San Francisco–Trita Parsi is the National President of Iranian American Council. He gave two talks in the Bay Area. In this City early last November, and later that month across the Bay in Berkeley towards the very end of that month. This narrative derives from both.
The tensions between Israel and Iran are running perilously high at the moment, and the possibility that Washington may be subsumed is dangerously excessive, too. Unfortunately, diffusion of the tensions has not succeeded due to the fact that the root causes of the antagonism between the two have eluded official Washington.
Iran’s President Ahmednejad stated last week, after Tel Aviv’ successful long range ballistic missile test (the 17th), that the Zionist Regime (still) “lack the courage†to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran even though Al Jazeera reported that the Israel Defense Force(s) (IDF) could carry a nuclear load upon its projectile! “The Zionist entity …will…not [be] save[d]from its doomed collapse.†While the Jewish State (politically) claims that Tehran will be a dangerous nuclear weapons State within the Middle East by 2010 [Israel is already the lone present nuclear nation inside the district], on the other side, Ahmadinejad interjects that the “destruction of Israel†is the (only) solution!
Dr. Parsi came to Northern California to promote his book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. Trita Parsi is the National President of the Iranian American Council. He gave two talks in the Bay Area. In this City earlier last November, and later that month across the Bay in Berkeley. This narrative derives from both.
This is a major three-way strategic relationship! It is the first book to get behind the motivations of all three governments simultaneously. He was able to access the three administrations’ (depressing) archives, and, thus, was able to create a three-way history incorporating the perspectives of each.
From ancient times the Jews and Iranians had a superior relationship until the Palestinian Mandate ended with the State of Israel. Even so, the Republic has the highest population in the Middle East (26,000) with 200,000 Iranian Jewish emigrants in Israel – unfortunately, some of those in government in Tel Aviv are the most hawkish against their ancestral homeland. One of the most rabid, a former Air Force General, was questioned on Tehran’s supposed nuclear program, he replied succinctly – “2,000 kilometers†– the air distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran! This can be interpreted as a very aggressive threat! The rhetoric only confuses the geopolitical situation, and the already complex state of affairs!
After 1979, there was a sea change. Iran and the Arabs seemed hostile to Tel Aviv, and, to a lesser extent, the District of Columbia itself! Israel was found selling spare parts to Persia, for the Persians only gave rhetorical support to the Palestinians throughout the 1980s.
There was a major shift in the tri-partite relationship between 1991-1994. The end of the Cold War (1989), allowed Iran to rebuild its relationship (to a degree) with the West. It even leaned strategically towards the Coalition during the First Gulf War (1990-1991).
The end of the Cold War, was a difficult time for Israel. The U.S. secretary of State of the moment, James Baker, quite openly recognized Tehran’s assistance. “There was a fear if Iran and the U.S came together,†there would be trouble, threatening Israel’s dominating position within the Middle East.
Then, the Land of the Medes began to take a part in the behind the scenes negotiations to construct a peaceful Palestine; that is the acceptance of a two-State solution. Israel, though, “is the new glue to the radical Islam of Iran!â€
Now, this “…has made it complicated for [total] rapproacement with the U.S.,†for Tehran has started to target Israel in support of their improved relations with Ramallah! Therefore, D.C. has been advocating Regime Change on the Eastern shores of the Arabian Gulf.
At the moment, there can be no solution because there is no ideological basis for a strategic shift.
It is, as though, we are statically living through 1938 again: Iran has become the second “Germany.†Diplomacy – either from the West or the Farsi – is impossible!
Dr. Trita Parsi, depressingly, warns of a forthcoming clash between Bush and Ahmedinejad!
RAFAH, Egypt (Reuters) – Hundreds of Palestinian protesters stormed the Rafah border crossing with Egypt from the Gaza Strip on Tuesday to protest against an Israeli blockade, and an Egyptian police officer was shot, security and border sources said.
Gunfire rang out as the protesters tried to push their way through the crossing from the Hamas-run territory, live footage from Egyptian state-run television showed.
One Egyptian police officer was shot and wounded, and nine others were hurt by stone-throwing and in scuffles, security sources said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. There was no immediate word on any Palestinian casualties.
The protesters were demanding the reopening of the Rafah terminal, a mainly pedestrian border crossing that has been shut most of the time since June. They chanted slogans praising the armed wing of the Islamist Hamas group and its leader in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh.
The gunfire came from the Palestinian side of the border, Egyptian security sources said. Witnesses at the border said Egyptian police had also fired rubber bullets in the air.
Hours earlier, about 50 women had managed to cross from Gaza to the Egyptian side of the border crossing as police fired water cannon to disperse about 400 protesters on the Palestinian side, security sources said.
Israel has no presence at Rafah although a U.S.-brokered deal between the Jewish state and the Palestinians says the crossing cannot be opened without Israeli consent.
Egyptian security sources said Hamas security men had entered the Egyptian side of the border with Egypt’s consent to restore order and to take several hundred Palestinians back into Gaza.
Egypt beefed up border security on Monday with about 300 police as Palestinians demanded Rafah be opened for hospital patients a day after much of Gaza was plunged into darkness. Israel had blocked fuel supplies and sealed Gaza’s border in what it said was a response to Palestinian cross-border rocket salvoes.
Israel resumed fuel supplies to Gaza’s main power plant on Tuesday, offering limited respite. The shipment included at least three days’ worth of European Union-funded fuel.
Israel has said the Gaza privations were not reaching a crisis point and that its measures were a justified reaction to rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas and other groups.
Hamas opposes peace moves with Israel by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose administration condemned the closure as harmful to diplomacy.
The European Union and international agencies have denounced the closures as illegal “collective punishment†against Gaza’s 1.5 million residents, many of whom depend on outside aid.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has urged Israel to lift the blockade against Palestinians in the coastal strip. Mubarak telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Monday to warn of the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.
(Reporting by Yusri Mohamed; Writing by Cynthia Johnston; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
An eyelash or simply lash is one of the hairs that grow at the edge of the eyelid. Eyelashes protect the eye from debris and perform some of the same function as whiskers do on a cat or a mouse in the sense that they are sensitive to being touched, thus providing a warning that an object (such as an insect or dust mite) is near the eye (which is then closed reflexively).The eyelashes of the embryo develop between the 7th and 8th week. Eyelashes will grow back if they fall out or get pulled out. Eyelashes take about seven to eight weeks to grow back. Their color may differ from that of the hair, although they tend to be dark on someone with dark hair and lighter on someone with light hair.Long eyelashes are considered a sign of femininity in most if not all cultures.
Accordingly, some women seek to enhance their eyelash length artificially to appear more feminine and sexually desirable. See also eyelash extensions.
Kohl has been worn as far back as the Bronze Age to protect and enhance lashes.
Complete eye makeup includes mascara, eyeliner and eye shadow to emphasize the eyes. The twentieth century saw the beginning of convincing-looking false eyelashes, popular in the 1960s.
1/2/08 – Rudy Giuliani’s new ad “Ready†appeals to fear of Muslims by using menacing imagery. Transcript:
An enemy without borders hate without boundaries A people perverted A religion betrayed A nuclear power in chaos Madmen bent on creating it Leaders assassinated Democracy attacked And Osama bin laden still making threats In a world where the next crisis is a moment away America needs a leader who’s ready I’m rudy Giuliani and I approve this message. ——————————————————————————–
12/31/07 – New Hampshire – The Concord Monitor reports that New Hampshire Veterans for Giuliani co-chair John Deady has quit his position following reports that he told The Guardian of London, “[Giuliani]’s got I believe the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims, and make no mistake about it, this hasn’t happened for a thousand years. These people are very dedicated and they’re also very, very smart in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or in other words get rid of them.â€
The Monitor adds, “When asked if he was referring to all Muslims, Deady told the paper, ‘I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims.’â€
In a release addressing the issue Ahmed Rehab, a spokesman for CAIR said, “There is no need to point out why these chilling comments have absolutely no place in the public or political discourse of a serious presidential campaign – that’s obvious. The troubling reality is they were made by a representative of Giuliani’s campaign and he has yet to repudiate them. His silence sends a terrible message.†——————————————————————————–
11/27/07 –
Mitt Romney would decline to appoint an American Muslim to a cabinet position because of their low percentage of the population.
Last week (Volume 10 Issue 4) we printed an article, supposedly a letter by Senator Barack Obama, which detailed his childhood and his relations with Muslims and Islam over the years. The letter had been sent to us by a trusted friend of TMO. The letter seemed to us perfectly attuned to the sensibilities of Muslims, even though it clearly declared his actually being a Christian and not a Muslim.
It came to our attention shortly after our mass emailing last week that the letter was a fraud, actually written by a blogger named Umar Lee. The letter was widely circulated after being written by Mr. Lee, becoming “viral†in the emails of Muslims and this in fact is the way we received it. By the time we received it the letter did not have Umar Lee’s signature at the bottom; the email said in fact that the letter had been sent to CAIR as an explanation of Obama’s background.
We wish to print some statement on the issue from the Obama campaign. Therefore, we have made approximately 10 calls to different offices of the Obama campaign since Monday morning; we have left our contact information on every voicemail; we spoke at length with one volunteer for the campaign (who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign) who explained that he thought the campaign staff might consider it unwise to respond on such an issue. We left two voice messages with Michael Ortiz, Senator Obama’s federal press secretary, and left one message with his campaign press office. But as of this writing, we have heard nothing from the campaign.
We at TMO are deeply embarrassed by what has happened, and because of this event we will implement changes in our policies regarding verification of outside submissions. Since we have limited staff and time for verification, we will be forced to rely more on our own paid writers and our subscription to news services rather than outside submissions.
Bush’s Mideast Visit and N. Korea Declaration Deadline
Courtesy William H. White
13/01/08 “ ICH†— — Why would Bush go to the Mideast now? It is likely he went to nail down commitments from the Israelis and acquiescence from the Saudis prior to a planned attack on Iran. Bush, who neither reads nor writes well, has a low comfort level with diplomatic go-betweens, so this is a look’em in the eye trip to talk about what happens when he pulls the trigger.
If not, what is the alternative explanation for the trip? He is going to talk about peace talks likely to drift into the fall; change diplomatic tact, such as a demand Israel end the blockade of Gaza; schedule another Annapolis photo-op? Not likely. In addition, by White House standards this is a stealth trip with the US press attention focused elsewhere.
One possibly related diplomatic element: the White House is demanding North Korea “come clean†about its nuclear program, with the objective of getting some statement from them about working with the Iranians. Why an urgent deadline, especially one not in the agreement, unless it is linked to concomitant events? Any statements by North Korea affirming their assistance to Iran, no matter whether the nuclear assistance was weapons related or prior to the reported shut down of the Iranian program, would be presented as “new†intelligence and sold much like the “Sadam/9-11†connection, trumping, or at least blunting, the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program.
Another indication of the White House’s intentions is promotion of an ordinary encounter in the Strait of Hormuz between US Navy Ships and Iranian Patrol Boats into an “incident,†including the imposition of addition sanctions on Iranian officials.
Assuming a decision to attack Iran, given weather and other logistical concerns, combined with attention to the domestic political schedule, the timing would likely be within two to three months or early fall.
Should this occur, the potential for destabilizing domestic and foreign consequences increase substantially, approaching near certainty. This nominally unattractive and reckless gamble would fit Bush’s character as well as the pattern of his governance. Also, this is his last shot, with a chance to create conditions in the Mideast that lock in future policy options, as he has in domestic policy with a massive deficit. Given the consequences, he would attack not only his foreign enemies, but at the same time strike at his domestic foes under the cover of the resulting emergency.
Finally, to further assess its likelihood, ask the question: who is to stop him? Not Congress; not the courts; not pubic opinion nor the press. The only chance, however slight, of stopping Bush would rest almost entirely with the British government, if Parliament became aware of the plan prior to the commencement of hostilities.
The world will long remember Benazir Bhutto as a modern Muslim woman who served two terms as Pakistan’s first woman prime minister: bright, attractive, articulate, talented, courageous, charismatic, an astute politician and political leader who called for a secular democratic Pakistan. Benazir was all of these, but like her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and a number of other Pakistani political leaders she also left a flawed political track record that both reflected and contributed to many problems.
Benazir Bhutto was an avowed reformer who in two terms as prime minister failed to bring major political or social change; a leader who did little for the overwhelming number of poor Pakistanis who live in a feudal society; a celebrated feminist who, despite promises as prime minister, did little to improve women’s status or reverse Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq’s so-called Islamization policies; a secular democrat whose leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and governance as prime minister reflected Pakistan’s feudal politics, with a record of widespread corruption and human rights violations that were severely criticized by international organizations.
Like her father, Benazir Bhutto exerted power through an increasingly tough autocratic style, one-person dominance or rule. She declared herself head of the PPP for life and made no provision for leadership from among her many talented party leaders since the PPP was to remain a family legacy as witnessed by recent the “selection†of her son and husband to succeed her.
The recent political responses to Bhutto’s assassination highlight the key problems or fault lines endemic to Pakistani politics today – problems that have been exacerbated exponentially in a post-9/11 world. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Pervez Musharraf were quick to blame Al-Qaeda and other Muslim extremists, and to simply place the assassination within the context of the war on global terrorism and the forces opposed to democracy.
But as dangerous as these forces are, especially with the growth of Pakistani rather than foreign fighters, this single-minded scenario ignores the long-standing conflicting currents in Pakistani politics: a deep-seated and unresolved identity problem regarding the relationship of Islam to Pakistani national identity and politics; the role of Islamic parties and movements and their clashes with a Westernized elite; a strong military that has resulted in years of military, rather than democratic, rule; and the role of feudal political leaders.
Although Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founder and first leader, saw Pakistan as a Muslim homeland, his more socio-cultural understanding was not that of many other more “religiously minded†leaders. Thus, while Pakistan adopted a Western political structure, many Pakistanis took the country’s Islamic identity quite literally and seriously – as Ayyub Khan, an early military ruler and modernist, learned when he had to back off his attempt to drop Pakistan’s title as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a secular socialist, would himself turn to Islam after the Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war in 1971 in order to build bridges to Arab countries, counter the Jamaat-i-Islami (Islamic Party) and other religious parties, and reinforce his popular base. However, the appeal to Islam would prove to be a two-edged sword as the Bhutto-appointed head of the army, Zia-ul-Haq, would use Islam to legitimize his coup, the execution of Bhutto and the “Islamization†of Pakistan.
Where do we go from here? The Pakistani-American “war on terrorism†and “promotion of democracy†have in fact resulted in a dangerous increase of the former and a threat to the latter. Religious extremism and terrorism have grown in Pakistan. Extremists will only benefit from the current crisis. Islamic politicians and parties (mainstream and extremist) have increased their electoral clout, both in the 2002 elections and subsequently nationally, including control of both the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan.
Musharraf’s promotion of democracy has at best been a fig leaf, both in terms of the manipulation of electoral politics and the role of the military. Though Musharraf took off his uniform, the generals remain a powerful and influential force capable of intervening at any moment. And regrettably, the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto has resulted in a new stage of Bhutto family feudal leadership of the PPP – only this time minus the charisma, talents and experience of Benazir.
Moving forward will require an enlightened leadership. At a time when widespread anti-Americanism (more accurately, opposition to the Bush administration) in Pakistan has become even more entrenched – as it has in many parts of the Muslim and non-Muslim world – one can at least hope for the laying of some groundwork for the emergence of future leaders.
Musharraf should begin with the restoration of some semblance of democracy by reconstituting Pakistan’s Supreme Court, announce a more specific timetable for national elections, and seek to work more closely with mainstream and political leaders rather than exploit the current fluid situation and thereby contribute to greater instability. The United States, given its political and military power, retains the ability and leverage to play a more constructive role in Pakistan – but that will require not simply looking for another “American candidate†to install as Pakistan’s leader.
John L. Esposito, university professor and founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is co-author of “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think.†THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.
Medicine may move several steps closer to successful treatment of deadly pancreatic cancer with a National Institutes of Health grant awarded to a Wayne State University School of Medicine researcher.
Professor Ramzi M. Mohammad, Ph.D., Hematology & Oncology and Internal Medicine, of the Wayne State University School of Medicine and the Karmanos Cancer Institute, has been awarded a $1.3 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to develop a new treatment for pancreatic cancer.
The prestigious RO1 grant, which funds research for five years, will be used, said Dr. Mohammed, to introduce “a new and novel concept to treat this deadly disease.â€
Often considered the most deadly form of cancer, pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor within the pancreatic gland. Each year, more than 33,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Only four percent of patients diagnosed with the affliction are expected to survive. Depending on the extent of the tumor at the time of diagnosis, the prognosis is generally regarded as poor. Few victims are still alive five years after diagnosis, and complete remission remains extremely rare.
Pancreatic cancer can be called a silent disease because many times the symptoms go unnoticed until the cancer is in the advanced stage. If there are early indications and symptoms, they are often mistakenly attributed to another condition.
In earlier research, Dr. Mohammad developed a method that allows the growth of human pancreatic tumor cells within the body of a mouse. He has demonstrated that human tumor cells can be injected into a mouse’s pancreas, and the tumor can than be successfully treated. Essentially, Dr. Mohammad is treating human tumors in a non-human host, and finding success in treatment of those human pancreatic tumors. The unique model preserves the human cell structure within the body of the mouse.
With the newly funded NIH grant, Dr. Mohammad plans to test the efficacy of new drug combinations on the human tumors within the mice. Standard pancreatic cancer therapy relies on drugs like gemcitabine and cisplatin, highly-toxic drugs that damage patient DNA. His techniques are expected to enhance the gemcitabine killing effect and thus improve the efficacy of standard chemotherapy, Dr. Mohammad said.
Heavily involved in preclinical and clinical research, Dr. Mohammad has also developed seven cell lines for cancer research in an effort to find therapies for lymphoma and leukemia. Through his path-breaking research, Dr. Mohammad has published numerous papers in specialized journals such as Cancer Research and Clinical Cancer Research.
According to the preliminary results of AMPEC’s unscientific survey of Muslim community concerns, a major issue that Muslims are concerned about is healthcare.
This article considers each of the candidates and measures them by their stated positions and voting histories in relation to the vital issue of healthcare.
In reaction to AMPEC’s survey, in response to the input “It is not government’s responsibility to provide health care to its citizensâ€, the response was: Strongly Agree: 9%: Agree: 12%; No Opinion: 8%; Disagree: 29%; Strongly Disagree: 37%; with 4% no input (figures rounded).
66% of survey respondents are in favor of universal health care for US citizens; 21% are opposed; 12% had no opinion.
The positions as summarized below on health care are obtained from election-related websites.
Hillary Clinton:
Include insurance industry in discussions, but rein them in. (Sep 2007); No parent should be told ‘no’ for healthcare for their kids. (Sep 2007); I want to be the health care president. (Sep 2007); Local smoking bans ok, but no national ban. (Sep 2007); Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites. (Jun 2007); FactCheck: Yes, AIDS is leading disease of young black women. (Jun 2007); 1993:Ambitious role plagued from start by secrecy complaints. (Jun 2007); Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term. (Feb 2007); I have the expertise to achieve universal healthcare for all. (Feb 2007)
Voting Record: Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007); Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006); Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006); Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005); Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005); Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003); Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
John Edwards:
Comprehensive coverage costs $90B to $120B a year. (Sep 2007); FactCheck: Plan costs $106B-$146B per year, not $90B-$120B. (Sep 2007); 2004 universal coverage irresponsible; but US has changed. (Sep 2007); Congress grants healthcare to all, or give up their own. (Sep 2007); Exactly the same healthcare rights for same-sex couples. (Aug 2007); Fully fund finding a cure for AIDS. (Jun 2007);Universal health care-$90B-$120B per year for healthcare, by ending Bush tax cut. (Sep 2007). (Jun 2007); Obama’s health plan will leave about 15 million uncovered. (Jun 2007); Cover every child and vulnerable adults. (Mar 2004)
Voting Record: Require health insurance for every child. (Aug 2003); Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003); Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002); Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001); Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001); Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000); Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rudy Giuliani:
Medicare and Medicaid need a private solution. (Oct 2007); FactCheck: No evidence that free market would halve premiums. (Oct 2007); $15,000 tax credit for health savings accounts. (Aug 2007); Switch from employer decisions to individual choices. (Jun 2007); $15,000 family tax deduction for your own health insurance. (Jun 2007); 96,000 NYC children insured via HealthStat initiative. (May 2007); No socialized medicine; give vouchers to the poor. (Apr 2007)
Mike Huckabee:
We don’t have a healthcare system; it’s a healthcare maze. (Oct 2007); Individually-controlled insurance, not government SCHIP. (Oct 2007); Portable medical records that YOU own, not your doctor. (Sep 2007); System is upside down; focuses on intervention after illness. (Sep 2007); Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007); Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007); Give Americans Congress’ healthcare, or give Congress ours. (Aug 2007); Dems want government in charge; GOP want consumers in charge. (Jun 2007); Focus on health & prevention, not just disease treatment. (Jan 2007); Guaranteed medical care not government’s responsibility. (Nov 2002);
John McCain:
Give individuals $2500 refundable tax credits for healthcare. (Oct 2007); Control health costs so manufacturers stay competitive. (Oct 2007); No mandated universal system; no mandated insurance coverage. (Jun 2006); Supports tax-free medical savings accounts & tax credits. (Nov 2004); Matching funds for seniors citizens’ prescription drugs. (Dec 1999); Expand health insurance to 11 million uninsured children. (Dec 1999); Keep health care promises to aging veterans. (Nov 1999); Address powerlessness when faced with health care crises. (Jul 1999); “Patient rights†means value human life over dollars. (Jul 1999); Patient Rights: access; MDs over HMOs; grievance process. (Jul 1999); Supports patient rights; regulate nicotine as a drug. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record: Allow appealing HMO decisions externally & in court. (Jul 1999); Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006); Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005); Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005); Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002); Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001); Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 20000; Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996); Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Barrack Obama:
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007); FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B. (Sep 2007); Morally wrong that terminally ill must consider money. (Sep 2007); National smoking bans only after trying local bans. (Sep 2007); Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007); National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007); We need condom distribution to deal with the scourge of AIDS. (Aug 2007); Got tested for AIDS, with wife, in public, in Kenya. (Jun 2007); Health plan cuts typical family’s premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007); Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007); Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007); Address minority health needs by more coverage & targeting. (Mar 2007); Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Voting Record: No need to mandate coverage; just let people afford it. (Jul 2007); Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007); Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006); Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005); Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Ron Paul:
Companies and government make healthcare unaffordable. (Oct 2007); Transfer funds from debt and empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007); Socialized medicine won’t work; nor managed care. (Oct 2007); Managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (Sep 2007) ; Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007); Not government’s role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. (Sep 2007); Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
Voting Record: Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007); Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006); Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004); Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003); Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003); Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003); Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999); Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)
Mitt Romney:
Let states create their own private, market-based insurance. (Oct 2007); Removing most mandates drove down premium cost by half. (Oct 2007); FactCheck: HillaryCare closer to RomneyCare than “all governmentâ€. (Oct 2007); FactCheck: Massachussettes plan works, but Romney not proposing it for US. (Oct 2007); Same tax treatment if people buy insurance without employers. (Oct 2007); Get everybody insured with state-based market dynamics. (Oct 2007); Insure 45 million uninsured with a free-market based system. (Aug 2007); FactCheck: Romney plan virtually identical to Obama plan. (Jun 2007); FactCheck: MA plan not yet in place so analysis premature. (May 2007); Subsidies for health coverage for low-income individuals. (Mar 2002)
Fred Thompson:
Less benefits for high-income Medicare beneficiaries. (Oct 2007); One-size-fits-all programs are inefficient and inadequate. (Sep 2007); Competition, free-market solutions & personal responsibility. (Sep 2007); We have world’s best medical system but it’s too expensive. (Aug 2007); Americans better served than nationalized Canadian system. (Jun 2007); Medicare drug payment methods are fundamentally flawed. (Jun 2001); Medicare loses $11B per year to errors and fraud. (Jun 2001)
Voting Record: Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002); Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001); Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001); Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000); Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999); Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998); Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997); Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996).
How all this plays out in the White House is anybody’s guess. The desire of a given candidate for health care is likely exaggerated during the campaign, and his or her ability to pass health care legislation may be either emboldened by a sympathetic legislative branch or hobbled by one that is uncooperative.
When the Tonkin Gulf incident took place in early August 1964, I was a journeyman CIA analyst in what Condoleezza Rice refers to as “the bowels of the agency.â€
As a current intelligence analyst responsible for Russian policy toward Southeast Asia and China, I worked very closely with those responsible for analysis of Vietnam and China.
Out of that experience I must say that, as much as one might be tempted to laugh at the bizarre theatrical accounts of Sunday’s incident involving small Iranian boats and U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, this is—as my old Russian professor used to insist—nothing to laugh.
The situation is so reminiscent of what happened—and didn’t happen—from Aug. 2-4, 1964, in the Gulf of Tonkin and in Washington, it is in no way funny.
At the time, the U.S. had about 16,000 troops in South Vietnam. The war that was “justified†by the Tonkin Gulf resolution of Aug. 7, 1964, led to a buildup of 535,000 U.S. troops in the late Sixties, 58,000 of whom were killed—not to mention the estimated two million Vietnamese who lost their lives by then and in the ensuing 10 years.
Ten years. How can our president speak so glibly about 10 more years of a U.S. armed presence in Iraq? He must not remember Vietnam.
What follows is written primarily for honest intelligence analysts and managers still on “active duty.â€
The issuance of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was particularly welcome to those of us who had been hoping there were enough of you left who had not been thoroughly corrupted by former CIA Director George Tenet and his malleable managers.
We are not so much surprised at the integrity of Tom Fingar, who is in charge of national intelligence analysis. He showed his mettle in manfully resisting forgeries and fairy tales about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction.â€
What is, frankly, a happy surprise is the fact that he and other non-ideologues and non-careerist professionals have been able to prevail and speak truth to power on such dicey issues as the Iranian nuclear program, the upsurge in terrorism caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the year-old NIE saying Iraq is headed for hell in a hand basket (with no hint that a “surge†could make a difference).
But those are the NIEs. They share the status of “supreme genre†of analytic product with the President’s Daily Brief and other vehicles for current intelligence, the field in which I labored, first in the analytic trenches and then as a briefer at the White House, for most of my 27-year career.
True, the NIE “Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction†of Oct. 1, 2002, (wrong on every major count) greased the skids for the attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003. But it is more often current intelligence that is fixed upon to get the country into war.
The Tonkin Gulf events are perhaps the best case in point. We retired professionals who worked through the Tonkin Gulf incident are hopeful that Fingar can ensure integrity in the current intelligence process as well.
Given the confusion last Sunday in the Persian Gulf, you need to remember that a “known known†in the form of a non-event has already been used to sell a major war—Vietnam. It is not only in retrospect that we know that no attack occurred that night.
Those of us in intelligence, not to mention President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy all knew full well that the evidence of any armed attack on the evening of Aug. 4, 1964, the so-called “second†Tonkin Gulf incident, was highly dubious.
But it fit the president’s purposes, so they lent a hand to facilitate escalation of the war.
During the summer of 1964, President Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to widen the war in Vietnam. They stepped up sabotage and hit-and-run attacks on the coast of North Vietnam.
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later admitted that he and other senior leaders had concluded that the seaborne attacks “amounted to little more than pinpricks†and “were essentially worthless,†but they continued.
Concurrently, the National Security Agency was ordered to collect signals intelligence from the North Vietnamese coast on the Gulf of Tonkin, and the surprise coastal attacks were seen as a helpful way to get the North Vietnamese to turn on their coastal radars.
The destroyer USS Maddox, carrying electronic spying gear, was authorized to approach as close as eight miles from the coast and four miles from offshore islands, some of which already had been subjected to intense shelling by clandestine attack boats.
As James Bamford describes it in “Body of Secrets:â€
“The twin missions of the Maddox were in a sense symbiotic. The vessel’s primary purpose was to act as a seagoing provocateur—to poke its sharp gray bow and the American flag as close to the belly of North Vietnam as possible, in effect shoving its 5-inch cannons up the nose of the Communist navy. In turn, this provocation would give the shore batteries an excuse to turn on as many coastal defense radars, fire control systems, and communications channels as possible, which could then be captured by the men…at the radar screens. The more provocation, the more signals…
“The Maddox’ mission was made even more provocative by being timed to coincide with commando raids, creating the impression that the Maddox was directing those missions and possibly even lobbing firepower in their support….
“North Vietnam also claimed at least a twelve-mile limit and viewed the Maddox as a trespassing ship deep within its territorial waters.†(pp 295-296)
On Aug. 2, 1964, an intercepted message ordered North Vietnamese torpedo boats to attack the Maddox. The destroyer was alerted and raced out to sea beyond reach of the torpedoes, three of which were fired in vain at the destroyer’s stern.
The Maddox’s captain suggested that the rest of his mission be called off, but the Pentagon refused. And still more commando raids were launched on Aug. 3, shelling for the first time targets on the mainland, not just the offshore islands.
Early on Aug. 4, the Maddox captain cabled his superiors that the North Vietnamese believed his patrol to be directly involved with the commando raids and shelling. That evening at 7:15 (Vietnam time) the Pentagon alerted the Maddox to intercepted messages indicating that another attack by patrol boats was imminent.
What followed was panic and confusion. There was a score of reports of torpedo and other hostile attacks, but no damage and growing uncertainty as to whether any attack actually took place. McNamara was told that “freak radar echoes†were misinterpreted by “young fellows†manning the sonar, who were “apt to say any noise is a torpedo.â€
This did not prevent McNamara from testifying to Congress two days later that there was “unequivocal proof†of a new attack. And based largely on that, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution bringing 10 more years of war.
By the afternoon of Aug. 4, the CIA’s expert analyst on North Vietnam (let’s call him “Tomâ€) had concluded that probably no one had fired on the U.S. ships. He included a paragraph to that effect in the item he wrote for the Current Intelligence Bulletin, which would be wired to the White House and other key agencies and appear in print the next morning.
And then something unique happened. The Director of the Office of Current Intelligence, a very senior officer whom Tom had never before seen, descended into the bowels of the agency to order the paragraph deleted. He explained:
“We’re not going to tell LBJ that now. He has already decided to bomb North Vietnam. We have to keep our lines open to the White House.â€
“Tom†later bemoaned—quite rightly: “What do we need open lines for, if we’re not going to use them, and use them to tell the truth?â€
Two years ago, I would have been tempted to comment sarcastically, “How quaint; how obsolete.†But the good news is that the analysts writing the NIEs have now reverted to the ethos in which “Tom†and I were proud to work.
Now the analysts/reporters of current intelligence need to follow suit, and we hope Tom Fingar can hold their feet to the fire. For if they don’t measure up, the consequences are sure to be disastrous.
This should be obvious in the wake of the Tonkin Gulf reporting experience, not to mention more recent performance of senior officials before the attack on Iraq in 2003.
The late Ray S. Cline, who was the current intelligence director’s boss at the time of the Tonkin Gulf incident, said he was “very sure†that no attack took place on Aug. 4. He suggested that McNamara had shown the president unevaluated signals intelligence which referred to the (real) earlier attack on Aug. 2 rather than the non-event on the 4th.
There was no sign of remorse on Cline’s part that he didn’t step in and make sure the president was told the truth.
We in the bowels knew there was no attack; and so did the Director of Current Intelligence as well as Cline, the Deputy Director for Intelligence. But all knew, as did McNamara, that President Johnson was lusting for a pretext to strike the North and escalate the war. And, like B’rer Rabbit, they didn’t say nothin’.
Commenting on the interface of intelligence and policy on Vietnam, a senior CIA officer has written about:
“… the dilemma CIA directors and senior intelligence professionals face in cases when they know that unvarnished intelligence judgments will not be welcomed by the President, his policy managers, and his political advisers…[They] must decide whether to tell it like it is (and so risk losing their place at the President’s advisory table), or to go with the flow of existing policy by accentuating the positive (thus preserving their access and potential influence). In these episodes from the Vietnam era, we have seen that senior CIA officers more often than not tended toward the latter approach.â€
“CIA and the Vietnam Policymakers: Three Episodes, 1962-1968,†Harold P. Ford
Back to Iran. This time, we all know what the president and vice president are lusting after—an excuse to attack Iran. But there is a big difference from the situation in the summer of 1964, when President Johnson had intimidated all his senior subordinates into using deceit to escalate the war.
Bamford comments on the disingenuousness of Robert McNamara when he testified in 1968 that it was “inconceivable†that senior officials, including the president, deliberately used the Tonkin Gulf events to generate congressional support for a wider Vietnam War.
In Bamford’s words, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “a sewer of deceit,†with Operation Northwoods and other unconscionable escapades to their credit. Then-Under Secretary of State George Ball commented, “There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that this would provide the provocation we needed.â€
It is my view that the only thing that has prevented Bush and Cheney from attacking Iran so far has been the strong opposition of the uniformed military, including the Joint Chiefs.
As the misadventure last Sunday in the Strait of Hormuz shows, our senior military officers need all the help they can get from intelligence officers more concerned with the truth than with “keeping lines open to the White House†and doing its bidding.
In addition, the intelligence oversight committees in Congress seem to be waking from their Rip Van Winkle-like slumber. It was Congress, after all, that ordered the controversial NIE on Iran/nuclear (and insisted it be publicized).
And the flow of substantive intelligence to Congress is much larger than it was in 1964 when, remember, there were no intelligence committees as such.
So, you inheritors of the honorable profession of current intelligence – I’m thinking of you, Rochelle, and you, Rick – don’t let them grind you down.
If you’re working in the bowels of the CIA and you find that your leaders are cooking the intelligence once again into a recipe for casus belli, think long and hard about your oath to protect the Constitution. Should that oath not transcend any secrecy promise you had to accept as a condition of employment?
By sticking your neck out, you might be able to prevent 10 years of unnecessary war.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer, then a current intelligence analyst at CIA, and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
NEW DELHI – Interestingly, the latest political move made by Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani has created a ripple of sorts in other political circles too. This refers to Advani’s suggestion that senior BJP leader, former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee should be conferred the country’s highest civilian award, Bharat Ratna. “I would like to propose the name of Atal Bihari Vajpayee for recognition with Bharat Ratna this year. His contribution to our national life is so varied and well-known, and sustained over such a long period, that it bears no reiteration,†Advani said in a letter written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Listing Vajpayee’s achievements, Advani wrote: “Independent India has not seen many political leaders who have commanded so much pan-Indian respect and adoration, and for such a long time as Vajpayee has.†Advani hailed Vajpayee as a successful prime minister, who ran a stable coalition for a full term, besides having been the prime minister three times, with the period of his tenure “next to Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.â€
Advani also credited Vajpayee for his fight against authoritarianism and imprisonment during Emergency (1975-77), contribution to normalizing ties with Pakistan, making India a nuclear power (1998) and for his “breathtaking initiatives†like national highways development project.
Expressing regret on their being instances when deserving candidates have not been conferred the honor, Advani wrote: “Sadly, there have also been instances when the award was not given even when such (suitable) illustrious Indians existed in our midst or when their names were suggested for posthumous recognition.â€
The award was instituted in 1954 in recognition of highest degrees of national service, including artistic, literary and scientific achievements, as well as public service of the highest order. Among the forty recipients of this award, the last to receive this was classical maestro (shehnai player) Ustad Bismillah Khan in 2001.
It is for the first time that the award is being subject to political lobbying from several quarters, with the first move made by Advani. There is a view that this is apparently Advani’s manner of expressing gratitude to Vajpayee for having supported his selection as the party’s candidate for prime ministerial position. Whatever may have guided Advani to propose Vajpayee’s name, others have not fallen behind in proposing other names, including that of CPI-M (Communist Party of India-Marxist) veteran – Jyoti Basu, BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) founder- late Kanshi Ram and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi (Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam).
Incidentally, even Congress is understood to favor Basu’s name for the award. Signaling this, Congress leader Veerappa Moily openly stated: “The honor should be conferred on Basu.â€
The CPI-M, however, seems unmoved by this stand of Congress. When questioned by his party mouthpiece Ganashakti, Basu replied: “I am not in the race†(for Bharat Ratna).
“Communists don’t hanker after state awards,†CPI-M leader Biman Bose said in Kolkata: “We are a party with a difference. We don’t flaunt awards.†“Jyoti Basu is held in high esteem among the party ranks and the people. He’s been with the masses all his life and will continue to lead their struggle till his last. He doesn’t need government awards to glorify himself,†Bose said (January 12).
The Left bloc apparently is also not willing to be hoodwinked into expressing its support for India-United States nuclear deal. Thus, they would rather stay from this game of award-politics.
Categorically voicing his party’s opposition to Basu being conferred the award, CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat said in Kolkata: “We have made our stand clear. We are not in favor of such awards for our leaders†(January 13).
BSP chief, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati has, however, joined the race. Demanding that it should be conferred on the party founder Kanshi Ram, she said: “Kanshi Ram should be conferred Bharat Ratna for his invaluable contributions in the uplift of Dalits and oppressed.†“I have come to know through the media that the government of India is considering to confer Bharat Ratna on Vajpayee and Basu. I support it but at the same time it should also be given to Kanshi Ram,†she said at a hurriedly called news conference in Lucknow (January 12).
Not to be left behind in this tussle, DMK has revived its support for Karunanidhi’s candidature. Having made this demand earlier also, DMK sources are hopeful that if Left parties remain adamant against Basu receiving the award, it is “an excellent chance†for their leader to be conferred with the honor.
The latest to join the race is Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) in demanding Bharat Ratna for former Prime Minister Chowdhury Charan Singh. Likewise, supporters of P.V. Narsimha Rao and Jagjivan Ram have raised demand that Bharat Ratna be conferred on them posthumously.
Amid such political jockeying, critics have not refrained from taking a dig at Advani for initiating this race, by proposing Vajpayee’s name. When questioned on efforts being made to pit Basu against Vajpayee, Bose said: “I don’t know about Congress. But, I must say BJP is trying to play politics with the highest civilian reward.â€
While Railway Minister Lalu Prasad expressed support for Basu, he questioned Advani’s proposal by saying: “Vajpayee has not retired from politics†(January 12). He claimed that Advani has deliberately taken this move to “make Vajpayee retire from politics.â€
Ever since sectarian violence between Shi’a and Sunnis broke out in Iraq, as a result of the U.S. Allied invasion in 2003, other Gulf States have increasingly worried that perhaps the hostility could spill over into their own nations. This past week, those worries came to a head as several Sunni Muslim bookshops were vandalized in the city of Hawally, in Kuwait.
Prior to the visit of U.S. President George W. Bush on Jan. 18th, a dozen Sunni bookshops were ransacked. The vandals pelted the shops with stones to break the glass of the storefronts and then threw rotten eggs at innumerable targets. Several books were also destroyed or defaced. Similar attacks on another 20 Sunni bookshops took place the following Friday and Saturday. The mode of operation was the same. Nothing was taken but several items were destroyed. However, the vandals did leave behind their fingerprints, which are currently being processed by the Kuwait Criminal Investigations Department (CID). Security personnel are confident that along with the fingerprints and witness statements that the culprits will be apprehended soon.
Kuwaiti lawmakers have denounced the attacks on the bookshops and said that they are a blatant attempt to stir up sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shi’a in Kuwait. The timing could not be more relevant as this is now the month of Muharram, which is a holy time for both Sunnis and Shi’a. In a statement released to local media outlets, Interior Minister Sheikh Jaber Al-Khaled Al Sabah said the vandals are trying to “…undermine security and provoke strife. The authorities are not sparing any efforts to stop this.â€
Both Shi’a and Sunni MP’s have called for a united front to preserve the peaceful coexistence that has always existed between Shi’a and Sunnis in Kuwait. They have also demanded that the culprits be caught and punished to the full extent of the law to send the message that such acts of terror will not be tolerated in Kuwait.
On Tuesday, the National Islamic Alliance (NIA), which is the largest political governing body for Shi’a in Kuwait, publicly condemned the attacks and reiterated that both Sunnis and Shi’a must come together to ward off sectarian violence spreading in this tiny Gulf state. In a statement, the NIA said, “The attack raises a number of question marks about its goals and the desperate attempt to create a rift among Kuwaitis. This crime comes as part of a plot to incite sectarian rift in the Muslim Ummah after the miserable failure of the Ummah’s enemies in instigating divisions among Muslims in many places.â€
Kuwait has been a model of peaceful sectarian coexistence for years. Both Sunnis and Shi’a are treated equally under the law without bias. Authorities will stomp out sectarian violence in Kuwait as soon as it rears its ugly head with the majority of Muslim residents in Kuwait agreeing that, irrespective of sect, all Muslims are equal under the auspices of Allah Almighty and that He alone can judge between us.
From the day you started living in Western society until the present, whatever you considered to be wrong then, has gotten worse. You live in a society incapable of resolving problems—a frightening realization.
Steady increases occur in our prison population, divorce, adultery, teenage sex, substance abuse, gambling, litigation, and mental illness. Steady decreases continue in education, health, contentment, marriage, and standards of all sorts. These same conditions existed during the fall of Greece, Rome, and Spain.
The Western world realizes that something fundamental is amiss, and they want change. The approval rating of the President hovers around historic lows, with the approval rating of Congress even lower. People want change, but they don’t know what change to make, except to get the government more involved, that same government that has created all the issues to begin with. These issues are but symptoms or effects, of a fundamental cause and therein lays the problem.
Western society is feminine and materialistic—it is unbalanced. It focuses on the material and remains unaware of the unseen forces that govern all that we see. The words of Jesus, “My kingdom is not of this world†go unheeded, as do the words of the Koran, “This book is for those who know with a certainty the existence of the unseen.â€
Instead, Western society deals only with the seen and therefore all conditions continue to worsen; Hillary Clinton’s health care plan of a decade ago serves as an excellent example. Her plan had nothing to do with health; it focused on sickness and how to deal with it. That is the feminine approach—to adapt to the conditions that exist and then nurture it. Teenage sex receives the same treatment; instead of teaching ethics and abstinence we accept their sexual behavior and give them free condoms. We provide drug addicts sterile needles so that they don’t catch disease while they practice their habit. Treating symptoms does not make for change; however, Western man no longer has the ability to make change. He has legislated away his God-given authority and reduced himself to an automaton production worker and manipulated consumer. He has said to the government, “You take over responsibility for my family, its education and well being, and I’ll just make money.â€
The Koran states, “Do not with your own hands cast yourselves into destruction,†which is exactly what Western man has done. He legislated away his own authority, and now he is crying about it and doesn’t know how to extricate himself from his position. He calls upon the government to help him not realizing that with every act of so-called helpfulness from the government he becomes even more dependent upon it for his survival. With his own hands he put himself into slavery.
Western society is incapable of being “fixed;†it has a fundamentally flawed basic premise. It does not understand the universal principle of gender nor the patriarchal structure necessary to make family the focal point of society. Western society is haram from top to bottom. Haram does not get “fixed;†it self-destructs.
The sixth anniversary of the creation of Bush’s legal “black hole†is upon us.
The Bush administration has maintained a low profile over the last month, as waves of indignation over the destruction of CIA videotapes showing the torture of two “high value†detainees have lapped ever closer to the White House. In the last few weeks, as coverage of the presidential primaries consumed the media, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney must also have been hoping that they would be able to escape scrutiny on this bleak anniversary. It is, however, imperative that they are not allowed to do so. Despite its claims that it “does not torture,†this is an administration drenched in torture, which must one day be made answerable for its crimes.
Six years ago, on Jan. 11, 2002, the first of 778 prisoners – referred to as “detainees†and identified only by numbers – arrived at a hastily erected prison in the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where, ever since, they have been subjected to a disturbingly lawless experiment.
Under the terms of a military order initiated in November 2001, the president claimed that he could hold the detainees indefinitely, without charge or trial, as “enemy combatants.†Guantánamo, leased from Cuba in 1903 under an arrangement that cannot be broken unless both countries agree to it, was specifically chosen for this experiment because it was presumed to be beyond the reach of the U.S. courts.
For two and a half years, the administration succeeded in its aims, running an illegal offshore interrogation center, which mutated into a torture prison when the detainees proved resistant to interrogation. The “enhanced interrogation techniques†introduced by the administration included prolonged solitary confinement, forced nudity, sexual and religious humiliation, sleep deprivation, the use of extreme heat and cold, and the use of painful stress positions. Despite condemnation by world leaders, international legal experts, global bodies including the United Nations and an unprecedented array of former U.S. military commanders, the administration defined torture so narrowly – as being equivalent to organ failure or death – that it refused to concede that it was actually engaged in torture.
The irony, which became apparent only later, was that the reason that so many of the detainees were not forthcoming in their interrogations was not because they were al-Qaeda terrorists who were trained to resist interrogation, but because they had no information to give. When the government’s own documents were analyzed, in reports by the Seton Hall Law School (PDF), and in my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison, it became apparent that the majority of the detainees had not been captured by U.S. forces on the battlefield, as alleged, but had been sold to them by their Afghan and Pakistani allies, at a time when bounty payments of $5,000 a head for al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects were widespread.
In June 2004, the U.S. courts finally caught up with Guantánamo. In a momentous ruling, the Supreme Court insisted that Guantánamo was “in every practical respect a United States territory,†and that the detainees had habeas corpus rights – the right to challenge the basis of their detention before an impartial court.
Undeterred, the administration allowed lawyers access to the detainees, but refused to allow them anywhere near the U.S. courts, establishing, instead, a system of military tribunals – the Combatant Status Review Tribunals – as a mockery of their habeas rights. In these tribunals, the detainees were allowed to tell their own stories, in response to the government’s allegations against them, but were not allowed legal representation. Moreover, the tribunals were empowered to accept secret evidence, obtained through the torture, coercion or bribery of other detainees, which was not revealed to the defendants and could not even be challenged.
In some ways, of course, there is more to celebrate today than there was on Guantánamo’s fifth anniversary. In the last year, a number of whistleblowers – former military officials who worked on the tribunals – have bravely stepped forward to condemn the tribunal process. Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, who spoke out in June, described them as a sham, reliant upon vague, unsubstantiated and generic evidence, and designed merely to approve the detainees’ prior designation as “enemy combatants,†and in October an Army major, speaking anonymously, added his complaints, revealing the deliberate exclusion of exculpatory evidence, the reconvening of tribunals when an unfavorable result was produced, and the pressure exerted on tribunal members from higher up the command structure.
Plans to scale down the prison population also continued throughout 2007, and 492 detainees have now been released, 122 in the last year alone. The majority of those have been freed on their return home, but the gross injustices of Guantánamo have not come to an end. Two detainees died at the prison last year (to add to the four who died in 2006), and five more detainees were transferred to the facility, even while the president was claiming in public that he wanted to close the prison.
For the 281 detainees who remain, moreover, life is as hard as ever. Although a few are housed in Camp 4, which contains communal dorms, the majority are held in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day in the newest camps, Camps 5 and 6, and are deprived of the meager comforts – including access to TV and some sort of a social life – that are routinely enjoyed by the majority of convicted criminals on the U.S. mainland.
Others continue to be held in complete isolation, an unknown number are suffering from severe psychiatric disorders, and for the few dozen long-term hunger strikers, the prison remains a torture center. Prevented from exercising the only power they still hold – the right to starve themselves to death in protest at their endless detention without charge or trial – twice a day they are held in restraint chairs, using 18 separate straps, and are fed through a thick tube inserted into the stomach through the nose, which is removed after each feeding in a deliberate attempt to “break†their will.
To compound the detainees’ misery, it’s unclear how some of them will ever be freed. Up to 70 have been cleared for release – some for more than two years – but the majority are still held because of international treaties preventing their return to their homelands, including China, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, Libya and Algeria, where they face the risk of torture. Attempts by the authorities to bypass these treaties through “memoranda of understanding,†guaranteeing the humane treatment of returned detainees, recently came unstuck after two returned Tunisians received jail sentences following dubious trials, and the decision by a district court judge to prevent the return of a third Tunisian seems to have put the whole errant project on hold.
Another 80 are scheduled to face trial by military commission, a system of show trials concocted by Dick Cheney and his advisors in November 2001, but as these, like the tribunals, rely on secret evidence obtained through the torture, coercion or bribery of other detainees, and have yet to produce a single significant victory, it remains unclear if they will ever function adequately. As the uproar over the destroyed CIA tapes has demonstrated, the administration is desperate to conceal all evidence of torture by U.S. forces, because it remains illegal under domestic and international law, and it seems inconceivable that military trials that conceal evidence of torture can ever be regarded a legitimate.
An alternative solution is to free the other 130 or so detainees who are currently regarded as too dangerous to release but not dangerous enough to be charged (which is, of course, another extraordinary invention on the part of the authorities), and to bring those regarded as genuinely dangerous – no more than 40, according to various intelligence estimates – to trial on the U.S. mainland.
This proposal is almost taboo in the United States, but it may yet come to pass. It relies on the hope that pliable juries can be persuaded to overlook the torture of “high value†detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in a tribunal last year that he was the architect of 9/11, and Abu Zubaydah and Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri, two other allegedly senior al-Qaeda operatives, whose destroyed interrogation tapes are the reason that would-be investigators are currently circling the White House.
This is a gloomy scenario, and it still doesn’t explain what will happen to the cleared detainees who cannot be repatriated, or how to begin dismantling the completely unaccountable web of secret and semisecret prisons – in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere – that underpins Guantánamo, which is, after all, only the most visible symbol of a worldwide gulag, involving “extraordinary rendition†and “ghost detainees.†It is, however, honest and considered, which is more than can be said for the motivations of those who dreamed up the whole malign experiment in the first place.
Investors arranging for their annual pre-April 15 visit with an accountant should expect conversations about deferring taxes by using profit sharing, IRA or other tax-saving accounts. In my opinion, this solution is a classic case of ‘’Pay me now, or pay me later.’’ I continue to believe that tax-deferred savings accounts are a bad idea for most.
I am well aware that my position on tax-deferred accounts is a minority opinion, and I can clearly imagine the shock on the face of any accountant reading this column. Yet I believe that the case for tax-deferred accounts is weak, at best.
To illustrate my position, let’s begin with the strongest argument typically made in favor of tax-deferred accounts. Yes, any accountant can run a set of calculations to show clearly how your savings will grow faster in a tax-deferred account. I do not argue that point at all. What I do argue is whether a saver will be any better off, in net terms, than he would have been using taxable alternatives.
To create your own visual to see what I mean, you’ll need a quarter, a piece of paper and a pen. Simply trace a circle around the quarter, and label the circle as your taxable account. Now draw a larger circle around the first one. Label the larger circle your tax-deferred account. To complete the illustration, color in the area between the two circles. What you have just done is illustrate how much of your savings account belongs to your partner. In this case, your “partner†is the entity who owns that portion of your account.
Remember, the term “tax-deferred†does not mean “tax exempt.†At some point in the future, when you withdraw money from your account, a portion of each withdrawal belongs to your partner. Your partner, obviously, is the federal government.
Yes, in a tax-deferred account, your savings will grow larger. But that incremental increase may not belong to you. Nor is it likely that you will become any richer when you begin taking money from this account.
The savings projections furnished by your accountant rely on the validity of the assumptions used to create them. One of the most obviously flawed assumptions typically used is that, during retirement, you’ll find yourself in a lower tax bracket.
This idea assumes that your income will be lower in retirement than during your last years of work. And that obviously leads to the assumption that you will be spending less money during retirement than during your working years.
Sit back for a moment and imagine how much of your current spending you could reduce in your first year of retirement. Could you cut current spending by 10%? Or 20%? What would you cut back on first?
Then, think about what you will do with all the time no longer devoted to working or traveling back and forth to the office? Will you sit around the house watching TV, reading old books or lounging on your favorite park bench?
A good exercise that helps immensely as you plan for retirement is asking people who are already retired how much less they spend now than when they were working. When I have asked this question, I typically hear that spending does not decrease during the first years of retirement. In fact, more than likely, spending will remain the same or even rise for active retirees. Let’s face it, sitting around the house watching television is not what most of us have in mind for those first retirement years.
If you get similar answers after asking retirees about changes in their spending and lifestyles, it becomes apparent that your retirement income should be close to what it is while you are still employed. So how will your tax rate fall if your retirement income and spending remain similar to those of pre-retirement? If you would prefer to maintain your current standard of living during retirement, the illustration you created with the two circles begins to look more realistic than the projections offered by your accountant.
Other economic problems are made evident as we continue along the current presidential election cycle and hear more about the leading candidates’ positions. For Wall Street and those in the financial media, hearing the candidates’ short list of “scary†words and terms about the economy can be useful in furthering their agenda items. Obviously, their agenda items do not often match ours. When they do not, we can expect to hear some of those scary words repeated, and terms such as “isolationist,’’ ‘’socialized medicine,’’ and ‘’populism’’ are used frequently. Perhaps the intent is to make us think that some things that are actually good for us are really bad — and should be avoided at all cost.
Populism refers to an agenda that makes more sense for the majority than it does for the minority in power. That minority has prospered exceedingly well during the Bush administration’s time in office. The last thing that minority would want is a change in the economic environment.
So when any candidate talks about ideas designed to benefit the poor or middle class, they are quickly attacked as some form of socialism or populism. That some of those ideas are well entrenched and central themes of economies around the world, often more healthy than ours, does not seem to matter.
The problem for those in the privileged minority is that anything that smacks of being a positive for the greater good is likely to come at their expense. And naturally, they will fight those ideas using all the alarmist rhetoric they can muster. But perhaps the odds are now against them, since the middle class has found itself on the short end of every economic bargain pushed through by our Government — at Wall Street’s urging.
Given the unpopularity of the current administration, seeing a Democrat in the White House in 2009 seems almost assured. The new administration will, of course, find itself beholden to its base, the greater population and common good. Perhaps that may mean not only an end to the disastrous tax cutting policies of the current administration but also an increase in social spending programs. But the big problem with this plan is: our government is bankrupt!
The national debt has exploded to well over $9 trillion during Mr. Bush’s time in office. He is the poster boy for reckless spending. As a country, we must now borrow more than $2 billion each and every day to keep our economy from shutting down.
We are experiencing a slump in the housing market, while state and local governments get squeezed as expenses exceed income from taxes. Surely, I am not the only one who expects tax rates to rise in the future.
So what happens to savers’ plan for deferred taxes at today’s rates when they find higher tax rates assessed during retirement — when that money is needed? The possibility exists — and I fully expect it — that your illustration with the two circles might prove overly optimistic. Think too of required minimum distributions and what those will look like as you advance in age. Ask your accountant what your income might be when you are 80 years old and required to take far more from your accounts than needed to fund your lifestyle. You will forever remain in the highest tax bracket!
Let’s look at an illustration for that possibility, again using those two circles. This time, color in not only the space between the two circles but also a small portion of the outer edge of the smaller circle. Your tax-deferred savings account may well end up looking like this, regardless of whether we find a Democrat or Republican in the White House in 2009.
Today, an article in my local newspaper says that the bond rating agency, Moody’s, predicts that the U. S. government may lose its AAA bond rating within the next 10 years, due largely to its projected obligations for social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Two possible remedies can solve this problem. We can either cut spending on those programs or raise taxes to fund them at current levels.
Can you imagine any politician telling us that our retirement benefits will be cut? Can you picture any politician announcing that tax rates will have to rise, especially for the wealthiest among us?
In the first scenario, living standards for a very large portion of the country would be affected negatively. In the second scenario, levying higher tax rates against the rich, is like raising taxes on cigarettes: very few are affected. The majority, which doesn’t smoke, will eagerly approve raising taxes that it will not pay. Most voters would also approve raising taxes at top marginal brackets, since, of course, those higher tax rates will not affect them. And since the rich won’t really suffer or see a diminution of their lifestyles from higher taxes, this looks to be the least painful alternative.
In short, both populism and the reality of our current fiscal situation certainly demand higher revenues flowing into government coffers in the very near future. Since your partner in your tax-deferred savings account will be reaching into that account for a greater share as time goes on, can you see my problem with using this type of savings option?
As an investor in a taxable account, I feel that I will be better able to manage my long-term tax costs by taking money from my account to pay lower capital gains rates. And I would much rather pay higher taxes while I am working than when I am retired and needing to make sure that every dollar counts.
Have a great week. Bob
Bob Wood ChFC, CLU Yusuf Kadiwala. Registered Investment Advisors, KMA, Inc., invest@muslimobserver.com.
The following are the election results, announced earlier this month.
Board of Directors Elected:
1. Khalid Zafar 2. Idrees Zahoor
Method of Moon sighting elected: Calculation following the Fiqh Council of North America. For details, please view the Tawheed Center Notice Board.
Bloomfield Muslim Unity Center
Coming Attractions
The Bloomfield Muslim Unity Center (Muslim Unity Center of Bloomfield Hills) has a great weekly series that occurs every Friday evening. Sometimes the event will be a movie, sometimes an enlightening speech by someone from the community or who is important in some way to the Muslim community. There are always nice light refreshments available, donuts and coffee. The time for the events is from 7:15pm to 9:00pm)
BMUC also has a banquet hall that can seat several hundred, in one of the most recently built facilities in the Detroit area–to inquire about using their facilities, call 248-660-6416.
To learn more about BMUC events, visit muslimunitycenter.org or call 248-857-9200.
Upcoming events:
January 18: Presentation by Imam Moosa on The Meaning of Hijrah.
January 25: Michael Moore’s movie Sicko, a mind-bending film about the state of health care in the United States.
February 1: Potluck and Book Club gathering.
February 8: Banquet and presentation by Coleen Ezzeddine, WSU business school, on improving communication at work.
February 15: Banquet and presentation again by Colleen Ezzeddine, about improving presentations at work.
Flint Islamic Center
On the occasion of the birthday of the Holy Prophet (s), the Flint Islamic Center will host presentations for its “Annual Serah Competition.”
IAGD Events
The Muslim Youth of Greater Detroit (MYGD), a youth group from IAGD, will be hosting Muslim Youth Day. It will be held at the IAGD mosque on Saturday, January 26, 2008, from 10:00 AM to 5:30 PM. For more information you can contact Mr. Faisal Chaudhry, at frasulc@gmail.com.
ACCESS Staff to Train 61 AmeriCorps Members
61 new and returning members will come to Dearborn for four days of service specific training. Members from around the country will be in Dearborn from January 18-21. The goal of the member orientation is to build a national sense of identity and common mission among the ARC members and to provide tools they need to serve their communities.
One of the highlights of this year’s orientation will be the swearing-in ceremony held at the Arab American National Museum on Saturday, January 19th. The orientation will also cover volunteer recruitment, ARC and AmeriCorps policies and procedures, and conclude with a service project on the Martin Luther King Day of Service. In partnership with City Year, ACCESS will participate in a local service project to celebrate Dr. King’s life and teachings through volunteer service.
Muslim who helped stop NYC Hanukkah attack on Jews gets award
NEW YORK – A Muslim student who helped stop a Hanukkah attack on four Jewish subway riders is being honored for his actions.
Several Muslim organizations, including the Council on American Islamic Relations, are presenting Hassan Askari with a Good Samaritan Award. One of the victims in the attack, Walter Adler, will receive an Interfaith Commitment Award.
Adler has called Askari a hero for intervening when Adler and three friends were assaulted on a train in lower Manhattan last month after they were heard saying “Happy Hanukkah.â€
Askari tried to fight off the 10 attackers, giving Adler a chance to summon police by pulling an emergency brake.
Eight men and two women have pleaded not guilty to assault, menacing and other charges.
Irving Imam denounces honor killings
IRVING, TX–The leader of an Irving mosque denounced honor killings Friday, saying they have no place in Islam, the Dallas Morning News reported.
Imam Zia Sheikh’s comments came after speculation that two teenage sisters were victims of such a killing. Sarah and Amina Said were found shot to death in a taxi in Irving on New Year’s Day.
The girls’ father, Egyptian-born cab driver Yaser Said, is wanted in connection with the deaths. He reportedly was troubled by his daughters’ relationships with boys.
An honor killing is generally defined as one in which a man kills a female relative who is believed to have shamed their family.
The deaths of the Said sisters are tragic, the imam said Friday, but religion should not be tied to the slayings.
“Murdering one’s own children is not permitted at all in Islam,†the imam told hundreds of worshippers during a prayer service at the Islamic Center of Irving. “There is no precedent for it. … That is not the way we deal with children that we are having difficulty with.â€
Local Muslims fear that talk of honor killings will hamper their efforts to reach out to the community. They said they are trying to use the situation to educate people about Islam.
Muslim experts say that there’s no sanction for honor killings from the Quran, the holy book of Islam, or from Islamic law.
“Unfortunately, whenever a person with a Muslim name does something, people immediately say, ‘Muslims are doing that, so Islam must permit it,’ “ said Basheer Ahmed, a Tarrant County psychiatrist and past president of the Islamic Medical Association of North America.
Mr. Said’s wife, Patricia, has rejected the notion that Mr. Said’s religion or culture had anything to do with the killings. Her son, Islam, 19, said in a recent interview, “Why is it every time an Arab father kills a daughter, it’s an honor killing?â€
New mosque okayed near Pittsburgh
PITTSBURGH– Town supervisors have approved plans for the construction of a mosque in the township of Marshall near Pittsburgh, the Tribune Review reported.
The Islamic Center of North Pittsburgh, which is expected to be completed in about four years, would be in the only mosque in the North Hills, officials said.
Mosques already exist in Green Tree, East Liberty, Wilkinsburg, Oakland and Monroeville. Muslims in the northern suburbs often travel to Oakland and Monroeville, where the mosques are run by the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh.
The two-story 14,600 square-foot mosque in Marshall will be built on a 4-acre site on Warrendale Bayne Road, across from the Tech 21 office complex. The board of supervisors unanimously approved the plans earlier this month, about one year after the township received the initial application for the center.
Plans call for a worship area and a second-floor multipurpose area that includes a basketball court and a kitchen. The approved occupancy for the building will be 391.
The site will accommodate parking for about 165 vehicles, the amount needed for the dozen or so special events that will be held at the center each year, township officials said.
Parking availability had been a concern, said Robert Fayfich, supervisors’ chairman, which capped the number of special events at 10 per year.
“What we did not want are situations where people would park along Warrendale Bayne Road, a road that is just not suitable for parking,†he said.
The site includes some room for expansion, said Andrew Dash, Marshall’s zoning officer.
Jews and Muslims: Working Together
EXETER — “Jews and Muslims: Working Together†is the title of a free public conversational presentation by Rabbi Arthur Waskow and Imam Al-Hajj Talib Abdur-Rashid held this week at the Phillips Exeter Academy Assembly Hall, Front St.
Rabbi Arthur Waskow is a leader of Jewish renewal and founder of The Shalom Center. In 1996 he was named by the United Nations one of 40 Wisdom Keepers from all over the world.
Imam Al-Hajj Talib Abdur-Rashid is the religious and spiritual leader of The Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem. He has served as a counselor to Muslims living with AIDS, and also as a Muslim Prison Chaplain for New York since 1977. He is the host of a monthly Harlem-based radio show, entitled “Prophetic Echoes.â€
“We the People†is a series of free public lectures on crucial issues facing our society. The series is sponsored by the Congregational, Unitarian-Universalist and Episcopal churches of Exeter in cooperation with Phillips Exeter Academy.
Mujeeb Shah-Khan named American Marshall Memorial Fellow
RALEIGH, N.C. – Todd Culpepper, executive director of the International Affairs Council (IAC) (www.ianc.org), has announced the North Carolina winners of the Marshall Memorial Fellowship (MMF) for 2008 by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The 2008 American Marshall Memorial Fellows will each spend 23 days in Europe visiting institutions, societies and cultures while learning about economic, political and social issues facing the U.S. and Europe. The following North Carolina residents are among the 53 Americans selected as Fellows representing 17 states and the District of Columbia:
· Natalie English, Charlotte Chamber of Commerce · Jamie Lathan, North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics · Mujeeb Shah-Khan, City of Charlotte, Office of the City Attorney · Ted Teague, Novant Health, Inc.
The MMF was created by the German Marshall Fund in 1982 to introduce a new generation of European leaders to America’s institutions, politics and people. In 1999, the German Marshall Fund introduced a companion program to expose future U.S. leaders to a changing and expanding Europe. The IAC is the sole German Marshall Fund partner in North Carolina and is responsible for recruitment and selection of the American Marshall Fellows across the state.
Pakistan Chamber of Commerce USA, the leading national trade body in America, hosted the visiting delegation of Pakistan Software Export Bureau (PSEB) in Houston lead by the Managing Director PSEB Mr. Yousuf Hussain. The delegation comprised of representatives of 15 companies.
The event was moderated by Senior Vice President Abdul Quayyum Khan Kundi of California. The program started with the recitation of Holy Quran by Secretary General of PCC-USA Khalid Qazi, which was followed by the national anthems of USA and Pakistan. The gathering observed one minute of silence to commemorate the people, who died in recent Karachi and Lahore terrorist attacks.
Outgoing President Gul Faraz Khan in his welcome speech assured delegates that PCC-USA is resolved to help Pakistan achieve increased export revenue from USA. He also informed the gathering that PCC-USA is going to be a national organization during the tenure of incoming board of directors.
Incoming President 2008 Muhammad Saeed Sheikh while addressing the gathering emphasized that PSEB can play a leading role in the consolidation of the software industry in Pakistan to migrate it from a cottage to a large scale industry. He also advised PSEB that creation of liquidity for technology companies is extremely important to attract venture capital from USA. He informed the visiting delegates that Pakistan should explore formation of stock listings in line with OTC Bulletin Board in USA and UK AIM Markets. He also emphasized that PSEB should work with PCC-USA to bring the intellectual capital of Pakistani Americans on a single platform to mentor start-ups.
Faisal Ameen Hon: Investment Councilor & Delegation Coordinator introduced the Delegation. Managing Director of PSEB Yousuf Hussain thanked PCC-USA for hosting this event for their delegates. He appraised the gathering that Pakistan software exports are increasing at an annual growth rate of over 66% per annum, which is the fastest growth rate in the region. He also informed the gathering that organizations like PCC-USA are important to create a soft image for Pakistan despite all the negative press that the country gets. He notified that there are several small scale IT Parks in Pakistan similar to other countries in the region, but recently a Canadian Company has been hired to develop the first world-class IT Park in Pakistan.
The City of Houston Council Member Honorable M J Khan presented the proclamation issued by Mayor of Houston Bill White. Proclamations were also presented by the representatives of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Congressman Al Green and Congressman Nick Lampson.
A vote of thanks was presented by President Elect Tariq Zaka, who thanked all the media for providing coverage to the PCC-USA events. This was followed by sumptuous dinner of Mezban Restaurant.
Courtesy Richard Littlemore, Desmogblog (www.desmogblog.com)
Aides and staffers of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are listed among the principals of a new Astroturf group set up last fall to deny the science of global warming.
The new group advertises itself as the American Environmental Coalition – “working to keep America beautiful, strong and prosperous.†But the sole focus of its expensive website is to question the science of climate change.
As for its outreach activities, the AEC seems intent only on attacking Romney’s presidential competitor John McCain, the Republican candidate with the best record on responding to climate change.
The AEC site was registered by Gary Marx , executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network and Mitt Romeny’s Conservative Coalitions Director. Jay Sekulow, the co-chair of Mitt Romney’s Faith and Values Coalition, is also listed among the AEC’s members, a who’s who of conservative Christians and oily advocates for the fossil fuel industry.
Take, for example, AEC co-chair George Landrith, whose Frontiers for Freedom survives on funding from such environmental stalwarts as ExxonMobil, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. The list also includes the likes of coal-blackened Pat Michaels and the tobacco and oil advocate-for-hire Steve Milloy.
So, Mitt Romney is campaigning on a platform to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and subsidize liquified coal (see video) while his aides promote science stories by discredited and compromised “experts†like S. Fred Singer and Sallie Baliunas.
The AEC is not an environmental organization.
It is not a science site.
It’s a deliberate and transparent attempt to mislead. Romney should apologize for being involved and distance himself from the tactics.
Tip of the hat to Clean Air Watch and Energy Smart for their coverage of this story.
Another open question in this 2008 election is the level of control exerted over each candidate by the healthcare industry. For instance, despite Hillary Clinton’s name being associated with an attempt at healthcare reform during Bill’s first term, she has since taken a lot of money from the healthcare industry, as was shown by Michael Moore’s movie Sicko.
Sicko showed that Clinton is the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions (from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers). (Clinton was so upset about Moore’s portrayal of her in the movie that she reportedly walked out of a screening).
Michael Moore was not the only one who noticed. According to the political watchdog website maplight.org (which analyzes legislator campaign receipts since 2001) Clinton received more money as a senate candidate from
insurance companies, general
(a catchall category that does not include health insurance) than any other candidate ($84,250), and in second place is Barack Obama (with $46,562). From the
health insurance
industry she has taken $65,650. Obama took just slightly less, $65,365.
The
pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry pursues its interests in congress ruthlessly and lavishly, putting the insurance industry to shame, and putting even more money into the till.
From them Hillary Clinton received $170,250 between 2001 and 2008 (and Barack is just behind her, with $131,230).
Maplight.org had no information for former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), who won office in 1998 and left after his failed presidential run in 2004 with John Kerry (Kerry himself a major senate recipient of lobbying money). According to the website opensecrets.org, Senator Edwards vowed in his campaign not to take any money from registered lobbyists or PACs, and he has only accepted money thus far from individual donors, except for a negligible (much less than 1%) amount donated by business. He maintains Washington affiliations, and has worked closely with the Council on Foreign Relations.
In fact, Obama and Clinton have also received only minimal amounts of funding for their presidential campaigns from PACs and lobbyists.
Dark horse Republican candidate Ron Paul has received only a relatively small amount from the pharmaceuticals industry in his legislative campaigns, although of course his lesser stature as a representative and not a Senator makes him a less inviting target for industry buy-offs. He has received $10,678 from pharmaceuticals manufacturing, according to maplight.org.
Another foreshadowing of future healthcare policy is the current insurance status of the candidates themselves and their staffers. NPR’s Julie Rovner looked at each candidate on the basis of what kind of insurance the candidates and their staff carry with them. Most of the candidates this year, she showed, especially front-runners, are members of the Senate and therefore have taxpayer-subsidized coverage through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.
All of the Democratic candidates offer health insurance to their campaign workers except Dennis Kucinich, who is running a relatively low-budget campaign and says he cannot afford it.
The Republican candidates, on the other hand, are a mixed lot. Relatively socially liberal candidates McCain and Giuliani provide health insurance to their campaign staff. Reps. Paul and Duncan Hunter do not, largely they say because their staffers are volunteers. Apparently the fanatical devotion Ron Paul has from his supporters, which resulted in his unprecedented fundraising, is undiminished by the fact that he does not insure them. The remaining Republican candidates refused to divulge whether staff was covered—jump to your own conclusions, as we have. Most of them emphasize personal accountability for health coverage, but do not wish to speak with reporters about how they, many of them having access to governmental health programs and/or vast personal finances, not to mention campaign funds, have resolved this issue in their own lives (or in their employees’ lives). Perhaps their lectures about personal accountability are partially intended for their own staffers. Do they provide healthcare for their children or advise them to be personally accountable?
Given the funding numbers for the two enormous Democratic front-runners, who are generally presupposed to be sympathetic to healthcare reform and one of whom will likely take the White House, it is difficult to imagine that whoever wins the seat there will have an entirely clear head about how to go forward on the healthcare issue. Whoever wins will either prove himself or herself by doing work that damages the interests of past financial supporters (who grow fat as leeches on the very flaws that must be reworked), or simply fail to rework our nation’s healthcare system.
Only time will tell whether our new president will jump into a fight with his own past supporters, a fight from which he or she cannot emerge undamaged, or instead just bask comfortably in the Washington limelight, while health care industry’s fat and uncaring parasites suck away the lifeblood of the American people.
