of your right to privacy. You actually have no such right, and you never did.

So don't worry about it -- just enjoy!

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Evil In Your In-Box? Thank The Pentagon

The Pentagon's new internet propaganda campaign is in full swing, and wow! Is it ever vicious!!

It comes in the form of an anonymous viral email. I got it from a close relative.

He wasn't saying "Wow, is this ever screwed up!" And he wasn't saying "Hey this is cool, pass it on."

But, as you can see from the text of the message, his passing it on indicates his approval.

Here's the text of the message. Hold your nose and grab a barf bag before continuing:

Subject: Fwd: She tells it like it is!

I don't know who wrote it but they should have signed it. Some powerful words. This woman should run for president.

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -- you guessed it -- I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add AND......I hope you forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Also by Ronald Reagan

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM. AMEN!

No kidding.

I kept reading the message and reading it again and checking who it came from and checking it again and after a while I thought I was going to puke.

Eventually I settled down and started trying to formulate a proper response.

A good one came to mind almost immediately.

GFY

But that wouldn't have been very wise, considering the circumstances.

It expressed my emotional reaction precisely, but lacked educational value.

So I tried again:

OMG! One MF lie after another! GFY!!

This was more educational but insufficiently spiritual, I thought.

So I gave it another whirl.

How dare you? How dare you??

Your country has killed at least a million people in Iraq. None of them ever did anything to you. None of them ever did anything to any of you until you bombed their cities to smithereens, invaded their country and destroyed everything except the oil fields. And now your government is trying to steal oil worth at least a hundred trillion dollars from the survivors of your invasion. How dare you?

How dare you use the Holy name of Jesus Christ while trying to make mass murder and grand larceny seem righteous?

The leaders of your country have told hundreds and hundreds of lies in order to "justify" that war, so they could implement a plan they published even before Bush even became president! This war has nothing to do with 9/11; it is murder and torture for profit and power and nothing more. And you, and everyone else who forwarded that email, are expressing your approval of mass murder, wanton destruction, and vicious torture -- by sending out this rant about how little you care!

Thou shalt not kill. Do you remember this? Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Did they forget to teach you these things in your "church"? Well guess what? I don't care!

I have news for you. Jesus Christ did not die for people like you. He died for those who would follow Him, who would love their neighbors as themselves, who would repent their sins and ask for forgiveness, who would make restitution for their wrongs, who would bow down before their Holy Father and beg for mercy.

But not this! Surely, the Sinless One did not suffer and die to absolve you from this.

May God have mercy upon your mortal soul.

It seemed I was moving in the right direction, and another draft might be in order.

So I tried again:

Dear Dad,

We never talk about politics anymore, at your insistence, so I guess you must have been thinking of somebody else yesterday when you forwarded me the email from an "Angry Woman". But now that you have injected politics into our relationship, I feel bound to speak honestly.

That email was the vilest propaganda I have ever seen, and I was profoundly saddened to see it -- let alone to see that it had come from you.

For the record, the FBI has no hard evidence against Osama bin Laden pertaining to the attacks of 9/11, nor do they list him as a suspect in those attacks. On the contrary: all the official allegations about 9/11 remain unproven. The official investigation was an obvious whitewash, undeniable signs of inside complicity are everywhere, and fresh ones keep popping up. The official story of 9/11 holds no water at all. We talked about this once and I thought you understood.

But that doesn't even matter in this case because nobody anywhere has any evidence connecting Saddam Hussein or Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, we now know that all the reasons given for the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq were lies -- crafted by consultants who were paid millions of dollars of our money for their services, and told by people who have been coveting Iraq's oil for decades.

Lies! All lies!! I am not in the mood for any more lies. So let me tell you a few more truths:

The United States has invaded and occupied a defenseless country that never harmed us and never even threatened us. Our actions there have caused the deaths of at least a million people (so far), most of whom were only trying to live their lives -- many of them in desperate conditions -- when we arrived. We have destroyed their hospitals, ruined all their infrastructure, kidnapped innocent people and taken them away to be tortured. We've started up death squads; we've fomented a civil war; and even though the "surge" is supposedly "working", we're still bombing residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night.

Can you imagine? How would you feel if Mexico attacked Canada and Canada retaliated by invading the United States? Suppose the Canadians mounted a campaign of "Shock and Awe", bombed our cities to smithereens, then invaded and decided to stay forever. What would you do? How would you feel?

I'd like to think you'd at least sympathize with the resistance. I'd like to think that as a younger man you'd have been a leader of the resistance. But then I guess all sons like to think heroic thoughts about their dads.

Most Iraqis want us out. For this, they are called terrorists; for this they are shot and bombed and kidnapped and tortured; without reason, without remorse, without recourse, and seemingly without end.

Why? Because Iraq has at least a trillion barrels of oil, and the Bushes and their backers want it. It's that simple. They've "invested" hundreds of billions of our dollars and thousands of our lives trying to pull off the grandest larceny ever -- not for our profit but for theirs. They have told countless lies to do it and ruined countless innocent lives in the process. Do you really support this?

The email you forwarded -- to me and (apparently) all your other family and friends -- even invoked the Holy names of God and Jesus Christ in an attempt to make mass murder for profit and power appear righteous! Talk about disrespecting your religion!!

You still go to church, right? What do they talk about every Sunday? Do they ever mention glorifying God the Creator? Do they ever talk about following in the righteous ways of the Prince of Peace? Do they ever say "Love your neighbor"?

Thou shalt not kill, Dad. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Have we forgotten all that?

I do not believe torture and murder please our Creator, and I do not believe Jesus Christ died on the cross so we could commit horrific crimes on Earth, rant about how we don't care about them, and still go to Heaven.

In my church we are taught that the only way to Heaven is to follow Jesus Christ: to repent your sins, to make restitution to those you have wronged, to humble yourself before God and pray for mercy. Apparently in your church they do things differently.

But enough about the Church; let's talk about the State.

The email claims to have been written by an angry woman from New Jersey, but it bears all the fingerprints of cold and calculating men from the Pentagon. Several months ago, they announced their plans to use the internet to spread their "version" of reality, and the writing is exactly their style, so it looks like this is one of the ways they decided to do it.

They want you to forward it; they want to start fights; they want to tear the country apart. And they are relentless.

So I expect you will receive similar messages in the future. That's how the propaganda merchants work. That's how they always work. They are spending our money to spread vicious lies, and they are tricking you into helping them -- for free!

It causes me immense pain to know that you and some of your friends have been used to transmit such a hideous message, and, with all possible respect, I ask you to think carefully about deleting such messages in the future, rather than forwarding them.

I still can't decide which one to send, if any. But I've posted all four responses in the hope that one or more of them may be useful to you, if and when somebody you love sends you the Pentagon's newest mind-control virus...

... and to get the evil out of my system!

Pakistan's Nukes May Not Be So Loose After All

The New York Times says:

Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem

By FREDERICK W. KAGAN and MICHAEL O’HANLON | Washington | November 18, 2007

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.

We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistan’s officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state than in exporting terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late.

Moreover, Pakistan’s intelligence services contain enough sympathizers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing the disputed province of Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries.

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.

All possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting. With 160 million people, Pakistan is more than five times the size of Iraq. It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces halfway across the world. And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them.

The task of stabilizing a collapsed Pakistan is beyond the means of the United States and its allies. Rule-of-thumb estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size. Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces.

One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place.

For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico; but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. More likely, we would have to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched over) by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.

A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.

Even if we were not so committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western powers would need months to get the troops there. Fortunately, given the longstanding effectiveness of Pakistan’s security forces, any process of state decline probably would be gradual, giving us the time to act.

So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south.

We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces. Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own. But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials. The task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be a priority for our troops.

If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions.

The great paradox of the post-cold war world is that we are both safer, day to day, and in greater peril than before. There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomatically prepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be the next big test.

and Pakistan's Daily Times says

US military strike on Pakistan advocated

By Khalid Hasan | November 19, 2007

Two experts have proposed that the US should take pre-emptive action to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the wrong hands.

Frederick Kagan of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and Michael O’Hanlon of the more liberal Brookings Institution argue in an article published in the New York Times on Sunday that the US simply cannot stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw US forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. While Pakistan’s officer corps and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state, the same was true of Iran on the eve of the Islamic revolution. Pakistan’s intelligence services, the two writers maintain, contain enough sympathisers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries.

Complete collapse: The likely dangers include the complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum, a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda tries to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.

While admitting that all possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting, given Pakistan’s size and complexity and the scanty US knowledge about the location of its nuclear weapons, the US would have to act before a complete government collapse, and for that it would need the cooperation of “moderate Pakistani forces”.

Possible plan: One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place. For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico, but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. It would be better for the US to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up and watched over by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.

Support army: Kagan and O’Hanlon suggest that a broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizeable combat force from the US, other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations. Since the decline of the Pakistani state is likely to be gradual, it will give the US time to act, they argue. “The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center - primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab to its south ... If a holding operation in the nation’s centre was successful, the foreign forces would then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions ... There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry — today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were.”

but Times of India says

Pak nukes already under US control: Report

Chidanand Rajghatta | TNN | November 20, 2007

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are already under American control even as analysts are working themselves into a lather on the subject, a well-regarded intelligence journal has said.

In a stunning disclosure certain to stir up things in Washington's (and in Islamabad and New Delhi's) strategic community, the journal Stratfor reported on Monday that the "United States delivered a very clear ultimatum to Musharraf in the wake of 9/11: Unless Pakistan allowed US forces to take control of Pakistani nuclear facilities, the United States would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India's help."

"This was a fait accompli that Musharraf, for credibility reasons, had every reason to cover up and pretend never happened, and Washington was fully willing to keep things quiet," the journal, which is widely read among the intelligence community, said.

The Stratfor commentary came in response to an earlier New York Times story that reported that the Bush administration had spent around $100 million to help Pakistan safeguard its nuclear weapons, but left it unclear if Washington has a handle on the arsenal.

Over the past fortnight, even since the crisis in Pakistan broke and eclipsed every other geopolitical story, including Iraq, US officials and analysts have been speaking in different voices on the subject of a jihadi takeover of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Some officials have expressed deep concern at the possibility and suggested US is ready with contingency plans to defang Pakistan of its nuclear weapons, while others have tried to assuage Islamabad by saying they believe the country's military rulers have good custodial control over their crown jewels.

On Monday, a State Department official once again addressed the issue and hinted that Washington was in control of the situation.

"... ultimately, the major responsibility for that falls with the Pakistani government. They have made public comments to the effect that the arsenal is secure, that they have taken a number of different steps to ensure that," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

"We ourselves see no indication to indicate to the contrary. It is secure. We obviously have an interest in seeing that it is secure," McCormack added.

Stratfor, too, appears confident that the Bush administration has a handle on Pak's nukes.

Not everyone is so sanguine. In a separate commentary over the weekend that had some US and Pakistani analysts blowing their gasket, two prominent Washington commentators detailed a US military action plan inside Pakistan, possibly with the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces, to seize the nuclear arsenal if there was imminent danger of an extremist takeover.

"As the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss," proposed Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon, analysts at two Washington DC think-tanks. "One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan's nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands."

Pakistan's own leaders have spoken about the subject -- of nuclear weapons falling into extremist hands --with different emphasis and objectives.

General Pervez Musharraf has suggested continued Western support to his military regime is the best way to prevent the nukes from falling into extremist hands, an "after-me-the-deluge" argument that some analysts see as unabashed blackmail.

The country's opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has also invoked the loose nukes scenario to urge US to abandon the military regime, which she says has given rise to growing extremism and fissiparous tendencies that increase the danger of the nuclear arsenal going awry.

Officially though, Islamabad is touchy about any commentary on its nuclear arsenal, and goes into transports of hysteria to assert that it is a responsible country with good command and control over its crown jewels.

In the latest outburst, the country's out-going foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri asserted that Pakistan is fully capable of securing its nuclear assets and some Western lobbies are busy in creating confusion taking the advantage of ongoing conditions in Pakistan.

The multi-layer security structure of the nuclear assets has a strong command and control system in place and there is no need for anyone at home or abroad to worry about the security of these assets, he insisted.

But judging by the volume of worried commentary and analysis the subject is now getting, there aren't many takers for such assurances and the last word on the matter hasn't been said or written.

I have to go out for a few hours -- not too many, I hope.

In the meantime maybe you can figure out what all this means.

NBC Makes Up Arbitrary Rules To Bar Mike Gravel From October 30 Debate In Philadelphia

The news item excerpted below was published by the Associated Press on Friday, October 19, 2007, and would have been warmly received by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and the people running their campaigns:

Gravel fails to meet rules for Democratic debate

Mike Gravel will not be part of the next Democratic presidential debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia.

The former Alaska senator did not meet fundraising and polling requirements for the forum, said NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

The two-hour debate, sponsored by NBC News and the Democratic National Committee, will be telecast on MSNBC. Brian Williams will moderate.

All the other Democratic candidates are expecting to participate, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; former Sen. John Edwards; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But it hasn't been warmly received by Mike Gravel. Here, via the Huffington Post, is his response:

Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates

In the past year, I have attended 11 national Democratic debates of which two were sponsored by corporate media giant NBC. However, last week, the network suddenly conjured up arbitrary polling and fundraising requirements specifically designed to exclude me. None of the previous debates I attended held such requirements.

When my staff called NBC directly to find out why I was now barred from attending, Chuck Todd, NBC news' political director, told us that there were three criteria we did not meet, namely that I had not campaigned in New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times in the past year, that I was not polling at 5% and that I hadn't raised $1 million.

It is abundantly clear that NBC just wants me out of the race. This was made evident by the fact that NBC did not even inform me of its arbitrary criteria before making the decision to stifle my campaign. NBC's Todd waited until 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 19, to inform my staff that I was not invited to the Oct. 30 debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Since I announced my candidacy for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States on April 17, 2006, I have certainly traveled to New Hampshire and Iowa at least 14 times. And, according to a recent CNN poll, I am tied with Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd.

NBC claims I haven't raised enough money to qualify. I'm proud of the fact that I don't collect millions from special interests (or fugitives like Norman Hsu). The reason why Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have a fundraising scandal every month is because money has corrupted our democracy. By stifling my voice on the basis of fundraising dollars, NBC is reinforcing the power of money over our national political discussion and our freedom.

But why has NBC suddenly come up with "requirements" designed to exclude me from the debate?

NBC's decision is proof that our corporate media do not want a genuine debate over our impending war with Iran. During the last debate I was the only one to aggressively confront Senator Clinton over her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Had I not brought up the subject, seasoned NBC commentator Tim Russert, the moderator of the Sept. 26 debate, would not have even asked about it.

Most Americans still don't appreciate the gravity of that vote and they don't understand that our government is intentionally raising roadblocks to diplomacy. Corporate media have once again failed to investigate how Bush and a compliant congress have set us on the warpath. Instead the media simply parrots the demonization of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the administration's unproven accusations against Iran. NBC and the other corporate media have jumped on the war bandwagon and they are determined to shut up anyone who tries to stop it.

The fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's leading military contractors, is frightening and certainly smacks of censorship directed at the most outspoken critic of the influence that the military-industrial complex holds over this great nation. In the past decade, GE has benefited financially from the global war on terrorism and currently holds almost $2 billion in military contracts.

So I ask that anyone, who is as concerned as I am about the power of the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex, speak out in support of my campaign today. And, even if you support another candidate, surely you understand the implications of NBC's decision for our democracy and the future peace and security of our nation.

And since the powers that be now require that I raise $1 million in order to participate in the debates, please make a donation to my campaign. Unlike my fellow candidates, I am not focused on raising million of dollars; I am focused on fixing representative government. Help us reach that arbitrary threshold, and I will continue to fight for democracy and peace.

Senator Mike Gravel

Ain't that a kick?

Here, courtesy of Village Green, are some things you can do about it:

1. Sign the online petition to have Mike Gravel included in the debate!

2. Contact NBC and GE and tell them they are wrong for trying to stifle his campaign!

Here are the email addresses: you can copy and paste them into your "TO:" field of your email:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

3. Email the DNC and urge them to press NBC to allow Mike Gravel to participate in the debate.

Here's another idea:

4. Write to Dr. Constantine Papadakis, the President of Drexel University, and ask the same of him.

[email protected]

One final note: See what John Edwards has to say about this:

It is essential, in a Democracy, for all voices to be heard. We should continue to attempt to adhere to this Democratic ideal.

So please contact the DNC and MSNBC today about Mike Gravel's exclusion. And, please, spread the word about this.

Please note that this is the very same John Edwards who said in July:

"We should think about at some point ... maybe some time in the fall, we'll try to have a more serious debate with a smaller group of people."

What's the difference between then and now? He didn't know his mic was on then.

Ready Or Not? Active Denial: Crowd Control Through Directed Energy

[UPDATED below]

The ray gun called "active denial" is in the news again; Here's my Australian friend, Gandhi, in full:

What If They Developed A Weapon That Was Too Horrible To Use?

Apparently the military in Iraq is screaming out for Raytheon's heat gun but the Pentagon won't let them use it:

The main reason the tool has been missing in action is public perception. With memories of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal still fresh, the Pentagon is reluctant to give troops a space-age device that could be misconstrued as a torture machine.

"We want to just make sure that all the conditions are right, so when it is able to be deployed the system performs as predicted — that there isn't any negative fallout," said Col. Kirk Hymes, head of the Defense Department's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

Reviews by military lawyers concluded it is a lawful weapon under current rules governing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a Nov. 15 document prepared by Marine Corps officials in western Iraq.

Private organizations remain concerned, however, because documentation that supports the testing and legal reviews is classified. There's no way to independently verify the Pentagon's claims, said Stephen Goose of Human Rights Watch in Washington.

There are unconfirmed rumours that the heat gun can kill when set to max.

And cost also appears to be a major issue: any such weapon would be a major target of the insurgency, and at several million dollars per machine (they wont say exactly what it costs) that could blow a major hole in the budget. The Pentagon has spent $62 million developing and testing the system, which now looks like a waste of money - maybe they should bring it to APEC, where it's less likely to get damaged?

The photo above is clearly a computer-generated "sketch" of the jeep-mounted ray-gun; the lower photo apparently shows what one actually looks like.

A few more quotes and links to flesh out the story:

SF Gate : Pentagon Nixes Ray Gun Weapon in Iraq (or here)

Prototype units have been assembled by the military, the most promising being a larger model that sits on the back of a flatbed truck. This single unit, known as System 2, could be sent to Iraq as early as next year, according to Hymes of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

Hymes' office, which nurtures promising technologies that can be used by the military branches, plans to spend $9 million over the next two years on the effort.

Money for additional systems isn't likely to be available until 2010, when an Air Force command in Massachusetts is expected to take control of the program, he said.

Recognizing the potential market, defense contractor Raytheon has invested its own money to build a version that the company calls "Silent Guardian." Although Hymes said the Raytheon product "is not ready yet," company representatives say it is.

I find this disagreement a bit strange, but I still don't know what to make of it. I'd like to agree with Gandhi out of friendship if nothing else, but I can't quite convince myself he's right about why the Pentagon won't use it in Iraq, not to mention why this weapons system has apparently been slow-tracked.

It doesn't make sense to me that they'd worry about a non-lethal weapon being perceived (or portrayed) as an instrument of torture, when they don't seem to flinch about calling airstrikes on civilian residential areas. And while the cost per weapon may be high, I haven't really seen any indication that they're worrying much about money. So I want to suspend judgment for a while on why the development of this non-lethal weapon appears to have been slowed down intentionally.

A more cynical man might say the Pentagon is only interested in lethal weapons, except for PR purposes. A more paranoid writer might hint that the Pentagon wants to keep the "active denial" systems on the home front, for use against domestic protest, should any significant domestic protest ever develop.

January 25, 2007:
Sydney Morning Herald : 'Active denial' ray gun

The military calls its new weapon an "active denial system," but that's an understatement. It's a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire.

Apart from causing that terrifying sensation, the technology is supposed to be harmless - a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.

Military officials say it could save the lives of innocent civilians and service members in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The weapon is not expected to go into production until at least 2010, but all branches of the military have expressed interest in it, officials said.

During the first media demonstration of the weapon yesterday, airmen fired beams from a large dish antenna mounted atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios that US troops might encounter in war zones.

The device's two-man crew located their targets through powerful lenses and fired beams from 500 metres away. That is nearly 17 times the range of existing non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets.

Anyone hit by the beam immediately jumped out of its path because of the sudden blast of heat throughout the body.

While the heat was not painful, it was intense enough to make the participants think their clothes were about to ignite.

January 26, 2007:
Reuters Alternet : US eyes heat-beaming weapon by 2010 (or here)

"This is a breakthrough technology that's going to give our forces a capability they don't now have," Theodore Barna, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for advanced systems and concepts, told Reuters. "We expect the services to add it to their tool kit. And that could happen as early as 2010."
...

Documents given out during the demonstration said more than 600 volunteers were exposed to the ray a total of more than 10,000 times since testing began over 12 years ago. They said there had been no injuries requiring medical attention during the five-year advanced development program.

What about the first seven years?

SF Gate again:

The system was developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory in New Mexico. During more than 12 years of testing, only two injuries requiring medical attention have been reported; both were second-degree burns, according to the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate Web site.
...

American commanders in Iraq already have asked to buy Raytheon's device.

A Dec. 1, 2006, urgent request signed by Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Robert Neller sought eight Silent Guardians.

Neller, then the deputy commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, called the lack of such a non-lethal weapon a "chronic deficiency" that "will continue to harm" efforts to resolve showdowns with as little firepower as possible.
...

Huggins, then chief of staff of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and now deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, wanted 14 vehicles for missions ranging from raids to convoy escorts.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq from its base in Tampa, Fla., backed the request, saying it was "critical to build upon our success in the counterinsurgency battle," according to its memo to the Pentagon.

The vehicles were not delivered, however.
...

In an interview, Franz Gayl, who was Neller's science adviser until the unit returned in February, blamed an entrenched, "risk-averse" military acquisition system for moving too slowly.

Gayl calls the system a "disruptive innovation" — an unconventional piece of equipment that breaks new ground and therefore is viewed skeptically by the offices that buy combat gear.

This idea -- that ground-breaking gear could (or maybe even should) be rejected because it's "disruptive" -- may seem crazy, but it is one of the oldest and most commonly recurring themes in military history. Most famously, perhaps, Poland was crushed by the German Panzers at the beginning of WWII, after the Polish general staff had insisted that cavalry was the best way to defend their homeland.

Predictably, the men on horseback stood no chance against the tanks.

But I really don't get so much as a whiff of this being an operative factor here.

None of the stories ring true, exactly ... and maybe it's because they're all coming from sources that have proven untrustworthy (with the exception of Gandhi, of course -- and he may very well be right!)

But given the US military's track record of bombing hundreds of innocent civilians on the outside chance of killing one or two terrorists, I can't help wondering if the thinking at the command level goes something like this:

"If we almost-burn them for just a nanosecond or two, they'll get up and fight us again. But if we blow their heads off, we we'll never have to worry about retaliation."

I don't want to think like that. But on the other hand, given everything else we know about this war, and about this administration, and given the Pentagon's penchant for lying about everything all the time, it's hard not to speculate. And unfortunately, a good deal of yesterday's wild speculation has already become today's reality.

And maybe the blood they really don't want to spill is yours!

But somehow I doubt that, too. In a fog of propaganda, doubt is the only rational position. I doubt therefore I am. Or more properly, I doubt we'll see big protests in the USA anytime soon, but I'm almost certain that if such a thing does transpire, active denial will be there. The protesters would "only" need a non-violent method of disarming a ray gun more than a quarter of a mile away.

What do you think? Am I close to the mark here? Just a bit outside? Away wide?

I'd be especially interested in opinions of readers with military backgrounds. Maybe our friend Ranger Against War will be able to enlighten us ... I'll send him an email and we'll see what comes back.

~~~

UPDATE: The comments thread is already very good. There's a lot more from Bluebear2 (here and here). I should have linked to those posts earlier. Please pardon my negligence.

There's also a great comment from z-ee describing how to defeat these multi-million-dollar monsters:

Please,.. please,.. please,..

If any progressive writer delves into the subject of the "non-lethal" active denial control system such as Gandhi, Bukko, or Winter Patriot please mention and share the details of a low cost defeat system that renders the mobile active denial system a worthless piece of junk at best. Or at worst an expensive weapons system that the armed force uses against their opponent - and the opponent then bounces the bullet (energy ray) (ricochet if you will) back at the armed forces from which the danger came. Thus inflicting harm to the source from which the weapon system was initially launched.

The Active Denial Defeat System:

(These could be built into protest signs used at a demonstration and screwed onto the pole of the protest sign. If the Active Denial System is trotted out - unscrew the defeat system from the protest sign and bounce/reflect the energy beam back at the counter protester armed force.)

Items needed:

2 count - 2 feet X 3 feet piece of rigid cardboard or white (foam sandwiched) board.

Large sheets of gold or silver Mylar or heavy duty aluminum foil.

--

Assembly:

Duct tape the two boards together along the long edge. On one side mount the foil/mylar reflective surface. Fold at the duct tape seam so one foil side touches the other foil side. On the exposed outside surface make your protest sign and screw it to a hand pole.

Counter measure if the Active Denial System is deployed:

Dismantle the protest signs by unscrewing the board from the hand pole. Open the board at a 90 degree angle with the foiled side exposed toward the source of the Active Denial System. (Assume the squat position) Capture the energy rays into your reflector antenna to protect your fellow protesters - and bounce the energy ray in the direction of the counter protest government armed forces. The energy beam will now inflict harm upon them.

This counter measure should be published far and wide. This is built upon the engineering principals of a "reflector antenna" - more specifically a CORNER REFLECTOR ANTENNA.

Please see links,..

Diagram

Corner Reflector Antenna

Reflector Antenna General Principals.

Thanks to BB2 and z-ee for helping us all out here.

Conspiracy Theorists In Very High Places; Undercover Cops Trying To Start A Riot

The New York Times reports

President Bush met with Prime Minster Stephen Harper of Canada and President Felipe Calderón of Mexico [in Montebello, Quebec] on Tuesday at a gathering that focused primarily on strengthening ties and some thorny trade and border issues, but which produced no breakthroughs.

The three laughed off what they called conspiracy theories in the United States and Canada that they were planning to build an American Union with a common currency.

“A couple of my opposition leaders have speculated on massive water diversions and superhighways to the continent — maybe interplanetary, I’m not sure, as well,” Mr. Harper deadpanned.

Deadpan is right.

According to the Los Angeles Times,

Bush and his fellow summit participants, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, pretty much sneered at the complaints and speculation.
...

Bush chalked up the criticism to "political scare tactics" used by "some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples.

"If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist," Bush said.

All in all, it's quite likely that the undercover cops who were caught trying to foment violence in Montebello were simply trying to preempt all the conspiracy theories that keep popping up about the SPP and the NAU.

Bluebear2 has more.

Ron Paul Raises A Few Eyebrows

Here's a quick flashback, for the record.

When the Republican presidential candidates
debated on May 15, Ron Paul raised a few eyebrows and attracted quite a bit of flak
for comments he made during the following exchanges:

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you're one of six House Republicans who back in 2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.

REP. PAUL: Right.

MR. WALLACE: Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party? (Scattered laughter.)

REP. PAUL: But you have to realize that the base of the Republican Party shrunk last year because of the war issue. So that percentage represents less people. If you look at 65 to 70 percent of the American people, they want us out of there. They want the war over.

In 19- -- 2002, I offered an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down, and it was -- nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, and if we should go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.

Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs. And he says, "I said I would never turn tail and run." He says, "But I never realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," and he changed his policy there.

We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.

Paul expanded on these ideas later in response to another series of questions:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Thanks to the CFR for posting the transcript.

~~~

I know it's not exactly current news but I need to post it now so I can refer to it later.

While we're waiting for later to arrive, why not tell me what you think of these two exchanges?

What -- if anything -- in Ron Paul's analysis strikes you as absolutely correct?

And what -- if anything -- strikes you as way, way, wrong?

There are no penalties for incorrect answers but perhaps an ice cube or two will be made available to anyone who gets it all right -- that is to say: anyone whose opinion agrees with my own in every possible way.

;-)

Donkey Hopefuls Kick Out The Jams In New Hampshire

Beverly Wang reports on the New Hampshire donkey whoop-de-doo (from the AP wire courtesy of the Akron Beacon Journal, with emphasis added):

Iraq was the top subject for presidential hopefuls addressing delegates in the first primary state's Democratic convention Saturday.

In a warm-up to a nationally televised New Hampshire debate on Sunday, Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio [photo] and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson promoted themselves as the ones with the vision and answers for solving Iraq through diplomacy.

And meanwhile the so-called "top-tier" candidate (Hillary Edwards Obama) showed contempt for the state and the system and -- no kidding -- for the not-quite-rotting corpse of American democracy itself, by choosing not to appear in person. (The so-called second-tier candidates -- and the so-called lunatic fringe candidates -- may feel contempt for the state and/or the system, but if so they are in no position to show it.)

"The only way which you can have a prospect of ending a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence is to separate the combatants and give them a political way forward," said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Instead of talking about a surge in military power, how about a surge in diplomacy," said Dodd.

Kucinich, whose campaign signs feature a peace sign, pushed his core message: "Peace is inevitable if we have a president who is willing," he said.

Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador, declared an ambitious to-do list as president. "First. Day one - announce that America is going to get out of Iraq," he said. "How do we do that? With diplomacy."

Aside from Iraq,

Kucinich won the morning's heartiest response by taking a swipe at the vice president.

"It is time to impeach Vice President Cheney," he shouted as the crowd whistled, cheered, clapped and got to its feet. Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney over the Iraq war.

"That's why I'm going to carry New Hampshire," Kucinich said later to reporters. "The response you see today is the response I'm getting all over the country. I'm just waiting to be discovered by you."

Also waiting to be discovered is former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, who spoke later in the day.

Speaking later in the afternoon, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel spoke of punishment, not diplomacy. The quickest way to end the war is to make it illegal, he said.

"Make the continuation of the war a felony and if you disobey you go to jail for five years," he said.

Gravel also was the only candidate to openly criticize his fellow Democrats - though not by name - by saying those who voted to authorize the Iraq war as members of Congress aren't qualified to lead the country, even if they now regret the vote.

"I don't buy that for a-half-a-second. If that is true then they shouldn't be president because they're incompetent," he said.

It's a really interesting take on the situation, one with which I can hardly disagree.

As I've mentioned once or twice, I Like Mike. But I've got a soft spot for Dennis too, and I can certainly get behind impeaching the Vice President!

The debate Sunday evening should be interesting. It starts at 7:00 Eastern time (4:00 Pacific) and will be carried live on CNN among others. More details here.

Fortress On The Tigris: Your New Embassy In Baghdad

The American Embassy in Baghdad will open on schedule in September, according to AP diplomatic writer Anne Gearan.

And All This For Only $592 Million

Anne Gearan:

The new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be the world's largest and most expensive foreign mission, though it may not be large enough or secure enough to cope with the chaos in Iraq.

The Bush administration designed the 104-acre compound — set to open in September in what today is a war zone — to be an ultra-secure enclave. Yet it also hoped that downtown Baghdad would cease being a battleground when diplomats moved in.

Over the long term, depending on which way the seesaw of sectarian division and grinding warfare teeters, the massive city-within-a-city could prove too enormous for the job of managing diminished U.S. interests in Iraq.

The $592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing.

Tom Englehart:

At $592 million, its proudest boast is that, unlike almost any other American construction project in that country, it is coming in on budget and on time.

A Lovely New Office Building

Tom Englehart:

As the Iraqi capital's landscape became ever more dangerous, as an insurgency gained traction while the administration's dreams of a redesigned American Middle East remained as strong as ever, its officials evidently concluded that even one of Saddam's palaces, roomy enough for a dictator interested in the control of a single country (or the odd neighboring state), wasn't faintly big enough, or safe enough, or modern enough for the representatives of the planet's New Rome.

Hence, Missouri's BDY. That Midwestern firm's designers can now be classified as architects to the wildest imperial dreamers and schemers of our time.

Scott Horton:

The embassy’s designers, Berger Devine Yaeger of Kansas City, Missouri, [...] took down their entire site after being contacted by State Department employees according to the Associated Press yesterday.

“Our desire would be that this not be in the public domain,” State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said after officials called the firm of Berger Devine Yaeger within minutes of learning from a reporter that the embassy plans had been posted on its website.

“We work very hard to ensure the safety and security of our employees overseas and this kind of information out in the public domain detracts from that effort,” Gallegos told AFP.

“When it was brought to our attention that these drawings were on their website, they were contacted by department officials and subsequently agreed to take it down,” he said.

But "this kind of information" is "out in the public domain" now, courtesy of Dissent Radio dot Com.

Marine Security Center

Tom Englehart:

For an American official not likely to leave the constricted, heavily fortified, four-mile square Green Zone during a year's tour of duty, practicing his or her serve (on the taxpayer's dollar) is undoubtedly no small thing.

Anne Gearan:

The compound will have secure apartments for about 615 people. The comfortable but not opulent one-bedrooms have offered hope for State Department staff now doubled up in tinny trailers.

Morale is at an ebb among the embassy staff, most of whom rarely leave the heavily fortified Green Zone during their one-year tours in Iraq. The barricaded zone houses both the current, makeshift U.S. Embassy and the new compound about a mile away. A recent string of mortar attacks has meant further restrictions.

On Saturday, three mortar shells or rockets slammed into a Green Zone compound where British Prime Minister Tony Blair was meeting with Iraqi leaders. The attack wounded one person. One round hit the British Embassy compound.

Pool House

Tom Englehart:

When the BDY-designed embassy opens in September (undoubtedly to the sound of mortar fire), its facilities will lack the gold-plated faucets installed in some of Saddam's palaces and villas (and those of his sons), but they won't lack for the amenities that Americans consider part and parcel of the good life, even in a "hardship" post.

Take a look, for instance, at the embassy's "pool house," as imagined by BDY. Note the palm trees dotted around it, the expansive lawns, and those tennis courts discretely in the background.

Recreation Center

Tom Englehart:

Admittedly, it may be hard to take that refreshing dip or catch a few sets of tennis in Baghdad's heat if the present order for all U.S. personnel in the Green Zone to wear flak jackets and helmets at all times remains in effect – or if, as in the present palace/embassy, the pool (and Ping-Pong tables) are declared, thanks to increasing mortar and missile attacks, temporarily "off limits." In that case, more time will probably be spent in the massive, largely windowless-looking recreation center, one of over 20 blast-resistant buildings BDY has planned. Perhaps this will house the promised embassy cinema.

CAC West -- The Combined Arms Center

Tom Englehart:

When completed, it will indeed be the perfect folly, as well as the perfect embassy, for a country that finds it absolutely normal to build vast base-worlds across the planet; that considers it just a regular day's work to send its aircraft carrier "strike forces" and various battleships through the Straits of Hormuz in daylight as a visible warning to a "neighboring" regional power; whose Central Intelligence Agency operatives feel free to organize and launch Baluchi tribal warriors from Pakistan into the Baluchi areas of Iran to commit acts of terror and mayhem; whose commander-in-chief president can sign a "nonlethal presidential finding" that commits our nation to a "soft power" version of the economic destabilization of Iran, involving, according to ABC News, "a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation, and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions"; whose vice president can appear on the deck of the USS John C. Stennis to address a "rally for the troops," while that aircraft carrier is on station in the Persian Gulf readying itself to pass through those Straits, and can insist to the world: "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike. We'll keep the sea lanes open. We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We'll disrupt attacks on our own forces…. And we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region"; whose military men can refer to Iraqi insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces"; members of whose congressional opposition can offer plans for the dismemberment of Iraq into three or more parts; and all of whose movers and shakers, participating in the Washington Consensus, can agree that one "benchmark" the Iraqi government, also locked inside the Green Zone, must fulfill is signing off on an oil law designed in Washington and meant to turn the energy clock in the Middle East back several decades; but why go on?

Chief of Mission's Residence

Tom Englehart:

To recognize such imperial impunity and its symbols for what they are, all you really need to do is try to reverse any of these examples. In most cases, that's essentially inconceivable. Imagine any country building the equivalent Mother Ship "embassy" on the equivalent of two-thirds of the Washington Mall; or sailing its warships into the Gulf of Mexico and putting its second-in-command aboard the flagship of the fleet to insist on keeping the sea lanes "open"; or sending Caribbean terrorists into Florida to blow up local buses and police stations; or signing a "finding" to economically destabilize the American government; or planning the future shape of our country from a foreign capital. But you get the idea. Most of these actions, if aimed against the United States, would be treated as tantamount to acts of war and dealt with accordingly in this country, with unbelievable hue and cry.

Deputy Chief's Residence

Tom Englehart:

When it's a matter of other countries halfway across the planet, however, Americans largely consider such things, even if revealed in the news, at worst tactical errors or miscalculations.

Anne Gearan:

"We do believe that the embassy compound was right-sized at the time that it was presented to the Congress," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate panel this month. "There have been some additional issues since that time. "

Rice's senior adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, said the embassy is not disproportionately expensive and will serve U.S. interests for years. The second-most expensive embassy is the smaller $434 million U.S. mission being built in Beijing.

"We assume there will be a significant, enduring U.S. presence in Iraq," Satterfield said.

Beautiful Buildings All In A Row

The Paperback Edition Of Mark Crispin Miller's 'Fooled Again' Is Ready!

Here's an important post from Mark Crispin Miller, reproduced in full:

Friends, the paperback edition of Fooled Again is on its way to bookstores, and available on Amazon.

This version of the book includes a vast new afterword, which tells a most important story. First of all, it is a detailed history of the US press's bizarre response to the whole subject of election fraud -- especially bizarre, as it was the leftist press that did the most destructive work of all. Here I deal specifically with Mother Jones, The Nation, TomPaine.com and Salon, all of which helped propagate the myth that there has been "no evidence" of theft or fraud in the 2004 election. As I make clear in this version of the book, I don't believe that this was a conspiracy, but something subtler and more innocent -- and yet, therefore, more dangerous than any conscious plot. Here I deal not just with the reception of my book, but with the silence toward, and/or derision of, the writings of Steve Freeman, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Steve Rosenfeld, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Greg Palast, Brad Friedman, Paul Lehto, Jonathan Simon, David Moore and others who have tried to spread the word.

Secondly, the paperback edition lays out the abundant evidence of fraud in the 2006 elections, which were reportedly as crooked as the process two years earlier. That the Democrats apparently picked up some 29 House seats has been used, by some, to argue that the voting system is as sound as the proverbial dollar. In fact, there is an ever-growing body of strong evidence -- evidence of many kinds -- that the Democrats did a whole lot better than they think, winning a veto-proof House majority, and also taking back the Senate. In short, the GOP was all but wiped out in 2006. That party's dead, but it refuses to lie down, and the illusion that it's still alive is based entirely on election fraud, as many of the victories that it appeared to "win" are highly dubious, to say the least.

The appearance of this book could not be timelier. The US Attorney scandal has been making it quite clear that this regime is, finally, all about election fraud: the only way that they could ever possibly prevail, as their agenda is far too extreme for the American majority. Without a massive program of election fraud and vote suppression (and plenty of compliance by "the liberal media," and, no less, the acquiescence of the Democrats), such a party never could have won the votes of more than a minority, however zealous that minority may be.

And yet the link between this scandal and the process of election fraud has been suppressed (for reasons that I deal with in the paperback of Fooled Again). We keep on hearing smart and admirable people coming up with reasons why "John Kerry lost" -- credible and even edifying reasons, but utterly beside the point, as Kerry didn't lose. While it is true that his campaign was managed idiotically, and true too that the Democrats are highly compromised and all too often cowardly, the fact is that we voted to get rid of Bush, and voted thus despite our general lukewarmness toward the other party and its presidential drive.

It is also crucial that we get the point ASAP because the House is set to pass Rush Holt's e-voting reform bill, HR 811: a piece of legislation comfortably "bipartisan" in its appeal -- and, for that very reason, not a real solution to what's ailing this democracy. Although often hailed as a necessary "first step," HR 811, as it stands right now, will only make our situation worse. It will leave the voting system largely as it is today, except with "paper trails," which will finally not prevent more electronic fraud (while sustaining the illusion that our votes are more secure).

And, finally, we had better get the point right now because Bush-style election fraud is spreading all across the globe. The presidential race in Mexico was obviously stolen, through sophisticated measures other than the use of DRE machines (as Mexico relies on paper ballots); and there has been convincing evidence of fraud throughout the east of France in the recent presidential contest there, and some questions too about the recent race in Scotland. As the first democracy in modern history -- and, once upon a time, a crucial inspiration to enlightened minds throughout the world -- the US must not only gets it own wrecked house in order, but ally itself with democratic efforts everywhere.

It's time for us, at last, to stop blaming ourselves for Bush's reign, because We the People never voted for him. It's time, at last, for real reform of the election system; and that depends on an honest national discussion of the truth about what Bush & Co. has really done to this democracy. I urge you, therefore, to read this new edition of my book, and to help me spread the word about it.

Mr. Miller may be too shy to say this, but I have no such qualms:

This is an extremely important book. You should buy it and read it and share it as widely as possible.