Why this King George is Worse than the First

By MaureenFarrell, August 30, 2002

Anyone who's ventured into Independence Hall has felt it. Whether gazing towards the chair in which George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, or ogling the spot Ben Franklin occupied during the Second Continental Congress, the energy in the Pennsylvania Assembly Room is palpable. Perhaps it's the "phantoms of lost liberty," one senses, or the spirit of America herself, but whatever it is, it feels as if someone punched a hole in the wall that separates the here and now from the events that shaped our nation.

Down the street, at Philadelphia's 7th and Market, tourists are treated to more of the same. A marker in the Graff House courtyard reminds visitors they're entering the very site where Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. Upstairs, two rooms Jefferson rented are painstakingly recreated, while downstairs, copies of initial and finished drafts dot the walls. Next to those is a framed quote from philosopher John Locke, from whom Jefferson borrowed heavily. "Great mistakes in the ruling part," Locke wrote, "will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses. . .. all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people. . . it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected." It's impossible to read those words, especially in light of the imperialistic Bush presidency, and not appreciate from whence we came.

Exploring our nation's most historical mile is always haunting, yet this year, it's as if the forces that forged us cry out to us. The tyranny Jefferson and Franklin warned of is upon us with both a vengeance and a Texas twang, and now that Bush's goons have decided they need not seek Congress' approval before attacking Iraq, Colonial "taxation without representation" seems but an inconvenience by comparison.

When Ann Coulter says that liberals hate America, what she really means is that liberals (and several conservatives, in case she hadn't noticed) hate the Amerika she endorses. Did our ancestors sacrifice for the benefit of Exxon-Mobil? Did Patrick Henry fight for the Bill of Rights so John Aschroft could squash it? And when did "free speech zones" start trumping free speech? Though our right to petition the government has fallen by the pepper-sprayed wayside, most of us love the country to which we were born.

True patriots cringe at the notion that love of country means blind allegiance, however, particularly when our government conducts itself immorally, illegally or shortsightedly. We hate the way our country has been hijacked by thugs to become the very monster our forefathers (and Dwight D. Eisenhower) warned against. The first King George has been replaced by a second, who worries not for the fate of the unemployed or newly deployed, but complains that the "saddest thing about the presidency" is that his daily jog is cut short. Enthroned on a distant self-involvement, our imperial president promises peace though war, and freedom through unthinking compliance. Meanwhile, he and his cohorts hide traces of their true agenda, lying shamelessly and vilifying an unending parade of enemies, while the media dutifully deflects the truth. What is America supposed to stand for anyway? Continuous military intervention and a quest for global dominance? Or a Republic founded upon democratic principals and laws?

For those who love America, the founders' words are hymns. The country we love differs from that proposed by the sullied and sordid voices of those who profess to represent us, as does our notion of what is ugly and unacceptable. Imagine, for example, if Benjamin Franklin or James Madison were to debate George W. Bush or John Ashcroft. Or if Thomas Jefferson were to take on any of today's overexposed talking heads. All it would take is one Hardball debate featuring Jefferson and Coulter to see how far we've fallen, and why King George II is worse than the first.

Though eerily timely, Jefferson's brilliant observations on the separation of church and state or on how a "monied aristocracy" is hoarding power that should be "restored to the people to whom it properly belongs" might not be aired. Because by the time he expounded on the need for a free press and Ann rattled off hateful tirades about Tim McVeigh and the New York Times, he might wonder why he bothered.

Jefferson's belief that an educated populace is "the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty" would only frustrate today's audiences, anyway, especially when Coulter's coarse assertion that "a cruise missile is more important than Head Start" reflects our modern reality. Likewise, her view that "we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals," confirms Jefferson's notions that "law is often but the tyrant's will." And sadly, though Jefferson swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" our citizens seem to lap it up. How else can anyone explain how Coulter's assaults on intellectual tolerance and her vilification of those who don't goosestep rightward have made her a best-selling author? "[I]f Americans knew what they [liberals] really believed," she noted in Slander, "the public would boil them in oil." Sure sounds like tyranny to me.

Even worse than toxic pundits, however, are those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and have instead cynically undermined it. When you compare these statesmen and statements, the danger we face becomes starkly clear. Jefferson's observation that government's most sacred duty is to impart "equal and impartial justice to all its citizens" is countered with the Justice Department's assertion that the president has the right to indefinitely detain some U.S. citizens without filing charges. Benjamin Franklin's warning that, "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," is tempered by several of this administration's fascist policies, including the mother of them all, the Patriot Act. And Jefferson's remark that, "no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another" is negated by Bush's "axis of evil."

But James Madison's insights are perhaps the most chilling. In fact, his words would be so perilous to those in charge, that if he were around today, he'd most likely be sidelined from mainstream debate. "Of all the enemies to public liberty," he mused, "war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded." Saying that war creates conditions "for bringing the many under the domination of the few" and leads to "inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud," he wisely concluded that, "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." This advice is particularly timely when contrasted with Bush's declaration of continuous war, until "every terrorist" has been "found, stopped or defeated," (or his cronies are covered in defense contracts and American-controlled oil).

After visiting our nation's first capital, it's hard not to wonder what would happen if Jefferson, Franklin and Madison did return, for a time. They'd be horrified by the prospect of forever war and troubled by the emperor's latest decree that, while he may consult Congress, he doesn't need approval before committing us in Iraq.

Chances are, these founding fathers would also be denounced and vilified and called "anti-American" -- as part of "a long train of abuses. . . . all tending the same way."

Israeli dart shells kill family of Palestinians

The gap between the rhetoric and reality of the Middle East conflict was to be found yesterday in the form of a small, finned dart buried deep inside the chest of an unconscious 16-year-old Palestinian boy.

It stood out on the X-ray in perfect silhouette, a missile in miniature embedded in the flesh about half-way up the right side of his rib cage. One and a half inches higher up, just below the armpit, there was a second dart, pointing in a different direction. A third had torn its way into his stomach.

Salah al-Hajeen was one of at least six people blown up by a shell packed with some 3,000 inch-long arrows fired by an Israeli tank into a fruit-pickers' encampment in the orchards of Gaza. The darts are known technically as "flechettes"; the Palestinians simply call them nails. The shell killed four members of his family: Ruwaida al-Hajeen, 55, her sons, Ashraf, 23, and Nihad, 17, and 20-year-old Mohammed, a cousin. Though he was critically injured, doctors at Gaza's Shifa Hospital expected Salah to recover. Two beds along from him lay another family member – a 21-year-old man, also called Mohammed. He was unlikely to be so fortunate. He was in a deep coma, suffering from brain damage, two severed arteries, and a nail-shredded leg.

The Palestinian doctors showed us Salah's X-ray with no air of surprise or excitement. They made no mention of the darts when we first interviewed them.

The images of the youth's damaged insides were produced at our request after we returned to the hospital to check out whether the flechettes that we had discovered at the scene, buried to their hilts in the branches of blast-torn fig trees, had also hit people. "We have seen these nails many times before," said Dr Hani Sammour, quietly. "Some people die from them." Palestinian suicide bombers routinely pack their bomb-belts with nuts and bolts to maximise the injuries of the Israeli civilians whom they target. The Israelis always – reasonably enough – furiously condemn this revolting tactic, citing it as evidence of their attackers' terrorist credentials.

But the Israeli armed forces, whose Chief-of-Staff was trained in Britain and which is funded and equipped in large part by the United States, have a similar weapon. It is an Israeli-manufactured 120mm shell, fired from a tank, which can be set to explode in the air at a specified distance and fires out its payload of darts in all directions. It has been the subject of complaints by human rights groups and foreign diplomats, including Britain's. But, according to military experts, the flechette bomb is not banned under international conventions.

The flechettes are designed to kill and maim armed men on the ground. You only have to examine their effect on a tree – they can scythe clean through an inch-thick branch – to appreciate their deadliness. But late on Wednesday night – not for the first time in this 23-month conflict – they were used by Israel against Palestinian civilians to fatal and indiscriminate effect.

Palestinian neighbours of the al-Hajeen family said that they came from a refugee camp in Gaza City. They had been spending the nights on a family-owned plot in the fields south of Gaza City with more than a dozen other people, in order to get up at dawn to pick the figs and grapes to sell to wholesalers who took them to market. The nearby Israeli troops must have known civilians were in the area. "There were at least 20 people here every night for the last two months," said Majdi Siam. As it was hot, they slept outside, under a lemon tree. That proved to be a fatal mistake.

''The lies we are told''

YellowTimes.org) – There is an age-old adage that is well-understood and manipulated to the fullest by the media, advertising agencies, the military, politicians, indeed, anyone in a position of influence and power. It has been used time and again over the millennia to justify the invasions of other countries, to initiate or enter into wars, and to gain ultimate control over groups of people and countries. Hitler skillfully wielded it to sway a whole nation to persecute and attempt to exterminate the Jewish faith whom he blamed exclusively for Germany's problems. Contrary to what one might expect, this all-powerful axiom consists of three simple words: "Perception is everything."

How a person perceives something leads in turn to the creation of a set of beliefs which forms the basis of one's behavioral decisions. The control of information coupled with the knowledge that fear is a great motivator sets the stage for power-hungry leaders to begin practicing the ultimate in manipulation - getting others to do their bidding.

Those in positions of power knowingly concoct fabrications, half-truths, and outright lies, repeated ad nauseam through carefully controlled media, to create the fear-filled reality needed to further their own personal, often repulsive, agenda. The leaders of the United States are by no means exempt from this tactic, but are truly the masters of deceit.

U.S. leaders patriotically wave the mighty U.S. Constitution before the hypnotized eyes of the American populace, parade its noble and high moral obligations of equality, self-determination and liberty as the very fundament of the American spirit, and tout U.S. foreign policies as the embodiment of these lofty ideals. The American people are taught from a very young age that the intentions of their government and military are good, just, and honorable. After all, in the words of George W. Bush, we are a generous, "freedom- and peace-loving" nation.

Constant platitudes about our wonderfully sublime, brave, patriotic, and compassionate character are intended to shield us from the unspeakable truth of the very dark and evil side of our nation's history and foreign policies.

A long, hard look in the mirror will reveal that we are by far the most violent nation on earth. From the moment of our birth, we are immersed in a culture of violence and the glorification thereof as evident in the amount of violence that is found on TV, in movies, song lyrics, books, video games, etc. We have the highest numbers of rape and murder in the world and incarcerate the greatest percentage of our citizens. We are the largest producer and exporter of weapons of mass destruction and have the world's biggest military budget comprising 36 percent of the total world military spending and gobbling up more than 50 percent of our own national budget, according to the Center for Defense Information. (1)

Where democracy dies

When the Cincinnati-based federal appeals court ruled that secret immigration hearings are unconstitutional, it laced its opinion with powerful language about American democracy, like the quote above.

Circuit Judge Damon J. Keith's 54-page decision is a gold mine of quotable phrases denouncing official secrecy. Perhaps the most succinct: "Democracies die behind closed doors."

The court used this high-powered prose to make a compelling argument on behalf of open courts, even courts that exist to conduct administrative proceedings to determine whether immigrants should be deported.

For the same reasons that trial and appellate courts are open to the public, the court said, immigration courts must be open so that the American people may judge for themselves whether the process works as it should.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has effectively transformed the immigration courts into secret tribunals, before which foreign citizens may be brought in total secrecy, some with no lawyer to defend their interests, judged guilty and banished from this country.

The three-judge panel unanimously found that repugnant to the Constitution and to the very idea upon which America was founded. Here is why: If the government is free to conduct such important business as deportation hearings in secret, there is no way for the American people to know whether the proceedings are fair.

Situation Deteriorating Rapidly in Afghanistan

Summary

Recent reports indicate the Taliban and al Qaeda are regrouping in preparation for a major escalation of fighting in Afghanistan. Moreover, STRATFOR has received intelligence that resistance to U.S. forces in Afghanistan has spread well beyond these groups, threatening a steep increase in fighting over the coming months.

Analysis

The editor of London's Al-Quds Al-Arabi magazine, Abdel-Bari Atwan, who reportedly is close to associates of Osama bin Laden, told Reuters Aug. 27 that bin Laden is firmly back in control of a regrouped and reorganized al Qaeda. He said the shock and disruption of the initial U.S. attack against the group has worn off and that al Qaeda has regained confidence, re-established ties with the Taliban and is preparing for a protracted war of attrition in Afghanistan.

This follows the airing by the Middle East Broadcasting Co. July 9 of a message -- purportedly from an al Qaeda spokesman -- warning of impending guerrilla warfare and assassinations. The statement claimed Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was alive and well and that the Taliban was reorganizing and preparing for guerrilla war.

In the absence of any major attacks since Sept. 11, Afghanistan presents a prime venue for demonstrating that both organizations are operational and capable of inflicting serious damage on the United States. A renewed war there also plays to both groups' strengths and doctrines.

Afghanistan offers all the communications, logistics, support, cover and terrain familiarity these groups lack elsewhere. Both groups say the Afghan resistance in the 1980s was responsible not only for repulsing the Soviet invasion but also for contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. They will jump at the opportunity to trap another superpower in the same grinder.

Osama bin Laden has said that al Qaeda was preparing for a decade-long campaign in Somalia, akin to the Afghan precedent, when U.S. troops precipitously withdrew after a disastrous mission in 1993.

A protracted war in Afghanistan also offers al Qaeda a much higher chance of immediate and repeated success against U.S. targets than complex bombing operations abroad. It allows the group to strike again quickly without having to sort out its international financial and communications networks or trust that its sleeper agents have not been compromised.

Global climate change threatens the insurance industry

When winds reach 120 miles per hour, houses begin to crumble, walls break and roofs fly away. With global climate change, winds like this are coming more often. In the United States during the last three decades, the number of weather-related natural disasters has increased five-fold. Last year was the second-hottest year since records began in 1860. This means five times as many major hurricanes and tornadoes annually touching down in places like Miami and Houston. It means 500 percent more floods, mudslides, hailstorms, droughts, ice storms and wildfires. It means more wrecked cars, houses, crops and businesses.
The industry to be hardest hit by these careening catastrophes is insurance. According to the Department of Energy, insurance losses from natural disasters have increased 15-fold since 1960, even when corrected for inflation. Carlos Joly, the chairman of the United Nations Environment Program's insurance industry initiative, says, "The threats to our economies and lifestyles from climate change are no less consequential than terrorism." He adds that the danger is much more commonly accepted among European insurers than among American providers.

Before Hurricane Hugo in 1989, no major storm had cost more than $1 billion in insurance claims. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew hit South Florida and the insurance industry paid out $15 billion. Allstate Insurance dispensed $500 million more than it had ever collected from all types of insurance in Florida. Seven other companies went bankrupt.

Franklin Nutter, president of Reinsurance Association of America, says, "The scientific community's consensus is we're in a period of warming and weather variability. Climate change will affect property and human lives."

In the 1960s the average was 16 "large" weather-related disasters annually in the world. Now, the average is 72. The combined insured losses, corrected for inflation, have jumped from $7 billion to more than $90 billion.

Since Hurricane Andrew, there have been 18 other natural disasters costing more than $1 billion each. Insurance industry profit has narrowed nearly six-fold in the last decade, sending the $2 trillion industry into shock.

Qatar raises stakes over Iraq

The Gulf state of Qatar has added its voice to Arab opposition over any American military action against Iraq.
The tiny state is home to a huge US air base at Al-Odaydia, 35 kilometres (20 miles) south west of the capital, Doha.

Speaking in Baghdad, the Qatari foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassem Al-Thani, said his country wanted a diplomatic solution to the dispute over the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq.

In the US, Vice President Dick Cheney has maintained Washington's stance that containment of Iraq is no longer an option - Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must be removed.

Qatar joins Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in denying use of their bases for any strike against Iraq.

Some US newspapers have even reported that the US military is preparing to transfer to the emirate equipment and some of the 6,000 US troops currently stationed in Saudi Arabia to avert Saudi objections.

'A link between Saddam and bin Laden? No way'

Alex Standish, editor of the UK journal Jane's Intelligence Digest - required reading for war-watchers and war-makers everywhere - thinks US intelligence officials are making 'a big mistake' on Iraq.


'They are trying to convince us of something that is highly unlikely', he says. 'If they really believe that Saddam is feeding and sustaining bin Laden's men, then they can't possibly understand the fundamental difference between Iraq and al-Qaeda.'


US officials have been playing the al-Qaeda card in relation to Iraq since the start of 2002. In March, CIA director George Tenet claimed that 'Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism [and] it has also had contact with al-Qaeda' (1).


In early August, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed 'there are al-Qaeda in Iraq', accusing Saddam of 'harbouring al-Qaeda operatives who fled the US military dragnet in Afghanistan' (2).


Now, as CNN reported on 22 August, the Bush administration claims that al-Qaeda members have taken refuge in northern Iraq. And the fact that Saddam doesn't control northern Iraq, which has been a US/British protected zone for Kurds since 1991? That's no excuse, says Donald Rumsfeld: 'In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near-total control over its population, it's hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what is taking place in the country.' (3)


'Iraq and al-Qaeda: is there a link?' asks a headline in this week's Time magazine. According to Time: 'As the world's two most nefarious villains, bin Laden and Saddam ought to have reasons to work together. They share similar interests - hatred of Israel, hostility toward the rulers of Saudi Arabia and, especially, enmity toward their common nemesis, the US….' (4)

We Are Not The Enemy!: The Battle of Portland">

The image is chilling. A middle-aged woman, plainly dressed, with a puff of auburn hair, is clutched in a hammer-lock by a Portland police officer dressed in full riot gear. His riot baton is jammed high under her chin. Around her, three more armor-clad police officers swarm in, face-masks down. The woman's face is contorted in terror. In her hand is a sign protesting George W. Bush.

This was the scene on the streets of Portland, OR, on the evening of August 22nd as captured by a photographer for the Associated Press. Thousands of peaceful protesters had descended upon the Hilton Hotel where Mr. Bush was attending a political fundraiser for Senator Gordon Smith. They held signs reading, "Drop Bush, not Bombs," and other similar slogans. Among the protesters were pregnant women, parents with infants and small children, elderly citizens, and citizens in wheelchairs

According to a report by CBS News, the protest became unruly when some of the fundraiser attendees were "jostled" as they moved through the crowd towards the entrance to the hotel. At that point, the riot police swarmed in, swinging clubs and dousing the crowd with pepper spray. Rubber bullets were also fired into the crowd, and snipers were seen on the roofs surrounding the scene. The protesters responded by hammering on the hoods of police cars and screaming, "We are not the enemy!"

A man named Randy, who attended the protest, reports the sequence of events as follows:

"I was between 5th and 6th on the sidewalk. Maybe the ones in front were warned to move, but I didn't hear any warning. It had been a peaceful protest. Suddenly the police came forward spraying pepper spray. A man nearby with an infant in a backpack got hit real good. The baby's face was so red I thought it had quit breathing. From the other direction came cop cars through the crowd and rubber bullets were fired at those closest to the cars. I kept retreating but the cops kept spraying. Lots of people were sprayed, including the cameraman from Channel 2 KATU."

Life on Dubya’s Animal Farm

Many disturbing comparisons have been drawn between the totalitarian society George Orwell
describes in 1984 and George Bush’s Amurika.

The similarities are easy to see, even if you’ve only read the Cliff’s Notes version of Orwell’s book:
Citizens are encouraged to spy on one another, there’s endless war with ever-changing enemies,
the media herald Big Dubya as the greatest leader in human history (while promptly dispatching his
many embarrassing gaffes down the memory hole), and, as we’ve seen in Portland recently,
dissent is coldly quashed with police-state tactics.

The parallels between 2002 and 1984 are obvious. However, as I listened to news reports
of the anti-Bush protest in Stockton, California on Friday, the book that came to mind was
Orwell’s other classic, Animal Farm.

With its obvious allusions to Soviet Russia, this dark satire about animals taking over and running a farm
isn’t usually associated with the cabal of rightwingers currently controlling this country in the same way 1984 is.
But aside from the striking correlations between members of the Bush regime and the avaricious pigs that run
Animal Farm (Ari Fliescher and Squealer the pig propagandist could easily have been separated at birth),
what happened in Stockton is something straight out of Orwell’s barnyard.

If you didn’t hear about the protest (and chances are you didn’t if you get your news from corporate media),
here’s what happened:

Bush came to Stockton on yet another of his Republican fund-raising appearances (if he put the same energy
into winning his war on terrorism as he does in raising money for his GOP cronies, the terrorists would be
vanquished by now). According to reports on KPFA FM and Indymedia (Click Here), up to 1,000
anti-Bush activists showed up, some of them bussed in from the northern California area.
They came to demonstrate opposition to the impending war with Iraq, among other issues.

Double Standards Make Enemies

On Sept. 5 and 6 the State Department will host a high-powered conference on anti-Americanism, an unusual step indicating the depth of American concern about this increasingly globalized phenomenon. Anti-Americanism can be mere shallow name-calling. A recent article in Britain's Guardian newspaper described Americans as having "a bug up their collective arse the size of Manhattan" and suggested that " 'American' is a type of personality which is intense, humourless, partial to psychobabble and utterly convinced of its own importance." More seriously, anti-Americanism can be contradictory: When the United States failed to intervene in Bosnia, that was considered wrong, but when it did subsequently intervene in Kosovo, that was wrong too. Anti-Americanism can be hypocritical: wearing blue jeans or Donna Karan, eating fast food or Alice Waters-style cuisine, their heads full of American music, movies, poetry and literature, the apparatchiks of the international cultural commissariat decry the baleful influence of the American culture that nobody is forcing them to consume. It can be misguided; the logical implication of the Western-liberal opposition to America's Afghan war is that it would be better if the Taliban were still in power. And it can be ugly; the post-Sept. 11 crowing of the serves-you-right brigade was certainly that.

However, during the past year the Bush administration has made a string of foreign policy miscalculations, and the State Department conference must acknowledge this. After the brief flirtation with consensus-building during the Afghan operation, the United States' brazen return to unilateralism has angered even its natural allies. The Republican grandee James Baker has warned President Bush not to go it alone, at least in the little matter of effecting a "regime change" in Iraq.

In the year's major crisis zones, the Bushies have been getting things badly wrong. According to a Security Council source, the reason for the United Nations' lamentable inaction during the recent Kashmir crisis was that the United States (with Russian backing) blocked all attempts by member states to mandate the United Nations to act. But if the United Nations is not to be allowed to intervene in a bitter dispute between two member states, both nuclear powers of growing political volatility, in an attempt to defuse the danger of nuclear war, then what on Earth is it for? Many observers of the problems of the region will also be wondering how long Pakistani-backed terrorism in Kashmir will be winked at by America because of Pakistan's support for the "war against terror" on its other frontier. Many Kashmiris will be angry that their long-standing desire for an autonomous state is being ignored for the sake of U.S. realpolitik. And as the Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf seizes more and more power and does more and more damage to his country's constitution, the U.S. government's decision to go on hailing him as a champion of democracy does more damage to America's already shredded regional credibility.

Little Annie Fanny

If Ann Coulter were a relief pitcher, she'd be in big trouble. Instead, she's a Republican attack-blonde, the author of the number one non-fiction book on the New York Times best-seller list, and a ubiquitous presence on TV talk shows. So you're not supposed to take offense when Coulter spouts politicized bigotry that makes ex-Atlanta Brave John Rocker's foolish remarks about queers, weirdos and foreigners in New York sound benign by comparison. Nor to point out that much of the so-called "evidence" of liberal sins in her book "Slander" is simply made up—780 often phony footnotes and all.

Apparently, the glib Connecticut ectomorph has taken to believing her own, well, "propaganda" is the only word I can get in the newspaper. Or maybe she's just a comedy act, as a recent column by one Melik Kayan in the Wall Street Journal hinted. How else could Coulter go on national TV, call NBC's perky "Today Show" hostess Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun" of American liberalism, then bleat about liberal name-calling?

Eva Braun was Hitler's mistress. So when Coulter calls Couric, in effect, a Nazi slut, it's what Kayan calls "tongue-in-cheek agitprop." Where's everybody's sense of humor? The occasion of the Journal apologia was Coulter's telling the New York Observer—whose interviewer informed readers that he had a "friend" who would enjoy vigorous copulation with the bony pundit—that "my only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Some of these boys, incidentally, sound like they're wearing their bowties too tight. I still recall my amazement at learning that Tory men thought Margaret Thatcher a hottie. "The eyes of Caligula and the lips of Marilyn Monroe," was how the late English novelist Anthony Powell described her to me. Evidently,the Iron Lady conjured steamy memories of prep school spankings.

It is not my job to provide the evidence for a war crimes trial

Three Western war crimes investigators turned up to see me in Beirut last week. No, they didn't come to talk about the Bosnian war. They wanted to know about torture at Israel's notorious Khiam jail in southern Lebanon, about beatings and imprisonment in cupboard-size cells and electrodes applied to the toes and penises of inmates under interrogation. Most of the torturers were Lebanese members of Israel's proxy "South Lebanon Army" militia, and they performed their vile work for the Israelis – on women as well as men – from the late Seventies until Israel's withdrawal in 2000: almost a quarter of a century of torture. Khiam prison is still there, open to the public, a living testament to brutality and Israeli shame.

The problem is that Israel is now trying to dump its Lebanese torturers on Western countries. Sweden, Canada, Norway, France, Germany and other nations are being asked to give citizenship to these repulsive men in the interests of "peace" – and also because the Israeli government would prefer they left Israel. The three investigators – two cops and a justice ministry official – had come to Beirut to make sure that their government wasn't about to give citizenship to Israel's war criminals. And they knew what they were talking about. We both knew that one former torturer was living in Sweden with his two sons, and that another had opened two restaurants in America.

WAR OPPOSITION GROWS

OPPOSITION to Britain joining America in an attack on Iraq has leapt in just a few months.

A poll of Labour voters shows 52 per cent against, compared with 46 per cent four months ago.

And half of ALL voters across the country oppose military action to remove Saddam Hussein's regime, with just 33 per cent in favour. The ICM survey also reveals that 52 per cent of all voters believe President Bush's drive to topple Saddam is wrong. It rises to 55 per cent among Labour voters.

The latest poll for The Guardian, in which 1,003 adults were quizzed, comes just weeks after a Daily Mirror study among our readers revealed opposition to a war against Iraq was 91.17 per cent. In one of our largest-ever phone votes, just 2,358 thought the US should blitz Iraq while over 27,000 said No.

Yesterday, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that no decision had been taken on a military offensive.

He said Saddam could avoid an attack by re-admitting weapons inspectors.

Special forces suspect security leaks as Operation Mountain Sweep results in only modest success

NARIZAH, Afghanistan - Flying huge American flags atop their Humvees, U.S. Army Special Forces swept through villages in southeastern Afghanistan ( news - web sites) last week in search of al-Qaida and Taliban.



In most cases, however, the people and weapons the troops expected to find were gone, leading them to suspect that Operation Mountain Sweep, which ended Sunday, had been compromised by security leaks.

"I wouldn't say it wasn't successful," said Sgt. 1st Class Dwight Smith, a special operations soldier. "It's been going OK. We've recovered some caches. But it could be better."

More than 2,000 coalition troops, including U.S. special forces, paratroopers and civil affairs specialists, took part in the eight-day operation in the rugged mountain terrain along the border with Pakistan.

They found a ton of weapons, two caches of Taliban documents and took 10 people into custody. But main force al-Qaida and Taliban units were nowhere to be found.

Instead, they turned up cooperative village leaders and curious children — even though intelligence reports said the area is rife with Taliban and al-Qaida sympathizers, some of them masters of guerrilla warfare learned fighting the Soviets in the 1980s.

Maj. Craig Osborne, an operations officer, suspects the enemy knew the Americans were coming.

"I have no firsthand knowledge of that but there is some speculation of that," he said.

The operations around Narizah, a mud-hut village in Khost province less than 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the Pakistan border, were typical and underscored the frustrations of U.S. soldiers.

U.S. intelligence had reported an unusually large number of vehicles and armed men around the village. As paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division set up a security cordon around the area, troops from the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group-Airborne approached the village.

War On Sanity

Studs Terkel, the old Chicago writer, has it dead right. Mr. Bush's war on terrorism is really a war on sanity. In all my years of observing the political scene, I've never heard so much nonsense from so many important people.

It is a policy based on the Big Lie and therefore is bound to fail.

The truth is this: The terrorist attacks against the United States are a direct result of our one-sided support of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. That's it, pure and simple.

Bush, however, does not have the moral fortitude to admit that. Therefore, he had to concoct a Big Lie to explain the attack. Oh, he said, they hate us because we are free. This is absurd on its face. Why would Arabs or anybody else care one way or another whether we were free or enslaved? It's no skin off their noses either way. The rest of the world does not wake up in the morning worrying about the American people. They have their own lives to live.

But, as a consequence of the Big Lie, Bush is doing absolutely nothing to end terrorism. Terrorism, like all human action, proceeds from a cause for a purpose. If you want to end it, you have to remove the cause. Instead, Bush is imitating the Israelis and thinks that killing people, jailing people, deporting people and threatening people will solve the problem. Those tactics have not worked for the Israelis, and they will not work for us.

To be able to kill your way out of a terrorism problem assumes that there is a finite number of terrorists. There is not; the ranks are constantly being refilled. Does anyone think that if someone kills members of our family, we're going to love the killer? If someone destroys our home and our possessions, we're going to like that person? Every time we inflict death, wounds and destruction on people, we recruit more enemies.

Cheney's War

Richard Cheney's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars wasn't only about promoting the warfare state. Cheney was also careful to note how warm he is to the welfare state: "the president has asked Congress for an 8 percent increase for veterans' health care and a 7 percent increase for veterans' programs overall." [Loud applause.]

With the audience warmed up with your money, Cheney got on to the business at hand, which is killing. If you don't want war with Iraq, says the vice president, you are engaging in "wishful thinking or willful blindness."

Actually, there is a third option: some people don't like unrelenting war mongering that seeks the wholesale demolition of Iraq, a once-liberal, once-wealthy country that has been painfully impoverished in eleven years of US bombings and sanctions, a war which will only incite more anger in the Moslem world, inspire more terror attacks, and provide an excuse for a further expansion of the police state at home.

Cheney said that Iraq and its government have to go because there is evidence those folks don't like us. Well, you know, that kind of thing happens when your stated goal is the annihilation of somebody else’s country. People who live there, and in particular the government in charge, can become agitated.

What about the newest claims that Iraq will have nuclear weapons "very soon"? Well, it is hard to know what to make of them because such claims are, by now, so inevitable. Is there any country, no matter how poor, any group, no matter how disorganized and low tech, that the US would not claim is developing nuclear weapons should the US decide to attack it?

The Bush administration is capable of making false claims about anything, and no one doubts it. In fact, should it become public that the US has made up this nuclear weapons thing out of whole cloth, it can count on the neoconservative pundits to defend the right of the government to lie.

In Baghdad streets, they're not quaking in their boots

In the bustle of Baghdad yesterday, the impoverished taxi driver condemned the madness of his leader, but the millionaire businessman Faris El-Hadi stood right beside Saddam Hussein, staring down the latest Washington war cry.

Without even being asked a question, the 54-year-old driver exploded. As we swung past a high-rise bunker that is home to one of Saddam's security services, he yelled in English: "This time it will be a big war. We have so much oil - but it is just a bomb to explode; it does not bring us money.

"I fought for Saddam for 12 years. Two wars - Iran and Kuwait. But this time I must take my family to Africa. I will not have another war."

On the day of Washington's most forceful declaration of intent to wage war on Iraq - a declaration which has sent shudders through the region and has Arab governments warning of catastrophe - the taxi driver was the exception in a city that did not seem to skip a beat.

There was no panic - no queuing for petrol, produce or money. The hotels are empty, but staff insisted it is the 50-degree heat of summer, not the threat of war, that is keeping the foreigners away.


And the Iraqis that a foreign reporter can get to - moving among locals is banned without a minder from the Information Ministry - are blase at the prospect of another war.

Iraq Speech by Cheney Is Criticized by Schröder

BERLIN, Aug. 27 — Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has criticized the speech on Monday by Vice President Dick Cheney, saying that it signals a mistaken shift in American aims regarding Iraq.

In an interview broadcast tonight on RTL television, Mr. Schröder said the goal of the Bush administration no longer seems to be to persuade Iraq to allow unconditional arms inspections by United Nations experts. Instead, he said, the American goal seems to be to remove Mr. Hussein by military means regardless of whether inspections occur, which he says will undermine the chance of getting Iraq to allow the inspections.

"If the aim changes now, then it's one's own responsibility," Mr. Schröder said. "If somebody is to be removed with the aid of a military intervention, you can hardly convince him to let inspectors into his country. It's the change of aim that is the mistake."

European governments, including America's closest ally, Britain, have emphasized international pressure, including the threat of force, to make Iraq comply with United Nations resolutions and to allow unfettered arms inspections.

The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has said weapons inspections are the best way of reducing the threat posed by Mr. Hussein.

Military action had to remain an option but the possibility of an attack would "recede," Mr. Straw said, if other ways of addressing the risk of Iraq were found.

The Bush Doctrine Of Stupidity And Greed

I’m confused.

George Bush has declared that America is at war against terrorism. “The War Against Terrorism” is accepted as fact. We see the phrase on every major network news program.

George Bush has also called upon Congress to create a Department of Homeland Security to protect America from terrorist attacks.

Yet George Bush announced last week that he would not spend $5.1 billion appropriated by Congress for homeland security measures. Bush said he was withholding the money to teach Congress a lesson about fiscal restraint. We’re not going to have any foolish spending on frills and such while there’s a war going on, seemed to be the message.

This wasteful spending package included money for home defenses, military spending, foreign aid, AIDS treatment, and relief for victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Specifically, it included $340 million to fund many of the nation’s 18,000 fire departments. Of that sum, $150 was earmarked for equipment and training grants requested by the fire departments. Another $100 million was to be used to improve communications systems for firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel, as well as $90 million for long-term health monitoring of emergency workers at the Ground Zero site.

Needless to say, the nation’s firefighters have not taken kindly to Bush’s demonstration of fiscal restraint. The International Association of Fire Fighters voted unanimously at its annual convention in Las Vegas last week to boycott a national tribute to firefighters who died on Sept. 11. Bush is expected to speak at the Oct. 6 ceremony in Washington, D.C.

“The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity,” declared R. Michael Mohler of the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters Local 774. “We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us.”

The Bush Doctrine Of Stupidity And Greed

I’m confused.

George Bush has declared that America is at war against terrorism. “The War Against Terrorism” is accepted as fact. We see the phrase on every major network news program.

George Bush has also called upon Congress to create a Department of Homeland Security to protect America from terrorist attacks.

Yet George Bush announced last week that he would not spend $5.1 billion appropriated by Congress for homeland security measures. Bush said he was withholding the money to teach Congress a lesson about fiscal restraint. We’re not going to have any foolish spending on frills and such while there’s a war going on, seemed to be the message.

This wasteful spending package included money for home defenses, military spending, foreign aid, AIDS treatment, and relief for victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Specifically, it included $340 million to fund many of the nation’s 18,000 fire departments. Of that sum, $150 was earmarked for equipment and training grants requested by the fire departments. Another $100 million was to be used to improve communications systems for firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel, as well as $90 million for long-term health monitoring of emergency workers at the Ground Zero site.

Needless to say, the nation’s firefighters have not taken kindly to Bush’s demonstration of fiscal restraint. The International Association of Fire Fighters voted unanimously at its annual convention in Las Vegas last week to boycott a national tribute to firefighters who died on Sept. 11. Bush is expected to speak at the Oct. 6 ceremony in Washington, D.C.

“The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity,” declared R. Michael Mohler of the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters Local 774. “We will work actively to not grant him another photo op with us.”

Don't trust Bush or Blair on Iraq

Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad.
One of the most damning revelations to come out of the Scott inquiry into the arms-to-Iraq affair was the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after he shelled the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians and maiming thousands more. Saddam said he had punished the Kurds for "collaboration" after the town had been successfully attacked by Iran. The weapons were produced with German-supplied chemicals.

At the end of the Iraq-Iran war later that year, Sir Geoffrey Howe, the foreign secretary, drew up a paper entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace. There were "major opportunities for British industry", he said. But he was terrified his plan to increase British arms exports to Iraq, secretly agreed by the government, would be leaked.

"It could look very cynical if so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales," one of his officials told the Scott inquiry. The government's decision to change its policy, but keep MPs and the public in the dark, was even more cynical, replied Lord Scott.

As Whitehall turned a blind eye to exports to Baghdad of equipment which ministers and officials admitted could be used to produce chemical and nuclear weapons, Howe ordered his paper to be kept under wraps until, in the words of Ian Blackley, a senior Foreign Office diplomat, the "cloud had passed" - a reference to the attack on Halabja.

This cynicism and hypocrisy was matched only by the US. Soon after the attack, Washington approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a $1bn contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. And while the Reagan administration condemned the use of chemical weapons during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war, US officers were secretly supplying Iraqi generals with bomb-damage assessments and detailed information on Iranian troop deployments.

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," Walter Lang, a former senior US defence intelligence officer, told the New York Times this week. Washington was worried about the threat of Iran spreading its Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Brainwashing America

The puppet Bush regime is using new, aggressive forms of brainwashing to change the very way Americans think and feel.
This is the psychological dimension of the "High Cabal's" general onslaught against American workers, just as the "war on terrorism" is the military dimension and corporate crime and tax cuts for the rich comprise the economic dimension.

We are living under the beginning stages of a military dictatorship in precisely the same way that 1930s Germans suffered under the Nazi regime.

As in the case of Nazi Germany, state-sponsored propaganda (brainwashing) is a vital part of the Bush regime's strategy.

New propaganda slogans are being overtly and subliminally implanted by Bush and his gang through their speeches and actions:

dissent is treason

Constitutional liberties are less important than security

the "war on terrorism" excuses any attack on civil liberties

the Bush administration has the right and the duty to bring about "regime change" in any nation it chooses

the economy is basically sound

only a few bad apples are found in the corporate barrel, which requires no new oversight laws

if Bush and Cheney say they're not guilty of corporate crimes, then believe it and shut up

The regime Bush changes may be his

EVEN SOME OF THE high priests and acolytes of his father’s New World Order are starting to pan the major opus thus far of Bush 43, “Overture to a Regime Change.” Last week Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to the first President Bush, wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal advising against a military attack on Iraq. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger has voiced his doubts about the need for military action and Secretary of State Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Gulf War, has been described in news reports as opposed to invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.

Scowcroft worries that a war with Iraq, opposed by virtually all our allies, will divert our energies and threaten our resources for the war on terrorism, for which international cooperation is essential. He cites “scant evidence” to tie Saddam to the Sept. 11 attacks. As for the “weapons of mass destruction” the Iraqi dictator is said to be developing, his instinct for survival should preclude his using them against the United States. But an invasion aimed at removing him from power, Scowcroft warned, might convince Saddam he has nothing left to lose, “leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.” His first strike would likely be against Israel, which might respond with nuclear weapons, “unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East.”

It’s possible that Scowcroft is overly pessimistic and the Bush administration can execute “regime change” in Baghdad without those dire consequences. Still, what is to be gained by running those risks? Well, we’ll save our President’s reputation, Richard Perle, a former Reagan administration official, explained to The New York Times. “The failure to take on Saddam after what the President said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the President that it would set back the war on terrorism,” said Perle.

UN INSPECTOR HITS AT 'WRECKER' BUSH

THE UN's chief weapons inspector yesterday slammed George Bush and Tony Blair for talking up the prospect of war with Iraq.

Hans Blix made clear he was not willing to accept US and British claims over Saddam Hussein's terror arsenal until he had seen it for himself.

And Mr Blix also attacked Mr Bush's threat of action, admitting it was wrecking the prospect of a breakthrough on weapons inspections.

The outburst is the latest sign that international opposition is snowballing, making prospects of a fresh blitz on Baghdad increasingly unlikely.

Mr Blix said: "If the Iraqis conclude that an invasion is inevitable, then they may conclude it is not very meaningful to have inspections."

Asked whether he believed claims that Saddam had chemical, biological and possibly nuclear capabilities, the UN supremo added: "I am not assuming the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. This is why an inspection is so important."

He continued: "I am sure the Iraqis are worried about the US attitude. We think it would be natural for them to accept the inspection because they claim, in a very determined way, there is nothing left, they have done away with all weapons of mass destruction. Why should they fear us coming?"

How US won the fight: they fixed it

Washington: The biggest war game in the history of the United States, staged this month at a cost of $US253 million with 13,000 troops, was rigged to ensure that the Americans beat their "Middle Eastern" adversaries, says a leading participant.

General Paul Van Riper, a retired marine lieutenant-general, told the Army Times that the sprawling three-week millennium challenge exercises, were "almost entirely scripted to ensure a win".

He protested by quitting his role as commander of enemy forces, and warning that the Pentagon might wrongly conclude that its experimental tactics were working.

When General Van Riper agreed to command the forces of an unnamed Middle Eastern state he thought he would be given a free rein to probe US weaknesses. But when the game began, he was told to deploy his forces to make life easier for US forces.

"We were directed ... to move air defences so that the army and marine units could successfully land," he said. They were also ordered to turn air defence systems off or move them.

The Army Times reported that, as commander of a low-tech, third-world army, General Van Riper appeared to have repeatedly outwitted US forces.

He sent orders with motorcycle couriers to evade sophisticated electronic eavesdropping equipment. When the US fleet sailed into the Gulf, he instructed his small boats and planes to move around in apparently aimless circles before launching a surprise attack which sank a substantial part of the US Navy. The war game had to be stopped and the American ships "refloated" so that the US forces stood a chance.

"They had a predetermined end, and they scripted the exercise to that end," said General Van Riper, who quit when he found out that his orders were being overruled by the military co-ordinators of the game.

WAG THE GASSED DOG

08/19/02 "WAG THE GASSED DOG" This is the purest war propaganda. One video of what may be Osama bin Laden plus a video of a dog being gassed which could have been created anywhere equals the US sinking to new lows trying to manufacture support for a war nobody but the oil companies want. This dog-video reminds me of Hill & Knowlton's much ballyhooed claim that Iraqi troops were stealing incubators from Kuwait hospitals and leaving premature babies to die on the floor. That was a hoax to sell a war. And until proven otherwise, the safest course is to assume this latest "shock video" is just another hoax by the public relations firms which grow rich and fat off of your tax dollars by lying to you for the US Government. Anonymous US officials have declared this to be "unquestionable" evidence that al Qaeda has chemical weapons. I find it very questionable. For one thing, compare the quality of the dog video with that of the famous Osama "confession" tape or even the most recent Osama tape. Why does a dog get much better video quality than the boss? Add to that the cuteness of the dog, as if intentionally selected by central casting to provoke the greatest feelings of sympathy in the viewer, instead of just grabbing any old mangy stray mongrel to use in such a test. Yes, this video is shocking, but the shock is intended to shock people past questioning the claims of where the video came from. All day long the media has been blasting the "Arabs kill puppy dogs" story all over the airwaves, trying to create a linkage between Arabs and chemical weapons where none can be proven to factually exist. Given the sensitization to chemical weapons contained in this media barrage, I have to wonder if the next stage provocation, intended to further the war against Iraq, will also involve chemical weapons.

Angry White Men

The success of a handful of books that assail the Bush administration as hypocritical, incompetent, and corrupt has demarcated a groundswell of Americans who desire truth about their leaders amid the dearth of critical and official information that is today's mainstream media. It's a demographic large enough that any politician or pollster would identify it as pivotal in an election: Stupid White Men by Michael Moore now has 500,000 copies in print and is still number five on the New York Times Top 10; 9-11 by Noam Chomsky has 205,000 in print; and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by investigative journalist Greg Palast, published by an indie British press, just sold its paperback rights to American publisher Penguin Putnam for an undisclosed amount.
After griping extensively during interviews with the Voice about a media blackout of the viewpoints expressed in their books, each of these authors arrived at a similar conclusion: Their popularity as "dissenting" authors has extended beyond the liberal fringes and represents the fruit of a grassroots movement that corporate America, and potentially the government, can no longer ignore.

On Michael Moore's recent lecture tour, he became convinced that he was no longer just preaching to the converted. "I look out at the auditorium or gymnasium, and I don't see the tree huggers and the granola heads," he told the Voice. "I see Mr. and Mrs. Middle America who voted for George W. Bush, who just lost $60,000 because their 401(k) is gone. And they believed in the American Dream as it was designed by the Bushes and Wall Street, and then they woke up to realize it was just that, a dream."

In a September 19 interview collected in his latest book, 9-11, Noam Chomsky called America "a leading terrorist state," and he explained how September 11 will "accelerate the agenda of militarization, regimentation, reversal of social democratic programs [and] transfer of wealth to narrow sectors." This mix of unsettling and prescient commentary helped ignite the sales of 9-11, a paperback collection of interviews with Chomsky, in which he catalogs questionable U.S. government actions (the boycott of Iraq and the vengeful "terrorist attack" on Nicaragua in the '80s, for example) that have sullied its reputation around the world. The 205,000 copies in print place it among the bestselling titles of Chomsky's more than 30 books. It's worth recalling that Chomsky's early books criticizing U.S. policy in southeast Asia were bibles of the Vietnam anti-war movement.

Mike's Office of Homeland Security

Thursday, August 22nd, 2002

CRISIS SITUATION:
From The Nation : Recent events have confirmed that the American political establishment is not united in support of the Bush Administration's policy of forcible "regime change" in Iraq. The rest of the world, and a good part of the American public, also seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. "Iraq: The Doubters Grow" the lead editorial from the September 2/9 issue of The Nation outlines nine critical questions that should be asked before any possible military invasion is even considered.

YOUR MISSION:
Clip or copy these nine questions and include them in letters to your representatives, friends, family and foes. Sign the Campaign of Conscience Peace Pledge to Stop the Spread of War to Iraq. Consider participating in one of the many antiwar marches and protests scheduled coast to coast. And check out the following links for more information on how you can help prevent an unnecessary attack on Iraq. The sites recommended offer online activist ideas and options, info on regional peace events and protests, media resources, lots of background material and many more links: The National Network to End the War Against Iraq / The Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) / Voices in the Wilderness / Not In Our Names / US Bombing Watch in Iraq / United for Peace. And read these articles from The Nation.

A vision of dystopia

New York City in 2022. Half the 40 million people in the swarming metropolis are unemployed, the air is thick with pollution, food and water are as precious as jewels. This was the world of the future as envisaged in the sci-fi thriller, Soylent Green, in 1973. Now, according to the World Bank, it could come true unless there are dramatic and immediate changes to the way we live.
Unlike the Charlton Heston movie, the Bank does not suggest that we will be making food from dead bodies in 20 years' time. But its warning of an increasingly dysfunctional global society, with enormous pressure on basic resources such as water, energy and health, is remarkably similar.

Looking into its crystal ball, the Bank sees a world of nine billion people by mid-century generating a global GDP of $140 trillion a year. This staggering fourfold increase in the size of the world economy would be enough to guarantee a large-scale reduction in the 1.2 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, but the Bank argues that the price will be environmental catastrophe, social breakdown and lower living standards for everyone if policies remain unchanged.

Released to coincide with next week's summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, the Washington-based institution's annual world development report sounds the alarm bell for global leaders as they prepare for 10 days of talks, providing a nightmarish prophecy of what could happen if they fail to turn rhetoric into action.

Dollar falls as Saudi investors 'withdraw billions'

The dollar today fell from recent highs against the euro and yen following a report that Saudi investors were pulling billions of dollars out of the US.
According to the Financial Times, disgruntled Saudis have withdrawn as much as $200bn (£131bn) as relations between the US and Saudi Arabia come under increasing strain.

In the most recent irritant in already strained ties between the two countries, an analyst from the Rand corporation thinktank told the Pentagon that Saudi Arabia was the "kernel of evil". The fact that 11 of the 15 perpetrators of the September 11 attacks were Saudis had already sullied Saudi Arabia's image in the eyes of Americans.

An analyst cited by the Financial Times said Saudi investors have been deserting the US in recent months. Youssef Ibrahim of the Council on Foreign Relations, an American thinktank, said the move followed hawkish US commentators' calls for the freezing of Saudi assets.

But financial analysts reacted sceptically to the report. State Street Bank, an American bank, said there had been no significant shift out of dollar assets by foreigners recently.

"Foreigners bought $350bn in dollar assets since September 2001, 10% below the previous nine months," said an analyst. "This suggests that foreign appetite for dollar assets has not dramatically changed."

But there has been a shift out of dollar assets by American investors amid concern over the huge US trade deficit - $37.1bn in June - and over the weakness of the American recovery. Worries over the US economy have pushed down the dollar since the beginning of the year, although the greenback has been gaining in recent weeks.

Despite scepticism over a big Saudi shift out of dollar assets, Iran - described as part of an "axis of evil" by President George Bush - is reportedly considering switching crude oil sales from dollars into euros.

A committee of experts is said to be pondering the move, with Iran's central bank yet to issue a final decision on whether to drop the dollar. Iran has earned at least $10bn so far this year from crude exports, with oil revenues providing 80% of its foreign income.

Bush Sr. Security Adviser Publicly Frustrated

The second-most frustrated man in Washington's foreign-policy establishment these days, next to Secretary of State Colin Powell, must be Brent Scowcroft, the courtly and self-effacing retired army general who served as George Bush Sr's national security adviser.

WASHINGTON, Aug 13 (IPS) - The second-most frustrated man in Washington's foreign-policy establishment these days, next to Secretary of State Colin Powell, must be Brent Scowcroft, the courtly and self-effacing retired army general who served as George Bush Sr's national security adviser.

Like Powell, Scowcroft has consistently counselled the younger Bush to pursue a cautious, multilateral approach in carrying out his ''war on terrorism'', especially with regard to Iraq and the Middle East in general.

But his advice has gone virtually entirely ignored, as the unilateralist, pro-Likud hawks centred in the Pentagon's civilian leadership and Vice President Dick Cheney's office have consolidated their control of policy since last December's successful military rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

With the exception of Cheney, many of the men who now appear to be dictating policy - on both the scope of the war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the general unilateral thrust of U.S. policy - served under Ronald Reagan but then left government or were forced out under Bush's father.

Others, as in the case of two of today's most influential players - Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby - were retained but kept under a tight rein.

The significance of the fact that Scowcroft has gone public with his advice on several occasions over the last three months cannot be exaggerated.

Saudi threat to withdraw billions in US investments

Saudi's richest investors are threatening to pull billions of dollars out of America in anger at suggestions they helped fund Osama bin Laden.

A lawsuit filed by relatives of 900 people who were killed in the September 11 attacks is provoking fury among wealthy Saudis.

The suit filed in a Washington court last week seeking damages of $100,000 billion names three members of the Saudi royal family, including defence minister Prince Sultan bin abd al-Aziz al Saud.

The lawsuit alleges that Saudi money has "for years been funnelled to encourage radical anti-Americanism as well as to fund the al Qaeda terrorists".

Banks and charities named in the suit are calling on Saudi Arabia to review its financial and political ties to the US.

Bishr Bakheet of the Bakheet Financial Consultancy said: "Naming Prince Sultan is the equivalent of saying J Edgar Hoover was a communist spy. Assuming the court proceeds with this lawsuit, the Saudi investment community, already in shock, will start withdrawing their money. People are really going to walk out."

This threat comes as foreign investment in the US dries up because of business scandals, lower corporate earnings and the collapse of the technology boom. According to government figures, foreigners put $124 billion into the US last year, down from $301 billion in 2000.

Egypt will not let US warships pass through Suez Canal

AMMAN, Aug. 17 (IPS) - Dr. Oasma Al Baz, political advisor to the Egyptian president, said Egypt will not allow passage through the Suez Canal of US ships headed to strike Iraq.

In statements published here Saturday he added Egypt rejects any military operation against Iraq, its territorial unity, independence and safety of Iraqi people, adding any military attack on Iraq represents a vary dangerous step endangering the security of the region.

Dr. Al Baz said the question of UN weapons inspectors is an issue which concerns the UN and the Security Council and not Washington and the US has no right to take any military action against Iraq nor has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country and impose a set-up of new leadership on its people. (QNA)