by Chuck Baldwin
I have received scores of letters and emails expressing the same feelings of discouragement. "What can we do?" people ask. They express frustration with their congressmen and senators being non-responsive to their letters and phone calls. They are convinced contacting the White House is a complete waste of time-and they are right. And for the most part, their pastors are no help, either. If I've heard it once I've heard it a hundred times, "What can we do?" Believe me, I understand and share their annoyance.
However, there are many things we can do. Let me here offer a few suggestions.
Educate yourself and others.
In this technologically advanced information age, it is amazing how ignorant the vast majority of Americans seem to be! The reason for this ignorance, of course, is that most people only receive their news from the major media (and by major media, I include the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity). For the most part, TV news shows and high profile radio talk shows do a better job of hiding the truth than reporting it. Real truth is about as easy to find on network news shows as hens' teeth.
Therefore, if you and the people you know are going to learn the truth, you are going to have to search for it. And if your friends and relatives won't do this for themselves, give them a hand! Why not give them a subscription (and be sure you have a subscription yourself) to The New American magazine (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/cat_index_1.shtml)? In my opinion, this magazine is the very best publication in the country dedicated to giving the American people an objective and analytical look at current news and events.
Another good publication (although not as good as TNA) is Human Events newspaper (http://www.humanevents.com/). Although HE tends to bend a little in favor of the GOP, it does provide a more honest and objective presentation of conservative and constitutional issues than most publications.
If you live near Greenville, South Carolina, you should be subscribing to the Times Examiner (email: thetimesexaminer@myexcel.com). This an excellent source of independent news. I'm sure there are several such newspapers scattered across the country. If you live in an area fortunate enough to have such a paper, support it! Give subscriptions to these publications to your loved ones and friends. It is money well spent!
Only support constitutionalists for public office.
We must break out of the two-party death grip (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2003/cbarchive_20030729.html). To vote for a Republican for the express purpose of trying to keep a Democrat out of office is stupid! In matters pertaining to constitutional government and the overall misdirection of the country, there is virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats! If the last six years have not taught you that, you haven't been paying attention!
We must only support people who are committed to defending and preserving constitutional government. Period. No exceptions. Stop giving in to the "lesser of two evils" mantra! A fascist Republican is no better than a socialist Democrat! Would we really believe a choice between Hitler and Stalin to be a genuine alternative? Then why would we believe that electing big-government Republicans is a genuine alternative to electing big-government Democrats?
If a genuine constitutionalist cannot be found among the two major parties, seek out like-minded people and encourage one to run for office as a constitutionalist. Perhaps you could even run for office yourself.
You may not be aware that there is already a viable third party comprised of enthusiastic constitutionalists with which you can link up. It is called The Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/), and they would be happy to hear from you and help you get started.
Search for a courageous, truth-oriented pastor.
We are losing our country because our pulpits are silent! And the reason our pulpits are silent has a whole lot more to do with the people sitting in the pews than it does with the Internal Revenue Service!
I hear people constantly saying that the reason today's preachers refuse to preach strong, trenchant sermons is because they are afraid of losing their tax-exempt status. There may be an element of validity to that accusation, but that is not the primary problem.
The problem is, today's pastors are thoroughly intimidated by their own congregations! They are "success" driven. And Christians have made it painfully obvious that they will not support (with either their attendance or their offerings) those pastors who preach "too hard." The problem is not the IRS. The problem is carnal, "I-don't-want-to-hear-the-truth" Christians! So, if your pastor is not willing to stand on his own hind legs and preach the truth, find one who will!
Oh, yes. There is one more thing you can do: go to my web site http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ and check out the vast amount of timely and pertinent information we have uploaded, including a vast concordance of information on the real record of President George W. Bush (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html).
We also have a treasury of information regarding the truth about illegal immigration (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/immigration.html) and the emerging police state in America (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/patriotact.html).
While at the site, be sure to also watch my video sermons (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sermonvideo.html). See for yourself if this kind of plain preaching is not what our country needs today!
There is much we can do! These are just a few suggestions. So, what are you waiting for?
Monday, September 25, 2006
If you think a "democratic" government can't become fascist...
Christopher J. Klicka, HSLDA Senior Counsel
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:The German government is persecuting homeschoolers like never before. Armin Eckermann, president of Schulunterricht zu Hause (School Instruction at Home--SIH), the homeschool legal defense association of Germany, states that there are over 40 homeschool families in court in Germany!The families are being heavily fined; the parents are being jailed; the children are being threatened with being seized and placed in the custody of the state; and families are being forced to flee to Austria and other surrounding countries.Here are a few current and frightening situations:1) The Rudolph family: They are diligently homeschooling their six children in Hamburg. The father, Andre, was jailed for a week for refusing to send his children to public school. Like many of the homeschool families in Germany, they are evangelicals. What is even more surprising about Andre Rudolph being put in jail for homeschooling is that he has a degree in teaching! He and his wife have been fined 840 euros ($1,090) for homeschooling. After Andre's jail time the authorities tried a new weapon and began to forcibly take the children to public school each day. Their plan was take custody of these six children and make them wards of the state. One day, however, the authorities came to take the children to school, but no one answered the door. The Rudolphs fled to another country in order to homeschool their children according to God's ways.2) The Plett family: If you recall, last year we asked you to pray and contact the embassy about the seven Baptist homeschool families of Paderborn. One of the families, the Pletts, have continued to homeschool their 12 children. Last week, a female plainclothes police officer rang at the Platt's house. When the mother opened the door, other police officers who were hiding in the bushes forced their way in. The mother was able to inform her husband by cell phone before the police took her to jail. The husband then fled to Austria with the children. She was given a 10-day prison sentence and is facing heavy fines and more jail time.Of the seven Paderborn homeschool families from last year, two have fled to Austria and five have enrolled in a Christian school in Heidelburg. They all still have pending cases against them.3) Three homeschool families from Saxony have been taken to court and convicted. One was fined 3,000 euros, one 6,000 euros, and another 10,000 euros.4) The Bauer family: This family in Hesse are American missionaries for the last 15 years. They were prosecuted about five years ago and have exhausted their appeals and have sought review by the Human Rights European Court that covers all of Europe.There are now eight cases pending before the European Court, most of which the SIH organization has brought, along with Ronald Richert, a renown Constitutional law attorney who has handled some of the SIH members' cases. The problem with the European Court, is that it all cases are discretionary: there is no right of appeal. If the Court decides not to rule on them, the case will not be heard. Another problem is the Court has no particular deadline of when they have to decide to take the case or not, so some of these cases have been sitting for three to four years, with no resolution in sight.5) The Herrmann family: This family from Baden-Wurttemberg was facing prosecution for homeschooling their twins who have many medical problems. They have been forced into hiding and are seeking asylum in the United States and other countries. The Maisch family, also from Baden-Wurtemberg, has been convicted of homeschooling. For the past three weeks they have faced increasing fines.Schulunterricht zu Hause (SIH), the legal association that HSLDA helped establish, is being worn out with defending all these families in court. They have approximately 150 members in their association that are all homeschool families, many of whom are underground, and almost 40 in court.Appeals have been exhausted time and time again, and money is running out. The German homeschool families are pleading for your help.Will you take a moment and contact the German Embassy?ACTION REQUESTED1. Please contact the German Embassy and give them this message:"German governments need to make homeschooling legal. Over 40 families are being prosecuted in Germany merely for teaching their children at home. These families have been given huge fines, some parents have been jailed, some have been forced to flee to other countries, and they are all being threatened to take their children into state custody. This is deplorable and unacceptable for any free nation to persecute Christian families who are providing an excellent education for their children. We ask you to stop prosecuting these families like the Maisches, the Pletts, the Bauers, the Rudolphs, and the many others. Homeschooling needs to be legalized in Germany."This message can be put in your own words, along with a story or information about the success of your own homeschool.The German Embassy can be contacted at:Wolfgang IschingerAmbassadorGerman Embassy4645 Reservoir Road NWWashington, DC, 20007-1998(202) 298-4000The embassy can be e-mailed from its website: http://www.globescope.biz/germany/reg/index.cfm 2. If you want to support homeschoolers in other countries--and causes such as Schulunterricht zu Hause in Germany--you can make a donation to the Home School Foundation's international fund. For more information visit http://www.homeschoolfoundation.org/ .3. Please pray fervently for these poor families facing incredible pressure and fear.We cannot give up. Our brothers and sisters in Germany need us and have their back against the wall.BACKGROUNDHomeschooling in Germany has been illegal in Germany for a long time. In fact, according to some newspaper accounts it has been illegal since Hitler banned it in 1938. Five years ago we helped establish Schulunterricht zu Hause as a way for Germans to receive some legal defense. However, even though the determined lawyers defending the families have worked for free and many attempts have been made to battle to make it legal, homeschooling is still outlawed.We have had tremendous success in many countries in the past to influence their parliaments to legalize homeschooling and even release people from jail. When Americans and homeschoolers in other countries have contacted the German Embassy, officials there have communicated the thousands of calls back to their national government and it makes a difference, even in policy considerations.We have been successful in help legalizing homeschooling in South Africa and Romania and in stopping bad legislation that would destroy homeschool freedoms in Ireland, Australia, Czech Republic, and other countries.Thank you and God bless you for your willingness to make a difference. Sincerely, Christopher J. KlickaHSLDA Senior Counsel
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:The German government is persecuting homeschoolers like never before. Armin Eckermann, president of Schulunterricht zu Hause (School Instruction at Home--SIH), the homeschool legal defense association of Germany, states that there are over 40 homeschool families in court in Germany!The families are being heavily fined; the parents are being jailed; the children are being threatened with being seized and placed in the custody of the state; and families are being forced to flee to Austria and other surrounding countries.Here are a few current and frightening situations:1) The Rudolph family: They are diligently homeschooling their six children in Hamburg. The father, Andre, was jailed for a week for refusing to send his children to public school. Like many of the homeschool families in Germany, they are evangelicals. What is even more surprising about Andre Rudolph being put in jail for homeschooling is that he has a degree in teaching! He and his wife have been fined 840 euros ($1,090) for homeschooling. After Andre's jail time the authorities tried a new weapon and began to forcibly take the children to public school each day. Their plan was take custody of these six children and make them wards of the state. One day, however, the authorities came to take the children to school, but no one answered the door. The Rudolphs fled to another country in order to homeschool their children according to God's ways.2) The Plett family: If you recall, last year we asked you to pray and contact the embassy about the seven Baptist homeschool families of Paderborn. One of the families, the Pletts, have continued to homeschool their 12 children. Last week, a female plainclothes police officer rang at the Platt's house. When the mother opened the door, other police officers who were hiding in the bushes forced their way in. The mother was able to inform her husband by cell phone before the police took her to jail. The husband then fled to Austria with the children. She was given a 10-day prison sentence and is facing heavy fines and more jail time.Of the seven Paderborn homeschool families from last year, two have fled to Austria and five have enrolled in a Christian school in Heidelburg. They all still have pending cases against them.3) Three homeschool families from Saxony have been taken to court and convicted. One was fined 3,000 euros, one 6,000 euros, and another 10,000 euros.4) The Bauer family: This family in Hesse are American missionaries for the last 15 years. They were prosecuted about five years ago and have exhausted their appeals and have sought review by the Human Rights European Court that covers all of Europe.There are now eight cases pending before the European Court, most of which the SIH organization has brought, along with Ronald Richert, a renown Constitutional law attorney who has handled some of the SIH members' cases. The problem with the European Court, is that it all cases are discretionary: there is no right of appeal. If the Court decides not to rule on them, the case will not be heard. Another problem is the Court has no particular deadline of when they have to decide to take the case or not, so some of these cases have been sitting for three to four years, with no resolution in sight.5) The Herrmann family: This family from Baden-Wurttemberg was facing prosecution for homeschooling their twins who have many medical problems. They have been forced into hiding and are seeking asylum in the United States and other countries. The Maisch family, also from Baden-Wurtemberg, has been convicted of homeschooling. For the past three weeks they have faced increasing fines.Schulunterricht zu Hause (SIH), the legal association that HSLDA helped establish, is being worn out with defending all these families in court. They have approximately 150 members in their association that are all homeschool families, many of whom are underground, and almost 40 in court.Appeals have been exhausted time and time again, and money is running out. The German homeschool families are pleading for your help.Will you take a moment and contact the German Embassy?ACTION REQUESTED1. Please contact the German Embassy and give them this message:"German governments need to make homeschooling legal. Over 40 families are being prosecuted in Germany merely for teaching their children at home. These families have been given huge fines, some parents have been jailed, some have been forced to flee to other countries, and they are all being threatened to take their children into state custody. This is deplorable and unacceptable for any free nation to persecute Christian families who are providing an excellent education for their children. We ask you to stop prosecuting these families like the Maisches, the Pletts, the Bauers, the Rudolphs, and the many others. Homeschooling needs to be legalized in Germany."This message can be put in your own words, along with a story or information about the success of your own homeschool.The German Embassy can be contacted at:Wolfgang IschingerAmbassadorGerman Embassy4645 Reservoir Road NWWashington, DC, 20007-1998(202) 298-4000The embassy can be e-mailed from its website: http://www.globescope.biz/germany/reg/index.cfm 2. If you want to support homeschoolers in other countries--and causes such as Schulunterricht zu Hause in Germany--you can make a donation to the Home School Foundation's international fund. For more information visit http://www.homeschoolfoundation.org/ .3. Please pray fervently for these poor families facing incredible pressure and fear.We cannot give up. Our brothers and sisters in Germany need us and have their back against the wall.BACKGROUNDHomeschooling in Germany has been illegal in Germany for a long time. In fact, according to some newspaper accounts it has been illegal since Hitler banned it in 1938. Five years ago we helped establish Schulunterricht zu Hause as a way for Germans to receive some legal defense. However, even though the determined lawyers defending the families have worked for free and many attempts have been made to battle to make it legal, homeschooling is still outlawed.We have had tremendous success in many countries in the past to influence their parliaments to legalize homeschooling and even release people from jail. When Americans and homeschoolers in other countries have contacted the German Embassy, officials there have communicated the thousands of calls back to their national government and it makes a difference, even in policy considerations.We have been successful in help legalizing homeschooling in South Africa and Romania and in stopping bad legislation that would destroy homeschool freedoms in Ireland, Australia, Czech Republic, and other countries.Thank you and God bless you for your willingness to make a difference. Sincerely, Christopher J. KlickaHSLDA Senior Counsel
Friday, September 22, 2006
North America confab Undermines Democracy
THE NEW WORLD DISORDERNorth America confab 'undermines' democracyAttendee of high-level meeting says officials wanted to hide it from public
Posted: September 21, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Mel HurtigA closed-door meeting of high-level government and business leaders that discussed the merger of North America was designed to subvert the democratic process, charged an attendee of the confab in Banff, Canada.
Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided WND the agenda and attendee list of the North American Forum at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14.
Hurtig said the "secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process."
"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye."
As WND reported yesterday, the meeting was closed to the press, and the documents obtained by WND were marked "Internal Document, Not for Public Release."
The motive for U.S. participation, according to Hurtig, was "to gain access and control Canada's extensive natural resources, including oil and water."
As for Canada, he said, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives "wants to make sure that the 150 Canadian top companies who are their members who gain access to the American market and to American capital."
The office of Thomas d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, confirmed d'Aquino attend the Banff meeting.
(Story continues below)
The North American Forum consists of the three individuals who co-chaired the Banff meeting: George Schultz, former secretary of state under President Reagan; Canadian Peter Lougheed, the former Alberta premier and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta; and Mexico's Pedro Aspe, the former secretary of the Treasury of Mexico.
The North American Forum has no business office and no business address. Attendees at the Banff meeting contributed funds to cover the organizational expenses. Attendees, including government officials, were responsible for their own travel, lodging and per diem expenses.
A spokesman for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said the Council of Canadians, which he characterized as a "far left group," was the first to obtain and begin circulating the meeting's agenda and attendee list.
Meera Karunananthan, spokeswoman for the Council of Canadians confirmed to WND the group was responsible for obtaining and releasing the meeting agenda and attendee list. She took exception with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, preferring to characterize her organization as "a citizens' advocacy group."
Karunananthan said the Council of Canadians released the North American Forum information because it questions the "privacy of a meeting that involves senior ministers of our government meeting with senior government officials in the United States and Mexico."
"The Canadian public has not been adequately informed about the on-going North American integration process, and we believe it is wrong for a meeting that involves top North American business executives and government officials to be held in secret behind closed doors," she said.
Jean-Yzes LeFort, also a spokesman for the Council of Canadians, told WND the group opposes the effort to create a North American Union because "the NAU represents an elite corporate agenda and to us what is being planned would be an unacceptable loss of sovereignty."
Attending the Banff meeting was Robert Pastor, the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. Pastor is widely known for his extensive writings arguing for the creation of a North American Union, a new super-regional North American government based on the model of the European Union, with the intent of subrogating the sovereignty of the United States.
Pastor was co-chair of the Council of Foreign Relations task force that in May 2005 released a report entitled "Building a North American Community."
About one-third of the listed members of CFR task force attended the Banff conference. One prominent participant in both was Carla A. Hills, who served as U.S. trade representative from 1989 to 1993 and was the primary U.S. negotiator for NAFTA.
On the second day of the conference, a session entitled "A Vision for North America: Issues & Options" was moderated by Thomas A. Shannon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Canada's largest trade and industry association, also confirmed to WND he attended the Banff North American Forum meeting. Beatty described the meeting as "an opportunity for a small group of people from our three North American countries to get together informally and discuss issues of common interest."
When asked why the meeting was closed to the press, Beatty responded the meeting was not a "decision forum" but a "discussion forum."
Beatty claimed Pastor's views were not universally shared by all attendees.
"My interest in attending the meeting was economic," he told WND. "How do we insure we keep pace with the explosion in competition in the North American industry? It's absolutely critical to the economic growth of our three countries that we stay competitive and successful."
Among the U.S. government participants listed was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, though WND was told he did not attend. Also listed were U.S. Department of Defense Lt. General Gene Renuart, USAF Senior Military Assistant to Secretary Rumsfeld, and Major Gen. Mark A. Volcheff, director of Plans, Policy, and Strategy for NORAD-NORTHCAM.
In what is apparently intended to be an annual event, the first North American Forum meeting was held last September in Sonoma, Calif., and a meeting for next September is to be held in Mexico.
Posted: September 21, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Mel HurtigA closed-door meeting of high-level government and business leaders that discussed the merger of North America was designed to subvert the democratic process, charged an attendee of the confab in Banff, Canada.
Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided WND the agenda and attendee list of the North American Forum at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14.
Hurtig said the "secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process."
"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye."
As WND reported yesterday, the meeting was closed to the press, and the documents obtained by WND were marked "Internal Document, Not for Public Release."
The motive for U.S. participation, according to Hurtig, was "to gain access and control Canada's extensive natural resources, including oil and water."
As for Canada, he said, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives "wants to make sure that the 150 Canadian top companies who are their members who gain access to the American market and to American capital."
The office of Thomas d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, confirmed d'Aquino attend the Banff meeting.
(Story continues below)
The North American Forum consists of the three individuals who co-chaired the Banff meeting: George Schultz, former secretary of state under President Reagan; Canadian Peter Lougheed, the former Alberta premier and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta; and Mexico's Pedro Aspe, the former secretary of the Treasury of Mexico.
The North American Forum has no business office and no business address. Attendees at the Banff meeting contributed funds to cover the organizational expenses. Attendees, including government officials, were responsible for their own travel, lodging and per diem expenses.
A spokesman for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said the Council of Canadians, which he characterized as a "far left group," was the first to obtain and begin circulating the meeting's agenda and attendee list.
Meera Karunananthan, spokeswoman for the Council of Canadians confirmed to WND the group was responsible for obtaining and releasing the meeting agenda and attendee list. She took exception with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, preferring to characterize her organization as "a citizens' advocacy group."
Karunananthan said the Council of Canadians released the North American Forum information because it questions the "privacy of a meeting that involves senior ministers of our government meeting with senior government officials in the United States and Mexico."
"The Canadian public has not been adequately informed about the on-going North American integration process, and we believe it is wrong for a meeting that involves top North American business executives and government officials to be held in secret behind closed doors," she said.
Jean-Yzes LeFort, also a spokesman for the Council of Canadians, told WND the group opposes the effort to create a North American Union because "the NAU represents an elite corporate agenda and to us what is being planned would be an unacceptable loss of sovereignty."
Attending the Banff meeting was Robert Pastor, the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. Pastor is widely known for his extensive writings arguing for the creation of a North American Union, a new super-regional North American government based on the model of the European Union, with the intent of subrogating the sovereignty of the United States.
Pastor was co-chair of the Council of Foreign Relations task force that in May 2005 released a report entitled "Building a North American Community."
About one-third of the listed members of CFR task force attended the Banff conference. One prominent participant in both was Carla A. Hills, who served as U.S. trade representative from 1989 to 1993 and was the primary U.S. negotiator for NAFTA.
On the second day of the conference, a session entitled "A Vision for North America: Issues & Options" was moderated by Thomas A. Shannon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Canada's largest trade and industry association, also confirmed to WND he attended the Banff North American Forum meeting. Beatty described the meeting as "an opportunity for a small group of people from our three North American countries to get together informally and discuss issues of common interest."
When asked why the meeting was closed to the press, Beatty responded the meeting was not a "decision forum" but a "discussion forum."
Beatty claimed Pastor's views were not universally shared by all attendees.
"My interest in attending the meeting was economic," he told WND. "How do we insure we keep pace with the explosion in competition in the North American industry? It's absolutely critical to the economic growth of our three countries that we stay competitive and successful."
Among the U.S. government participants listed was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, though WND was told he did not attend. Also listed were U.S. Department of Defense Lt. General Gene Renuart, USAF Senior Military Assistant to Secretary Rumsfeld, and Major Gen. Mark A. Volcheff, director of Plans, Policy, and Strategy for NORAD-NORTHCAM.
In what is apparently intended to be an annual event, the first North American Forum meeting was held last September in Sonoma, Calif., and a meeting for next September is to be held in Mexico.
Bush Admin Continues Funding Arab States
by Chuck Baldwin
As America remembers the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Bush administration continues to fund various Arab states with billions of U.S. tax dollars.
First, it needs to be noted that it was the U.S. government that years ago provided Iran with the Tehran Research Reactor and the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility-fuel that could still be used to help produce nuclear arms. Yes, Martha, you heard right. It was the U.S. government that supplied Iran with a major nuclear facility-the same facility that President Bush now insists must be destroyed.
Yet, it appears that government leaders learn nothing from the past.
Just recently, the Bush administration announced plans to sell $4.6 billion worth of arms to several Arab states including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Military equipment listed for transfer to the Muslim states include UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter gunships, AH-64 Apache helicopters, M113A1 armored personnel carriers, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and modernized MA1 Abrams tanks outfitted with such things as air-conditioning and infrared sights for commanders and gunners.
Even more paradoxical is the fact that the Bush administration recently offered citizens of Saudi Arabia scholarships to study aviation in the United States. Can you believe this?
On June 20, 2006, World Net Daily reported, "According to the Saudi publication Arab News, majors related to the airline transport industry are eligible, including communications, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, systems analysis, air traffic control and flight safety.
"Some of the 9-11 hijackers are known to have been trained at aviation schools in the U.S.
"The new program arose from an agreement in April by President Bush and then-Crown Prince Abdullah aimed at improving relations between the two nations."
Improving relations? How in the world could relations be any cozier? How many invitations have Saudi leaders been given to Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch? How many times have we seen Bush and Saudi sheiks strolling hand in hand down Lover's Lane? Give me a break!
The fact is, relations between Saudi mega-corporations, Saudi king-pins (including Osama Bin Laden) and the Bush dynasty are well researched. As an example, just Google Bush and the Carlyle Group, and see what pops up. Try it!
One would think that after decades of meddling with other nations' internal affairs, decades of propping up two-bit despots only to later have to send American soldiers to fight and die trying to depose the same people, and decades of sending billions and billions of hard earned tax dollars all over the world, the American people would have had enough! Apparently not, because our government still does it and the American people continue to put up with it.
So, while the U.S. government continues to send billions of dollars in foreign aid all over the planet to people and nations that, for the most part, hate our guts and do everything they can to make our lives miserable, our veterans have to fight like junk-yard dogs just to get the medical care they deserve and were promised.
I'm not a proponent of expecting the federal government to fund every local and state project, program, or even emergency, but think what billions of dollars marked for foreign aid could do right here in the good old U.S. of A. Better yet, think what could happen if the federal government simply got out of our wallets and off our backs altogether!
So, the next time you hear President Bush talk about the Twin Towers, national security, and the war on terrorism, remember those billion-dollar sales to Arab states in the Middle East and keep telling yourself it all makes sense.
© Chuck Baldwin
As America remembers the attacks on the Twin Towers, the Bush administration continues to fund various Arab states with billions of U.S. tax dollars.
First, it needs to be noted that it was the U.S. government that years ago provided Iran with the Tehran Research Reactor and the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility-fuel that could still be used to help produce nuclear arms. Yes, Martha, you heard right. It was the U.S. government that supplied Iran with a major nuclear facility-the same facility that President Bush now insists must be destroyed.
Yet, it appears that government leaders learn nothing from the past.
Just recently, the Bush administration announced plans to sell $4.6 billion worth of arms to several Arab states including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Military equipment listed for transfer to the Muslim states include UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter gunships, AH-64 Apache helicopters, M113A1 armored personnel carriers, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and modernized MA1 Abrams tanks outfitted with such things as air-conditioning and infrared sights for commanders and gunners.
Even more paradoxical is the fact that the Bush administration recently offered citizens of Saudi Arabia scholarships to study aviation in the United States. Can you believe this?
On June 20, 2006, World Net Daily reported, "According to the Saudi publication Arab News, majors related to the airline transport industry are eligible, including communications, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, systems analysis, air traffic control and flight safety.
"Some of the 9-11 hijackers are known to have been trained at aviation schools in the U.S.
"The new program arose from an agreement in April by President Bush and then-Crown Prince Abdullah aimed at improving relations between the two nations."
Improving relations? How in the world could relations be any cozier? How many invitations have Saudi leaders been given to Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch? How many times have we seen Bush and Saudi sheiks strolling hand in hand down Lover's Lane? Give me a break!
The fact is, relations between Saudi mega-corporations, Saudi king-pins (including Osama Bin Laden) and the Bush dynasty are well researched. As an example, just Google Bush and the Carlyle Group, and see what pops up. Try it!
One would think that after decades of meddling with other nations' internal affairs, decades of propping up two-bit despots only to later have to send American soldiers to fight and die trying to depose the same people, and decades of sending billions and billions of hard earned tax dollars all over the world, the American people would have had enough! Apparently not, because our government still does it and the American people continue to put up with it.
So, while the U.S. government continues to send billions of dollars in foreign aid all over the planet to people and nations that, for the most part, hate our guts and do everything they can to make our lives miserable, our veterans have to fight like junk-yard dogs just to get the medical care they deserve and were promised.
I'm not a proponent of expecting the federal government to fund every local and state project, program, or even emergency, but think what billions of dollars marked for foreign aid could do right here in the good old U.S. of A. Better yet, think what could happen if the federal government simply got out of our wallets and off our backs altogether!
So, the next time you hear President Bush talk about the Twin Towers, national security, and the war on terrorism, remember those billion-dollar sales to Arab states in the Middle East and keep telling yourself it all makes sense.
© Chuck Baldwin
China Tests Another new ICBM
NewsMax
Clearly, 2006 will be known as the "summer of missiles." China recently joined North Korea and Hezbollah in the parade of ballistic bombers by shooting off a newly developed Dong Feng 31 (DF-31).
According to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass, China carried out a test launch of a Dong Feng-31 intercontinental ballistic missile. "The Chinese side had notified the Russian Defence Ministry in advance about the upcoming launching of the intercontinental missile," noted Russian military sources cited by Itar-Tass.
"The Dong Feng-31 missile was fired from the Wuzhai launch site towards the Taklimakan desert at about midnight on Monday," stated a Russian ministry official.
According to Russian sources, the test warhead flew approximately 1,500 miles to a predetermined target site in China. The Russian space control facilities reportedly tracked the missile launch and full flight path to impact.
The test firing confirmed the capability of the DF-31 for the Chinese Second Artillery, the People's Liberation Army unit that operates all long-range missile forces. The new Chinese nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile is now considered to be in service.
The DF-31 is capable of reaching the U.S., delivering either a single three-megaton H-bomb or three 90-kiloton nuclear warheads with precision accuracy on U.S. targets. The primary targets in America are the West Coast cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.
Russian and Western sources expect an improved longer-range DF-31A missile to be fielded in 2007. Both missiles are road-mobile systems and are moved on large multi-wheeled vehicles to prepared firing points.
Not-So-Civilian Satellite
In addition to the new DF-31, China shot its latest communications satellite into orbit, demonstrating that a robust and well-coordinated space program is under way. However, the Chinese space program is not peaceful.
The Zhongxing-22A – ChinaSat 22A – satellite was sent into space aboard a Long March 3A rocket from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in northwest China. The communications satellite successfully entered orbit 25 minutes after the launch.
Western mainstream media covered the launch of ChinaSat 22A as if it were some commercial operation. The news media reports echoed the official Chinese communist outlet Xinhua, stating that the satellite was designed by the Chinese Academy of Space Technology and owned by a company under the state-owned China Telecommunications Satellite Group Company (ChinaSat).
Yet ChinaSat 22A is not a commercial satellite. Although the reports claim that the satellite belongs to ChinaSat, the satellite is in fact controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and will be used exclusively for military communications.
The military designation of ChinaSat 22A is FengHuo-1A or Beacon Fire, a method used by the Great Wall of China in ancient times to communicate.
The FH-1A was sent into orbit to replace the FH-1, China's first dedicated military communications satellite, which was launched in 2000. The FH-1A is designed to support the PLA's command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system. The FH-1A satellite is a pure military communication spacecraft designed to improve the PLA's tactical-level control of aircraft, missiles and warships.
ChinaSat has a long history of acquiring U.S. space technology. ChinaSat purchased two satellites from Hughes during the 1990s, one of which crashed upon liftoff from a Chinese army rocket base.
ChinaSat and Clinton
ChinaSat also contributed to the Chinagate scandal involving the Clinton White House and PLA money being siphoned into Democrat campaign donations. In February 1998, Clinton provided a "national interest" waiver allowing the launch of a U.S.-manufactured commercial communications satellite on a PRC (People's Republic of China, communist China) rocket. This waiver applied to the ChinaSat 8 satellite manufactured by Space Systems/Loral (Loral).
The ChinaSat 8 satellite waiver became a political hot potato after the New York Times reported that President Clinton had approved the "national interest" determination, or waiver, despite an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation into Loral's alleged earlier unauthorized transfer of missile guidance technology to the PRC.
The fact that the chairman of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., Bernard L. Schwartz, was the largest individual donor to the Democratic Party in 1997 also did not help.
Despite long legal battles and lots of name calling, the State Department eventually overrode Clinton's waiver and denied the export of ChinaSat 8.
Loral also later pleaded no contest to a long list of U.S. national security violations, including the unauthorized transfer of missile guidance technology to the Chinese army.
A January 1998 draft of a National Security Council memorandum for President Clinton warned that signing the waiver for ChinaSat might not be in the U.S. national interest. The memo included a reference to an ongoing review of the Chinese transfers to Iran of C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles. Despite the warnings, Clinton elected to ignore the C-802 transfers to Iran and he approved the waiver for Loral.
The world has come full circle since Clinton's waiver. The Chinese C-802 missiles sold to Iran were passed on to Hezbollah. Hezbollah, in turn, used its Chinese C-802 missiles to sink a Cambodian freighter and damage an Israeli warship off the Lebanese coast.
Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz is still donating gobs of money to the DNC and related liberal 527 organizations. Despite leading Loral into and out of bankruptcy, Schwartz has managed to donate over a half-million dollars during this election cycle.
The advanced satellite technology passed by Clinton's waivers from Loral and Hughes now orbits the Earth in the form of the FH-1A, a Chinese military communications satellite.
The missile technology passed by Loral and Hughes to the Chinese army has matured into a nuclear-tipped monster called the DF-31, which can waste whole American cities in a blinding flash of nuclear hell.
The summer of missiles is almost over, but the results of years of abuse during the 1990s remain with us well into the 21st century.
Clearly, 2006 will be known as the "summer of missiles." China recently joined North Korea and Hezbollah in the parade of ballistic bombers by shooting off a newly developed Dong Feng 31 (DF-31).
According to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass, China carried out a test launch of a Dong Feng-31 intercontinental ballistic missile. "The Chinese side had notified the Russian Defence Ministry in advance about the upcoming launching of the intercontinental missile," noted Russian military sources cited by Itar-Tass.
"The Dong Feng-31 missile was fired from the Wuzhai launch site towards the Taklimakan desert at about midnight on Monday," stated a Russian ministry official.
According to Russian sources, the test warhead flew approximately 1,500 miles to a predetermined target site in China. The Russian space control facilities reportedly tracked the missile launch and full flight path to impact.
The test firing confirmed the capability of the DF-31 for the Chinese Second Artillery, the People's Liberation Army unit that operates all long-range missile forces. The new Chinese nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile is now considered to be in service.
The DF-31 is capable of reaching the U.S., delivering either a single three-megaton H-bomb or three 90-kiloton nuclear warheads with precision accuracy on U.S. targets. The primary targets in America are the West Coast cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.
Russian and Western sources expect an improved longer-range DF-31A missile to be fielded in 2007. Both missiles are road-mobile systems and are moved on large multi-wheeled vehicles to prepared firing points.
Not-So-Civilian Satellite
In addition to the new DF-31, China shot its latest communications satellite into orbit, demonstrating that a robust and well-coordinated space program is under way. However, the Chinese space program is not peaceful.
The Zhongxing-22A – ChinaSat 22A – satellite was sent into space aboard a Long March 3A rocket from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in northwest China. The communications satellite successfully entered orbit 25 minutes after the launch.
Western mainstream media covered the launch of ChinaSat 22A as if it were some commercial operation. The news media reports echoed the official Chinese communist outlet Xinhua, stating that the satellite was designed by the Chinese Academy of Space Technology and owned by a company under the state-owned China Telecommunications Satellite Group Company (ChinaSat).
Yet ChinaSat 22A is not a commercial satellite. Although the reports claim that the satellite belongs to ChinaSat, the satellite is in fact controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and will be used exclusively for military communications.
The military designation of ChinaSat 22A is FengHuo-1A or Beacon Fire, a method used by the Great Wall of China in ancient times to communicate.
The FH-1A was sent into orbit to replace the FH-1, China's first dedicated military communications satellite, which was launched in 2000. The FH-1A is designed to support the PLA's command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system. The FH-1A satellite is a pure military communication spacecraft designed to improve the PLA's tactical-level control of aircraft, missiles and warships.
ChinaSat has a long history of acquiring U.S. space technology. ChinaSat purchased two satellites from Hughes during the 1990s, one of which crashed upon liftoff from a Chinese army rocket base.
ChinaSat and Clinton
ChinaSat also contributed to the Chinagate scandal involving the Clinton White House and PLA money being siphoned into Democrat campaign donations. In February 1998, Clinton provided a "national interest" waiver allowing the launch of a U.S.-manufactured commercial communications satellite on a PRC (People's Republic of China, communist China) rocket. This waiver applied to the ChinaSat 8 satellite manufactured by Space Systems/Loral (Loral).
The ChinaSat 8 satellite waiver became a political hot potato after the New York Times reported that President Clinton had approved the "national interest" determination, or waiver, despite an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation into Loral's alleged earlier unauthorized transfer of missile guidance technology to the PRC.
The fact that the chairman of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., Bernard L. Schwartz, was the largest individual donor to the Democratic Party in 1997 also did not help.
Despite long legal battles and lots of name calling, the State Department eventually overrode Clinton's waiver and denied the export of ChinaSat 8.
Loral also later pleaded no contest to a long list of U.S. national security violations, including the unauthorized transfer of missile guidance technology to the Chinese army.
A January 1998 draft of a National Security Council memorandum for President Clinton warned that signing the waiver for ChinaSat might not be in the U.S. national interest. The memo included a reference to an ongoing review of the Chinese transfers to Iran of C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles. Despite the warnings, Clinton elected to ignore the C-802 transfers to Iran and he approved the waiver for Loral.
The world has come full circle since Clinton's waiver. The Chinese C-802 missiles sold to Iran were passed on to Hezbollah. Hezbollah, in turn, used its Chinese C-802 missiles to sink a Cambodian freighter and damage an Israeli warship off the Lebanese coast.
Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz is still donating gobs of money to the DNC and related liberal 527 organizations. Despite leading Loral into and out of bankruptcy, Schwartz has managed to donate over a half-million dollars during this election cycle.
The advanced satellite technology passed by Clinton's waivers from Loral and Hughes now orbits the Earth in the form of the FH-1A, a Chinese military communications satellite.
The missile technology passed by Loral and Hughes to the Chinese army has matured into a nuclear-tipped monster called the DF-31, which can waste whole American cities in a blinding flash of nuclear hell.
The summer of missiles is almost over, but the results of years of abuse during the 1990s remain with us well into the 21st century.
Monday, September 18, 2006
IRS investigating liberal Calif. church
Yahoo! News
The Internal Revenue Service' name Internal Revenue Service has ordered a prominent liberal church to turn over documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year that contain references to political candidates.
The IRS is investigating whether All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena violated the federal tax code when its former rector, Rev. George F. Regas, delivered an anti-war sermon on the eve of the last presidential election.
Tax-exempt organizations are barred from intervening in political campaigns and elections, and the church could lose its tax-exempt status.
Rev. Ed Bacon received a summons Thursday ordering the church to present any politically charged sermons, newsletters and electronic communications by Sept 29.
Bacon was ordered to testify before IRS officials Oct. 11. He said he will inform his roughly 3,500 congregants about the investigation at Sunday's services, and will seek their advice on whether to comply.
"There is a lot at stake here," Bacon said. "If the IRS prevails, it will have a chilling effect on the practice of religion in America."
An IRS spokesperson declined comment on the investigation.
In a sermon two days before the 2004 election, Regas did not urge parishioners to support
President Bush' name President Bush or challenger
John Kerry' name John Kerry but was critical of the
Iraq' name Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, Bacon said in an interview last November when the investigation was announced.
"He explicitly said, 'I am not telling you how to vote.' That is the golden boundary we did not cross," he said.
All Saints has a long history of social activism, dating back to World War II, when its rector spoke out against the internment of Japanese Americans. Regas, who headed the church for 28 years before retiring in 1995, was well-known for opposing the Vietnam War, championing female clergy and supporting gays and lesbians in the church.
The IRS has revoked a church's charitable designation at least once. A church in Binghamton, N.Y., lost its status after running advertisements against
Bill Clinton's candidacy before the 1992 presidential election.
The Internal Revenue Service' name Internal Revenue Service has ordered a prominent liberal church to turn over documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year that contain references to political candidates.
The IRS is investigating whether All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena violated the federal tax code when its former rector, Rev. George F. Regas, delivered an anti-war sermon on the eve of the last presidential election.
Tax-exempt organizations are barred from intervening in political campaigns and elections, and the church could lose its tax-exempt status.
Rev. Ed Bacon received a summons Thursday ordering the church to present any politically charged sermons, newsletters and electronic communications by Sept 29.
Bacon was ordered to testify before IRS officials Oct. 11. He said he will inform his roughly 3,500 congregants about the investigation at Sunday's services, and will seek their advice on whether to comply.
"There is a lot at stake here," Bacon said. "If the IRS prevails, it will have a chilling effect on the practice of religion in America."
An IRS spokesperson declined comment on the investigation.
In a sermon two days before the 2004 election, Regas did not urge parishioners to support
President Bush' name President Bush or challenger
John Kerry' name John Kerry but was critical of the
Iraq' name Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, Bacon said in an interview last November when the investigation was announced.
"He explicitly said, 'I am not telling you how to vote.' That is the golden boundary we did not cross," he said.
All Saints has a long history of social activism, dating back to World War II, when its rector spoke out against the internment of Japanese Americans. Regas, who headed the church for 28 years before retiring in 1995, was well-known for opposing the Vietnam War, championing female clergy and supporting gays and lesbians in the church.
The IRS has revoked a church's charitable designation at least once. A church in Binghamton, N.Y., lost its status after running advertisements against
Bill Clinton's candidacy before the 1992 presidential election.
Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How
By Rajiv ChandrasekaranWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, September 17, 2006; A01
Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006
After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.
The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.
The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.
Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.
"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."
Endowed with $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds and a comparatively quiescent environment in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, the CPA was the U.S. government's first and best hope to resuscitate Iraq -- to establish order, promote rebuilding and assemble a viable government, all of which, experts believe, would have constricted the insurgency and mitigated the chances of civil war. Many of the basic tasks Americans struggle to accomplish today in Iraq -- training the army, vetting the police, increasing electricity generation -- could have been performed far more effectively in 2003 by the CPA.
But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.
By the time Bremer departed in June 2004, Iraq was in a precarious state. The Iraqi army, which had been dissolved and refashioned by the CPA, was one-third the size he had pledged it would be. Seventy percent of police officers had not been screened or trained. Electricity generation was far below what Bremer had promised to achieve. And Iraq's interim government had been selected not by elections but by Americans. Divisive issues were to be resolved later on, increasing the chances that tension over those matters would fuel civil strife.
To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.
Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.
O'Beirne, a former Army officer who is married to prominent conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne, did not respond to requests for comment.
He and his staff used an obscure provision in federal law to hire many CPA staffers as temporary political appointees, which exempted the interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs.
There were a few Democrats who wound up getting jobs with the CPA, but almost all of them were active-duty soldiers or State Department Foreign Service officers. Because they were career government employees, not temporary hires, O'Beirne's office could not query them directly about their political leanings.
One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."
As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. In addition to military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.
"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."
When Gordon Robison, who worked in the Strategic Communications office, opened a care package from his mother to find a book by Paul Krugman, a liberal New York Times columnist, people around him stared. "It was like I had just unwrapped a radioactive brick," he recalled.Finance Background Not Required
Twenty-four-year-old Jay Hallen was restless. He had graduated from Yale two years earlier, and he didn't much like his job at a commercial real-estate firm. His passion was the Middle East, and although he had never been there, he was intrigued enough to take Arabic classes and read histories of the region in his spare time.
He had mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, but he viewed the American occupation as a ripe opportunity. In the summer of 2003, he sent an e-mail to Reuben Jeffrey III, whom he had met when applying for a White House job a year earlier. Hallen had a simple query for Jeffrey, who was working as an adviser to Bremer: Might there be any job openings in Baghdad?
"Be careful what you wish for," Jeffrey wrote in response. Then he forwarded Hallen's resume to O'Beirne's office.
Three weeks later, Hallen got a call from the Pentagon. The CPA wanted him in Baghdad. Pronto. Could he be ready in three to four weeks?
The day he arrived in Baghdad, he met with Thomas C. Foley, the CPA official in charge of privatizing state-owned enterprises. (Foley, a major Republican Party donor, went to Harvard Business School with President Bush.) Hallen was shocked to learn that Foley wanted him to take charge of reopening the stock exchange.
"Are you sure?" Hallen said to Foley. "I don't have a finance background."
It's fine, Foley replied. He told Hallen that he was to be the project manager. He would rely on other people to get things done. He would be "the main point of contact."
Before the war, Baghdad's stock exchange looked nothing like its counterparts elsewhere in the world. There were no computers, electronic displays or men in colorful coats scurrying around on the trading floor. Trades were scrawled on pieces of paper and noted on large blackboards. If you wanted to buy or sell, you came to the exchange yourself and shouted your order to one of the traders. There was no air-conditioning. It was loud and boisterous. But it worked. Private firms raised hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling stock, and ordinary people learned about free enterprise.
The exchange was gutted by looters after the war. The first wave of American economic reconstruction specialists from the Treasury Department ignored it. They had bigger issues to worry about: paying salaries, reopening the banks, stabilizing the currency. But the brokers wanted to get back to work and investors wanted their money, so the CPA made the reopening a priority.
Quickly absorbing the CPA's ambition during the optimistic days before the insurgency flared, Hallen decided that he didn't just want to reopen the exchange, he wanted to make it the best, most modern stock market in the Arab world. He wanted to promulgate a new securities law that would make the exchange independent of the Finance Ministry, with its own bylaws and board of directors. He wanted to set up a securities and exchange commission to oversee the market. He wanted brokers to be licensed and listed companies to provide financial disclosures. He wanted to install a computerized trading and settlement system.
Iraqis cringed at Hallen's plan. Their top priority was reopening the exchange, not setting up computers or enacting a new securities law. "People are broke and bewildered," broker Talib Tabatabai told Hallen. "Why do you want to create enemies? Let us open the way we were."
Tabatabai, who held a doctorate in political science from Florida State University, believed Hallen's plan was unrealistic. "It was something so fancy, so great, that it couldn't be accomplished," he said.
But Hallen was convinced that major changes had to be enacted. "Their laws and regulations were completely out of step with the modern world," he said. "There was just no transparency in anything. It was more of a place for Saddam and his friends to buy up private companies that they otherwise didn't have a stake in."
Opening the stock exchange without legal and structural changes, Hallen maintained, "would have been irresponsible and short-sighted."
To help rewrite the securities law, train brokers and purchase the necessary computers, Hallen recruited a team of American volunteers. In the spring of 2004, Bremer approved the new law and simultaneously appointed the nine Iraqis selected by Hallen to become the exchange's board of governors.
The exchange's board selected Tabatabai as its chairman. The new securities law that Hallen had nursed into life gave the board control over the exchange's operations, but it didn't say a thing about the role of the CPA adviser. Hallen assumed that he'd have a part in decision-making until the handover of sovereignty. Tabatabai and the board, however, saw themselves in charge.
Tabatabai and the other governors decided to open the market as soon as possible. They didn't want to wait several more months for the computerized trading system to be up and running. They ordered dozens of dry-erase boards to be installed on the trading floor. They used such boards to keep track of buying and selling prices before the war, and that's how they'd do it again.
The exchange opened two days after Hallen's tour in Iraq ended. Brokers barked orders to floor traders, who used their trusty white boards. Transactions were recorded not with computers but with small chits written in ink. CPA staffers stayed away, afraid that their presence would make the stock market a target for insurgents.
When Tabatabai was asked what would have happened if Hallen hadn't been assigned to reopen the exchange, he smiled. "We would have opened months earlier. He had grand ideas, but those ideas did not materialize," Tabatabai said of Hallen. "Those CPA people reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia."'Loyalist' Replaces Public Health Expert
The hiring of Bremer's most senior advisers was settled upon at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon. Some, like Foley, were personally recruited by Bush. Others got their jobs because an influential Republican made a call on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague.
That's what happened with James K. Haveman Jr., who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system.
Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.
Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.
Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.
He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."
But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president.
Haveman arrived in Iraq with his own priorities. He liked to talk about the number of hospitals that had reopened since the war and the pay raises that had been given to doctors instead of the still-decrepit conditions inside the hospitals or the fact that many physicians were leaving for safer, better paying jobs outside Iraq. He approached problems the way a health care administrator in America would: He focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment.
He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies.
Haveman didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the Health Ministry's $793 million share of U.S. reconstruction funds to renovating maternity hospitals and building new community medical clinics. His intention, he said, was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital."
But his decision meant there were no reconstruction funds set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theaters at Iraqi hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were the country's single largest public health challenge.
Haveman also wanted to apply American medicine to other parts of the Health Ministry. Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.
To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.
Haveman figured the same strategy could bring down the cost of medicine in Iraq. The country had 4,500 items on its drug formulary. Haveman deemed it too large. If private firms were going to bid for the job of supplying drugs to government hospitals, they needed a smaller, more manageable list. A new formulary would also outline new requirements about where approved drugs could be manufactured, forcing Iraq to stop buying medicines from Syria, Iran and Russia, and start buying from the United States.
He asked the people who had drawn up the formulary in Michigan whether they wanted to come to Baghdad. They declined. So he beseeched the Pentagon for help. His request made its way to the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center in San Antonio.
A few weeks later, three formulary experts were on their way to Iraq.
The group was led by Theodore Briski, a balding, middle-aged pharmacist who held the rank of lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. Haveman's order, as Briski remembered it, was: "Build us a formulary in two weeks and then go home." By his second day in Iraq, Briski came to three conclusions. First, the existing formulary "really wasn't that bad." Second, his mission was really about "redesigning the entire Iraqi pharmaceutical procurement and delivery system, and that was a complete change of scope -- on a grand scale." Third, Haveman and his advisers "really didn't know what they were doing."
Haveman "viewed Iraq as Michigan after a huge attack," said George Guszcza, an Army captain who worked on the CPA's health team. "Somehow if you went into the ghettos and projects of Michigan and just extended it out for the entire state -- that's what he was coming to save."
Haveman's critics, including more than a dozen people who worked for him in Baghdad, contend that rewriting the formulary was a distraction. Instead, they said, the CPA should have focused on restructuring, but not privatizing, the drug-delivery system and on ordering more emergency shipments of medicine to address shortages of essential medicines. The first emergency procurement did not occur until early 2004, after the Americans had been in Iraq for more than eight months.
Haveman insisted that revising the formulary was a crucial first step in improving the distribution of medicines. "It was unwieldy to order 4,500 different drugs, and to test and distribute them," he said.
When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived. At Yarmouk Hospital, the city's largest, rooms lacked the most basic equipment to monitor a patient's blood pressure and heart rate, operating theaters were without modern surgical tools and sterile implements, and the pharmacy's shelves were bare.
Nationwide, the Health Ministry reported that 40 percent of the 900 drugs it deemed essential were out of stock in hospitals. Of the 32 medicines used in public clinics for the management of chronic diseases, 26 were unavailable.
The new health minister, Aladin Alwan, beseeched the United Nations for help, and he asked neighboring nations to share what they could. He sought to increase production at a state-run manufacturing plant in the city of Samarra. And he put the creation of a new formulary on hold. To him, it was a fool's errand.
"We didn't need a new formulary. We needed drugs," he said. "But the Americans did not understand that."A 9/11 Hero's Public Relations Blitz
In May 2003, a team of law enforcement experts from the Justice Department concluded that more than 6,600 foreign advisers were needed to help rehabilitate Iraq's police forces.
The White House dispatched just one: Bernie Kerik.
Bernard Kerik had more star power than Bremer and everyone else in the CPA combined. Soldiers stopped him in the halls of the Republican Palace to ask for his autograph or, if they had a camera, a picture. Reporters were more interested in interviewing him than they were the viceroy.
Kerik had been New York City's police commissioner when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. His courage (he shouted evacuation orders from a block away as the south tower collapsed), his stamina (he worked around the clock and catnapped in his office for weeks), and his charisma (he was a master of the television interview) turned him into a national hero. When White House officials were casting about for a prominent individual to take charge of Iraq's Interior Ministry and assume the challenge of rebuilding the Iraqi police, Kerik's name came up. Bush pronounced it an excellent idea.
Kerik had worked in the Middle East before, as the security director for a government hospital in Saudi Arabia, but he was expelled from the country amid a government investigation into his surveillance of the medical staff. He lacked postwar policing experience, but the White House viewed that as an asset.
Veteran Middle East hands were regarded as insufficiently committed to the goal of democratizing the region. Post-conflict experts, many of whom worked for the State Department, the United Nations or nongovernmental organizations, were deemed too liberal. Men such as Kerik -- committed Republicans with an accomplished career in business or government -- were ideal. They were loyal, and they shared the Bush administration's goal of rebuilding Iraq in an American image. With Kerik, there were bonuses: The media loved him, and the American public trusted him.
Robert Gifford, a State Department expert in international law enforcement, was one of the first CPA staff members to meet Kerik when he arrived in Baghdad. Gifford was the senior adviser to the Interior Ministry, which oversaw the police. Kerik was to take over Gifford's job.
"I understand you are going to be the man, and we are here to support you," Gifford told Kerik.
"I'm here to bring more media attention to the good work on police because the situation is probably not as bad as people think it is," Kerik replied.
As they entered the Interior Ministry office in the palace, Gifford offered to brief Kerik. "It was during that period I realized he wasn't with me," Gifford recalled. "He didn't listen to anything. He hadn't read anything except his e-mails. I don't think he read a single one of our proposals."
Kerik wasn't a details guy. He was content to let Gifford figure out how to train Iraqi officers to work in a democratic society. Kerik would take care of briefing the viceroy and the media. And he'd be going out for a few missions himself.
Kerik's first order of business, less than a week after he arrived, was to give a slew of interviews saying the situation was improving. He told the Associated Press that security in Baghdad "is not as bad as I thought. Are bad things going on? Yes. But is it out of control? No. Is it getting better? Yes." He went on NBC's "Today" show to pronounce the situation "better than I expected." To Time magazine, he said that "people are starting to feel more confident. They're coming back out. Markets and shops that I saw closed one week ago have opened."
When it came to his own safety, Kerik took no chances. He hired a team of South African bodyguards, and he packed a 9mm handgun under his safari vest.
The first months after liberation were a critical period for Iraq's police. Officers needed to be called back to work and screened for Baath Party connections. They'd have to learn about due process, how to interrogate without torture, how to walk the beat. They required new weapons. New chiefs had to be selected. Tens of thousands more officers would have to be hired to put the genie of anarchy back in the bottle.
Kerik held only two staff meetings while in Iraq, one when he arrived and the other when he was being shadowed by a New York Times reporter, according to Gerald Burke, a former Massachusetts State Police commander who participated in the initial Justice Department assessment mission. Despite his White House connections, Kerik did not secure funding for the desperately needed police advisers. With no help on the way, the task of organizing and training Iraqi officers fell to U.S. military police soldiers, many of whom had no experience in civilian law enforcement.
"He was the wrong guy at the wrong time," Burke said later. "Bernie didn't have the skills. What we needed was a chief executive-level person. . . . Bernie came in with a street-cop mentality."
Kerik authorized the formation of a hundred-man Iraqi police paramilitary unit to pursue criminal syndicates that had formed since the war, and he often joined the group on nighttime raids, departing the Green Zone at midnight and returning at dawn, in time to attend Bremer's senior staff meeting, where he would crack a few jokes, describe the night's adventures and read off the latest crime statistics prepared by an aide. The unit did bust a few kidnapping gangs and car-theft rings, generating a stream of positive news stories that Kerik basked in and Bremer applauded. But the all-nighters meant Kerik wasn't around to supervise the Interior Ministry during the day. He was sleeping.
Several members of the CPA's Interior Ministry team wanted to blow the whistle on Kerik, but they concluded any complaints would be brushed off. "Bremer's staff thought he was the silver bullet," a member of the Justice Department assessment mission said. "Nobody wanted to question the [man who was] police chief during 9/11."
Kerik contended that he did his best in what was, ultimately, an untenable situation. He said he wasn't given sufficient funding to hire foreign police advisers or establish large-scale training programs.
Three months after he arrived, Kerik attended a meeting of local police chiefs in Baghdad's Convention Center. When it was his turn to address the group, he stood and bid everyone farewell. Although he had informed Bremer of his decision a few days earlier, Kerik hadn't told most of the people who worked for him. He flew out of Iraq a few hours later.
"I was in my own world," he said later. "I did my own thing."
Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006
After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.
The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.
The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.
Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.
"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."
Endowed with $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds and a comparatively quiescent environment in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, the CPA was the U.S. government's first and best hope to resuscitate Iraq -- to establish order, promote rebuilding and assemble a viable government, all of which, experts believe, would have constricted the insurgency and mitigated the chances of civil war. Many of the basic tasks Americans struggle to accomplish today in Iraq -- training the army, vetting the police, increasing electricity generation -- could have been performed far more effectively in 2003 by the CPA.
But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.
By the time Bremer departed in June 2004, Iraq was in a precarious state. The Iraqi army, which had been dissolved and refashioned by the CPA, was one-third the size he had pledged it would be. Seventy percent of police officers had not been screened or trained. Electricity generation was far below what Bremer had promised to achieve. And Iraq's interim government had been selected not by elections but by Americans. Divisive issues were to be resolved later on, increasing the chances that tension over those matters would fuel civil strife.
To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.
Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.
O'Beirne, a former Army officer who is married to prominent conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne, did not respond to requests for comment.
He and his staff used an obscure provision in federal law to hire many CPA staffers as temporary political appointees, which exempted the interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs.
There were a few Democrats who wound up getting jobs with the CPA, but almost all of them were active-duty soldiers or State Department Foreign Service officers. Because they were career government employees, not temporary hires, O'Beirne's office could not query them directly about their political leanings.
One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."
As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. In addition to military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.
"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."
When Gordon Robison, who worked in the Strategic Communications office, opened a care package from his mother to find a book by Paul Krugman, a liberal New York Times columnist, people around him stared. "It was like I had just unwrapped a radioactive brick," he recalled.Finance Background Not Required
Twenty-four-year-old Jay Hallen was restless. He had graduated from Yale two years earlier, and he didn't much like his job at a commercial real-estate firm. His passion was the Middle East, and although he had never been there, he was intrigued enough to take Arabic classes and read histories of the region in his spare time.
He had mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, but he viewed the American occupation as a ripe opportunity. In the summer of 2003, he sent an e-mail to Reuben Jeffrey III, whom he had met when applying for a White House job a year earlier. Hallen had a simple query for Jeffrey, who was working as an adviser to Bremer: Might there be any job openings in Baghdad?
"Be careful what you wish for," Jeffrey wrote in response. Then he forwarded Hallen's resume to O'Beirne's office.
Three weeks later, Hallen got a call from the Pentagon. The CPA wanted him in Baghdad. Pronto. Could he be ready in three to four weeks?
The day he arrived in Baghdad, he met with Thomas C. Foley, the CPA official in charge of privatizing state-owned enterprises. (Foley, a major Republican Party donor, went to Harvard Business School with President Bush.) Hallen was shocked to learn that Foley wanted him to take charge of reopening the stock exchange.
"Are you sure?" Hallen said to Foley. "I don't have a finance background."
It's fine, Foley replied. He told Hallen that he was to be the project manager. He would rely on other people to get things done. He would be "the main point of contact."
Before the war, Baghdad's stock exchange looked nothing like its counterparts elsewhere in the world. There were no computers, electronic displays or men in colorful coats scurrying around on the trading floor. Trades were scrawled on pieces of paper and noted on large blackboards. If you wanted to buy or sell, you came to the exchange yourself and shouted your order to one of the traders. There was no air-conditioning. It was loud and boisterous. But it worked. Private firms raised hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling stock, and ordinary people learned about free enterprise.
The exchange was gutted by looters after the war. The first wave of American economic reconstruction specialists from the Treasury Department ignored it. They had bigger issues to worry about: paying salaries, reopening the banks, stabilizing the currency. But the brokers wanted to get back to work and investors wanted their money, so the CPA made the reopening a priority.
Quickly absorbing the CPA's ambition during the optimistic days before the insurgency flared, Hallen decided that he didn't just want to reopen the exchange, he wanted to make it the best, most modern stock market in the Arab world. He wanted to promulgate a new securities law that would make the exchange independent of the Finance Ministry, with its own bylaws and board of directors. He wanted to set up a securities and exchange commission to oversee the market. He wanted brokers to be licensed and listed companies to provide financial disclosures. He wanted to install a computerized trading and settlement system.
Iraqis cringed at Hallen's plan. Their top priority was reopening the exchange, not setting up computers or enacting a new securities law. "People are broke and bewildered," broker Talib Tabatabai told Hallen. "Why do you want to create enemies? Let us open the way we were."
Tabatabai, who held a doctorate in political science from Florida State University, believed Hallen's plan was unrealistic. "It was something so fancy, so great, that it couldn't be accomplished," he said.
But Hallen was convinced that major changes had to be enacted. "Their laws and regulations were completely out of step with the modern world," he said. "There was just no transparency in anything. It was more of a place for Saddam and his friends to buy up private companies that they otherwise didn't have a stake in."
Opening the stock exchange without legal and structural changes, Hallen maintained, "would have been irresponsible and short-sighted."
To help rewrite the securities law, train brokers and purchase the necessary computers, Hallen recruited a team of American volunteers. In the spring of 2004, Bremer approved the new law and simultaneously appointed the nine Iraqis selected by Hallen to become the exchange's board of governors.
The exchange's board selected Tabatabai as its chairman. The new securities law that Hallen had nursed into life gave the board control over the exchange's operations, but it didn't say a thing about the role of the CPA adviser. Hallen assumed that he'd have a part in decision-making until the handover of sovereignty. Tabatabai and the board, however, saw themselves in charge.
Tabatabai and the other governors decided to open the market as soon as possible. They didn't want to wait several more months for the computerized trading system to be up and running. They ordered dozens of dry-erase boards to be installed on the trading floor. They used such boards to keep track of buying and selling prices before the war, and that's how they'd do it again.
The exchange opened two days after Hallen's tour in Iraq ended. Brokers barked orders to floor traders, who used their trusty white boards. Transactions were recorded not with computers but with small chits written in ink. CPA staffers stayed away, afraid that their presence would make the stock market a target for insurgents.
When Tabatabai was asked what would have happened if Hallen hadn't been assigned to reopen the exchange, he smiled. "We would have opened months earlier. He had grand ideas, but those ideas did not materialize," Tabatabai said of Hallen. "Those CPA people reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia."'Loyalist' Replaces Public Health Expert
The hiring of Bremer's most senior advisers was settled upon at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon. Some, like Foley, were personally recruited by Bush. Others got their jobs because an influential Republican made a call on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague.
That's what happened with James K. Haveman Jr., who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system.
Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.
Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.
Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.
He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."
But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president.
Haveman arrived in Iraq with his own priorities. He liked to talk about the number of hospitals that had reopened since the war and the pay raises that had been given to doctors instead of the still-decrepit conditions inside the hospitals or the fact that many physicians were leaving for safer, better paying jobs outside Iraq. He approached problems the way a health care administrator in America would: He focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment.
He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies.
Haveman didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the Health Ministry's $793 million share of U.S. reconstruction funds to renovating maternity hospitals and building new community medical clinics. His intention, he said, was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital."
But his decision meant there were no reconstruction funds set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theaters at Iraqi hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were the country's single largest public health challenge.
Haveman also wanted to apply American medicine to other parts of the Health Ministry. Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.
To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.
Haveman figured the same strategy could bring down the cost of medicine in Iraq. The country had 4,500 items on its drug formulary. Haveman deemed it too large. If private firms were going to bid for the job of supplying drugs to government hospitals, they needed a smaller, more manageable list. A new formulary would also outline new requirements about where approved drugs could be manufactured, forcing Iraq to stop buying medicines from Syria, Iran and Russia, and start buying from the United States.
He asked the people who had drawn up the formulary in Michigan whether they wanted to come to Baghdad. They declined. So he beseeched the Pentagon for help. His request made its way to the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center in San Antonio.
A few weeks later, three formulary experts were on their way to Iraq.
The group was led by Theodore Briski, a balding, middle-aged pharmacist who held the rank of lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. Haveman's order, as Briski remembered it, was: "Build us a formulary in two weeks and then go home." By his second day in Iraq, Briski came to three conclusions. First, the existing formulary "really wasn't that bad." Second, his mission was really about "redesigning the entire Iraqi pharmaceutical procurement and delivery system, and that was a complete change of scope -- on a grand scale." Third, Haveman and his advisers "really didn't know what they were doing."
Haveman "viewed Iraq as Michigan after a huge attack," said George Guszcza, an Army captain who worked on the CPA's health team. "Somehow if you went into the ghettos and projects of Michigan and just extended it out for the entire state -- that's what he was coming to save."
Haveman's critics, including more than a dozen people who worked for him in Baghdad, contend that rewriting the formulary was a distraction. Instead, they said, the CPA should have focused on restructuring, but not privatizing, the drug-delivery system and on ordering more emergency shipments of medicine to address shortages of essential medicines. The first emergency procurement did not occur until early 2004, after the Americans had been in Iraq for more than eight months.
Haveman insisted that revising the formulary was a crucial first step in improving the distribution of medicines. "It was unwieldy to order 4,500 different drugs, and to test and distribute them," he said.
When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived. At Yarmouk Hospital, the city's largest, rooms lacked the most basic equipment to monitor a patient's blood pressure and heart rate, operating theaters were without modern surgical tools and sterile implements, and the pharmacy's shelves were bare.
Nationwide, the Health Ministry reported that 40 percent of the 900 drugs it deemed essential were out of stock in hospitals. Of the 32 medicines used in public clinics for the management of chronic diseases, 26 were unavailable.
The new health minister, Aladin Alwan, beseeched the United Nations for help, and he asked neighboring nations to share what they could. He sought to increase production at a state-run manufacturing plant in the city of Samarra. And he put the creation of a new formulary on hold. To him, it was a fool's errand.
"We didn't need a new formulary. We needed drugs," he said. "But the Americans did not understand that."A 9/11 Hero's Public Relations Blitz
In May 2003, a team of law enforcement experts from the Justice Department concluded that more than 6,600 foreign advisers were needed to help rehabilitate Iraq's police forces.
The White House dispatched just one: Bernie Kerik.
Bernard Kerik had more star power than Bremer and everyone else in the CPA combined. Soldiers stopped him in the halls of the Republican Palace to ask for his autograph or, if they had a camera, a picture. Reporters were more interested in interviewing him than they were the viceroy.
Kerik had been New York City's police commissioner when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. His courage (he shouted evacuation orders from a block away as the south tower collapsed), his stamina (he worked around the clock and catnapped in his office for weeks), and his charisma (he was a master of the television interview) turned him into a national hero. When White House officials were casting about for a prominent individual to take charge of Iraq's Interior Ministry and assume the challenge of rebuilding the Iraqi police, Kerik's name came up. Bush pronounced it an excellent idea.
Kerik had worked in the Middle East before, as the security director for a government hospital in Saudi Arabia, but he was expelled from the country amid a government investigation into his surveillance of the medical staff. He lacked postwar policing experience, but the White House viewed that as an asset.
Veteran Middle East hands were regarded as insufficiently committed to the goal of democratizing the region. Post-conflict experts, many of whom worked for the State Department, the United Nations or nongovernmental organizations, were deemed too liberal. Men such as Kerik -- committed Republicans with an accomplished career in business or government -- were ideal. They were loyal, and they shared the Bush administration's goal of rebuilding Iraq in an American image. With Kerik, there were bonuses: The media loved him, and the American public trusted him.
Robert Gifford, a State Department expert in international law enforcement, was one of the first CPA staff members to meet Kerik when he arrived in Baghdad. Gifford was the senior adviser to the Interior Ministry, which oversaw the police. Kerik was to take over Gifford's job.
"I understand you are going to be the man, and we are here to support you," Gifford told Kerik.
"I'm here to bring more media attention to the good work on police because the situation is probably not as bad as people think it is," Kerik replied.
As they entered the Interior Ministry office in the palace, Gifford offered to brief Kerik. "It was during that period I realized he wasn't with me," Gifford recalled. "He didn't listen to anything. He hadn't read anything except his e-mails. I don't think he read a single one of our proposals."
Kerik wasn't a details guy. He was content to let Gifford figure out how to train Iraqi officers to work in a democratic society. Kerik would take care of briefing the viceroy and the media. And he'd be going out for a few missions himself.
Kerik's first order of business, less than a week after he arrived, was to give a slew of interviews saying the situation was improving. He told the Associated Press that security in Baghdad "is not as bad as I thought. Are bad things going on? Yes. But is it out of control? No. Is it getting better? Yes." He went on NBC's "Today" show to pronounce the situation "better than I expected." To Time magazine, he said that "people are starting to feel more confident. They're coming back out. Markets and shops that I saw closed one week ago have opened."
When it came to his own safety, Kerik took no chances. He hired a team of South African bodyguards, and he packed a 9mm handgun under his safari vest.
The first months after liberation were a critical period for Iraq's police. Officers needed to be called back to work and screened for Baath Party connections. They'd have to learn about due process, how to interrogate without torture, how to walk the beat. They required new weapons. New chiefs had to be selected. Tens of thousands more officers would have to be hired to put the genie of anarchy back in the bottle.
Kerik held only two staff meetings while in Iraq, one when he arrived and the other when he was being shadowed by a New York Times reporter, according to Gerald Burke, a former Massachusetts State Police commander who participated in the initial Justice Department assessment mission. Despite his White House connections, Kerik did not secure funding for the desperately needed police advisers. With no help on the way, the task of organizing and training Iraqi officers fell to U.S. military police soldiers, many of whom had no experience in civilian law enforcement.
"He was the wrong guy at the wrong time," Burke said later. "Bernie didn't have the skills. What we needed was a chief executive-level person. . . . Bernie came in with a street-cop mentality."
Kerik authorized the formation of a hundred-man Iraqi police paramilitary unit to pursue criminal syndicates that had formed since the war, and he often joined the group on nighttime raids, departing the Green Zone at midnight and returning at dawn, in time to attend Bremer's senior staff meeting, where he would crack a few jokes, describe the night's adventures and read off the latest crime statistics prepared by an aide. The unit did bust a few kidnapping gangs and car-theft rings, generating a stream of positive news stories that Kerik basked in and Bremer applauded. But the all-nighters meant Kerik wasn't around to supervise the Interior Ministry during the day. He was sleeping.
Several members of the CPA's Interior Ministry team wanted to blow the whistle on Kerik, but they concluded any complaints would be brushed off. "Bremer's staff thought he was the silver bullet," a member of the Justice Department assessment mission said. "Nobody wanted to question the [man who was] police chief during 9/11."
Kerik contended that he did his best in what was, ultimately, an untenable situation. He said he wasn't given sufficient funding to hire foreign police advisers or establish large-scale training programs.
Three months after he arrived, Kerik attended a meeting of local police chiefs in Baghdad's Convention Center. When it was his turn to address the group, he stood and bid everyone farewell. Although he had informed Bremer of his decision a few days earlier, Kerik hadn't told most of the people who worked for him. He flew out of Iraq a few hours later.
"I was in my own world," he said later. "I did my own thing."
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Kissinger warns of possible "war of civilizations"
Yahoo! News
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that Europe and the United States must unite to head off a "war of civilizations" arising from a nuclear-armed Middle East.
In an opinion column in the Washington Post, the renowned foreign policy expert said the potential for a "global catastrophe" dwarfed lingering transatlantic mistrust left over from the
Iraq war.
"A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one," Kissinger wrote.
"The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces.
"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East."
Kissinger wrote that the big threat lay in the erosion of nation states and the emergence of transnational groups.
Iran was at the centre of the challenge, he said, with its support for Hezbollah, radical Shiite groups in Iraq and its nuclear program.
Washington must accept that many European nations were more optimistic about talks designed to convince Iran to halt uranium enrichment -- a process Tehran denies is aimed at making weapons, he wrote.
But in return, he said, Europe should accept the process must include a "bottom line" beyond which diplomatic flexibility must not go and a time limit to ensure talks did not become a shield for "developing new assaults."
In the article, Kissinger, national security adviser for former president
Richard Nixon, and secretary of state for Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, warned the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah was still dangerous, after its month-long conflict with Israel.
"Hezbollah's next move is likely to be an attempt to dominate the Beirut government by intimidation and, using the prestige gained in the war, manipulating democratic procedures," he said.
He concluded by noting that observers wondered whether, after the Cold War, trans-Atlantic ties could survive the loss of a common enemy.
"We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that realization sufficient to regenerate a common purpose?"
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that Europe and the United States must unite to head off a "war of civilizations" arising from a nuclear-armed Middle East.
In an opinion column in the Washington Post, the renowned foreign policy expert said the potential for a "global catastrophe" dwarfed lingering transatlantic mistrust left over from the
Iraq war.
"A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one," Kissinger wrote.
"The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces.
"Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East."
Kissinger wrote that the big threat lay in the erosion of nation states and the emergence of transnational groups.
Iran was at the centre of the challenge, he said, with its support for Hezbollah, radical Shiite groups in Iraq and its nuclear program.
Washington must accept that many European nations were more optimistic about talks designed to convince Iran to halt uranium enrichment -- a process Tehran denies is aimed at making weapons, he wrote.
But in return, he said, Europe should accept the process must include a "bottom line" beyond which diplomatic flexibility must not go and a time limit to ensure talks did not become a shield for "developing new assaults."
In the article, Kissinger, national security adviser for former president
Richard Nixon, and secretary of state for Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, warned the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah was still dangerous, after its month-long conflict with Israel.
"Hezbollah's next move is likely to be an attempt to dominate the Beirut government by intimidation and, using the prestige gained in the war, manipulating democratic procedures," he said.
He concluded by noting that observers wondered whether, after the Cold War, trans-Atlantic ties could survive the loss of a common enemy.
"We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that realization sufficient to regenerate a common purpose?"
The farce that is Constitution Day
by Walter Williams
Each year since 2004, on Sept. 17, we commemorate the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 American statesmen. The legislation creating Constitution Day was fathered by Sen. Robert Byrd and requires federal agencies and federally funded schools, including universities, to have some kind of educational program on the Constitution.
I cannot think of a piece of legislation that makes greater mockery of the Constitution, or a more constitutionally odious person to father it – Sen. Byrd, a person who is known as, and proudly wears the label, "King of Pork." The only reason Constitution Day hasn't become a laughingstock is because most Americans are totally ignorant of, or have contempt for, the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
Let's examine just a few statements by the framers to see just how much faith and allegiance today's Americans give to the U.S. Constitution. James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison said disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
(Column continues below)
Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam.
James Madison's vision was later expressed by Rep. William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."
Some presidents had similar constitutional respect. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Constitutionally ignorant people might argue that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause justifies today's actions by Congress. Here's what James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Thomas Jefferson echoed, in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined ... [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?
Each year since 2004, on Sept. 17, we commemorate the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 American statesmen. The legislation creating Constitution Day was fathered by Sen. Robert Byrd and requires federal agencies and federally funded schools, including universities, to have some kind of educational program on the Constitution.
I cannot think of a piece of legislation that makes greater mockery of the Constitution, or a more constitutionally odious person to father it – Sen. Byrd, a person who is known as, and proudly wears the label, "King of Pork." The only reason Constitution Day hasn't become a laughingstock is because most Americans are totally ignorant of, or have contempt for, the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
Let's examine just a few statements by the framers to see just how much faith and allegiance today's Americans give to the U.S. Constitution. James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison said disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
(Column continues below)
Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam.
James Madison's vision was later expressed by Rep. William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."
Some presidents had similar constitutional respect. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Constitutionally ignorant people might argue that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause justifies today's actions by Congress. Here's what James Madison said: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." Thomas Jefferson echoed, in a letter to Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined ... [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Law of Opposites
by Rep. Ron Paul
Everyone is aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Most members of Congress understand that government actions can have unintended consequences, yet few quit voting for government "solutions" – always hoping there won't be any particular unintended consequences this time. They keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the "solution" that they currently support. Economics teaches that for every government action to solve an economic problem, others are created. The same unwanted results occur with foreign policy meddling.
The Law of Opposites is just a variation of the Law of Unintended Consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal – like, "make the world safe for democracy," a grandiose scheme of World War I – one can be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the motivation.
The 1st World War was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars. Instead, history shows it was the war that caused the 20th century to be the most war-torn century in history. Our entry into World War I helped lead us into World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Even our current crisis in the Middle East can be traced to the great wars of the 20th century. Though tens of millions of deaths are associated with these wars, we haven't learned a thing.
We went into Korea by direction of the United Nations, not a congressional declaration of war, to unify Korea. And yet that war ensured that Korea remains divided to this day; our troops are still there. South Korea today is much more willing to reconcile differences with North Korea, and yet we obstruct such efforts. It doesn't make much sense.
We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in a civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a unified, western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others.
This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot – and they certainly are less costly.
In both instances – Korea and Vietnam – neither country attacked us, and neither country posed a threat to our security. In neither case did we declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies, miscalculations, and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint with regards to war.
When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use of force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy require that taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people, either directly or indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only increases the chances of antagonism toward us. Too often foreign economic and military support means impoverishing the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it squelches resistance to the very regimes we're trying to undermine. Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power, and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China, and even in the Eastern Bloc nations of the old Soviet empire.
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.
Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.
Bankruptcy seems to be the only way we will reconsider the foolishness of this type of occupation. It's time for us to wake up.
Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast oil riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel's desires.
We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions, and are in the process of threatening her for the third time. In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted over 25 years, and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shi'ite Clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover.
In the 1980s we provided weapons – including poisonous gas – to Saddam Hussein as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten by the Iranians, who see us once again looking for another confrontation with them. We insist that the UN ignore the guarantees under the NPT that grant countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the UN and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than prevent it.
Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted instead in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us.
Though our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran's political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003. Both immediately after 9/11, and especially at the time of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran, partially out of fear and realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in its battle against al-Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Now Iran is negotiating from a much stronger position, principally as a result of our overall Middle East policy.
We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan on Iran's eastern borders. On Iran's western borders we helped the Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shi'ites in Iraq ally themselves with Iranians.
The U.S./Israeli plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on Iran militarily has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has been made stronger than ever with the military failure to rout Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Before the U.S./Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was supported by 20% of the population, now it's revered by 80%. A democratic election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interest of the U.S. or Israel. It would only support the cause of radical clerics in Iran.
Demanding an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the power of Hamas. The U.S. And Israel promptly rejected the results. So much for our support for democratically elected government.
Our support for dictatorial Arab leaders is a thorn in the side of the large Muslim population in the Middle East, and one of the main reasons Osama bin Laden declared war against us. We talk of democracy and self-determination, but the masses of people in the Middle East see through our hypocrisy when we support the Sunni secular dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan and at one time, Saddam Hussein.
In the late 1970s and the 1980s the CIA spent over $4 billion on a program called "Operation Cyclone." This was our contribution to setting up training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the U.S. itself, to teach "sabotage skills." The purpose was to use these individuals in fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the Soviets. But as one could predict, this effort has come back to haunt us, as our radical ally Osama bin Laden turned his fury against us after routing the Soviets. It is estimated that over 12,000 fighters were trained in the camps we set up in Afghanistan. They were taught how to make bombs, carry out sabotage, and use guerilla war tactics. And now we're on the receiving end of this U.S. financed program – hardly a good investment.
It's difficult to understand why our policy makers aren't more cautious in their efforts to police the world, once it's realized how unsuccessful we have been. It seems they always hope that next time our efforts won't come flying back in our face.
Our failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing us dearly both in lives lost and dollars spent. And there's no end in sight. No consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a worldwide military presence, which rarely if ever directly enhances our security. A much stronger case can be made that our policy of protecting our worldwide interests actually does the opposite by making us weaker, alienating our allies, inciting more hatred, and provoking our enemies. The more we have interfered in the Middle East in the last 50 years, the greater the danger has become for an attack on us. The notion that Arab/Muslim radicals are motivated to attack us because of our freedoms and prosperity, and not our unwelcome presence in their countries, is dangerous and silly.
We were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction – yet no weapons of mass destruction were found.
We were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove al-Qaeda, yet al-Qaeda was nowhere to be found and now it's admitted it had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet today, Iraq is infested with al-Qaeda – achieving exactly the opposite of what we sought to do.
We were told that we needed to secure "our oil" to protect our economy and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has resulted: Oil production is down, oil prices are up, and no oil profits have been used to pay the bills.
We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long-time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served the interests of Iran.
We're being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that, "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous." I'm convinced that the Law of Opposites could well apply here. Going into Iraq we know produced exactly the opposite results of what was predicted: Leaving also likely will have results opposite of those we're being frightened with. Certainly leaving Vietnam at the height of the Cold War did not result in the disaster predicted by the advocates of the Domino Theory – an inevitable Communist takeover of the entire Far East.
We're constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq and we are obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing to the world with a particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two things. One, our preemptive war ignited the Iraqi civil war, and two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not the question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge economic and human costs, while placing our national security in greater jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home.
In our attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to Iraqi Christians. Before our invasion in 2003 there were approximately 1.2 million living in Iraq. Since then over half have been forced to leave due to persecution and violence. Many escaped to Syria. With the neocons wanting to attack Syria, how long will they be safe there? The answer to the question, "Aren't we better off without Saddam Hussein," is not an automatic yes for Iraqi Christians.
We've been told for decades that our policy of militarism and preemption in the Middle East is designed to provide security for Israel. Yet a very strong case can be made that Israel is more vulnerable than ever, with moderate Muslims being challenged by a growing majority of Islamic radicals. As the vincibility of the American and Israeli military becomes common knowledge, Israel's security is diminished and world opinion turns against her, especially after the failed efforts to remove the Hezbollah threat.
We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran.
The lack of success of conventional warfare – the U.S. In Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon – should awaken our policy makers to our failure in war and diplomacy. Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation, rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern warfare.
Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it's inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one's own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.
In attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military, the harder we try, the more money we spend, and the more lives we lose, the stronger the real armies of Iraq become: the Sunni insurgency, the Badr Brigade, the Sadr Mahdi Army, and the Kurdish militia.
The Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by hoisting a Kurdish flag and removing the Iraqi flag – a virtual declaration of independence. Natural local forces are winning out over outside political forces.
We're looking in all the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring stability to that country. The people have spoken and these troops that represent large segments of the population need no training. It's not a lack of training, weapons, or money that hinders our efforts to create a new superior Iraqi military. It's the lack of inspiration and support for such an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the various factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our plan for a forced, unified, western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the artificial nature of Iraq – an Iraq designed by western outsiders nearly 80 years ago. It's our obsession with control of the oil in the region, and imposing our will on the Middle East, and accommodating the demands of Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally getting sick and tired of their sacrifices. It's time to stop the bleeding.
Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more sense than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into accepting an attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be bombs and possible ground troops if the neocons have their way. Many of the chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the administration are highly critical of our current policy because it's not aggressive enough. They want more troops in Iraq, they want to attack Syria and Iran, and escalate the conflict in Lebanon.
We have a troop shortage, morale is low, and our military equipment is in bad shape, yet the neocons would not hesitate to spend, borrow, inflate, and reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in remaking the entire Middle East. Obviously a victory of this sort is not available, no matter what effort is made or how much money is spent.
Logic would tell us there's no way we will contemplate taking on Iran at this time. But logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy, and look at the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the neocon extremists and the radical Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on their side.
Both sides of the war in the Middle East are driven by religious beliefs of omnipotence. Both sides endorse an eschatological theory regarding the forthcoming end of time. Both anticipate the return of God personified and as promised to each. Both sides are driven by a conviction of perfect knowledge regarding the Creator, and though we supposedly worship the same God, each sees the other side as completely wrong and blasphemous. The religiously driven Middle East war condemns tolerance of the other's view. Advocates of restraint and the use of diplomacy are ridiculed as appeasers, and equivalent to supporting Nazism and considered un-American and un-Christian.
I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the detriment of the 1st Amendment. Yet we can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influences our policies in the Middle East. It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according to the 1st Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the federal courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused of anti-Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most realize it's best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement.
Believing we have perfect knowledge of God's will, and believing government can manage our lives and world affairs, have caused a great deal of problems for man over the ages. When these two elements are combined they become especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, removes power from government and allows total freedom of choice in pursuing one's religious beliefs. The only solution to controlling political violence is to prohibit the use of force to pursue religious goals and reject government authority to mold the behavior of individuals.
Both are enamored with the so-called benefit that chaos offers to those promoting revolutionary changes. Both sides in situations like this always underestimate the determination of the opposition, and ignore the law of unintended consequences. They never consider that these policies might backfire.
Declaring war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and meaningless. This enemy we're fighting at the expense of our own liberties is purposely indefinable. Therefore the government will exercise wartime powers indefinitely. We've been fully warned to expect a long, long war.
The Islamic fascists are almost impossible to identify and cannot be targeted by our conventional weapons. Those who threaten us essentially are unarmed and stateless. Comparing them to Nazi Germany, a huge military power, is ridiculous. Labeling them as a unified force is a mistake. It's critical that we figure out why a growing number of Muslims are radicalized to the point of committing suicide terrorism against us. Our presence in their countries represents a failed policy that makes us less safe, not more.
These guerrilla warriors do not threaten us with tanks, gunboats, fighter planes, missiles, or nuclear weapons, nor do they have a history of aggression against the United States. Our enemy's credibility depends instead on the popular goal of ending our occupation of their country.
We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon someday. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons; our friend Musharraf won't lift a finger against bin Laden, who most likely is hiding there. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use, and threaten to use, weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and different enemy.
Since resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home, hopefully it won't be too long before we abandon our grandiose scheme to rule the entire Middle East through intimidation and military confrontation.
Economic law eventually will prevail. Runaway military and entitlement spending cannot be sustained. We can tax the private economy only so much, and borrowing from foreigners is limited by the total foreign debt and our current account deficit. It will be difficult to continue this spending spree without significantly higher interest rates and further devaluation of the dollar. This all spells more trouble for our economy and certainly higher inflation. Our industrial base is shattered and our borders remain open to those who exploit our reeling entitlement system.
Economic realities will prevail, regardless of the enthusiasm by most members of Congress for a continued expansion of the welfare state and support for our dangerously aggressive foreign policy. The welfare/warfare state will come to an end when the dollar fails and the money simply runs out.
The overriding goal should then be to rescue our constitutional liberties, which have been steadily eroded by those who claim that sacrificing civil liberties is required and legitimate in times of war – even the undeclared and vague war we're currently fighting.
A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding of, and greater dedication to, free markets and private property rights. It can't be done without restoring a sound, asset-backed currency. If we hope to restore any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and keeping troops in every corner of the earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.
Everyone is aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Most members of Congress understand that government actions can have unintended consequences, yet few quit voting for government "solutions" – always hoping there won't be any particular unintended consequences this time. They keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the "solution" that they currently support. Economics teaches that for every government action to solve an economic problem, others are created. The same unwanted results occur with foreign policy meddling.
The Law of Opposites is just a variation of the Law of Unintended Consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal – like, "make the world safe for democracy," a grandiose scheme of World War I – one can be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the motivation.
The 1st World War was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars. Instead, history shows it was the war that caused the 20th century to be the most war-torn century in history. Our entry into World War I helped lead us into World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Even our current crisis in the Middle East can be traced to the great wars of the 20th century. Though tens of millions of deaths are associated with these wars, we haven't learned a thing.
We went into Korea by direction of the United Nations, not a congressional declaration of war, to unify Korea. And yet that war ensured that Korea remains divided to this day; our troops are still there. South Korea today is much more willing to reconcile differences with North Korea, and yet we obstruct such efforts. It doesn't make much sense.
We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in a civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a unified, western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others.
This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot – and they certainly are less costly.
In both instances – Korea and Vietnam – neither country attacked us, and neither country posed a threat to our security. In neither case did we declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies, miscalculations, and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint with regards to war.
When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use of force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy require that taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people, either directly or indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only increases the chances of antagonism toward us. Too often foreign economic and military support means impoverishing the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it squelches resistance to the very regimes we're trying to undermine. Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power, and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China, and even in the Eastern Bloc nations of the old Soviet empire.
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.
Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.
Bankruptcy seems to be the only way we will reconsider the foolishness of this type of occupation. It's time for us to wake up.
Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast oil riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel's desires.
We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions, and are in the process of threatening her for the third time. In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted over 25 years, and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shi'ite Clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover.
In the 1980s we provided weapons – including poisonous gas – to Saddam Hussein as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten by the Iranians, who see us once again looking for another confrontation with them. We insist that the UN ignore the guarantees under the NPT that grant countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the UN and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than prevent it.
Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted instead in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us.
Though our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran's political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003. Both immediately after 9/11, and especially at the time of our invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran, partially out of fear and realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in its battle against al-Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Now Iran is negotiating from a much stronger position, principally as a result of our overall Middle East policy.
We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan on Iran's eastern borders. On Iran's western borders we helped the Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shi'ites in Iraq ally themselves with Iranians.
The U.S./Israeli plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on Iran militarily has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has been made stronger than ever with the military failure to rout Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Before the U.S./Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was supported by 20% of the population, now it's revered by 80%. A democratic election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interest of the U.S. or Israel. It would only support the cause of radical clerics in Iran.
Demanding an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the power of Hamas. The U.S. And Israel promptly rejected the results. So much for our support for democratically elected government.
Our support for dictatorial Arab leaders is a thorn in the side of the large Muslim population in the Middle East, and one of the main reasons Osama bin Laden declared war against us. We talk of democracy and self-determination, but the masses of people in the Middle East see through our hypocrisy when we support the Sunni secular dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan and at one time, Saddam Hussein.
In the late 1970s and the 1980s the CIA spent over $4 billion on a program called "Operation Cyclone." This was our contribution to setting up training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the U.S. itself, to teach "sabotage skills." The purpose was to use these individuals in fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the Soviets. But as one could predict, this effort has come back to haunt us, as our radical ally Osama bin Laden turned his fury against us after routing the Soviets. It is estimated that over 12,000 fighters were trained in the camps we set up in Afghanistan. They were taught how to make bombs, carry out sabotage, and use guerilla war tactics. And now we're on the receiving end of this U.S. financed program – hardly a good investment.
It's difficult to understand why our policy makers aren't more cautious in their efforts to police the world, once it's realized how unsuccessful we have been. It seems they always hope that next time our efforts won't come flying back in our face.
Our failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing us dearly both in lives lost and dollars spent. And there's no end in sight. No consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a worldwide military presence, which rarely if ever directly enhances our security. A much stronger case can be made that our policy of protecting our worldwide interests actually does the opposite by making us weaker, alienating our allies, inciting more hatred, and provoking our enemies. The more we have interfered in the Middle East in the last 50 years, the greater the danger has become for an attack on us. The notion that Arab/Muslim radicals are motivated to attack us because of our freedoms and prosperity, and not our unwelcome presence in their countries, is dangerous and silly.
We were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction – yet no weapons of mass destruction were found.
We were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove al-Qaeda, yet al-Qaeda was nowhere to be found and now it's admitted it had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet today, Iraq is infested with al-Qaeda – achieving exactly the opposite of what we sought to do.
We were told that we needed to secure "our oil" to protect our economy and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has resulted: Oil production is down, oil prices are up, and no oil profits have been used to pay the bills.
We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long-time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served the interests of Iran.
We're being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that, "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous." I'm convinced that the Law of Opposites could well apply here. Going into Iraq we know produced exactly the opposite results of what was predicted: Leaving also likely will have results opposite of those we're being frightened with. Certainly leaving Vietnam at the height of the Cold War did not result in the disaster predicted by the advocates of the Domino Theory – an inevitable Communist takeover of the entire Far East.
We're constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq and we are obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing to the world with a particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two things. One, our preemptive war ignited the Iraqi civil war, and two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not the question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge economic and human costs, while placing our national security in greater jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home.
In our attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to Iraqi Christians. Before our invasion in 2003 there were approximately 1.2 million living in Iraq. Since then over half have been forced to leave due to persecution and violence. Many escaped to Syria. With the neocons wanting to attack Syria, how long will they be safe there? The answer to the question, "Aren't we better off without Saddam Hussein," is not an automatic yes for Iraqi Christians.
We've been told for decades that our policy of militarism and preemption in the Middle East is designed to provide security for Israel. Yet a very strong case can be made that Israel is more vulnerable than ever, with moderate Muslims being challenged by a growing majority of Islamic radicals. As the vincibility of the American and Israeli military becomes common knowledge, Israel's security is diminished and world opinion turns against her, especially after the failed efforts to remove the Hezbollah threat.
We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran.
The lack of success of conventional warfare – the U.S. In Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon – should awaken our policy makers to our failure in war and diplomacy. Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation, rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern warfare.
Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it's inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one's own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism, and respect for the Rule of Law.
In attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military, the harder we try, the more money we spend, and the more lives we lose, the stronger the real armies of Iraq become: the Sunni insurgency, the Badr Brigade, the Sadr Mahdi Army, and the Kurdish militia.
The Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by hoisting a Kurdish flag and removing the Iraqi flag – a virtual declaration of independence. Natural local forces are winning out over outside political forces.
We're looking in all the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring stability to that country. The people have spoken and these troops that represent large segments of the population need no training. It's not a lack of training, weapons, or money that hinders our efforts to create a new superior Iraqi military. It's the lack of inspiration and support for such an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the various factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our plan for a forced, unified, western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the artificial nature of Iraq – an Iraq designed by western outsiders nearly 80 years ago. It's our obsession with control of the oil in the region, and imposing our will on the Middle East, and accommodating the demands of Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally getting sick and tired of their sacrifices. It's time to stop the bleeding.
Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more sense than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into accepting an attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be bombs and possible ground troops if the neocons have their way. Many of the chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the administration are highly critical of our current policy because it's not aggressive enough. They want more troops in Iraq, they want to attack Syria and Iran, and escalate the conflict in Lebanon.
We have a troop shortage, morale is low, and our military equipment is in bad shape, yet the neocons would not hesitate to spend, borrow, inflate, and reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in remaking the entire Middle East. Obviously a victory of this sort is not available, no matter what effort is made or how much money is spent.
Logic would tell us there's no way we will contemplate taking on Iran at this time. But logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy, and look at the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the neocon extremists and the radical Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on their side.
Both sides of the war in the Middle East are driven by religious beliefs of omnipotence. Both sides endorse an eschatological theory regarding the forthcoming end of time. Both anticipate the return of God personified and as promised to each. Both sides are driven by a conviction of perfect knowledge regarding the Creator, and though we supposedly worship the same God, each sees the other side as completely wrong and blasphemous. The religiously driven Middle East war condemns tolerance of the other's view. Advocates of restraint and the use of diplomacy are ridiculed as appeasers, and equivalent to supporting Nazism and considered un-American and un-Christian.
I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the detriment of the 1st Amendment. Yet we can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influences our policies in the Middle East. It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according to the 1st Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the federal courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused of anti-Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most realize it's best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement.
Believing we have perfect knowledge of God's will, and believing government can manage our lives and world affairs, have caused a great deal of problems for man over the ages. When these two elements are combined they become especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, removes power from government and allows total freedom of choice in pursuing one's religious beliefs. The only solution to controlling political violence is to prohibit the use of force to pursue religious goals and reject government authority to mold the behavior of individuals.
Both are enamored with the so-called benefit that chaos offers to those promoting revolutionary changes. Both sides in situations like this always underestimate the determination of the opposition, and ignore the law of unintended consequences. They never consider that these policies might backfire.
Declaring war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and meaningless. This enemy we're fighting at the expense of our own liberties is purposely indefinable. Therefore the government will exercise wartime powers indefinitely. We've been fully warned to expect a long, long war.
The Islamic fascists are almost impossible to identify and cannot be targeted by our conventional weapons. Those who threaten us essentially are unarmed and stateless. Comparing them to Nazi Germany, a huge military power, is ridiculous. Labeling them as a unified force is a mistake. It's critical that we figure out why a growing number of Muslims are radicalized to the point of committing suicide terrorism against us. Our presence in their countries represents a failed policy that makes us less safe, not more.
These guerrilla warriors do not threaten us with tanks, gunboats, fighter planes, missiles, or nuclear weapons, nor do they have a history of aggression against the United States. Our enemy's credibility depends instead on the popular goal of ending our occupation of their country.
We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon someday. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons; our friend Musharraf won't lift a finger against bin Laden, who most likely is hiding there. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use, and threaten to use, weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and different enemy.
Since resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home, hopefully it won't be too long before we abandon our grandiose scheme to rule the entire Middle East through intimidation and military confrontation.
Economic law eventually will prevail. Runaway military and entitlement spending cannot be sustained. We can tax the private economy only so much, and borrowing from foreigners is limited by the total foreign debt and our current account deficit. It will be difficult to continue this spending spree without significantly higher interest rates and further devaluation of the dollar. This all spells more trouble for our economy and certainly higher inflation. Our industrial base is shattered and our borders remain open to those who exploit our reeling entitlement system.
Economic realities will prevail, regardless of the enthusiasm by most members of Congress for a continued expansion of the welfare state and support for our dangerously aggressive foreign policy. The welfare/warfare state will come to an end when the dollar fails and the money simply runs out.
The overriding goal should then be to rescue our constitutional liberties, which have been steadily eroded by those who claim that sacrificing civil liberties is required and legitimate in times of war – even the undeclared and vague war we're currently fighting.
A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding of, and greater dedication to, free markets and private property rights. It can't be done without restoring a sound, asset-backed currency. If we hope to restore any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and keeping troops in every corner of the earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Prodi Accused Of Being Former Soviet Agent
at EU Reporter
(Note: Prodi is Prime Minister Elect in Italy, joining another "ex" communist, Giorgio Napolitano who serves in the ceremonial post of President.)
As an Italian Commission is investigating communist activity in Italy during the cold war, former European Commission President Romano Prodi has been accused of being a former KGB agent.The allegations come at a time when Prodi is leading the polls in the Italian elections, where he is running for Prime Minister against main rival, incumbent Premier Silvio Berlusconi.In his one-minute speech during Strasbourg plenary, Gerard Batten (UK, IN/DEM) told how Alexander Litvinenko, a former Lieutenant Colonel in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, and currently living under political asylum in the UK, was informed by FSB deputy chief, General Anatole Trofimov of the high amount of communist activity operating in Italy. With reference to the KGB, Litvinenko was told, “Romano Prodi is our man there”.Another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story.Communist activity is currently under investigation in Italy, where Senator Paolo Guzzanti is leading a parliamentary commission into Soviet infiltration during the cold war. Guzzanti’s investigations have already alleged a joint Soviet-Bulgarian conspiracy behind the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.These new allegations could not be worse timed for Prodi who is currently the frontrunner in the Italian election. The full conclusions of the Guzzanti inquiry are due to be released alter this week.
(Note: Prodi is Prime Minister Elect in Italy, joining another "ex" communist, Giorgio Napolitano who serves in the ceremonial post of President.)
As an Italian Commission is investigating communist activity in Italy during the cold war, former European Commission President Romano Prodi has been accused of being a former KGB agent.The allegations come at a time when Prodi is leading the polls in the Italian elections, where he is running for Prime Minister against main rival, incumbent Premier Silvio Berlusconi.In his one-minute speech during Strasbourg plenary, Gerard Batten (UK, IN/DEM) told how Alexander Litvinenko, a former Lieutenant Colonel in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, and currently living under political asylum in the UK, was informed by FSB deputy chief, General Anatole Trofimov of the high amount of communist activity operating in Italy. With reference to the KGB, Litvinenko was told, “Romano Prodi is our man there”.Another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story.Communist activity is currently under investigation in Italy, where Senator Paolo Guzzanti is leading a parliamentary commission into Soviet infiltration during the cold war. Guzzanti’s investigations have already alleged a joint Soviet-Bulgarian conspiracy behind the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.These new allegations could not be worse timed for Prodi who is currently the frontrunner in the Italian election. The full conclusions of the Guzzanti inquiry are due to be released alter this week.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Missiles From China to Hezbollah
Charles R. SmithMonday, Aug. 28, 2006
The Israeli war against Hezbollah (round one) brought with it the realization at the highest levels that dangerous weapons were floating around in dangerous hands. The successful attacks against a cargo vessel by Hezbollah, using Chinese-made C-802 cruise missiles, raised alarm bells all over the globe.
Immediately after the attack, the first alarm bell rang at CIA headquarters, where an intensified global intelligence operation to track weapons deliveries was started. The CIA began to track Iranian efforts to resupply Hezbollah with more Chinese-made C-802 missiles.
According to reports, the CIA discovered that an Iranian Il-76 cargo plane, loaded with another Chinese-made missile launcher and up to eight C-802 missiles, was being prepared to fly to Syria. The weapons on board were for Hezbollah. Officially, the Iranian cargo plane was carrying medical and other non-military aid to help innocent victims of war inside Lebanon.
A quick phone call to Baghdad convinced Iraqi officials to refuse overflight permission for the Iranian jet. Other nations were also warned about the Iranian ploy. Despite the refusal from Baghdad, the plane took off from Iran and sought overflight permission from Turkey. Turkey agreed, but only if the aircraft landed at a Turkish airbase where it and its cargo would be inspected.
Of course, the cargo jet returned to Iran and unloaded its deadly payload. The Iranian efforts did not go unnoticed, and the alert is out to keep a close watch on further flights and shipments to Lebanon.
Chinese Denials
The original source of the C-802 cruise missiles, China, has also come under fire. China has done little to inhibit Iran from supplying these deadly cruise missiles to Hezbollah.
Despite the confirmed attack using the C-802, a Chinese official stated that regulations made it "impossible" for a missile China sold to Iran to be passed on to Hezbollah.
"According to our regulations, it is impossible to have that kind of situation," stated Sun Bigan, China's special envoy to the Middle East. Yet, when asked if Beijing was investigating the allegation, Sun said, "As far as I know, no."
Israel, long known for its close military relationship with China, should not take the Chinese at their word. Israel has exported weaponry to China in the form of advanced air-to-air missiles, jet fighter technology, air-to-surface missiles and radars, and even wanted to provide an airborne radar control plane to the People's Liberation Army Air Force.
It was only after loud complaints from Washington, D.C., in particular from Virginia Republican Senator John Warner, that Israel decided to halt arms transfers to Beijing.
The C-802 has one damaged warship and one sunk Cambodian freighter to its credit. Clearly, advanced Chinese missile technology is aimed to kill. The additional proof that more missiles were on the way to Hezbollah should be more than enough evidence to make Tel Aviv pause before entering into any more advanced-weapons deals with Beijing.
U.S. Exports to China
The problem of advanced Chinese missiles in Hezbollah hands is also quietly changing the political-election tone here in the U.S. The feeling inside the U.S. government is that strict sanctions and export controls should be instituted to prevent U.S. military technology from falling into the hands of the Chinese.
The politics of missiles have a direct effect on the U.S. aerospace industry. Many of the leading aerospace execs feel that export regulations are already too strict and have cost them export sales of advanced U.S. technology.
For example, the Bush administration recently announced tough new regulations to improve the oversight of advanced-technology sales to China. In response, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) stated that it opposed the new regulations. The National Foreign Trade Council includes major multinational corporations such as Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG.
"We are writing to express our concern over the 'conventional arms catch-all' regulation for China that was proposed on July 6. As representatives of U.S. manufacturers, we support an effective export control system to protect U.S. national security. We also recognize the risks and opportunities that trade with China presents, but we believe this regulation is not clearly integrated into our China policy and will seriously hinder U.S. competitiveness," states a letter issued by the NFTC on Aug. 2, 2006.
"As we have seen with night vision equipment, a unilateral approach inevitably undermines both U.S. competitiveness and security, encouraging other countries to design U.S. technology out of their products," noted the letter.
Clinton Chinagate Scandal
It should come as no surprise that the NFTC is headed by Clinton-era former Under Secretary for Export Administration, William Reinsch. Reinsch claims, in his NFTC bio, that he "administered and enforced the export control policies and anti-boycott laws of the U.S. government and monitored the condition of the nation's defense industrial base."
Reinsch may claim to have "administered and enforced," but his record from the Clinton years shows that little of either was in place at his office. During his term at the Department of Commerce, Reinsch oversaw the greatest military technology transfer to the Chinese army in U.S. history.
The Chinese army managed to obtain, steal, or buy supercomputers for nuclear weapons research, missile warhead guidance systems, missile nose-cone software, radiation-hardened chip technology, encrypted satellite communications, and Synthetic Aperture Radar systems.
The list of advanced military technology that passed through Reinsch on its way to Beijing is too long for this article. It would not surprise me to find that Bill Reinsch has several awards waiting for him if he should ever visit PLA headquarters.
Suffice to say that the NFTC could not have selected a more qualified individual if it is their intent to transfer whatever technology – military or otherwise – to China for hard, cold cash.
I once confronted Reinsch after a congressional hearing on secure communications. During that meeting, he denied that he had anything to do with the export of advanced encryption satellite technology to the Chinese military. At that point, I presented him with copies of documents showing that he was not only a major player; he also authorized the sale of precisely that technology directly to Chinese military-owned companies.
Reinsch turned very pale and literally ran from the room. Since then he has refused to answer any of my questions and failed to return any calls.
Genocide Is Good for Business
The story does not end here. Today, Reinsch opposes a new law on the books in the state of Illinois. The law, which went into effect in January, bars state pension funds from investing in companies and financial institutions whose depositors, borrowers, or other business associates have any dealings in war-torn Sudan.
Responding to the obvious crisis in Sudan, where genocide with Chinese weaponry is a way of life, the NFTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Illinois from specifying where its money should go.
"NFTC supports the efforts of the Bush administration to bring peace to Sudan and to end the brutality that has been occurring in Darfur," stated Reinsch.
"However, state sanctions, like those enacted by the state of Illinois, work at cross purposes with federal policy," noted Reinsch.
It is ironic indeed that other states, including very liberal California, enacted similar laws to keep state pension funds from investing in apartheid South Africa. To my knowledge, Bill Reinsch and the NFTC did not oppose those laws. After all, racial genocide is a crime against humanity by any definition.
For some reason, I don't think the NFTC has thought this lawsuit through – just as hiring Bill Reinsch may have been a big mistake. It does not look good for the council to be linked with supporting racial genocide . . . but the money is certainly good.
The NFTC seems to like to be associated with someone who helped Chinese weapons engineers design, build, and field missiles that sometimes fall into the hands of folks like Hezbollah. Call me old-fashioned, but helping weapons designers in China and providing a free hand to murderous gangs in Sudan doesn't fall under the heading of good business sense.
The Israeli war against Hezbollah (round one) brought with it the realization at the highest levels that dangerous weapons were floating around in dangerous hands. The successful attacks against a cargo vessel by Hezbollah, using Chinese-made C-802 cruise missiles, raised alarm bells all over the globe.
Immediately after the attack, the first alarm bell rang at CIA headquarters, where an intensified global intelligence operation to track weapons deliveries was started. The CIA began to track Iranian efforts to resupply Hezbollah with more Chinese-made C-802 missiles.
According to reports, the CIA discovered that an Iranian Il-76 cargo plane, loaded with another Chinese-made missile launcher and up to eight C-802 missiles, was being prepared to fly to Syria. The weapons on board were for Hezbollah. Officially, the Iranian cargo plane was carrying medical and other non-military aid to help innocent victims of war inside Lebanon.
A quick phone call to Baghdad convinced Iraqi officials to refuse overflight permission for the Iranian jet. Other nations were also warned about the Iranian ploy. Despite the refusal from Baghdad, the plane took off from Iran and sought overflight permission from Turkey. Turkey agreed, but only if the aircraft landed at a Turkish airbase where it and its cargo would be inspected.
Of course, the cargo jet returned to Iran and unloaded its deadly payload. The Iranian efforts did not go unnoticed, and the alert is out to keep a close watch on further flights and shipments to Lebanon.
Chinese Denials
The original source of the C-802 cruise missiles, China, has also come under fire. China has done little to inhibit Iran from supplying these deadly cruise missiles to Hezbollah.
Despite the confirmed attack using the C-802, a Chinese official stated that regulations made it "impossible" for a missile China sold to Iran to be passed on to Hezbollah.
"According to our regulations, it is impossible to have that kind of situation," stated Sun Bigan, China's special envoy to the Middle East. Yet, when asked if Beijing was investigating the allegation, Sun said, "As far as I know, no."
Israel, long known for its close military relationship with China, should not take the Chinese at their word. Israel has exported weaponry to China in the form of advanced air-to-air missiles, jet fighter technology, air-to-surface missiles and radars, and even wanted to provide an airborne radar control plane to the People's Liberation Army Air Force.
It was only after loud complaints from Washington, D.C., in particular from Virginia Republican Senator John Warner, that Israel decided to halt arms transfers to Beijing.
The C-802 has one damaged warship and one sunk Cambodian freighter to its credit. Clearly, advanced Chinese missile technology is aimed to kill. The additional proof that more missiles were on the way to Hezbollah should be more than enough evidence to make Tel Aviv pause before entering into any more advanced-weapons deals with Beijing.
U.S. Exports to China
The problem of advanced Chinese missiles in Hezbollah hands is also quietly changing the political-election tone here in the U.S. The feeling inside the U.S. government is that strict sanctions and export controls should be instituted to prevent U.S. military technology from falling into the hands of the Chinese.
The politics of missiles have a direct effect on the U.S. aerospace industry. Many of the leading aerospace execs feel that export regulations are already too strict and have cost them export sales of advanced U.S. technology.
For example, the Bush administration recently announced tough new regulations to improve the oversight of advanced-technology sales to China. In response, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) stated that it opposed the new regulations. The National Foreign Trade Council includes major multinational corporations such as Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG.
"We are writing to express our concern over the 'conventional arms catch-all' regulation for China that was proposed on July 6. As representatives of U.S. manufacturers, we support an effective export control system to protect U.S. national security. We also recognize the risks and opportunities that trade with China presents, but we believe this regulation is not clearly integrated into our China policy and will seriously hinder U.S. competitiveness," states a letter issued by the NFTC on Aug. 2, 2006.
"As we have seen with night vision equipment, a unilateral approach inevitably undermines both U.S. competitiveness and security, encouraging other countries to design U.S. technology out of their products," noted the letter.
Clinton Chinagate Scandal
It should come as no surprise that the NFTC is headed by Clinton-era former Under Secretary for Export Administration, William Reinsch. Reinsch claims, in his NFTC bio, that he "administered and enforced the export control policies and anti-boycott laws of the U.S. government and monitored the condition of the nation's defense industrial base."
Reinsch may claim to have "administered and enforced," but his record from the Clinton years shows that little of either was in place at his office. During his term at the Department of Commerce, Reinsch oversaw the greatest military technology transfer to the Chinese army in U.S. history.
The Chinese army managed to obtain, steal, or buy supercomputers for nuclear weapons research, missile warhead guidance systems, missile nose-cone software, radiation-hardened chip technology, encrypted satellite communications, and Synthetic Aperture Radar systems.
The list of advanced military technology that passed through Reinsch on its way to Beijing is too long for this article. It would not surprise me to find that Bill Reinsch has several awards waiting for him if he should ever visit PLA headquarters.
Suffice to say that the NFTC could not have selected a more qualified individual if it is their intent to transfer whatever technology – military or otherwise – to China for hard, cold cash.
I once confronted Reinsch after a congressional hearing on secure communications. During that meeting, he denied that he had anything to do with the export of advanced encryption satellite technology to the Chinese military. At that point, I presented him with copies of documents showing that he was not only a major player; he also authorized the sale of precisely that technology directly to Chinese military-owned companies.
Reinsch turned very pale and literally ran from the room. Since then he has refused to answer any of my questions and failed to return any calls.
Genocide Is Good for Business
The story does not end here. Today, Reinsch opposes a new law on the books in the state of Illinois. The law, which went into effect in January, bars state pension funds from investing in companies and financial institutions whose depositors, borrowers, or other business associates have any dealings in war-torn Sudan.
Responding to the obvious crisis in Sudan, where genocide with Chinese weaponry is a way of life, the NFTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Illinois from specifying where its money should go.
"NFTC supports the efforts of the Bush administration to bring peace to Sudan and to end the brutality that has been occurring in Darfur," stated Reinsch.
"However, state sanctions, like those enacted by the state of Illinois, work at cross purposes with federal policy," noted Reinsch.
It is ironic indeed that other states, including very liberal California, enacted similar laws to keep state pension funds from investing in apartheid South Africa. To my knowledge, Bill Reinsch and the NFTC did not oppose those laws. After all, racial genocide is a crime against humanity by any definition.
For some reason, I don't think the NFTC has thought this lawsuit through – just as hiring Bill Reinsch may have been a big mistake. It does not look good for the council to be linked with supporting racial genocide . . . but the money is certainly good.
The NFTC seems to like to be associated with someone who helped Chinese weapons engineers design, build, and field missiles that sometimes fall into the hands of folks like Hezbollah. Call me old-fashioned, but helping weapons designers in China and providing a free hand to murderous gangs in Sudan doesn't fall under the heading of good business sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)