"Mission Accomplished". Not!

Tomorrow, Sunday, marks the 8th anniversary of the now infamous statement by George Bush that "Mission Accomplished" had been achieved in Iraq. Remember all the hype surrounding the nonsense statement? Standing on the deck of a warship, Bush dressed in air force gear, etc. etc.

The Nation reviews the statement - and no less importantly, what some of the so-called pundits said at the time.

"In my favorite antiwar song of this war, "Shock and Awe," Neil Young moaned: "Back in the days of Mission Accomplished/ our chief was landing on the deck/ The sun was setting/ behind a golden photo op." But as Neil added elsewhere: "History is a cruel judge of overconfidence."

Nowhere can we see this more clearly than in the media coverage of the event. Even today, nearly eight years later, the often "overconfident" reporting from Baghdad and Kabul sometimes takes your breath away. At least two U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq this week so far, and over 45,000 or our troops remain there today. (For a full accounting of costs of all sorts, go here.) . So let's return to the days of Mission Accomplished...."

Continue reading, here.

A delusional wish-list

Writing his regular blog on FP, professor of international relations at Harvard, Stephen Walt reflects on America's wishful thinking in foreign relations.

"A realistic foreign policy seeks to deal with the world as it is, shorn of political illusions. Realists emphasize that even close allies often have conflicting interests, that cooperation between states is difficult to achieve or sustain, and that the conduct of nations is frequently shaped by some combination of fear, greed and stupidity.

Above all, realists warn against basing policy on wishful thinking, on the assumption that all will go as we want it to. Yet the pages of history are littered with episodes where leaders made decisions on the basis of false hopes, idealistic delusions, and blind faith. And I regret to say that there's no shortage of this sort of wishful thinking today."

Read on, here, for Walt's "Top 10 Examples of Wishful Thinking in Contemporary U.S. Foreign Policy." One example:

"2. Using the Big Stick Will Bring Big Benefits

"Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. leaders have repeatedly exaggerated the efficacy of using military power, and tended to assume that a little bit of military power will produce large, predictable, and uniformly beneficial results. In 1999, the Clinton administration thought a few days of air strikes would cause Slobodan Milosevic to fold -- in fact, it took weeks of bombing and Russian diplomatic intercession to end the Kosovo War. In 2002, the Bush administration assumed that the rapid ouster of the Taliban would solve our problems in Afghanistan, and in 2003 it thought toppling Saddam Hussein would trigger a radical transformation of the whole Middle East. More recently, the Obama administration's decision to intervene in Libya seems to have been based on the hope that Muammar al-Qaddafi's support would quickly dissolve as soon as NATO jumped into the fray. It might have been nice if it had, but it was wishful thinking to assume it."

The White House = A Glass House?

It is said that people in glass houses ought not throw stones! It's perhaps a lesson the White House should take on board. The Obama Administration is at pains to criticise those governments which deny press freedom or the ability for the media to report openly. So, what to make of this threat from the White House? - as FAIR reports. Aah, when it comes to double-standards American foreign policy is virtually impossible to beat!

"The San Francisco Chronicle is apparently in trouble with the White House for posting video of a protest against the White House's treatment of suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning. The Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead reports:

The White House threatened Thursday to exclude the San Francisco Chronicle from pooled coverage of its events in the Bay Area after the paper posted a video of a protest at a San Francisco fundraiser for President Obama last week, Chronicle editor Ward Bushee said. White House guidelines governing press coverage of such events are too restrictive, Bushee said, and the newspaper was within its rights to film the protest and post the video.

Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci was the designated "pool" reporter at an Obama fundraiser--meaning that her write-up would be shared with other reporters who were not allowed into the event.

But something truly newsworthy happened--and she reported it:

At the St. Regis event, a group of protesters who paid collectively $76,000 to attend the fundraiser interrupted Obama with a song complaining about the administration's treatment of PFC Bradley Manning, the soldier who allegedly leaked U.S. classified documents to the WikiLeaks website.

As part of a "print-only pool," Marinucci was limited by White House guidelines to provide a print-only report, but Marinucci also took a video of the protest, which she posted in her written story on the online edition of the Chronicle at SFGate.com and on its politics blog after she sent her written pool report.

The Chronicle's story closes with this ironic point about the White House's view of technology and information-sharing:

At Facebook the day before the San Francisco fundraiser, Obama said, "The main reason we wanted to do this is, first of all, because more and more people, especially young people, are getting their information through different media. And obviously, what all of you have built together is helping to revolutionize how people get information, how they process information, how they're connecting with each other."

Apparently Marinucci posting a video was a little too much revolutionizing."

What climate-change?

Credited to Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

Absurd! - Pure and Simple

Open your newspaper or watch TV and you will be treated to the latest revelations via WikiLeaks documents. This past week much has been revealed about Gitmo, the number of prisoners there and the extraordinarily poor, if not false, material available to the authorities relating to the imprisoned inmates.

As if the whole situation wasn't disgraceful enough, now farce enters into the picture. The New York Times reports that lawyers for prisoners have been advised that even if documents have been leaked that they remain classified and must therefore be dealt with as such.

"Anyone surfing the Internet this week is free to read leaked documents about the prisoners held by the American military at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to print them out or e-mail them to friends.

Except, that is, for the lawyers who represent the prisoners.

On Monday, hours after WikiLeaks, The New York Times and other news organizations began publishing the documents online, the Justice Department informed Guantánamo defense lawyers that the documents remained legally classified even after they were made public.

Because the lawyers have security clearances, they are obligated to treat the readily available files “in accordance with all relevant security precautions and safeguards” — handling them, for example, only in secure government facilities, said the notice from the department’s Court Security Office.

It is only the latest absurdist challenge posed by the flood of classified material obtained by WikiLeaks over the past year: field reports from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; State Department cables; and now the military’s risk assessments of 700 past or present Guantánamo prisoners."

Petraeus at the CIA: Can He Tell It Straight?

There is more to the appointment of General David Petraeus as head of the CIA than might, at first blush, meet the eye. For one, there is the conflict of interest he has as the one-time Commander of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And that just the beginning!

"The news that President Barack Obama has picked Gen. David Petraeus to be CIA director raises troubling questions, including whether the commander most associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will tolerate objective analysis of those two conflicts.

What if CIA analysts assess the prospects of success in those two wars as dismal and conclude that the troop “surges” pushed so publicly by Petraeus wasted both the lives of American troops and many billions of taxpayer dollars? Will CIA Director Petraeus welcome such critical analysis or punish it?

The Petraeus appointment also suggests that the President places little value on getting the straight scoop on these key war-related issues. If he did want the kind of intelligence analysis that, at times, could challenge the military, why is he giving the CIA job to a general with a huge incentive to gild the lily regarding the “progress” made under his command?

Petraeus already has a record as someone who looks at skeptical CIA analysts as gnats to be swatted away before they bite. That is why he relegated them to straphanger status during the key decision-making process in late 2009 on what to do about Afghanistan. When Obama expressed doubts about the value of a major escalation in Afghanistan, Petraeus assured him that he and his generals had it all figured out, that 33,000 additional troops would do the trick."

Elderly Holocaust survivor takes on AIPAC

AIPAC is variously described as either the largest and strongest lobby group in the USA - or the second, after the gun lobby.

Either way it's influence in lobbying for Israel - the organisation is virtually joined at the hip to whatever Israel does, good, bad or even indifferent - knows few parallels or strength. Congressmen and Senators fear the organisation's influence in their re-election.

Now, here comes an elderly Holocaust survivor to take on AIPAC - and invite others to join her.

"At the end of one of my first journeys to the Israeli-occupied West Bank in 2004, I endured a shocking experience at Ben-Gurion Airport. I never imagined that Israeli security forces would abuse a 79-year-old Holocaust survivor, but they held me for five hours, and strip-searched and cavity-searched every part of my naked body. The only shame these security officials expressed was to turn their badges around so that their names were invisible."

****

"The vicious discrimination brought to bear against Palestinians in the occupied territories deserves no applause from members of Congress attending the AIPAC conference. Instead, they should raise basic questions with Israeli officials about decades of inferior rights endured by Palestinians both inside Israel and the occupied territories. As for me, I will be across the road at an alternative convention called Move Over AIPAC. To sign up and join me, visit www.MoveOverAIPAC.org.

Take action by attending Move Over AIPAC, a gathering in Washington DC from May 21-24, 2011, to expose AIPAC and build the vision for a new US foreign policy in the Middle East! More information can be found at www.MoveOverAIPAC.org."

Things are changing in the neighbourhood

It hasn't taken all that long, as a fallout from the Arab Spring, to see alliances and political positions change in the Middle East. This one, below, by Egypt, is certain to shake up the region - and leave Israel in an odd situation, much of it of its own making.

"Egypt is charting a new course in its foreign policy that has already begun shaking up the established order in the Middle East, planning to open the blockaded border with Gaza and normalizing relations with two of Israel and the West’s Islamist foes, Hamas and Iran.
Region in Revolt

Egyptian officials, emboldened by the revolution and with an eye on coming elections, say that they are moving toward policies that more accurately reflect public opinion. In the process they are seeking to reclaim the influence over the region that waned as their country became a predictable ally of Washington and the Israelis in the years since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

The first major display of this new tack was the deal Egypt brokered Wednesday to reconcile the secular Palestinian party Fatah with its rival Hamas. “We are opening a new page,” said Ambassador Menha Bakhoum, spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. “Egypt is resuming its role that was once abdicated.”

Egypt’s shifts are likely to alter the balance of power in the region, allowing Iran new access to a previously implacable foe and creating distance between itself and Israel, which has been watching the changes with some alarm. “We are troubled by some of the recent actions coming out of Egypt,” said one senior Israeli official, citing a “rapprochement between Iran and Egypt” as well as “an upgrading of the relationship between Egypt and Hamas".

Sri Lankan Government stands condemned

In the light of a UN report challenging the Sri Lankan Government - as also the Tamils - on their conduct during the recent crack-down by the government on its Tamil population, Sam Parri, a spokesperson for the Australian Tamil Congress, writes on the subject and the situation in Sri Lanka today.

"When the war came to a bloody end on May 18, 2009, Sri Lankan government puppets were quick to continue the propaganda, claiming all was well in Sri Lanka, encouraging Australian tourists while discouraging Australia from accepting Tamil refugees.

The reality was different. Hundreds of thousands were held in military-run internment camps, disappearances were rife, and rape and torture occurred. There was a reason the number of Tamil refugees arriving by boats in Australia had suddenly sky-rocketed.

The unrelenting campaigning by the Tamil diaspora and human rights groups finally forced Ban to establish a panel of experts last year to assess the mounting allegations of war crimes. Sri Lanka was quick to condemn this decision and banned the panel from visiting the island.

The panel's final report, submitted to Ban almost a fortnight ago, has at last been published. The panel has found allegations of war crimes to be credible and has admitted the UN failed to act to protect civilians, despite knowing about the high civilian casualty rate. The panel has also recommended an international independent inquiry into war crimes in Sri Lanka.

Today tens of thousands of Tamils are missing. Up to 14,000 Tamils, including 500 children, have been held for the past two years in secret prisons; no one knows if they are alive. The Tamil homeland in the north is under military occupation and forced resettlement of Sinhalese families is taking place, changing the demography of the region."

The shameful conduct of medicos at Gitmo

It seems like some medicos forgot all about the Hippocratic oath when they were at Gitmo. It's called blind-eye disease or not letting inconvenient truths intrude on their conduct as, first and foremost, medicos. The Independent reveals shameful medical "practice" by some doctors at Gitmo.

"US government doctors who cared for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay deliberately concealed or ignored evidence that their patients were being tortured, the first official study of its kind has found.

A detailed review of the medical records and case files of nine Guantanamo inmates has concluded that medical personnel at the US detention centre were complicit in suppressing evidence that would demonstrate systematic torture of the inmates.

The review is published in an online scientific journal, PLoS Medicine, and is the first peer-reviewed study analysing the behaviour of the doctors in charge of Guantanamo inmates who were subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques that a decade ago had been classed by the US government as torture.

Vincent Iacopino, senior medical adviser for Physicians for Human Rights, and Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, a retired US Army medical officer, had access to the medical records and case files while acting on behalf of defence lawyers.

They concluded that no doctor could have failed to notice the medical signs and symptoms of the extreme interrogation techniques and unauthorised assaults that other physicians would recognise as torture, such as severe beatings resulting in bone fractures, sexual assaults, mock executions, and simulated drowning by "waterboarding"."

Twitter in China at your own peril

The Australian PM has just visited China and gone through all the diplomatic niceties with her hosts - even if recent WikiLeaks documents show that China looks with scorn on Australian visitors who raise the question of human rights, or the lack thereof, in China. After all, why let principles intrude on trade which is to the considerable mutual benefit of the two countries?

Coincidentally, human rights is a subject Nicholas D Kristof takes up in his latest op-ed piece "Great Leap Backward" in The New York Times:

"Since China is in the middle of its harshest crackdown on independent thought in two decades, I thought that on this visit I might write about a woman named Cheng Jianping who is imprisoned for tweeting.

Ms. Cheng was arrested on what was supposed to have been her wedding day last fall for sending a single sarcastic Twitter message that included the words “charge, angry youth.” The government, lacking a sense of humor, sentenced her to a year in labor camp.

So I tried to interview her fiancé, Hua Chunhui, but it turns out that Mr. Hua was recently arrested and imprisoned as well. That’s the way it goes in China these days. The government’s crackdown is rippling through the country, undercutting China’s prodigious growth and representing the harshest clampdown since the crushing of the Tiananmen democracy movement in 1989.

The reason? Surprising as it may seem, the government is worried that China could become the next Egypt or Tunisia, unless security forces act early and ruthlessly."

Maybe it's not the 51st State

Credited to Mike Keefe, The Denver Post

Step up to the plate "birther" nutters

Leaving aside whether Obama demeaned himself by going on TV to "prove" his birth, as an American, in Hawaii, one might have thought - wishful thinking? - the "birthers" might slink off into then dark with their tails between their collective legs. No such luck! They are now buoyed with new questions.

"It proves nothing. It could be fake. It’s all so fishy. Aren’t there multiple layers on the scanned document released by the White House? Why did it take so long to produce?

The people who do not believe that President Obama was born in the United States showed Wednesday that a good conspiracy theory is like a coal mine fire: something that can’t be doused in a day.

The president, pestered by “birthers” since he began running for the White House, finally felt compelled to try to put an end to the controversy, providing his original birth certificate for the first time.

“Yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital,” Obama told the White House press corps, before going on to demand an end to the “silliness” about his birthplace that he fears has distracted the country from urgent policy matters involving wars, the federal debt and the economy.

But he added, “I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest.”

Correct. The birthers, far from chastised, found themselves newly energized and freshly suspicious.

“It raises far more questions than it answers,” said Joseph Farah, editor in chief of WorldNetDaily and birther extraordinaire, almost breathless between media interviews.

Farah, whose online publication has run hundreds of articles over the past couple of years questioning Obama’s citizenship, professed delight at the latest development. So did real estate tycoon Donald Trump, who has found that raising questions about Obama’s legitimacy is political jet fuel for someone pondering a presidential run."

Goldman Sachs, and others, in the dock

As more and more is investigated the clearer it seems that some of the Wall St. titans, and others in the USA, can be said to have largely contributed, if not actually caused the GFC.

AlterNet explains in "How Wall Street Thieves, Led by Goldman Sachs, Took Down the Global Economy -- Their Outsized Influence Must be Stopped":

"For all the damning evidence you’ll ever need about Wall Street corruption, take a look at the recent report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: An Anatomy of a Financial Collapse” (PDF). The 650-page indictment reveals the myriad of ways Wall Street lies, cheats, steals and defrauds on a routine basis. Arguably the report is as revealing as the Nixon tapes or the Pentagon Papers. Unfortunately, it’s too technical to get widely read. So here are the Cliff Notes.

This study, broken into four case studies, forms a biblical tale of how toxic mortgages were born, nurtured and spread like the plague throughout the land, making money for the financial philistines every step of the way."

Continue reading here.

You might also want to read "Why Wall Street Is Winning" on CommonDreams.

Street Eats

We have all seen, if not actually partaken, in so-called street food.

FP has a delightful photographic montage, here, of the way the world eats out, from Cairo to Indonesian volcanoes.

What Rule of Law?

Glenn Greenwald, lawyer, blogger (on Salon) and commentator undertakes a clear analysis of the latest WikiLeaks-released documents relating to Gitmo. It doesn't make for pretty reading on any score as Greenwald enumerates a number of glaring issues raised by and from the documents, not the least this one:

"Perhaps most important of all, these documents conclusively underscore the evils of the Obama administration’s indefinite detention regime. Just last month, President Obama signed an Executive Order directing that dozens of detainees held for years at Guantanamo continue to be imprisoned indefinitely without any charges: either in a real court or even before a military commission. Although indefinite detention was one of the primary hallmarks of Bush/Cheney radicalism, this order was justified by the White House and its followers on the ground that the President knows of secret evidence that shows that these detainees are Too Dangerous to Release, yet cannot be prosecuted because the evidence against them is tainted (see this post for why that line of reasoning is so logically and morally twisted).

The idea of trusting the government to imprison people for life based on secret, untested evidence never reviewed by a court should repel any decent or minimally rational person, but these newly released files demonstrate how warped is this indefinite detention policy specifically. The New Yorker's Amy Davidson highlights some of the most extreme inanities in how "evidence" was assembled, while McClatchy’s Carol Rosenberg describes just some of the reasons to find this “evidence” so unreliable: beyond the fact that so much of it was extracted using torture:

'The U.S. military set up a human intelligence laboratory at Guantanamo that used interrogation and detention practices that they largely made up as they went along. . . .

The documents, more than 750 individual assessments of former and current Guantanamo detainees, show an intelligence operation that was tremendously dependent on informants — both prison camp snitches repeating what they'd heard from fellow captives and self-described, at times self-aggrandizing, alleged al Qaida insiders turned government witnesses who Pentagon records show have since been released.

Intelligence analysts are at odds with each other over which informants to trust, at times drawing inferences from prisoners' exercise habits. They order DNA tests, tether Taliban suspects to polygraphs, string together tidbits in ways that seemed to defy common sense.'

In one sense this is not new, as federal courts which have reviewed these detentions during the Obama administration have overwhelmingly found them lacking any credible evidence. Still, these files provide important new specifics. The NYT describes the case of Omar Hamzayavich Abdulayev – placed in Guantanamo in 2002 when he was 23 (he’s now 32) and one of the detainees just ordered indefinitely detained by Obama. The newly released files reveal what the NYT calls “the haunting conclusion of his 2008 assessment: ‘Detainee’s identity remains uncertain’.” In other words, the person who has been in Guantanamo for 9 years – most of his adult life – and whom Obama just ordered detained indefinitely with no charges, very well may not even be the person we think he is."

The absurdities and scandal that is Guantanamo

From CommonDreams a succinct summation of Gitmo:

"More from the New Yorker's Amy Davidson on what we learn from Wikileaks' Guantanamo files - the illogical, illegal and often absurdist reasons many were held there - Casio wristwatch, anyone? - the indefensible mission creep they represent, and Obama's responsibility therein. Dismaying.

"And so we sacrificed our values and our moral standing for goals that were increasingly—vanishingly—distant from the ones we had been told were so urgent; or for no real reason at all... Obama never effectively challenged the image of Guantánamo as a sort of Phantom Zone of super villains, rather than the humiliating hodgepodge it is."

A more than timely call for investigating the Sri Lankan Government

The Sri Lankan Government has taken up the tactics of the Israeli Government - and look is advising the Sri Lankans - in the way it deals with criticism of its actions let alone the way it has dealt, and continues to deal with, its Tamil population.

Now a more than timely call by the UN for an investigation of both the Sri Lankan's actions against the Tamils and the conduct of the Tamils.

"The United Nations is calling for an investigation into whether war crimes charges should be laid in relation to the civil war in Sri Lanka.

The UN released a damning report yesterday into the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians during the final months of the war.

The report finds fault with both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers, but suggests the government was responsible for most of the deaths.

An estimated 330,000 people were trapped between the two sides as they fought fiercely in the last months of the long war in 2009.

The battles between the government and the Tamil Tiger separatists lasted almost three decades, but it was in the final five months that the UN says some of the worst atrocities against civilians occurred.

The report accuses the Tamil Tigers of using civilians as human shields and says thousands of others were killed by indiscriminate artillery shelling by the government.

James Ross, the legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch, said the report looked at the government's response both during and after the conflict."

Why is the West treating Syria differently from Libya?

More than a valid question? Why is the West treating Syria differently from Libya given that their respective leaders - aka despots and dictators - have turned on their people by attacking them? Wasn't that a prime reason for going into Libya to aid the so-called rebels?

"An authoritarian Arab ruler unleashes his security forces and irregular militia gunmen to crush peaceful pro-democracy protests, killing hundreds of people including women and children.

Does the West a) issue statements condemning the excessive use of force; b) seek U.N. sanctions and an International Criminal Court investigation; c) provide practical support for pro-democracy protesters, d) intervene militarily?

The answer, to many human rights campaigners, seems to vary unacceptably depending on the state concerned.

Western powers which took up arms against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, citing the United Nations principle of the responsibility to protect civilians, have confined themselves so far to verbal outrage at the killing of some 350 people in Syria.

The balance of Western economic and security interests and humanitarian values is different in each case but the perceived double standard is causing anger in the Middle East and among Western publics."

American Government "investments" abroad - and having it both ways!

Intriguing analysis in this piece on TomDispatch about how the US Government "invests" money overseas in supporting corrupt regimes and despots whilst also funding those seeking to undermine those very same governments or dictators. Sensible and worthwhile?

"Imperial powers hedge their bets. The most striking recent example we have of this is in Egypt. While the Pentagon was pouring money into the Egyptian military (approximately $40 billion since 1979), it turns out -- thank you, WikiLeaks! -- that the U.S. government was shuttling far smaller amounts (millions, not billions) to various “American government-financed organizations” loosely connected with Congress or with the Democratic and Republican parties. Some of that money, in turn, was being invested in “democracy-building campaigns” aimed at teaching young Egyptian activists how to organize a movement against their autocratic ruler, how to make the best use of social networking sites, and so on.

In other words, in Egypt (and elsewhere in the Middle East), Washington was funding both the autocrats and the young activists who opposed them and who, in Egypt, would be crucial players in the Tahrir Square movement that overthrew President Hosni Mubarak. As one of those activists told the New York Times, “While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us.”

Meanwhile, thanks to other State Department documents WikiLeaks recently released, we know that, in at least one Middle Eastern country where Washington did not enthusiastically support the local autocrat -- Syria -- the State Department was channeling significant sums of money into “secretly financ[ing]... political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country.“ It was, in other words, preparing a new elite for a “regime change” future.

Think of it as a kind of grim irony that a significant part of the Egyptian military’s high command was in northern Virginia, attending an annual U.S.-Egypt Military Cooperation Committee meeting in late January, when all hell broke loose in Tahrir Square, thanks to those Egyptian activists, some trained with Washington’s money. The creation or support of elites has, as Alfred McCoy and Brett Reilly write, always been crucial to running global empires."

Trump must be trumped and dumped

Surely the GOP can't even begin to be serious seeing Donald Trump as a presidential contender......and even if the electorate is beholden to someone like Trump, with all his supposed money and TV appearances, the repersussions for America - and the world - were he to gain office, are too grim to contemplate. The man is simply not up to the task. Worse still, as this piece in The Nation so clearly shows, the emperor's clothes have to be removed to reveal the real Trump.

"In a recent column, Johnston points out that in examining four years of tax returns he discovered that Trump paid no taxes in two of them.

“He pays little to no income tax because he does these real estate deals that allow him to take—as a professional real estate developer—unlimited paper losses like depreciation against income he gets from NBC for his show,” says Johnston.

He’s also had more business bankruptcies than wives, and Johnston says Trump’s bravado about his wealth and business acumen contradicts his real record. According to Johnston, Trump typically does two kinds of deals: he borrows more than 100 percent of the purchase price for real estate and takes a fee off the top; or he’s paid a fee to put his name on a building."

An unwarranted halo

The late Pope Paul II had quite a following even amongst non-Catholics. He seemed less remote and in touch with the people, Catholic or not. Now, his successor is to bestow a sainthood on Paul next Sunday. But is it really warranted? Maureen Dowd poses a valid question-mark over the late Pope.

"Certainly, John Paul was admirable in many ways. After he became pope, he was a moral force in the fight against totalitarianism, touring his homeland and giving Poles the courage to resist the Soviet Union. When Lech Walesa signed an agreement with the Communists recognizing Solidarity, he used a pen etched with the face of John Paul.

After Communism collapsed, John Paul offered a stinging critique of capitalism, presciently warning big business to stop pursuing profits “at any price.”

“The excessive hoarding of riches by some denies them to the majority,” he said, “and thus the very wealth that is accumulated generates poverty.”

As progressive as he was on those issues, he was disturbingly regressive on social issues — contraception, women’s ordination, priests’ celibacy, divorce and remarriage. And certainly, John Paul forfeited his right to beatification when he failed to establish a legal standard to remove pedophiles from the priesthood, and simply turned away for many years".

GItmo: WikiLeaks reveals 150 innocents imprisoned at notorious prison

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we get to know things we ought to, but Governments hide away from the public's gaze. Today a number of newspapers, including the Washington Post and the UK's The Telegraph reveal, via papers emanating from WikiLeaks, that some 150 innocent people have been incarcerated at Gitmo.

"Al-Qaeda terrorists have threatened to unleash a “nuclear hellstorm” on the West if Osama Bin Laden is caught or assassinated, according to documents to be released by the WikiLeaks website, which contain details the interrogations of more than 700 Guantanamo detainees.

However, the shocking human cost of obtaining this intelligence is also exposed with dozens of innocent people sent to Guantanamo – and hundreds of low-level foot-soldiers being held for years and probably tortured before being assessed as of little significance.

The Daily Telegraph, along with other newspapers including The Washington Post, today exposes America’s own analysis of almost ten years of controversial interrogations on the world’s most dangerous terrorists. This newspaper has been shown thousands of pages of top-secret files obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

The disclosures are set to spark intense debate around the world about the establishment of Guantanamo Bay in the months after 9/11 – which has enabled the US to collect vital intelligence from senior Al Qaeda commanders but sparked fury in the middle east and Europe over the treatment of detainees.

The files detail the background to the capture of each of the 780 people who have passed through the Guantanamo facility in Cuba, their medical condition and the information they have provided during interrogations."

Iraq War: Of course it was all about oil!

It's now there in black and white - as detailed below. As the sceptics and those speaking the truth always maintained - as against the nay-sayers - the Iraq War was all about oil. Pure and simple.

"Afghanistan may be the graveyard of empires, but Iraq is home to a graveyard sense of humor. Iraqis wonder aloud whether the U.S. and Britain would have invaded Iraq if its main export had been cabbages instead of oil.

However obvious the answer, a remarkable array of American pundits and pseudo-savants have resisted giving the oil factor any pride of place among the motives behind the U.S./U.K. decision to invade Iraq in 2003. To this day, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) continue to play the accustomed role as government accomplice suppressing unwelcome news.

So, if you don’t tune in to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now or read the British press, you will have missed the latest documentary evidence showing that Great Britain’s Lords and Ladies lied about how big oil companies, like BP, lusted after Iraqi oil in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq.

Oil researcher Greg Muttitt’s new book Fuel on Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq presents that evidence, since Muttitt had better luck than American counterparts in getting responses to his Freedom of Information requests.

After a five-year struggle, he obtained more than 1,000 official documents which — how to say this — do not reflect well on the peerage, the captains of the oil industry, and the government of Tony Blair."

It all depends which despot you are......

Stephen Walt, professor of International Relations at Harvard, makes more than a valid point when in his blog on FP he highlights the difference between how Ghadafi is being treated as against Mubarak. And then there is Syria. One primary reason for acting against Ghadafi was that he was attacking his own people. So, isn't that what Assad is doing in Syria? - with serious loss of life. Once again, double-standards at play.....

"According to the New York Times, the U.S. government is actively trying to find someplace for Muammar al-Qaddafi to go, where he (and presumably his family) can be comfortable and secure from prosecution. The idea, obviously, is to "build him a golden bridge" to retreat across, and thus hasten his removal from power.

In a different story, the Times also describes how the Mubarak family in Egypt is getting accustomed to life in jail.

So let me get this straight: one former dictator ultimately decides not to unleash massive force against anti-government demonstrators, and eventually leaves power more-or-less peacefully, if not exactly voluntarily. His reward? He winds up in jail (maybe deservedly). Another dictator responds by using loyal military units to repress unarmed demonstrators, and when they arm themselves, he starts using all the means at his disposal to defeat them and remain in power. But because the United States is now desperate to end the Libyan debacle and avoid a costly stalemate, Washington ends up trying to find him some sort of safe haven for him.

Meanwhile, what lesson will future autocrats draw from these events? The obvious one, it seems to me, is "No more Mr. Nice Guy," which may not be the message we really want to be sending.

It is also hard for me to believe that Qaddafi would accept our assurances at this point. After all, we promised not to try to overthrow him back in 2003, in exchange for his giving up his various WMD program. Given that overthrowing him is precisely what we are trying to do now, any guarantees we might give him are bound to sound pretty hollow and he's more likely to fight on and "gamble for resurrection."

Regrettably, this means that the intervening powers may have little choice but to persevere, in the hopes that the rebels eventually gain the upper hand. Unfortunately, that is likely to mean prolonging the current civil war, which in turn means more dead Libyans. All in the name of "humanitarianism."

The lawyer, law lecturer and President who doesn't know the law

It is astounding that someone like Obama can have made the statement he did about Private Manning, the man accused of leaking information to WikiLeaks. Remember that Manning hasn't even seen the inside of a court. And no less importantly, the Obama statement is made by a lawyer, one-time law lecturer and now President aka the Commander-in-Chief.

Glenn Greenwald, in his latest piece for Salon, rightly take Obama to task:

"Protesters yesterday interrupted President Obama's speech at a $5,000/ticket San Francisco fundraiser to demand improved treatment for Bradley Manning. After the speech, one of the protesters, Logan Price, approached Obama and questioned him. Obama's responses are revealing on multiple levels. First, Obama said this when justifying Manning's treatment (video and transcript are here):

We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

The impropriety of Obama's public pre-trial declaration of Manning's guilt ("He broke the law") is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt? Numerous commentators have noted how egregiously wrong was Obama's condemnation. Michael Whitney wrote: "the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime." BoingBoing's Rob Beschizza interpreted Obama's declaration of guilt this way: "Just so you know, jurors subordinate judging officers!" And Politico quoted legal experts explaining why Obama's remarks are so obviously inappropriate."

Continue reading here.

A critical and more than timely call

Whilst the Arab world is in turmoil and Israel continues it's relentless action against its own Arab population, the expansion in settlements and oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza - not to speak of all the hype and PR already in place for the visit for the Israeli PM to Washington shortly - there comes an important call from some 60 Israeli intellectuals which ought not be ignored. What are they going to label these people? Self-hating Jews? Anti-Zionists?

"A declaration signed by dozens of prominent Israeli academics, writers and artists welcoming a Palestinian state on the basis of Israel’s 1967 borders was presented Thursday at the site of Israel’s 1948 proclamation of independence.

As the well-known Israeli actress Hanna Maron, who lost a leg in a Palestinian attack, read out the declaration outside Tel Aviv’s Independence Hall, protesters heckled the gathering, calling the participants traitors.

The declaration, which was issued in expectation of moves to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations in September, asserts that the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory “is a fundamental condition for the liberation of both peoples, for the fulfillment of the Israeli declaration of independence and for the independence of the State of Israel.”

Echoing the opening of Israel’s declaration of independence, the statement begins: “The land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people, where its identity was shaped. The land of Palestine is the birthplace of the Palestinian people, where its identity was formed.”

The approximately 60 signatories to the document, titled “The Declaration of Independence from the Occupation,” included 17 recipients of the Israel Prize, the country’s highest honor."

Er, no! Not the real Holy Week

Credited to Mike Lester, Rome News-Tribune, Rome, GA

Two worlds.......poles apart

Who says there isn't a widening gap between rich and poor.

Coincidentally, 2 pieces published today which highlight the contrast between rich and poor in the USA....

First from Mother Jones:

"The recession is far from over for millions of Americans, but prosperity has returned to the nation's boardrooms and corner offices. After two years of declines in the wake of the financial crisis, executive pay is skyrocketing. CEOs at the country's 200 largest companies earned an average of 20 percent more last year than in 2009, according to recent corporate filings. By comparison, average pay for workers in the private sector rose just 2.1 percent last year—nearly the smallest increase in decades.

While some CEOs, such as Apple's Steve Jobs, took symbolic $1 salaries last year, many kept drawing outsized checks. Below, we list 10 of 2010's most egregiously overcompensated executives. They're selected not just on the size of their pay packages, but how much more they were paid than their peers at similar companies, as well as the disparity between their personal bottom line and their companies'. These 10 vividly illustrate what veteran compensation consultant Bud Crystal views as a broad problem in many boardrooms: "You have almost no relationship between pay and performance when it comes to the CEO."

And at the other end of the world....from CommonDreams:

"Just back from a food distribution in our neighborhood. About 200 people were expected. Over 600 turned up. Black, white, young, old, thin, fat, surly, gracious, families, very alone. Despite the truckloads of food, we ran out; in the end, people stood in line mournfully eyeing the last canned dregs and dented cereal boxes, trying to decide if it was worth it. Maine is poor, but our county isn't. Yet there are 49 food pantries and soup kitchens here."

Chomsky: Who Owns the World?

In his inimitable style and acute analysis, Noam Chomsky asks some pertinent questions for people, everywhere, in this year 2011 - with all that is going on in the world, including the so-called "Arab Spring.".

"The democracy uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular display of courage, dedication, and commitment by popular forces -- coinciding, fortuitously, with a remarkable uprising of tens of thousands in support of working people and democracy in Madison, Wisconsin, and other U.S. cities. If the trajectories of revolt in Cairo and Madison intersected, however, they were headed in opposite directions: in Cairo toward gaining elementary rights denied by the dictatorship, in Madison towards defending rights that had been won in long and hard struggles and are now under severe attack.

Each is a microcosm of tendencies in global society, following varied courses. There are sure to be far-reaching consequences of what is taking place both in the decaying industrial heartland of the richest and most powerful country in human history, and in what President Dwight Eisenhower called "the most strategically important area in the world" -- "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment," in the words of the State Department in the 1940s, a prize that the U.S. intended to keep for itself and its allies in the unfolding New World Order of that day."

Continue reading here.

A critical question: Patient or simply a consumer?

"Here’s my question: How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as “consumers”? The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car — and their only complaint is that it isn’t commercial enough.

What has gone wrong with us?"

Paul Krugman, writing his latest op-ed piece for The New York Times asks the very critical question above. Read his full piece here.

Wanted: Fiercely independent journalists

We are all being cheated and denied a truly independent media. Think Murdoch and the disgraceful antics of his personnel - hacking? - and the one-sided and biased reporting and commentary published in his newspapers. And then there is his Fox News, about which the less said the better.

We need journalists with courage - and proprietors who will back them.

"The obligations of the media are to inform, to scrutinise and to hold governments to account for decisions made in our name. The public interest should be at the centre of decisions taken in media organisations and should inform the culture of media organisations.

But the mainstream media are notorious for letting the public down. Why can’t the mainstream media fulfil this role adequately? Well the answer lies in timidity, conformism, a cynical and unwarranted sense of superiority in relation to the public, and vested interest.

There is little room for new ideas in the mainstream media. You see copycat rundowns and copycat angles on stories: the same view of what is newsworthy and the same assessment of the essence of the story, unfortunately too often ignoring the fundamental issue at the heart of a story for the trivial political squabble over a detail. Those in positions of power love this. As long as we are not engaged in questioning the basis of many assumptions, they can get on with the serious business of running the country without being challenged by a public distracted by trivia, led by media addicted to sloganeering politicians and media beholden to proprietors like Murdoch, Stokes, Packer and Rinehart whose interests they must protect."

These olive branches don't represent peace

Yet another outrageous infraction by Israelis - seemingly with the Government closing a blind-eye at the very least - of and in relation to Palestinians in the West Bank. Steal the Palestinians' olive trees. Crime at its most blatant.

"The immoral wealthy have a new and tasteless toy: ancient olive trees adorning the gardens of their villas.

According to an investigative report by journalist Maya Zinshtein published in the Haaretz Hebrew edition on Monday, for around a decade now, illegal trade in ancient olive trees - including uprooting, stealing and smuggling them from the West Bank into Israel - has been flourishing.

It is a market worth millions of shekels a year, in which a single tree can command tens of thousands of shekels. The Haaretz report uncovered suspicions of criminal activities in this regard, along with an ugly greediness for pet trees that has nothing to do with the love of the land and its arboreal species.

Olive trees, one of the most beautiful and symbolic hallmarks of the land of Israel, have also become a status symbol for the upper thousandth percentile of the population. As a result, they are being uprooted from their natural surroundings, where they should have remained planted forever, ruining the landscape on both sides of the Green Line.

It is illegal to uproot and transport ancient trees without authorization. Many trees have been stolen from their owners in the territories, and in other cases, heavy pressure is brought to bear on Palestinian farmers to sell their trees, taking advantage of their powerlessness and making huge profits at their expense.

The government department in charge of enforcing the law pertaining to flora and fauna is partially paralyzed; a senior member of its staff owns a nursery, has a criminal record, and is suspected of taking bribes and of illegal trade in trees".

One year on...zippo oil spill legislation. Money speaks!

Conceded by everyone to be the worst oil-spill in history, one would thought - nay, assumed - that the US Congress would jump to it to put in place oil-spill legislation. And what have they done? Nothing!

"In the year since the worst environmental disaster in the nation's history, Congress hasn't adopted any major laws on oil and gas drilling -- despite introducing more than 150 bills to improve the safety and oversight of offshore drilling and holding more than 60 hearings to discuss the spill's causes and consequences with regulators, oil company officials, grieving relatives and Gulf-area fishermen."

****

"In January, President Obama's oil spill commission released a slew of recommendations for changes that would seek to ensure safer drilling operations, provide better spill response, lift the existing liability cap on oil companies and secure funding for coastal restoration efforts in the Gulf. Yet though bipartisan leaders of the commission have personally lobbied members of Congress, no major legislation has been adopted. Lawmakers did accept the commission's recommendation for a budget increase for the federal agency with oversight of offshore drilling."

And the reason?

"In 2010, the oil and gas industry spent more than $146 million to lobby the federal government and donated $28 million to federal campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."

Joke of the Year.....Donald Trump for President

Credited to Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com

One grope too far

As officialdom goes to extremes about security at airports - last night in Sydney, Australia, 2000 people were evacuated from a terminal at the airport because 16 people had got through the scanner without being checked, and then those 2000 had to spend the night in Sydney - the TSA in the USA has gone to heights and lengths which ought to cause riots at airports. There are limits, as Maureen Dowd rightly highlights in her latest op-ed piece "Stripped of Dignity" in The New York Times:

"A young computer programmer on his way to a pheasant-hunting trip last November offered a cri de coeur about government groping.

“If you touch my junk,” he told the T.S.A. agent at the San Diego airport just before he abandoned his trip, “I’ll have you arrested.”

It’s hard to feel safe in the skies when you have to worry not only about terrorists but our own air-traffic controllers conking out, watching movies and making boneheaded mistakes. A controller’s error on Monday evening put Michelle Obama’s plane frighteningly close to a 200-ton military cargo jet.

Ever since the Thanksgiving rebellion over intrusive new pat-downs that some have dubbed “gate-rape,” Americans have been debating security requirements versus privacy rights.

Consternation crackled again last week when a Kentucky couple posted video of their 6-year-old daughter being given the deep probe by a female T.S.A. agent in New Orleans.

“We felt that it was inappropriate,” the girl’s mother, Selena Drexel, told ABC News. “You know, we struggle to teach our child to protect themselves, to say ‘No, it’s not O.K. for folks to touch me in this way, in these areas.’ Yet, here we are saying, ‘Well, it’s O.K. for these people.’ ” "

Continue reading here.

Throwing the book at well-known author

From The New York Times:

"An investigation by “60 Minutes” casts doubt on the accuracy of the inspirational best seller “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson, saying it is filled with inaccuracies. It also says that Mr. Mortenson’s charitable organization, the Central Asia Institute, has taken credit for building schools that don’t exist.

The report, which will be broadcast Sunday night on CBS, questions the veracity of one of the most gripping stories in the book, Mr. Mortenson’s account of being lost in 1993 while mountain-climbing in rural Pakistan. Mr. Mortenson wrote that he stumbled upon the village of Korphe, where he was cared for by local residents, and that their kindness inspired him to build a school. The “60 Minutes” report draws on observations from the porters who joined Mr. Mortenson on his mountain trip and dispute his being lost. They say he only visited Korphe a year later.

The news report also says that some of the schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan that Mr. Mortenson’s charity is said to have established either don’t exist or were built by others.

In a statement issued through the institute, Mr. Mortenson defended the book, which he co-wrote with David Oliver Relin, and his humanitarian work."

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast rightly observes:

"If this were just about one author’s reputation, the story would have few repercussions outside the publishing world. But Mortenson is not just a memoirist—he’s also the single most famous champion of the transformative power of education for girls in poor countries. If his downfall leads to skepticism about his cause, it would be not just a scandal, but a tragedy. “It raises cynicism about the role of nonprofits in general, because I think that all of us who are in this space now are going to have to prove ourselves or do that much more to re-engage with our public, especially those who are not already donors,” says Shalini Nataraj, vice president at the Global Fund for Women. Adds New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof: “It's probably true that advocates sometimes exaggerate how easy it is to help. But I worry that the latest round of sour news will leave people thinking it's almost impossible to help.”

The "Arab Spring": Following the money

This piece from Le Monde diplomatique puts into context, and analyses, the reasons for what is now being dubbed the "Arab Spring" in an ever-growing number of countries in the Middle East.

"The reasons for the Arab spring go deeper than immediate demands for freedom and democracy. The protesters want to end the political economy and the authoritarian regimes in place since the 1970s.

Monarchies in the Arab world have been absolute, and life-long presidents (with hereditary office) ruled the republics, because they created a supreme power above both state and post-independence institutions (1). They set up and controlled their own security services to ensure that their powers would endure; the services escaped parliamentary or government supervision, and their members could reprimand a minister and impose decisions. It costs money to run such services, and the clientelist networks of one-party states. The funds derive not from public budgets, as do those for the police and the army, but from different sources of revenue. (The New York Times recently reported that Muammar Gaddafi had demanded in 2009 that oil firms operating in Libya should contribute to the $1.5bn he had promised to pay in compensation for the Lockerbie terrorist murders – or lose their licences. Many paid. And Gaddafi’s immediate cash holdings of billions of dollars are thought to be funding his mercenaries and supporters to defend him.)

After the spectacular 1973 rise in crude oil prices, Middle Eastern revenues increased considerably. Through the distribution circuits, and in collusion with major multinationals, part of the revenue went direct to the coffers of the royal or “republican” families instead of to the state. Nor was oil their only source of revenue. After there were no more commissions on major public contracts, civil and military, because of budget deficits and structural adjustments, new opportunities arose. In the 1990s there were mobile telephone network launches, and the first major privatisations of public services, with public-private partnerships and build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts. Mobile networks had massive margins, especially at the start when better-off clients were prepared to pay high prices. The major multinational operators, influential businessmen and governments fought to capture the income. (There is evidence for this in the legal dispute over Djezzy, the Algerian branch of the Egyptian operator Orascom, and the Algerian military, and in a previous dispute between Orascom and Syria’s Syriatel, which happened just as the first large Arab multinationals emerged.)"

Continue reading here.

Who better to win the Bald Archy Prize?

Probably Australia's most prestigious, and controversial, art prize, is the Archibald. In true Oz tongue-in-cheek style there is also the Bald Archy art prize, etc. etc.

This year's winner of the Bald Archy couldn't be more appropriate.

"A painting of Julian Assange taking a leak has won this year's Bald Archy prize.

The caricature by French artist Xavier Ghazi portrays the WikiLeaks founder with his trousers around his ankles, urinating into a top hat with the US flag on it.

The Bald Archy - a parody of the Archibald Prize for portraiture - is a competition of humorous works of art, making fun of Australian celebrities and politicians.

The exhibition and prize is advertised as the only one in the world judged by a sulphur-crested cockatoo named Maude."

Government and the cosy relationship with oil interests

It will come as no surprise that in this instance, the UK government was in a very cosy relationship with oil interests - of course, totally contrary to what the government was saying at the time. It's wonderful what a successful FIO application can yield. The Independent reports in "Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq".

"Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms."

Double standards....yet again

The other day the media was condemning Ghadafi for using cluster bombs on his own people. It is clearly an outrage deserving of the strongest condemnation. However, did you hear the same outrage when Israel used cluster bombs when it invaded Southern Lebanon a few years ago? Those bombs have continued to cause death and injury to this very day.

Now, Israel is yet again using white phosphorous - it used it in the attack on Gaza in Operation Cast Lead - as it attacks the Gazans. And the outrage and condemnation from any quarter? Just silence!

"Ihab Keheal, head of the justice department’s medical examiner’s office in the Gaza Strip, has stated that examinations conducted by his office have unveiled evidence indicating that the Israeli army used white phosphorous and other internationally prohibited weapons in its latest operation in Gaza.

Making his comments in a press statement released Monday, Keheal said that the bodies of Palestinians killed in the latest escalations were torn apart and charred to the extent that they were barely recognizable.

Keheal added that his office was conducting delicate tests to discover the instruments used by the occupation army in its operations on civilians, including weapons and chemical munitions forbidden under international law.

The Palestinian Ministry of Justice, according to Keheal, is in contact with committees responsible for documenting war crimes as well as Palestinian and international rights organizations.

He hopes the reports issued by his office could be used to try the Israeli occupation for its crimes in an international court of justice.

In this way, explained Keheal, it is of the utmost importance that the world is aware that the occupation forces persist in using internationally forbidden weaponry against Palestinian civilians. He called on the world to take responsibility and protect civilians especially in light of Israel’s renewed threats of launching military operations on the Gaza Strip.

In the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, which claimed the lives of 1,400 Palestinians, most of which were civilians, Israel admitted using white phosphorous against civilian targets in the strip."

US gets a negative [and problematic] rating

Assuming one can give Standard & Poors any credibility - remember, the rating agencies were all bullish, probably bordering on fraud, in rating a host of companies and investments on Wall St. pre the GFC - the US economy is confronted with some real issues. It has been downgraded to "negative" from "stable".

"Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has delivered a stunning vote of no confidence in US political leaders to come up with a solution for swollen budget deficits with its decision to cut its outlook on US government debt to “negative” from “stable” for the first time in history.

S&P has thrown into sharp relief the political polarisation which is crippling Washington by questioning whether the “gulf of differences” between Republicans and Democrats over how to reduce the country’s yawning budget deficit can be resolved. There was a risk, it said, that US policy makers might fail to reach agreement on how to address budgetary challenges by 2013, which would leave US government finances in worse shape than other triple-A rated countries."

Thomas Friedman back to his old theme and mantra

MPD is no friend or follower of Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times and author. It is difficult to take him seriously. He is glib and whilst he seeks to convey knowledge about an array of topics, the reality is that he is far from across the ins and outs of politics in foreign countries.

FAIR reports on what seems to be a recurring Friedman theme and mantra:

"Tom Friedman, writing today about the Arab Spring (4/13/11--the same column Jim Naureckas critiqued for FAIR Blog here):

Another option is that an outside power comes in, as America did in Iraq, and as the European Union did in Eastern Europe, to referee or coach a democratic transition between the distrustful communities in these fractured states.

It's been a while since I've played an organized sport, but if any coach or referee did anything resembling what the U.S. has done in Iraq, they would be removed from the league, and probably put in jail.

That analogy sounded familiar, though. Turns out he's used it before:
Iraq teaches what it takes to democratize a big tribalized Arab country once the iron-fisted leader is removed (in that case by us). It takes billions of dollars, 150,000 U.S. soldiers to referee, myriad casualties, a civil war where both sides have to test each other's power and then a wrenching process, which we midwifed, of Iraqi sects and tribes writing their own constitution defining how to live together without an iron fist. --3/23/11

The U.S. military is still needed as referee. It still is not clear that Iraq is a country that can be held together by anything other than an iron fist. It’s still not clear that its government is anything more than a collection of sectarian fiefs. --6/18/08

It's time to blow the whistle on Friedman for abusive use of analogy."

BP stands condemned

It's hard to believe that 20 April sees the first anniversary of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the BP spin-meisters seeking to assure everyone that things are now pretty good in the Gulf, nothing could be further from the truth and facts.

"April 20, 2011 marks the one-year anniversary of BP's catastrophic oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. On this day in 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, causing oil to gush from 5,000 feet below the surface into the ninth largest body of water on the planet.

At least 4.9 million barrels of BP's oil would eventually be released into the Gulf of Mexico before the well was capped 87 days later.

It is, to date, the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. BP has used at least 1.9 million gallons of toxic dispersants to sink the oil, in an effort the oil giant claimed was aimed at keeping the oil from reaching shore.

Critics believe the chemical dispersants were used simply to hide the oil and minimise BP's responsibility for environmental fines.

Earlier this month Transocean Ltd, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, gave its top executives bonuses for achieving what it described as the "best year in safety performance in our company’s history". Transocean CEO Steve Newman’s bonus was $374,062.

BP has plans to restart deepwater drilling on 10 wells in the Gulf of Mexico this summer after being granted permission by US regulators.

Meanwhile, marine and wildlife biologists, toxicologists, and medical doctors have described the impact of the disaster upon the environment and human health as "catastrophic," and have told Al Jazeera that this is only the beginning of that what they expect to be an environmental and human health crisis that will likely span decades.

The demise of gulf vertebrates

Less than four months after the disaster began, very large fish-kills began to appear along the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

On August 18, a team from Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia released a report that estimated 70-79 per cent of the oil that gushed from the well "has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem". More recent studies estimate that figure could be closer to 90 per cent.

Dr Ed Cake, a biological oceanographer, as well as a marine and oyster biologist, has "great concern" about the fish kills over the last year, which he feels are likely directly related to the BP oil disaster.

In recent months, more than 290 corpses of dolphins and their newborn have washed ashore in the areas of the Gulf most heavily affected by the disaster, along with scores of dead endangered sea turtles."

Obama, Trump and the 2012 presidential election

For non-Americans to see that someone like Donald Trump is even under consideration as a presidential nominee for 2012 is startling. Then again, there is also Sarah Palin in the GOP - rather her Tea Party - pack.

Not that Obama is travelling well. Just to the contrary.

"The latest Gallup Daily tracking three-day average represents a new low for Barack Obama, with just 41 percent of Americans approving his job performance as president. This matches his previous lows in August 2010 and October 2010, just before the mid-term elections, and it is significantly down from his 2011 average of 48 percent. The president’s disapproval rating now stands at 50 percent, the highest point since August last year. In contrast, George W. Bush’s approval rating at this stage of his presidency stood at 70 percent (April 2003), and the average for US presidents in the ninth quarter stands at 57 percent.

Disconcertingly for the White House, his ratings have plummeted among independents, from an average of 44 percent in 2011 to just 35 percent this week, devastating figures if translated at the ballot box in 2012, where securing the independent vote will be vital. Even among Democrats, support for the president is now running at just 77 percent, down four points from the 2011 average, and down seven points from the average for 2009-11."