at Washington Times
China helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons and in the past year increased its support to Pyongyang, rather than pressing the regime to halt nuclear arms and missile activities, according to a congressional report. The final draft report of the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission also says that Chinese government-run companies are continuing to threaten U.S. national security by exporting arms to American enemies in Asia and the Middle East. The report is based on public testimony and highly classified intelligence reports made available to its members and staff. It indirectly criticizes the Bush administration for failing to pressure Beijing into joining U.S.-led anti-proliferation programs and calls for Congress to take action to force the administration to do more. "China has contributed at least indirectly to North Korea's nuclear program," the report stated, noting that China was a "primary supplier" to Pakistan's nuclear-arms program. A copy of the commission's final draft report, due to be released formally next month, was made available to The Washington Times by congressional aides. Congress created the bipartisan commission of outside experts in 2000 to analyze the impact of U.S.-China relations on security and the economy. North Korea was a recipient of nuclear goods supplied by the covert Pakistani nuclear supplier network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, according to the group's fourth annual report. Several links between Pakistan and North Korea's arms programs have been identified, it stated. The unclassified version of the report does not include details of the Chinese support but notes that China has "a history" of helping North Korea develop its weapons. According to U.S. intelligence officials, North Korean front companies operate freely in China and have used China as a transit point for trade in missile and nuclear components. One North Korean nuclear procurement agent was identified by U.S. officials in 2002 as Yun Ho-jin, who while working in Shenyang, China, sought to buy metal rods with nuclear applications in Germany while posing as an official of the Chinese aircraft manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft Corp. Also, Chinese language documents on how to design a small nuclear warhead for a missile were discovered by U.S. intelligence officials in Libya after Tripoli agreed to dismantle its nuclear program. China's government has not explained how the warhead documents reached Libya. U.S. officials think the warhead documents likely were sold by the Khan network and were also supplied to Iran and North Korea. On China's failure to pressure North Korea, the commission report said that China has refused to exert economic pressure and "instead has actually increased its assistance and trade with North Korea." Disclosure of the report comes as China last week refused to join the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which the Bush administration hopes to use in enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at halting North Korean trade in illicit arms-related goods. The Chinese turned down an appeal from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her recent visit to Beijing to join PSI. The refusal raises questions about whether China will cooperate in a United Nations embargo against weapons and technology going in and out of North Korea. Administration officials have praised China for supporting U.S. efforts to curb North Korea's arms programs. However, the report makes clear that Chinese cooperation is limited. On China's role in arms proliferation, the report stated that Chinese companies and government organizations "continue to provide weapons, weapons components and weapons technology" in violation of China's commitments to international nonproliferation agreements. The arms transfers "harm regional security in East Asia and the Middle East," the report said. "Given strong U.S. interests in both regions, China's proliferation threatens U.S. security and potentially could place at risk U.S. troops operating in those regions," the report said. The report also raises questions about whether China is willing to play a responsible role in working for global peace and stability. Beijing's support for World Trade Organization commitments is "spotty and halting," it said. "And China's apparent willingness to value its own energy needs above the needs of international security is indicative of a nation as yet unprepared or unwilling to shoulder the burdens of a stakeholder state," it said. The report recommends that Congress take steps to pressure China into joining the PSI, and calls on Congress to press President Bush to force China to carry out both sea and land inspections of weapons related goods going in and out of North Korea under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. The report recommends tightening sanctions on Chinese companies engaged in illicit arms sales, and says Congress should also require the president to provide regular reports identifying what actions China has taken to curb North Korean and Iranian nuclear activities.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Congressman: Superhighway about North American Union
at WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas, today denounced plans for the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.
"By now many Texans have heard about the proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway,' which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor," he said in a statement. "What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention."
Paul explained that most members of Congress are unaware of the plans because only relatively small amounts of money have been spent studying the plans and those allocations were included in "enormous transportation appropriations bills."
(Story continues below)
"The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' or SPP," he explains. "The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco."
No treaties were involved, and Congress was not included in discussions or plans, he says.
"Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments," according to Paul. "One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: The superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests."
Paul says, however, the real issue raised by the superhighway plan and the SPP is national sovereignty.
"Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress," says Paul. "Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."
The ultimate goal, he says, is not simply a superhighway "but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union.
"I wholeheartedly support this legislation and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election," says Paul. "Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty."
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas, today denounced plans for the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.
"By now many Texans have heard about the proposed 'NAFTA Superhighway,' which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor," he said in a statement. "What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention."
Paul explained that most members of Congress are unaware of the plans because only relatively small amounts of money have been spent studying the plans and those allocations were included in "enormous transportation appropriations bills."
(Story continues below)
"The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,' or SPP," he explains. "The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco."
No treaties were involved, and Congress was not included in discussions or plans, he says.
"Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments," according to Paul. "One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don't be fooled: The superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically connected interests."
Paul says, however, the real issue raised by the superhighway plan and the SPP is national sovereignty.
"Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress," says Paul. "Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade."
The ultimate goal, he says, is not simply a superhighway "but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy and virtually borderless travel within the union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union.
"I wholeheartedly support this legislation and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election," says Paul. "Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty."
Documents reveal 'shadow government'
at WorldNetDaily
About 1,000 documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada outside the U.S. Constitution, says WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi.
"The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said.
The documents can be viewed here, on a special website set up by the Minuteman Project.
Bureaucrats from agencies throughout the Bush administration are meeting regularly with their counterpart bureaucrats in the Canadian and Mexican governments to engage in a broad rewriting of U.S. administrative law and regulations into a new trilateral North American configuration, Corsi contends.
"We have hundreds of pages of e-mails from U.S. executive branch administrators who are copying the e-mail to somewhere between 25 to 100 people, a third of whom are in the U.S. bureaucracy, a third of whom are in the Mexican bureaucracy and a third of whom are in the Canadian bureaucracy," said Corsi.
"They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can 'harmonize' and 'integrate' our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure."
Corsi claims the process is well along the way.
"This is totally outside the U.S. Constitution, virtually an executive branch coup d'etat," he said. "SPP is creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and mutual agreements which should be submitted to Senate for two-thirds votes as international treaties."
Corsi said the documentation he received is missing key pieces.
"We received very few actual agreements, though many are referenced," he said. "Many of the work plans described lack the work products which the groups say they produced."
About 1,000 documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada outside the U.S. Constitution, says WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi.
"The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said.
The documents can be viewed here, on a special website set up by the Minuteman Project.
Bureaucrats from agencies throughout the Bush administration are meeting regularly with their counterpart bureaucrats in the Canadian and Mexican governments to engage in a broad rewriting of U.S. administrative law and regulations into a new trilateral North American configuration, Corsi contends.
"We have hundreds of pages of e-mails from U.S. executive branch administrators who are copying the e-mail to somewhere between 25 to 100 people, a third of whom are in the U.S. bureaucracy, a third of whom are in the Mexican bureaucracy and a third of whom are in the Canadian bureaucracy," said Corsi.
"They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can 'harmonize' and 'integrate' our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure."
Corsi claims the process is well along the way.
"This is totally outside the U.S. Constitution, virtually an executive branch coup d'etat," he said. "SPP is creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and mutual agreements which should be submitted to Senate for two-thirds votes as international treaties."
Corsi said the documentation he received is missing key pieces.
"We received very few actual agreements, though many are referenced," he said. "Many of the work plans described lack the work products which the groups say they produced."
Media blackout on the dangerous CFR
by Kevin Eggers, Napa Valley Register
Monday, October 30, 2006 10:32
President Bush and Congress have implemented a plan to create a North American Union, which will become an open border policy between the United States, Canada and Mexico.This is a plan, similar to the European Union, in which the security (primarily from the ocean borders), infrastructure, laws and economies of the three countries will become intertwined, with the United States citizens paying, not only monetarily, but also with our freedom and our sovereignty. We will have the shell of our Constitution with international laws controlling it. The official government name is the "Security Prosperity Partnership of North America," the SPP, which was initiated on March 23, 2005, with a meeting between President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Waco, Texas. Work groups are now far into the process with the latest forum on Sept. 12 through Sept. 14, with Donald Rumsfeld and top security experts discussing security, infrastructure and integration.Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, has e-mailed me that he does support the SPP, and implied that this is now policy.Lou Dobbs, CNN anchor, had this to say about the SPP during a broadcast in 2005: "Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad? We'll have a special report ... Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada ... You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said 'yes.' But this is -- I mean, this is beyond belief."
The video can be found on the Internet. No other television station carried the news and CNN hasn't since.Where has the media been in reporting the SPP? The truth is that the "elites" have controlled all forms of major media for years. They choose the global-minded candidates they want (they control both parties), and use the media to endorse them. We only see candidates they want us to see. The "elites" tell the media what to propagandize and we form our public opinions on immigration, war, moral values, etc.David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, had this to say at a Bilderbergers Meeting in 1991: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."The "elites" are the foreign and domestic industrialists that control the Fed. Not one cent of our federal income tax goes toward government programs.In the United States, the "elites" work through the Council of Foreign Relations to implement their global agenda. The CFR has directed our foreign and domestic policies for more than 80 years, and influenced the formation of the United Nations, CIA and Trilateral Commission. Dr. Robert Pastor, a CFR member, authored the book, "Building a North American Community," which is the blueprint for the SPP.Among the more than 100 known CFR members working within top positions of government are Vice President Dick Cheney (former CFR director), Sens. Dianne Feinstein, John McCain, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, former presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (former CFR director), former Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Press Secretary Tony Snow, three Supreme Court justices, many high-ranking military commanders, our CIA director, and five members of the 9/11 Commission. The CFR claims to have no affiliation with the United States government.In the mid-1930s, we created a nationalist socialist education system with an emphasis on teaching revisionist history, manipulating facts and concepts, putting more importance on shaping a child's way of thinking than on teaching. Each generation since has been subjected to more advanced manipulation. Every child must be mentally shaped to fit the mold of indoctrinated immoral ignorant socialist global sheep.Why isn't the truth about the CFR or our central banking system taught in schools?
Monday, October 30, 2006 10:32
President Bush and Congress have implemented a plan to create a North American Union, which will become an open border policy between the United States, Canada and Mexico.This is a plan, similar to the European Union, in which the security (primarily from the ocean borders), infrastructure, laws and economies of the three countries will become intertwined, with the United States citizens paying, not only monetarily, but also with our freedom and our sovereignty. We will have the shell of our Constitution with international laws controlling it. The official government name is the "Security Prosperity Partnership of North America," the SPP, which was initiated on March 23, 2005, with a meeting between President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Waco, Texas. Work groups are now far into the process with the latest forum on Sept. 12 through Sept. 14, with Donald Rumsfeld and top security experts discussing security, infrastructure and integration.Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, has e-mailed me that he does support the SPP, and implied that this is now policy.Lou Dobbs, CNN anchor, had this to say about the SPP during a broadcast in 2005: "Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad? We'll have a special report ... Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada ... You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said 'yes.' But this is -- I mean, this is beyond belief."
The video can be found on the Internet. No other television station carried the news and CNN hasn't since.Where has the media been in reporting the SPP? The truth is that the "elites" have controlled all forms of major media for years. They choose the global-minded candidates they want (they control both parties), and use the media to endorse them. We only see candidates they want us to see. The "elites" tell the media what to propagandize and we form our public opinions on immigration, war, moral values, etc.David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, had this to say at a Bilderbergers Meeting in 1991: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."The "elites" are the foreign and domestic industrialists that control the Fed. Not one cent of our federal income tax goes toward government programs.In the United States, the "elites" work through the Council of Foreign Relations to implement their global agenda. The CFR has directed our foreign and domestic policies for more than 80 years, and influenced the formation of the United Nations, CIA and Trilateral Commission. Dr. Robert Pastor, a CFR member, authored the book, "Building a North American Community," which is the blueprint for the SPP.Among the more than 100 known CFR members working within top positions of government are Vice President Dick Cheney (former CFR director), Sens. Dianne Feinstein, John McCain, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, former presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (former CFR director), former Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Press Secretary Tony Snow, three Supreme Court justices, many high-ranking military commanders, our CIA director, and five members of the 9/11 Commission. The CFR claims to have no affiliation with the United States government.In the mid-1930s, we created a nationalist socialist education system with an emphasis on teaching revisionist history, manipulating facts and concepts, putting more importance on shaping a child's way of thinking than on teaching. Each generation since has been subjected to more advanced manipulation. Every child must be mentally shaped to fit the mold of indoctrinated immoral ignorant socialist global sheep.Why isn't the truth about the CFR or our central banking system taught in schools?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Gore and Murdoch join forces in TV deal
by Emiko Terazono at Fin Times
Al Gore, the former US vice-president, is bringing his user-generated content television channel to the UK, courtesy of James Murdoch’s British Sky Broadcasting.
Mr Gore launched Current TV, the US channel made of clips created by viewers and producers, in August last year, and said that the channel was “democratising television.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Murdoch, who has claimed that BSkyB was the first media company in the world to go carbon neutral, and Mr Gore share their passion for the environment. Mr Murdoch invited Mr Gore to the gathering of News Corp’s executives at Pebble Beach, California, this summer.
At Pebble Beach Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive, urged News Corp officials to follow his son James’ lead and to try and tackle climate change issues.
The pair have now come together to promote user generated content in the UK and Ireland. Current TV’s agreement for the channel to be carried on BSkyB’s satellite platform is its first international move outside the US.
Mr Gore said that the channel was one of the few on the cable network to break even in the first year and was looking to make profits in the second year. He rejected suggestions that viewer created clips was about gaining cheap content.
The deal with BSkyB brings Current TV to some 8m households. In the US, it is available in nearly 30m homes through cable and satellite television. With Current TV, viewers and producers upload their clips on to the channel’s website, where content which gets the most votes is broadcast on its television channel.
Mr Gore compared Current TV to the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century, which led to enlightenment. He said: “The television medium for 50 years has had the depressing effect on the conversation of democracy by excluding individuals. But the new affordable digital tools of both cameras and digital video cameras and laptop editing systems now make it completely feasible for individuals with accessible training to participate in the conversation.”
Mr Murdoch said that Mr Gore’s channel TV was “an elegant way” to marry user-generated content on the web to the broadcast medium. He said: “Current TV is bringing the web’s sense of empowerment to television for the first time.”
Al Gore, the former US vice-president, is bringing his user-generated content television channel to the UK, courtesy of James Murdoch’s British Sky Broadcasting.
Mr Gore launched Current TV, the US channel made of clips created by viewers and producers, in August last year, and said that the channel was “democratising television.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Murdoch, who has claimed that BSkyB was the first media company in the world to go carbon neutral, and Mr Gore share their passion for the environment. Mr Murdoch invited Mr Gore to the gathering of News Corp’s executives at Pebble Beach, California, this summer.
At Pebble Beach Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive, urged News Corp officials to follow his son James’ lead and to try and tackle climate change issues.
The pair have now come together to promote user generated content in the UK and Ireland. Current TV’s agreement for the channel to be carried on BSkyB’s satellite platform is its first international move outside the US.
Mr Gore said that the channel was one of the few on the cable network to break even in the first year and was looking to make profits in the second year. He rejected suggestions that viewer created clips was about gaining cheap content.
The deal with BSkyB brings Current TV to some 8m households. In the US, it is available in nearly 30m homes through cable and satellite television. With Current TV, viewers and producers upload their clips on to the channel’s website, where content which gets the most votes is broadcast on its television channel.
Mr Gore compared Current TV to the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century, which led to enlightenment. He said: “The television medium for 50 years has had the depressing effect on the conversation of democracy by excluding individuals. But the new affordable digital tools of both cameras and digital video cameras and laptop editing systems now make it completely feasible for individuals with accessible training to participate in the conversation.”
Mr Murdoch said that Mr Gore’s channel TV was “an elegant way” to marry user-generated content on the web to the broadcast medium. He said: “Current TV is bringing the web’s sense of empowerment to television for the first time.”
Why the Mexican Border Fence will not be built
by WorldNetDaily.com
Republican officials are trying to turn back concerns that a plan to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border in an attempt to gain control of one area of illegal immigration still will fail.
The denial came from the Republican National Committee, which said in a statement that the president is planning to sign the Secure Fence Act, which was approved by the House and Senate earlier.
"There has been some speculation in the blogosphere today that President Bush would not sign the Secure Fence Act, after signing a bill for funding border fencing last week," the RNC's Patrick Ruffini said. But that is incorrect, he said, and the president's intent remains the same.
(Story continues below)
Just a few days ago, a Homeland Security budget including $1.2 billion to begin construction of fences and other barriers was approved by both the House and the Senate and signed by Bush. However, the actual allocation of money for the work would come in the Secure Fence Act, which remains filed under pending, officials said.
The concerns were raised in a number of venues.
A writer, Vincent Gioia, on the New Media ChronWatch.com said that the Homeland Security package was approved and "with great fanfare, the president signed the bill."
However, he said Congress and the president, "now, having mollified conservative critics with 'border protection first,'" probably feel free to deal with immigration as they want.
"Unfortunately, the claim of border protection beginning with the appropriation of over one billion dollars allegedly for that purpose is just a big hoax," he wrote. "Quickly following congressional funding authorization to construct 700 miles of Mexican border fence, and just before recessing, Congress enacted additional legislation to enable the president to thwart the will of most Americans who want to protect our Mexican border against illegal immigration."
He said the additional legislation would allow the president to allocate the $1.2 billion ostensibly for the fence to other projects, such as "tactical infrastructure."
He said Congress also promised that governors, local leaders and Native American tribes would be involved in the placement of any fence, and Congress also withheld $950 million pending a breakdown of how the money will be spent.
In other words, the fence plan is for the headlines, but the fine print is where the projects are made or broken.
In a significant indication that the fence is not the highest priority, just a day after signing the Homeland Security provision, Bush said granting citizenship to current illegal aliens still will be a needed part of any plan.
"You can't kick 12 million people out of your country," Bush said. "We must figure out a way to say to those that if you're lawful and if you've contributed to the United States of America, there is a way for you to eventually earn citizenship."
Meanwhile, Mexico officials have been pursuing an intense lobbying campaign to try to kill the fence plan. They had asked Bush to veto it, and even have threatened to go to the United Nations with their opposition.
Mexico Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said the fence plan is an "offense" and indicated the dispute could be brought before the U.N. Press Secretary Ruben Aguilar for President Vincente Fox, however, said in a report that wouldn't happen, but the fence wouldn't be built either.
Derbez said there will be a storm of international community criticism against the U.S. fence plan, and that will stop it.
Mexican officials have said they are recruiting various church and business groups in the U.S. to oppose fencing plans, and the government is broadcasting radio ads encouraging workers who have had a labor "accident" to pursue their rights in the U.S.
Mexican activists are comparing the plan to the Berlin Wall.
Republicans and immigration experts told the Washington Post that the House and Senate provided Bush enough leeway in the distribution of the money so that it may be spend on roads and technology too.
When Homeland Security department spokesman Russ Knocke was asked about the construction of 700 miles of fencing, he was non-committal, instead noting that a $67 million "virtual fence" project will be tested.
While another assurance came from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who wrote the fence provisions that passed last year and said the bill provides the fence "shall" be built, the president wasn't so definitive.
In his message when he signed the bill, he said the nearly $34 billion authorization for Homeland Security will "give us better tools to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our southern border."
"The bill I sign today includes nearly $1.2 billion in additional funding for strengthening the border, for new infrastructure and technology that will help us do our job. It provides funding for more border fencing, vehicle barriers, and lighting, for cutting-edge technology, including ground base radar, infrared cameras, and advance sensors that will help prevent illegal crossings along our southern border. That's what the people of this country want. They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border," Bush said.
Mexico-U.S. border
"Yet, we must also recognize that enforcement alone is not going to work," he said. "We'll continue to work with Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that secures this border, upholds the laws, and honors our nation's proud heritage as a land of immigrants."
U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, told the Houston Chronicle that the project has to be viewed in terms of the war on terror.
"The day will come when they attack us in Houston. I don't know why the terrorists haven't hit us, but it will come," he said.
Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said the Secure Fence Act is an emergency measure to provide for those 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing.
"There were many skeptics when I first started discussing the potential dangers associated with illegal immigration, and called for our government to secure the borders," he said. "Tonight, we take another momentous step toward ensuring our security."
But even he said the plan mandates a "virtual fence," not necessarily a physical one, that would involve remote cameras, ground sensors, aerial vehicles and surveillance technology.
On one of the those blogs where questions were being raised, Mickey Kaus said that Bush's promise during an interview on CNN that the bill would be signed wasn't reassuring.
The interviewer asked Bush if he would sign the plan.
"It's part of strengthening the border," he said. "And we're in the process now of spending the money that they appropriated last session to modernize the border."
"So, will you sign it into law?" the interviewer asked.
"One thing that has changed is catch and release. Prior to the expenditure of the money … we would catch somebody trying to sneak in and just release them back into society. That's been ended," Bush said.
Another commentator noted that House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Congress' effort along the border "culminated" in the appropriations plan Bush already signed.
"It would be crazy not to be paranoid," the commentator wrote.
The same scenario developed early in 2006. The Senate had approved the installation of 370 miles of fencing and about 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, but then voted against allowing any money to do the work.
Then just weeks later, senators reversed their July 13 position, approving a spending authorization on a 94-3 vote, with 66 senators switching from "no" to "yes," according to the The Washington Times.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said back then that people heard from their constituents after voting for the project, but against money to do it.
Republican officials are trying to turn back concerns that a plan to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border in an attempt to gain control of one area of illegal immigration still will fail.
The denial came from the Republican National Committee, which said in a statement that the president is planning to sign the Secure Fence Act, which was approved by the House and Senate earlier.
"There has been some speculation in the blogosphere today that President Bush would not sign the Secure Fence Act, after signing a bill for funding border fencing last week," the RNC's Patrick Ruffini said. But that is incorrect, he said, and the president's intent remains the same.
(Story continues below)
Just a few days ago, a Homeland Security budget including $1.2 billion to begin construction of fences and other barriers was approved by both the House and the Senate and signed by Bush. However, the actual allocation of money for the work would come in the Secure Fence Act, which remains filed under pending, officials said.
The concerns were raised in a number of venues.
A writer, Vincent Gioia, on the New Media ChronWatch.com said that the Homeland Security package was approved and "with great fanfare, the president signed the bill."
However, he said Congress and the president, "now, having mollified conservative critics with 'border protection first,'" probably feel free to deal with immigration as they want.
"Unfortunately, the claim of border protection beginning with the appropriation of over one billion dollars allegedly for that purpose is just a big hoax," he wrote. "Quickly following congressional funding authorization to construct 700 miles of Mexican border fence, and just before recessing, Congress enacted additional legislation to enable the president to thwart the will of most Americans who want to protect our Mexican border against illegal immigration."
He said the additional legislation would allow the president to allocate the $1.2 billion ostensibly for the fence to other projects, such as "tactical infrastructure."
He said Congress also promised that governors, local leaders and Native American tribes would be involved in the placement of any fence, and Congress also withheld $950 million pending a breakdown of how the money will be spent.
In other words, the fence plan is for the headlines, but the fine print is where the projects are made or broken.
In a significant indication that the fence is not the highest priority, just a day after signing the Homeland Security provision, Bush said granting citizenship to current illegal aliens still will be a needed part of any plan.
"You can't kick 12 million people out of your country," Bush said. "We must figure out a way to say to those that if you're lawful and if you've contributed to the United States of America, there is a way for you to eventually earn citizenship."
Meanwhile, Mexico officials have been pursuing an intense lobbying campaign to try to kill the fence plan. They had asked Bush to veto it, and even have threatened to go to the United Nations with their opposition.
Mexico Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said the fence plan is an "offense" and indicated the dispute could be brought before the U.N. Press Secretary Ruben Aguilar for President Vincente Fox, however, said in a report that wouldn't happen, but the fence wouldn't be built either.
Derbez said there will be a storm of international community criticism against the U.S. fence plan, and that will stop it.
Mexican officials have said they are recruiting various church and business groups in the U.S. to oppose fencing plans, and the government is broadcasting radio ads encouraging workers who have had a labor "accident" to pursue their rights in the U.S.
Mexican activists are comparing the plan to the Berlin Wall.
Republicans and immigration experts told the Washington Post that the House and Senate provided Bush enough leeway in the distribution of the money so that it may be spend on roads and technology too.
When Homeland Security department spokesman Russ Knocke was asked about the construction of 700 miles of fencing, he was non-committal, instead noting that a $67 million "virtual fence" project will be tested.
While another assurance came from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who wrote the fence provisions that passed last year and said the bill provides the fence "shall" be built, the president wasn't so definitive.
In his message when he signed the bill, he said the nearly $34 billion authorization for Homeland Security will "give us better tools to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our southern border."
"The bill I sign today includes nearly $1.2 billion in additional funding for strengthening the border, for new infrastructure and technology that will help us do our job. It provides funding for more border fencing, vehicle barriers, and lighting, for cutting-edge technology, including ground base radar, infrared cameras, and advance sensors that will help prevent illegal crossings along our southern border. That's what the people of this country want. They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border," Bush said.
Mexico-U.S. border
"Yet, we must also recognize that enforcement alone is not going to work," he said. "We'll continue to work with Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that secures this border, upholds the laws, and honors our nation's proud heritage as a land of immigrants."
U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, told the Houston Chronicle that the project has to be viewed in terms of the war on terror.
"The day will come when they attack us in Houston. I don't know why the terrorists haven't hit us, but it will come," he said.
Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said the Secure Fence Act is an emergency measure to provide for those 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing.
"There were many skeptics when I first started discussing the potential dangers associated with illegal immigration, and called for our government to secure the borders," he said. "Tonight, we take another momentous step toward ensuring our security."
But even he said the plan mandates a "virtual fence," not necessarily a physical one, that would involve remote cameras, ground sensors, aerial vehicles and surveillance technology.
On one of the those blogs where questions were being raised, Mickey Kaus said that Bush's promise during an interview on CNN that the bill would be signed wasn't reassuring.
The interviewer asked Bush if he would sign the plan.
"It's part of strengthening the border," he said. "And we're in the process now of spending the money that they appropriated last session to modernize the border."
"So, will you sign it into law?" the interviewer asked.
"One thing that has changed is catch and release. Prior to the expenditure of the money … we would catch somebody trying to sneak in and just release them back into society. That's been ended," Bush said.
Another commentator noted that House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Congress' effort along the border "culminated" in the appropriations plan Bush already signed.
"It would be crazy not to be paranoid," the commentator wrote.
The same scenario developed early in 2006. The Senate had approved the installation of 370 miles of fencing and about 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, but then voted against allowing any money to do the work.
Then just weeks later, senators reversed their July 13 position, approving a spending authorization on a 94-3 vote, with 66 senators switching from "no" to "yes," according to the The Washington Times.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said back then that people heard from their constituents after voting for the project, but against money to do it.
Jesus is not a socialist
by Tom Snyder
What these misguided religious zealots conveniently fail to note is that nowhere in the New Testament or the other books of the Bible do Jesus Christ, His apostles, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Moses or the Hebrew prophets command the government to take money from its citizens and transfer it to poor people. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite.
God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Now, the first two ways are pretty clear. People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Only after they do this do they have any obligation to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned through their local church organization. God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in his great book "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."
In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.
Thus, a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible, God's Word, including the "Red Letter" words of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, clearly shows that the American welfare state is anti-Christian and unbiblical. Any Christian who advocates such a government welfare system (including clergymen or women) should be harshly rebuked. Furthermore, any members of any political party, including Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Libertarians or whatever, who advocate such a socialist system yet claim to be Christian should be reprimanded by their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and by all church leaders.
If any such party members refuse to repent and change their ways, then their names should be posted at their church and throughout the whole land so that all Christians in the United States can know not to vote for these people or place them in positions of authority and leadership. Of course, all Christians should encourage families to take care of their own. And they should also encourage their churches to give at least one-third of their gross income to help the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned.
On that note, it is interesting to recall that the 10th Commandment in Exodus 20:17 actually protects private property by commanding people not to covet their neighbor's house or belongings. That commands applies to the average citizen as well as the elected official, the judge and all other government officials.
Furthermore, the Bible condemns laziness and praises hard work. Proverbs 10:4 says, "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 14:23 says, "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty."
Finally, it is interesting to note that, in Mark 7:20-23, not only does Jesus Christ declare that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage, including homosexuality, pre-marital sex and adultery, is evil, he also declares that both greed and envy are evil. Thus, Jesus Christ condemns both the greed of the rich man as well as the greed of the poor man, and the envy of the poor man as well as the envy of the rich man.
Thus, God condemns the politics of envy of the left, and he extols the virtues of hard work and capitalism, not just the value of charity!
Liberals and socialists like the "Red Letter Christians," Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy and former Vice President Al Gore are violating the commands of Jesus Christ, who is God in the Flesh. They are also violating the commands that God gives all of us in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. If they truly want to follow the words of Jesus in the New Testament, they should stop their opposition to the real Christian movement in America and join it. One of the first things they should do immediately is help cut government programs for the poor.
Christians must stop the ungodly, immoral rape of American citizens with the totalitarian, socialist welfare state! They must establish a proper and godly system of family, church and private charity. Not just Christians, but all true Americans should follow God's clear guidance in this matter. God will reward us mightily for our obedience in these matters.
What these misguided religious zealots conveniently fail to note is that nowhere in the New Testament or the other books of the Bible do Jesus Christ, His apostles, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Moses or the Hebrew prophets command the government to take money from its citizens and transfer it to poor people. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite.
God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Now, the first two ways are pretty clear. People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Only after they do this do they have any obligation to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned through their local church organization. God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in his great book "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."
In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.
Thus, a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible, God's Word, including the "Red Letter" words of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, clearly shows that the American welfare state is anti-Christian and unbiblical. Any Christian who advocates such a government welfare system (including clergymen or women) should be harshly rebuked. Furthermore, any members of any political party, including Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Libertarians or whatever, who advocate such a socialist system yet claim to be Christian should be reprimanded by their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and by all church leaders.
If any such party members refuse to repent and change their ways, then their names should be posted at their church and throughout the whole land so that all Christians in the United States can know not to vote for these people or place them in positions of authority and leadership. Of course, all Christians should encourage families to take care of their own. And they should also encourage their churches to give at least one-third of their gross income to help the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned.
On that note, it is interesting to recall that the 10th Commandment in Exodus 20:17 actually protects private property by commanding people not to covet their neighbor's house or belongings. That commands applies to the average citizen as well as the elected official, the judge and all other government officials.
Furthermore, the Bible condemns laziness and praises hard work. Proverbs 10:4 says, "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 14:23 says, "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty."
Finally, it is interesting to note that, in Mark 7:20-23, not only does Jesus Christ declare that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage, including homosexuality, pre-marital sex and adultery, is evil, he also declares that both greed and envy are evil. Thus, Jesus Christ condemns both the greed of the rich man as well as the greed of the poor man, and the envy of the poor man as well as the envy of the rich man.
Thus, God condemns the politics of envy of the left, and he extols the virtues of hard work and capitalism, not just the value of charity!
Liberals and socialists like the "Red Letter Christians," Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Ted Kennedy and former Vice President Al Gore are violating the commands of Jesus Christ, who is God in the Flesh. They are also violating the commands that God gives all of us in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. If they truly want to follow the words of Jesus in the New Testament, they should stop their opposition to the real Christian movement in America and join it. One of the first things they should do immediately is help cut government programs for the poor.
Christians must stop the ungodly, immoral rape of American citizens with the totalitarian, socialist welfare state! They must establish a proper and godly system of family, church and private charity. Not just Christians, but all true Americans should follow God's clear guidance in this matter. God will reward us mightily for our obedience in these matters.
Russia to Fuel Iran Nuclear Plant
NewsMax
Russia will ship fuel to a controversial atomic power plant it is building in Iran by March under a deal signed Tuesday, news agencies reported, as Tehran's nuclear chief met with a Russian security officer at the Kremlin.
The agreement signed by Sergei Shmatko, head of the state-run company Atomstroiexport, and Mahmoud Hanatian, vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, should allay Iran's complaints that Moscow is dragging its feet on supplying fuel for the Bushehr plant.
It will also renew concerns by the West, which accuses Tehran of seeking to enrich uranium in order to build nuclear weapons.
ITAR-Tass reported that Shmatko met Hanatian to sign an additional protocol setting out a time frame for starting up the Bushehr plant.
"The document provides for supplying Russian fuel for the atomic energy plant in March, physical startup in September 2007 and electric generation by November 2007," Hanatian was quoted as saying by ITAR-Tass.
Shmatko said about 80 tons of fuel would be supplied, according to Interfax and ITAR-Tass.
Meanwhile, Russian Security Council chief Igor Ivanov insisted again on seeking a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Tehran's nuclear program at a meeting with Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh.
"We are firmly convinced of the need to resolve the question of the Iranian nuclear program through the negotiation process," Ivanov said.
"We consider it necessary that Iran should be guaranteed the right to peacefully develop nuclear energy ... and also to remove the concerns of the international community regarding obligations under the nonproliferation regime," he told Aghazadeh.
"We will strictly fulfill our obligations," Ivanov said.
Aghazadeh, who is head of Iran's nuclear organization, responded that Tehran was satisfied with the agreements signed.
"We achieved a good agreement ... on completing construction of the atomic energy plant at Bushehr, including agreement on a concrete date for directing atomic fuel to Iran," he said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, meanwhile, told The Associated Press that talks between top Iranian and European negotiators were "on track" and could pave the way for a negotiated solution to the standoff.
In an interview at the United Nations, Mottaki said Iran still believed there should be no conditions on the resumption of talks, implicitly rejecting demands that Tehran first suspend uranium enrichment.
Iran says it needs enrichment to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity, and insists its program is peaceful. Enrichment can also create weapons-grade material, however, and the United States and other nations have accused Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Western nations fear that Tehran could try to divert nuclear fuel used at the Bushehr plant and seek to enrich it further for potential use in a bomb.
Trying to ease Western concerns, Moscow has agreed with Tehran that the spent fuel will be shipped back to Russia. However, Iran has resisted Russia's proposal to conduct all enrichment on Russian soil.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, are scheduled to hold another round of talks soon over a package of incentives put forward by six key nations - Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China and Russia - if Tehran agrees to suspend its enrichment program and return to full-scale negotiations.
Russia will ship fuel to a controversial atomic power plant it is building in Iran by March under a deal signed Tuesday, news agencies reported, as Tehran's nuclear chief met with a Russian security officer at the Kremlin.
The agreement signed by Sergei Shmatko, head of the state-run company Atomstroiexport, and Mahmoud Hanatian, vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, should allay Iran's complaints that Moscow is dragging its feet on supplying fuel for the Bushehr plant.
It will also renew concerns by the West, which accuses Tehran of seeking to enrich uranium in order to build nuclear weapons.
ITAR-Tass reported that Shmatko met Hanatian to sign an additional protocol setting out a time frame for starting up the Bushehr plant.
"The document provides for supplying Russian fuel for the atomic energy plant in March, physical startup in September 2007 and electric generation by November 2007," Hanatian was quoted as saying by ITAR-Tass.
Shmatko said about 80 tons of fuel would be supplied, according to Interfax and ITAR-Tass.
Meanwhile, Russian Security Council chief Igor Ivanov insisted again on seeking a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Tehran's nuclear program at a meeting with Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh.
"We are firmly convinced of the need to resolve the question of the Iranian nuclear program through the negotiation process," Ivanov said.
"We consider it necessary that Iran should be guaranteed the right to peacefully develop nuclear energy ... and also to remove the concerns of the international community regarding obligations under the nonproliferation regime," he told Aghazadeh.
"We will strictly fulfill our obligations," Ivanov said.
Aghazadeh, who is head of Iran's nuclear organization, responded that Tehran was satisfied with the agreements signed.
"We achieved a good agreement ... on completing construction of the atomic energy plant at Bushehr, including agreement on a concrete date for directing atomic fuel to Iran," he said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, meanwhile, told The Associated Press that talks between top Iranian and European negotiators were "on track" and could pave the way for a negotiated solution to the standoff.
In an interview at the United Nations, Mottaki said Iran still believed there should be no conditions on the resumption of talks, implicitly rejecting demands that Tehran first suspend uranium enrichment.
Iran says it needs enrichment to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity, and insists its program is peaceful. Enrichment can also create weapons-grade material, however, and the United States and other nations have accused Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Western nations fear that Tehran could try to divert nuclear fuel used at the Bushehr plant and seek to enrich it further for potential use in a bomb.
Trying to ease Western concerns, Moscow has agreed with Tehran that the spent fuel will be shipped back to Russia. However, Iran has resisted Russia's proposal to conduct all enrichment on Russian soil.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, are scheduled to hold another round of talks soon over a package of incentives put forward by six key nations - Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China and Russia - if Tehran agrees to suspend its enrichment program and return to full-scale negotiations.
Bush backs Rice's praise of Palestine
WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush "stands absolutely behind" the statements made by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice when she lauded as a great "legacy" the possibility of the United States helping bring into existence a Palestinian state.
In a response to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the president stands behind Rice's recent comments to the American Task Force on Palestine.
The question to Snow was: "In Secretary Condoleezza Rice's speech last week to the American Task Force on Palestine, she said, 'I believe that there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who have been (humiliated too long).' My question, since the Palestinian Authority's President, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke out in Fatah with Arafat and funded the Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic team, and wrote his Ph.D. thesis denying the existence of the Holocaust, how can the president agree with Secretary Rice that it would be a great legacy to have a Palestinian state run by Abbas and Hamas?"
(Story continues below)
Snow said there wasn't a reference to a Palestinian state being run by Abbas and Hamas. "But on the other hand, Prime Minister Abbas has also demonstrated a willingness to pursue democracy and work directly with Israel."
WND had asked whether the president believes that the American Revolution should be compared to Hamas, which has Article 15 calling for the destruction of Israel, and Article 7, calling for the killing of Jews?
"No," Snow said.
The issue arose when Rice gave a keynote speech at the Task Force on Palestine a week ago. Her remarks were condemned by the Zionist Organization of America as the "most pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel speech in memory by a major U.S. Administration official."
During that speech she compared the Palestinian movement to the American Revolution and implied the comparison of Palestinian Arab leaders to America's Founding Fathers.
"I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable," she said. "I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being."
"By saying this, Secretary Rice is implying a comparison of Yasser Arafat and Hamas leaders to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson," said the Zionist Organization of America's statement.
"We are deeply distressed by Secretary Rice's deeply troubling speech pandering to Arab Americans and other Arabs by making a series of false declarations," said ZOA National President Morton A. Klein. "This speech is surely at odds with an Administration that claims it is 'the best friend Israel ever had.' If President Bush does not support the themes expressed in this speech, we urge him to make that publicly clear by distancing himself from it."
The Zionist organization said Rice praised the Palestinians as being committed to a better future but ignored the "major cause of the problem being the (Palestinian Authority) regime's promotion of hatred and violence against Jews in their media, textbooks and speeches."
"By suggesting that the Palestinians simply seek a state of their own, not the destruction of another people's state which also happens to be a close American ally, Secretary Rice falsely dignifies the Palestinian extremist agenda and suggests its fulfillment would be a sublime event worthy of the American Revolution," the group said.
Rice also referred to the "humiliation of occupation," but ZOA noted that the land in question is not occupied, but disputed territory at a minimum.
"Secretary Rice did not acknowledge that Israel ceded half of Judea and Samaria and all of Gaza, the land on which the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established," ZOA said.
Further, ZOA said, in earlier periods of temporary calm before September 2000, there were no Israeli checkpoints, road-blocks, barriers, curfews and other restrictions of which Palestinians now complain. Those measures exist "solely and as a direct consequence of the Palestinian terrorist campaign since September 2000 that has resulted in the murder of 1,500 Israeli men, women and children and the maiming and injuring of thousands more."
"When asked by President Bush at the Aqaba summit last year to state publicly that he accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, Abbas refused to do so," ZOA noted.
The group also noted that Rice discussed the recent U.S. increase in "direct assistance to the Palestinians to $438 million a year."
"It is simply inappropriate for the Bush Administration to provide financial assistance to them courtesy of the American taxpayer. U.S. funding for Palestinians sends only one message – that the Palestinians need not change, that their goals and terrorist conduct is not a problem. By doing this, the U.S. takes out of the equation the one piece of leverage that it holds over the PA," ZOA said.
"The Zionist Organization of America was founded in 1897 and is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States.
President Bush "stands absolutely behind" the statements made by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice when she lauded as a great "legacy" the possibility of the United States helping bring into existence a Palestinian state.
In a response to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the president stands behind Rice's recent comments to the American Task Force on Palestine.
The question to Snow was: "In Secretary Condoleezza Rice's speech last week to the American Task Force on Palestine, she said, 'I believe that there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who have been (humiliated too long).' My question, since the Palestinian Authority's President, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke out in Fatah with Arafat and funded the Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic team, and wrote his Ph.D. thesis denying the existence of the Holocaust, how can the president agree with Secretary Rice that it would be a great legacy to have a Palestinian state run by Abbas and Hamas?"
(Story continues below)
Snow said there wasn't a reference to a Palestinian state being run by Abbas and Hamas. "But on the other hand, Prime Minister Abbas has also demonstrated a willingness to pursue democracy and work directly with Israel."
WND had asked whether the president believes that the American Revolution should be compared to Hamas, which has Article 15 calling for the destruction of Israel, and Article 7, calling for the killing of Jews?
"No," Snow said.
The issue arose when Rice gave a keynote speech at the Task Force on Palestine a week ago. Her remarks were condemned by the Zionist Organization of America as the "most pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel speech in memory by a major U.S. Administration official."
During that speech she compared the Palestinian movement to the American Revolution and implied the comparison of Palestinian Arab leaders to America's Founding Fathers.
"I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable," she said. "I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being."
"By saying this, Secretary Rice is implying a comparison of Yasser Arafat and Hamas leaders to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson," said the Zionist Organization of America's statement.
"We are deeply distressed by Secretary Rice's deeply troubling speech pandering to Arab Americans and other Arabs by making a series of false declarations," said ZOA National President Morton A. Klein. "This speech is surely at odds with an Administration that claims it is 'the best friend Israel ever had.' If President Bush does not support the themes expressed in this speech, we urge him to make that publicly clear by distancing himself from it."
The Zionist organization said Rice praised the Palestinians as being committed to a better future but ignored the "major cause of the problem being the (Palestinian Authority) regime's promotion of hatred and violence against Jews in their media, textbooks and speeches."
"By suggesting that the Palestinians simply seek a state of their own, not the destruction of another people's state which also happens to be a close American ally, Secretary Rice falsely dignifies the Palestinian extremist agenda and suggests its fulfillment would be a sublime event worthy of the American Revolution," the group said.
Rice also referred to the "humiliation of occupation," but ZOA noted that the land in question is not occupied, but disputed territory at a minimum.
"Secretary Rice did not acknowledge that Israel ceded half of Judea and Samaria and all of Gaza, the land on which the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established," ZOA said.
Further, ZOA said, in earlier periods of temporary calm before September 2000, there were no Israeli checkpoints, road-blocks, barriers, curfews and other restrictions of which Palestinians now complain. Those measures exist "solely and as a direct consequence of the Palestinian terrorist campaign since September 2000 that has resulted in the murder of 1,500 Israeli men, women and children and the maiming and injuring of thousands more."
"When asked by President Bush at the Aqaba summit last year to state publicly that he accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, Abbas refused to do so," ZOA noted.
The group also noted that Rice discussed the recent U.S. increase in "direct assistance to the Palestinians to $438 million a year."
"It is simply inappropriate for the Bush Administration to provide financial assistance to them courtesy of the American taxpayer. U.S. funding for Palestinians sends only one message – that the Palestinians need not change, that their goals and terrorist conduct is not a problem. By doing this, the U.S. takes out of the equation the one piece of leverage that it holds over the PA," ZOA said.
"The Zionist Organization of America was founded in 1897 and is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States.
Monday, September 25, 2006
What We Can Do
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?
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?
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)