Taking the second tier seriously - Politics - MSNBC.com

Taking the second tier seriously - Politics - MSNBC.com

Taking the second tier seriously
Are the maverick GOP hopefuls having an effect on the presidential race?
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET May 18, 2007

WASHINGTON - Is Republican presidential contender Ron Paul destined to be remembered for saying that terrorists attacked the United States on Sept 11, 2001 “because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years”?

It was a critical moment in Tuesday night’s GOP presidential candidates’ debate in South Carolina.

Paul gave former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani the opportunity to rebuke him and dominate the news coverage of the event.

But Paul’s passionate supporters don’t think Giuliani was the winner — and their man the loser — in that skirmish.

In fact, Paul said Thursday that in the hours immediately after Tuesday night’s debate, supportive phone calls to his campaign and donations via his web site soared.

“I was amazed. People donate money in the middle of the night, so all that night there was money coming into our website,” Paul said in an interview with MSNBC.com.

Every four years, under-funded and relatively little-known presidential hopefuls such as Paul enter the race for their party’s nomination. You may recall some other long-shot contenders of past elections:
# Former Delaware governor Pierre “Pete” du Pont IV in 1988, who advocated allowing younger workers to set up voluntary retirement accounts as an alternative to Social Security.
# South Carolina Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings in 1984, whose broad Southern accent led Sen. Ted Kennedy to call him “the first non-English speaking candidate for president.”
# Virtuoso orator Allan Keyes in 2000 who thrilled conservative audiences by demanding abolition of the income tax and repeal of the 16th Amendment.

'Pierre... a nutty idea'
Sometimes these candidates serve as unwitting foils for their party’s frontrunners.

During a 1987 debate among the six GOP contenders, Vice President George Bush snidely pointed out du Pont’s aristocratic heritage by criticizing du Pont’s proposal for private retirement accounts as an alternative to Social Security.

"Pierre, let me help you on some of this,” Bush snapped. “I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of the people who've been saving all their lives.”

The poll numbers of contenders such as du Pont or Paul in the early stage of the nomination contest suggest they have no chance to win.

But then again, they just might. The best case of a seemingly out-of-the-running candidate who surprised everyone and became the front-runner was Howard Dean four years ago.

In early 2003 the former Vermont governor keenly sensed the frustration Democrats felt about the Iraq war and he was exactly the right candidate for that moment.

Apart from their function as the idiosyncratic “character actors” of presidential debates, do these second-tier candidates have an impact on their party’s nominees and their policies?

Varied messages and motives
If they have little chance of sitting in the Oval Office, why do they run? In the case of this year’s crop of GOP long-shot contenders, the motives and messages vary:
# Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado: Long the leading voice in his party for keeping out illegal immigrants, Tancredo has spread his immigration message through his political action committee, trying to defeat fellow Republican Rep. Chris Cannon, in 2004, for example. A presidential bid is a natural extension of Tancredo’s advocacy and his presence in debates will ensure that the pressure is on Giuliani and McCain on the immigration issue.
# Rep. Duncan Hunter of California: Like Tancredo, Hunter speaks for the frustrated immigration hawks in his party. He’s also using his presidential bid to sound the alarm about the Chinese regime which, he said in his debut television ad, is “cheating on trade and they’re buying ships, planes and missiles with our money, as well as taking millions of jobs.”
# Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: Having finished 11 years as governor, Huckabee was free to show off his relaxed talents as a presidential candidate, which he’d already been doing as a public health crusader. “Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork,” he pleaded in his book and in speeches warning of soaring incidence of diabetes and obesity.
# Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas: His candidacy ensures that social conservatives will have their voice heard on protection of fetal life in the womb and preservation of heterosexual marriage.
# Tommy Thompson: He served 15 years of governor of Wisconsin, implemented successful welfare reform in his state, and contemplated seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. But he yielded to a less experienced governor from Texas. On the campaign trial Thompson touts the significance of Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes and guarantees that he’d carry it for Republicans.

An unsuccessful bid can put a contender in the running for a future job, either as vice president, or as in the case of 1988 Democratic long-shot Bruce Babbitt who ended up as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Interior.

Sometimes, as in the case of Paul, these second-tier candidates represent a category-busting type of thinking that cannot find a comfortable resting place in either major party.

Is Paul having an impact?
Asked Thursday what impact he is having on the Republican presidential race, Paul said, “I think it might be significant that one of the so-called front-runners needed to attack me on national television. They must think I’m having enough of an impact that they have to try to discredit me. That was the purpose of the (Giuliani) attack: to discredit me so that my foreign policy challenge wouldn’t be heard.”

He added, “What annoys them the most is that I don’t criticize foreign policy from the Left; I criticize it from the Right, from a conservative viewpoint, from a constitutional viewpoint. It drives them nuts.”

Paul, a ten-term House member from Texas and the 1988 Libertarian candidate for president, admits most Republican voters don’t agree with his non-interventionist approach to foreign policy.

“I think the majority of Republicans right now are in the camp of intervention — but they’re also asking a lot of questions because of what happened in last year’s election and they know that they lost the election over foreign policy,” he said.

Complete U.S. exit from Iraq
Paul supports withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq — not leaving some behind for counter-terrorism operations and training Iraqi soldiers, as advocated by Democratic contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

And what of the consequences of U.S. exit from Iraq?

“It may be much better,” Paul said. “The Arab League may take over. Israel may be much more of a player there rather than us suppressing Israel. There’s all kinds of good things that could come of it.”

Paul will probably not be able to persuade Sen. John McCain to adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. But in the long run, a contender can see vindication.

Case in point: Pete du Pont saw some of his ideas — considered extreme and unorthodox in 1988 — become mainstream.

In 1988 du Pont called for:
# Requiring welfare recipients to work, an idea which was incorporated into the 1996 welfare reform bill signed into law by President Clinton.
# Creating voluntary individual retirement accounts as an alternative to Social Security, a proposal which President Bush championed and tried to get Congress to enact in 2005.
# Withholding drivers’ licenses from high school students who test positive during mandatory random drug testing.
# Offering vouchers to parents so they could send their children to private schools, if local public schools were dysfunctional.

Discounted as an iconoclast who had little chance to become the 1988 GOP nominee, du Pont proved to be ahead of his time. So, too, could be today’s crop of contenders.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18727094/page/2/

London dirty-bomb tests start this weekend

the register
Home Office counter-terror boffins from the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) Science and Technology Programme will carry out "tracer gas trials" in London starting this weekend.

Tony McNulty, the minister in charge of security spooks and special-powers cops, revealed the plans to Parliament yesterday.

"The trials will improve our understanding of the movement of air-borne material in the urban environment and will enable enhancements in public protection to be developed," he said.

"It will improve the UK's ability to deal with the consequences of a CBRN release."

The trials will involve the release of small amounts of "non-toxic, odourless gases" in the Marylebone area starting on Sunday, and will run for a four to six week period. The Press Association reports that about 20 scientific monitoring stations will be set up in the area.

The government terrorist-busting eggheads will use the data gleaned from the trials to develop computer models of dirty-bomb or urban chemical-weapons attacks. These are expected to form part of security plans for the 2012 Olympics, perhaps even feeding into the design and location of sports facilities.

Mr McNulty also revealed that similar tracer trials have already taken place in the London Underground during March and April.

Even so, it could be that if you build it (a big CBRN-response organisation) the dirty-bomb and chemical weapons terrorists may not come. Not if they know what they're doing, anyway.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that: "Most [dirty bombs] would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, a [dirty bomb] explosion could create fear and panic. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists.

"Immediate health effects from exposure to the low radiation levels expected from a [dirty bomb] would likely be minimal."

As ever, plain old explosives are the big worry. As for chemicals, compare the effects of the Tokyo subway gas attack (10 terrorists, five attacks each involving 1kg of hard-to-get sarin nerve gas, 12 dead total) with a typical backpack-bomb attack (London 7/7: four terrorists, four simple home made devices, 52 dead). Only a stupid attacker would bother with chemicals. Real pros like the IRA, for instance, never have.

Still, nobody ever made a mistake over-estimating the ability of Western citizens and in particular their media to get in a panic.

Pakistan warns against attacking Iran

press tv
Pakistan says military strike on Iran over its peaceful nuclear activities would be "catastrophic" hoping US-Iranian talks to ease tensions.

"The use of force to solve this issue will have catastrophic implications for the whole Ummah (Muslim nations) and for the whole world," said Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz a press conference in Amman on Friday.

"We are pleased to see that Iran will be engaging in a dialogue with the United States and we hope that leads to a reduction of tensions in the region," said Aziz, who is in Jordan to attend a G11 summit of developing countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced in Islamabad on Thursday that envoys from Iran and the United States are to meet in Iraq on May 28 for talks on the country's security crisis.

"Nothing but Iraq is on the agenda for Iran and US talks," he said.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Pakistani Premiere said Islamabad has no plans to set up diplomatic ties with Israel.

"Our stand on relations with Israel is very clear. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved we will consider further steps but we are not planning any diplomatic relations "Aziz said.

"The Palestinian people deserve a homeland and the right to live in peace," he added.

Cops spied on hippies, hip-hoppers

NYPD eyed everyone from stars to pols before '04 GOP bash in city
ny daily news

The NYPD kept tabs on the biggest names in hip hop as well as peaceniks, anarchists, anti-war bloggers, a city councilman and at least one hippie pie-tosser as cops girded for protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

The list of the spied upon was revealed yesterday in 600 pages of secret NYPD intelligence files released by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the city on behalf of hundreds of demonstrators arrested during the convention.

Sean (Diddy) Combs, Jay-Z, LL Cool J and Alicia Keys were among the notables the NYPD monitored in the months before the convention arrived in New York. Each was expected to attend a protest rally during the convention staged by the Hip Hop Summit Action Network.

Among the activists eyed by the NYPD was Aron Kay, aka the Yippie Pie Man, who earned his moniker by tossing pies into the faces of authority for more than two decades.

Mostly, the NYPD intelligence squad crisscrossed the Internet, peeking in on Web sites like one for Camp Shut Down that urged viewers to Resist the GOP and offered advice for those caught up in an NYPD dragnet.

The cops kept tabs on anti-Bush groups like Cabbies Against Bush and Bands Against Bush, as well as Billionaires for Bush, a group not really for Bush at all.

Police also were watching City Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn), a onetime mayoral candidate who was expected to demand that the GOP hold the convention elsewhere "unless the RNC indicates that it is willing to address issues of the impoverished, such as HIV/AIDS, housing and welfare."

The NYCLU says cops went too far in their surveillance of lawful political activism, while the city says the work of the intelligence unit justified the cops' high profile during the convention.

"The surveillance spanned the globe," said Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

But Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, "I think a close examination of those documents will show the NYPD did an outstanding job of protecting the city during the convention."

The city tried unsuccessfully to block the documents' public release. Two weeks ago, Manhattan Federal Judge James Francis dismissed city claims that potential jurors in the NYCLU case will be prejudiced by their release.

The NYPD posted all of the documents, as well as a 26-page overview, on its Web site last night.

ID cards 'will be gold standard for forgers'

london telegraph
Criminals will target ID cards as the ''gold standard'' of identity theft, a police chief said yesterday.

The assumption that they are foolproof will make them more enticing for forgers, said Colin Langham-Fitt, acting chief constable of Suffolk.

He also questioned the erosion of individual liberties and privacy.

"There should be a debate about the ongoing erosion of civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism and crime,'' he said.

"Are we all happy to have our cards monitored wherever we go, to be on CCTV and to have our shopping tracked?''

Mr Langham-Fitt added: "With all this surveillance available, the question needs to be asked - are we happy with that? Does it make us feel better and safer?

"I haven't got the answers but I would welcome the debate beyond the cliched response of, 'If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about'."

His comments undermine Government claims that the police support ID cards and other surveillance measures.

Mr Langham-Fitt, in an interview with the East Anglian Daily Times, said the cards could become "the gold standard of ID crime" and "it could raise the standards and stakes for those who wish to clone them or subvert the system".

A Suffolk police spokesman said Mr Langham-Fitt was not representing the views of the force but expressing "personal" opinions.

A Home Office spokesman said: "The Government recognises that some people are concerned about the scheme infringing their civil liberties - that is why there are stringent safeguards built into the Identity Cards Act.''

Further questions were raised over the security of confidential information with the disclosure that the personal details of Indians applying for British visas could be obtained via the Foreign Office website. Channel 4 News reported that an identity thief or a terrorist could obtain sensitive information that could be used to apply for an ID card.

Damian Green, the Tory immigration spokesman, said: "This is yet another IT shambles from the Government with serious implications for security."

Mr Green added: "This Government cannot even run a simple online visa application system without betraying all the sensitive information.

''What hope has it got of protecting the integrity of the National Identity Card Register?"

Mexican migrants fear U.S. immigration proposal

Houston Chron
MONTERREY, Mexico — Congress' new immigration plan was bad news for tens of thousands of poor Mexicans who depend on a U.S. guestworker program for temporary jobs in agriculture and other seasonal work, such as landscaping and construction.

Millions of would-be migrants have been holding tight to President Bush's promise that they could one day apply for temporary visas to get a glimpse of the American dream.

At the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, which hands out more temporary visas than any other consulate or embassy in the world, Edmundo Bermudez, a 36-year-old from the northern city of Durango, said the plan rewards those who have already entered the United States illegally, while shutting out those who stayed home hoping to gain legal passage.

He was especially offended by the plan to give preference to migrants with degrees and skills.

"The United States already has enough people with college degrees. Who is going to cut their tobacco?" asked Bermudez, who has been working intermittently in the U.S. for the past eight years. In Mexico, he makes about $10 a day, while in the U.S. he earns almost that — $8 — in an hour.

The proposal, unveiled Thursday in Washington, is devoid of Bush's original plan to grant three-year visas to migrants living in their native countries. Instead, it focuses on securing the border and giving illegal residents a path toward legal residency, while gradually giving preference for new visas to those with advanced degrees and highly specialized skills.

Many in Mexico — and U.S. employers who say they need workers for low-skilled jobs — had hoped Congress would expand the guestworker program and allow more to cross legally, work a few months and then return home with their savings to build homes and businesses.

Gilberto Escalante, a 41-year-old fisherman from Topolobampo in Sinaloa state, said the current temporary visa program is better than the congressional plan because it gives Mexicans the option to freely enter and leave the U.S. while maintaining their lives in Mexico — instead of forcing them to choose between the two countries.

"We don't want the house or the latest car in the U.S. We want to go and work so that our families can have a good life in Mexico," said Escalante, who came to the industrial hub of Monterrey to apply for a visa to work on fish and shrimp boats off the coast of Mississippi.

Yet the congressional plan came as welcome news to the millions of Mexicans who depend on the $23 billion sent home each year by Mexicans living in the U.S., many illegally.

The proposal would allow illegal immigrants to obtain a "Z visa" and, after paying fees and a $5,000 fine, ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.

It is also good news for the Mexican government, which has spent years lobbying the U.S. for a comprehensive immigration reform that allows more people to work legally in the U.S. Many had feared the U.S. would only approve more border security measures, such as adding to National Guard troops at the border and other high-tech security measures.

Victor Aviles, a spokesman for Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, cautiously welcomed the initiative.

"The Mexican government hopes that the different actors involved in the debate and eventual approval of this initiative take advantage of the opportunity it presents," he said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said debate would begin on Monday, but he cautioned, "I don't know if the immigration legislation is going to bear fruit and we're going to be able to pass it."

Miguel Garcia, 35, of Maravatio in the western Mexican state of Michoacan, said he was glad that the U.S. was giving illegal migrants a chance at fixing their status.

"They shouldn't punish people who are just trying to get ahead," he said.

In the small, northern desert town of Huachichil, migrant recruiter Rene Urbano encouraged Mexicans who work in potato fields and apple orchards to continue signing up for possible visas, arguing that he would work to find them jobs with U.S. employers.

"They are rewarding those who are doing things wrong and abandoning my boys who need work," he said, adding that there are millions of migrants waiting for U.S. jobs.

One of his clients, Gustavo Ruiz, a 31-year-old father of two small children, is normally working in U.S. fields by now. But today he is still waiting for an offer at the one-bedroom concrete home he built on the edge of the Mexican desert, with money he earned picking tobacco, cucumber and sweet potatoes.

He said he would not mind moving his family to the U.S. and trying to become legal residents, but his wife refuses.

"My roots are here," Elidia Moncada said. "My family is here. They say it's nice there, but I don't want to leave."

Iran tells US to admit 'failure' in Iraq

middleeast online
Iranian FM says talks can progress if Americans show serious will to correct their ‘failed’ policies in Iraq.

TEHRAN - Iran said on Friday the United States should admit to the "failure" of its Iraq policies at the upcoming Tehran-Washington meeting on Iraqi security if it wants the talks to make progress.

"If the Americans admit to the failure of their policies in Iraq, have a serious will to correct the current situation, and help the Iraqi people and government to implement security there, these talks can progress and create hope," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters.

US and Iranian envoys are to meet in Baghdad on May 28 for talks on Iraq's security in what is believed to be the first official ambassadorial encounter between the arch-foes in three decades.

Iran will send an "experienced diplomat who has been an ambassador" to meet US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker, Mottaki said.

Both sides insist the talks would be limited to the security of Iraq and Mottaki said they would not discuss the release of seven Iranians seized by US forces in northern Iraq in January.

"The May 28 talks will only revolve around the issue of Iraq and a step towards helping security there," Mottaki said after meeting the families of the detainees who Iran insists were diplomats working for a consulate.

He said it was up to Iraqi officials to press for the release of the men accused by the United States of being intelligence agents.

Mottaki noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari during a visit to Tehran last month had signalled the detainees could be freed in the Iranian month of Khordad (May 22 to June 21).

"Mr Zebari said the Americans would seek to release them in Khordad."

Mottaki added that the Iranian foreign ministry was preparing "to claim compensation from the Americans for raiding the consulate in Arbil, the detention of diplomats and the losses caused by the closure of the place."

The United States accuses Shiite-majority Iran of stirring sectarian violence in Iraq. It also charges that Tehran is supplying Iraqi fighters with roadside bombs, which have killed and maimed large numbers of US soldiers.

Iran denies the allegations and blames the US "occupiers" for the insecurity and instability of Iraq.

Fake Zombie news

fake bbc zombie news
This fake is well done, but the URL gives it away. Just wanted to post this up. There are NO zombies in Cambodia.

EU calls on World Bank to quickly name successor to Wolfowitz

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The European Commission wants the World Bank to name a successor to outgoing President Paul Wolfowitz as soon as possible.

The E-U says "stable and strong political leadership" at the bank is important.

Wolfowitz announced yesterday he'll resign at the end of June. His leadership has been undermined by a furor over the compensation he arranged in 2005 for his girlfriend, a bank employee.

The White House says it'll move quickly to name a replacement candidate, which must be approved by the World Bank's board.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick; Robert Kimmitt, the second in command at the Treasury Department; and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are thought to be possibilities.

%@AP Links

GRAPHICSBANK 969866 (05/17/07)>> 1500x1125

Paul Wolfowitz headshot, as World Bank President, over logo with RESIGNATION lettering, finished graphic

Jesuits agree to sex case payout

LA TIMES
The Jesuit order has agreed to a tentative payout of $16 million to settle claims that one of its priests sexually abused nine Los Angeles children over 16 years ending in 1975.

Mark Falvey was accused of molesting four girls and five boys between 1959 and 1975 at Blessed Sacrament Roman Catholic Church in Hollywood. Falvey died 31 years ago and was never charged with a crime.

"One of his victims, an 8-year-old girl, tried to commit suicide," said the lawyer for the victims, Raymond P. Boucher.

"This guy brought a lifetime of misery to a group of young children. They'll never get over it," Boucher said.

The agreement in principle was confirmed by the Rev. Alfred Naucke of the California Province of the Society of Jesus. All of the parties still must sign the pact to make it official. Each victim will receive between $1.4 million and $1.6 million.

"I look forward to meeting the victims to apologize to them on behalf of the Society of Jesus," the Rev. John P. McGarry, who heads the order in California and the West Coast, said in a phone interview.

"We wish these brave victims well and hope that others who were hurt by clergy — Jesuits or others — will come forward so they can heal," said Barbara Blaine, an official with SNAP, a support group for victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.

"We also hope that anyone with suspicions or knowledge of Falvey's crimes will call the police. Even though he is deceased, prosecution of church officials who may have covered up his crimes may still be possible," Blaine said.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which has been sued by more the 500 people claiming they were victims of clergy sexual abuse, did not contribute to the settlement.

Falvey served in Asia and was assigned in 1959 as assistant pastor at Blessed Sacrament in Hollywood, where he apparently served until 1975, when he died.

The legal issues in the Falvey case, like in other clergy abuse lawsuits, turned on what the Jesuit order knew about the priest's sexual proclivities, and what its hierarchy did to protect churchgoers in Hollywood.

The evidence against the order was strong, Boucher said.

One victim was ready to testify that while he was being molested by Falvey in Hollywood, another priest blundered into the room.

"Why don't you close the door," Boucher said the priest scolded Falvey.

Boucher, who is the lead lawyer for all of the Los Angeles victims, called Falvey "one of the most evil priests that has ever walked the halls of a church."

"I agree with Mr. Boucher that Father Falvey was not handled correctly by the Jesuit order," McGarry said.

"He should have been removed from ministry" after the first victim.

Mogadishu seriously damaged as Ethiopia tries to end resistance

MEDIA MONITORS
by M A Shaikh
(Thursday, May 17, 2007)

"It is true that the international community and media have on the whole ignored the Somali conflict, concentrating their attention on Darfur (Sudan) instead. But the indiscriminate bombing by the Ethiopian army of Mogadishu, which in a short time destroyed many of its buildings, killed thousands of its inhabitants and injured many more, and forced most of them to flee, could not fail to draw attention to the mayhem. However, that attention was very little compared to the concentration of the West on Darfur, despite the fact that a UN agency pointed out that the Somali conflict is far bloodier and more costly."

Somalia’s transitional government (TG) claimed the victory when the shelling of Muqdisho (Mogadishu, the capital) by the Ethiopian army during the recent ten-day confrontation with supporters of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) came to an end on April 27. But even one day earlier the interim prime minister, Ali Mohamed Ghedi, announced that the fighting was over and that “we have won it against the insurgents”. The fact that the next day the Ethiopian army unleashed on the north of Muqdisho – “the hiding place of the ICU militias”, according to some media reports – one of its most devastating raids, and that the head of the African Union called for additional African Union (AU) ‘peacekeepers’ shows that the conflict was still raging. But that did not discourage Ghedi or his colleagues from making further claims of victory.

Nor did the fact that some members of the international media and NGOs had already dismissed their claims as unfounded, the raids as war crimes and the Ethiopians and the TG as “US stooges” bent on backing its ‘war on terrorism’ in the Horn of Africa. Undoubtedly the TG was encouraged by the continued support of Western governments and their allies worldwide, by the silence (and by implication complicity) of members of the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and the AU, despite the fact that Somalia is a member of each of these bodies. As an American professor quoted in the Arabic daily al-Hayat has pointed out, the international community tied its hands by backing a government (the TG) that enjoys no local support whatsoever.

The professor, who is an expert on Somalia, was also quoted as saying that the TG is “a total failure and that is the essence of the matter.” He added that “nevertheless, the Western leaders cannot retract and it is in their interest not to draw the attention of the international community to Somalia.” But, in any case, “most of the international media and the international leaders have undoubtedly set aside the Somali issue,” he said.

It is true that the international community and media have on the whole ignored the Somali conflict, concentrating their attention on Darfur (Sudan) instead. But the indiscriminate bombing by the Ethiopian army of Mogadishu, which in a short time destroyed many of its buildings, killed thousands of its inhabitants and injured many more, and forced most of them to flee, could not fail to draw attention to the mayhem. However, that attention was very little compared to the concentration of the West on Darfur, despite the fact that a UN agency pointed out that the Somali conflict is far bloodier and more costly.

Germany was only major power to acknowledge the seriousness of the bombings, by means of an official letter sent by Walter Lindner, its ambassador to Somalia, to Abdullahi Yusuf, the TG president. The letter, which was made public on April 25, condemned the indiscriminate use of air strikes and heavy artillery in densely populated areas of Muqdisho. It also condemned the rape of women, the blocking of urgently needed food and humanitarian supplies, and the bombardment of hospitals. But Germany was only commenting because, as the current holder of the presidency of the EU, it was embarrassed by the seriousness of events in Muqdisho, which had been widely publicised. But it did not exploit its presidency of the EU to propose action or even official censure by the EU of Ethiopia and the TG. The fact that it merely sent a letter is an indirect indication that Ethiopia and the TG do not need to take Germany’s concerns seriously.

Nor do they need to heed the statement by Sir John Holmes, the UN humanitarian affairs chief, on April 26, simply because he accused all sides to the conflict of being responsible for what he described as war crimes. “The rules of humanitarian law are being flouted by all sides... all factions are equally guilty of indiscriminate violence in a civilian area,” he said. “Civilians in Mogadishu are paying an intolerable price for the absence of political progress and dialogue and the failure of all parties to abide by the rules of warfare.” The UN refugee agency also made a statement on the situation in Muqdisho but did not apportion blame for the mayhem. “At least half of the capital is deserted, slowly turning it into a ghost city,” it said.

The UN agencies should have put the blame on Ethiopia, whose force of 20,000 in Somalia is responsible for the destructive bombing, and on the TG, which invited Ethiopia to intervene and takes part in the fighting, although its 5,000 troops can only play a relatively minor role. But the bombing by the Ethiopians is assisting the TG’s troops to carry out its clan and anti-Islamic war on the ground and inside the city to make sure that supporters of the ICU and their allies do not escape the lethal bombing.

But the UN agencies should have put the main blame on the US, which encouraged, and finances, the invasion of Somalia by the Ethiopian army. One reason that they will not do so is that both the UN security council and the secretariat are determined to avoid any criticism of Washington’s role in the Somali conflict, and of the TG, which it backs. At the same time they are happy to censure Sudan in connection with the unrest in Darfur and impose sanctions on it at the behest of the US government. In fact it was the security council which in December passed the resolution that sanctioned the despatch of the Ethiopian army into Somalia.

One of the consequences of the interference of the US and UN in Somalia is widespread anger among Somalis at both, and the Somalis’ determination to support the Islamic Courts Union come what may. Clearly, Somalia faces a protracted conflict and illegal continued intervention by the US and its allies.

Wolfowitz resigns after scandal over girlfriend's pay rise

TIMESONLINE
Paul Wolfowitz resigned as president of the World Bank last night, ending weeks of turmoil over the lavish pay rise he arranged for his girlfriend that triggered the worst crisis in the institution’s history.

Mr Wolfowitz’s departure was announced by the Bank’s 24-member board, which had spent two days negotiating a “face-saving” deal for the embattled president, after an ethics panel found him guilty on Monday of breaking institution rules over the $50,000 (£25,000) a year, tax-free pay rise he negotiated for Shaha Riza, his British-born girlfriend.

In a statement released by the board, Mr Wolfowitz, the former US deputy Defence Secretary and a controversial World Bank head after his role as one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, said that he would resign on June 30.

In its statement, the board appeared to fall short of Mr Wolfowitz’s demands of the past 48 hours that he be exonerated by the Bank before he agreed to go, in particular his request that the institution took partial responsibility for poor advice given to Mr Wolfowitz before he dictated the terms of Ms Riza’s pay rise.

“He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution and we accept that,” the board said in its announcement of Mr Wolfowitz’s resignation. But it did concede that the advice given to Mr Wolfowitz was “not a model of clarity”.

Mr Wolfowitz said in his statement: “The poorest people in the world . . . deserve the very best we can deliver. Now it is necessary to find a way to move forward.” He said he was pleased the bank had accepted his assurance that he had acted ethically and in good faith.

The deal means that the board, which in the Bank’s 63-year history has never dismissed a president, did not have to put Mr Wolfowitz’s fate to a vote. Several European nations, particularly Britain, were thus spared having to publicly wield the knife against a close ally of President Bush.

Until Monday Mr Bush had refused to budge on the question of Mr Wolfowitz. The US President, and many US conservatives, viewed the fate of Mr Wolfowitz as a proxy battle — fuelled by European anti-Americanism — against the Administration’s policies.

But Mr Bush, during a White House press conference with Tony Blair hours before Mr Wolfowitz’s announcement, made clear that he could no longer save him. “I regret that it’s come to this,” he said.

The US has traditionally chosen the head of the World Bank, and there were signs last night that part of the deal — despite recent calls by European members that the practice should end — would allow Washington to choose Mr Wolfowitz’s successor.

Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, said that it was important for an American to continue to be appointed World Bank president. Early speculation on US candidates centred on Robert Kimmitt, the Deputy Treasury Secretary, and Robert Zoellick, the former Deputy Secretary of State.

Mr Wolfowitz dictated the terms of his girlfriend’s pay rise, but maintained in an impassioned plea before the board on Monday night that he intervened in her job status only after being requested by the bank’s ethics committee, and after he had sought its advice on how he should act.

Analysis: now war looms in Gaza

TIMESONLINE
Hard as it is to imagine, but Israel may again be preparing to go to war.

Less than a year after the disastrous invasion of Lebanon, Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, is under growing pressure to send troops into the Gaza Strip to prevent Hamas militants firing rockets at the Israeli township of Sderot.

The moves, which will be discussed at Sunday's Cabinet meeting in Israel, come as Israeli warplanes have attacked suspected Hamas positions in Gaza and Israeli armoured units have taken up positions just inside the narrow coast strip. In a separate, but related battle, rival Palestinian factions loyal to Fatah and Hamas have continued their week-long street battle in Gaza, which has claimed dozens of lives.

Behind the latest violence, and the threat of a serious escalation, lies the volatile political situation in Israel and Palestine.

Mr Olmert is still reeling from last year's war in Lebanon and the findings of the Winograd commission of inquiry which blamed him for many of the failures. He is clinging on to power by a narrow majority and with rock-bottom public support. Members of his own coalition government, notably Tsipi Livni, his ambitious Foreign Minister, have openly called for him to step down.

The rightwing opposition under the leadership of Benyamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, is exploiting the government's weakness. He is calling for a robust response to the Hamas attacks and proposing sealing off Gaza, cutting off its water and electricity supplies and sending ground troops four or five kilometers into the strip to blunt the range Hamas' infamous Kassam rockets.

The dangers of a military incursion are obvious to everyone. An attack into Gaza would result in many Palestinian civilian casualties. Israeli ground forces would also meet stiff resistance. Once in, it could become difficult for the Israelis to leave.

Also, there is the political impact to consider. It is widely assumed that Hamas is attacking Israeli precisely to provoke a military response. The group has always thrived on conflict. The tougher Israel responds, the more support it will receive and the less backing for Fatah, the mainstream movement loyal to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President.

His position is also greatly weakened by the current violence and the fragile Hamas-Fatah unity government agreed earlier this year in Mecca is in danger of collapse.

In the worst case scenario, often the norm in the Middle East, Gaza will descend further into violence, the Palestinian government will collapse to be followed shortly afterwards by Mr Olmert's own demise.

Ordinarily the West would intervene to stop the situation unravelling. But Britain and France are now being run by two new and inexperienced leaders. President Bush is weak and distracted by his own problems in Iraq. All the diplomatic options look tired and unconvincing.

The prospects for the region could not be bleaker.

Judge Orders Police Department Files on Preconvention Surveillance Opened

NY TIMES
A federal magistrate judge yesterday released about 600 pages of secret documents relating to police preparations for the 2004 Republican National Convention, held in New York.

On May 4, the magistrate judge, James C. Francis IV, granted a request by the New York Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times to make the documents public, but also granted a 10-day stay to give the city time to file an appeal.

But in a letter to the judge dated Tuesday, a lawyer for the city, Peter G. Farrell, wrote that the city would not appeal, “in light of the documents’ prior disclosure and corresponding press coverage.”

The city had originally opposed the release of the documents because, it insisted, news organizations and legal groups would “fixate upon and sensationalize them,” and thus taint the potential pool of jurors who might later be asked to decide cases brought in connection with some of the nearly 2,000 arrests during the convention.

The Times reported in March that the Police Department had conducted wide-ranging surveillance of political groups and activists who were planning to attend the convention. While a small number appeared to be bent on creating trouble, the authorities said that most of those who came apparently had no plans to break the law. The surveillance was necessary, police officials have said, to head off possible terrorism or violent protests.

The documents that were unsealed yesterday during a conference in Federal District Court in Manhattan consisted of summary reports filed by detectives involved in police surveillance operations leading to the convention.

A second batch of documents contains raw intelligence reports produced by detectives upon which the summary reports were based. A sampling of those unfiltered reports reviewed by The Times shows that they include more detailed information about the groups and individuals that were watched and in some cases disclose how the undercover officers conducted the surveillance.

Judge Francis said that he would rule next week on motions from the city objecting to the release of that material to the plaintiffs.

The summary reports released yesterday and other raw intelligence reports that have not yet been made public show that before the convention, detectives traveled to at least 15 places, including cities in Canada and Europe, where they often posed as activists or sympathizers while participating in political meetings held by church groups, antiwar organizations and environmentalists, among others. The police have said that they needed to find out about what they called dangerous groups that they said were intent on disrupting the convention and breaking the law.

“I think a close examination of the documents will show that the New York City Police Department did an outstanding job of protecting this city during the Republican National Convention,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said yesterday. “People wanted to come here to shut down the city, to replicate what happened in Seattle and Montreal and Genoa, and we simply did not let that happen.”

Civil rights lawyers have said that the records show that the police monitored many law-abiding citizens who were engaged in legally protected activities.

“This is an important first step toward exposing the N.Y.P.D.’s surveillance of political groups planning demonstrations at the convention,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

“There are many more documents that remain secret, however, and this controversy will continue until the city releases all the documents.”

The judge also suggested that “the city might consider whether or not they want to proceed” with its request for a special inquiry into the sources for a New York Times article about the surveillance program.

City lawyers initially accused the civil liberties union lawyers of leaking the information, then dropped that charge and conceded that they did not know who had provided the information.

In his letter to the judge, Mr. Farrell wrote that the city will continue to seek “relief due to the disclosure of the intelligence documents in violation of the protective order,” under which the records were once sealed.

Toddler fined for dropping two potato chips

UK DAILY
A woman was handed an £80 litter fine after her toddler grandchild dropped some crisps on the pavement.

Barbara Jubb had picked up the packet of Quavers when it fell from the hand of 20-month- old Emily.

But she failed to pick up two stray crisps that spilled from the bag.

Within seconds two council litter wardens swooped and issued her with an £80 fine.

"This is diabolical," said Mrs Jubb, 57. "£80 is a lot of money, especially if it's just because a baby dropped two Quavers.

"I saw these two women coming toward me with clipboards. One of them produced a card and said, 'We are from the council and I'm going to fine you for littering'.

"I said, 'What litter - it's just two Quavers, it was my granddaughter, she dropped them'."

"People were standing around listening-they were just laughing, they couldn't believe it was happening."

The incident happened when Mrs Jubb was waiting for a bus with her daughter Selena, Emily's mother.

They were on their way back to their home in Crawley, West Sussex, after a hospital visit in which Selena was diagnosed with a heart condition.

Mrs Jubb added: "It was only when I got on the bus that I read the notice and realised they had fined me £80."

Selena, 29, said: 'At first we didn't realise we had been fined. These two wardens had come up to us and given us a notice.

"When I read it on the bus I realised my mum had been given an £80 fine. Luckily Emily didn't have a clue what was going on. I think they are targeting vulnerable people."

A spokesman for Crawley Council said: "People leaving their rubbish behind - or dropping litter anywhere other than a bin - is totally unacceptable.

"It annoys responsible residents who help us to keep the town clean and tidy and the council will not tolerate unsociable behaviour."

The council did however allow Mrs Jubb's appeal against the fine, saying the penalty would be waived because of the 'exceptional circumstances'.

9/11 Toxic Dust: Official Who Knowingly Lied Refuses To Testify

Whitman in the frame to take the fall for Guiliani, Rice and The White House

The former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who knowingly lied and signed off on falsified scientific research on the toxicity of the air in the aftermath of 9/11, has refused a request by Rep. Jerrold Nadler that she testify before a congressional hearing on the federal government's response to be tabled later this month.

The New York Sun today reported:
Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator at the time, has declined an invitation to appear before a House subcommittee that Mr. Nadler chairs, an aide to the congressman said yesterday. Mr. Nadler, whose district includes ground zero, is expected to ask Ms. Whitman again before considering whether to seek to compel her testimony with a subpoena, the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

Yesterday we reported on the fact that Hillary Clinton had announced, along with New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, D-NY, that she will chair the probe looking into the federal government's response and environmental clean-up efforts in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The Clinton/ Nadler press release stated that one intention of the probe was to take a close look at the EPA's inadequate program to test and clean residential areas in Manhattan.

Part of the press release stated:
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's falsely reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the September 11, 2001 attacks were "without question conscience-shocking." The court also found the facts "support an allegation of a violation of the substantive due process right to be free from official government policies that increase the risk of bodily harm" by Whitman's misstatements regarding the air quality of the affected area. An EPA Inspector General review reached similar conclusions.

An AP report last month on these legal findings was posted last month and can be read here .

We have postulated that the left arm of the Washington power elite will be unlikely to fully expose the reality of the monumental criminal culpability of the Bush Administration on this particular issue , but will instead seek to once again close off the issue. Indeed it seems that Whitman is in the frame to take the fall and once cover the behinds of the ever increasingly unaccountable Neocon crime syndicate in the White House.

In August 2003 it was revealed that the Government ordered the EPA to give the public misleading information , telling New Yorkers on September 12 it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available and Asbestos levels were known to be three times higher than national standards.

Further documents were obtained by CBS news last September, revealing that Lower Manhattan was reopened a few weeks following the attack even though the air was not safe.

The two devastating memos, written by the U.S. and local governments, show they knew. They knew the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly health hazard. Yet they sent workers into the pit and people back into their homes.

"Not only did they know it was unsafe, they didn't heed the words of more experienced people that worked for the city and E.P.A.," said Joel Kupferman, with the group Environmental Justice Project.

An EPA whistleblower, Dr. Cate Jenkins then wrote a letter to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and other members of the New York congressional delegation blasting the EPA for hiding dangerous toxins from Ground Zero workers in the aftermath of 9/11.

The Letter claimed that EPA-funded research on the toxicity of breathable alkaline dust at the site “falsified pH results” to make the substance appear benign, when it was, in reality, corrosive enough to cause first responders and other workers in lower Manhattan to later lose pulmonary functions and, in some cases, to die.

In an even more shocking development it was revealed that Whitman apparently had financial interests in reassuring the public that all was well and that lower Manhattan could safely be reoccupied.

In a New York Post piece which has since been memory holed, but that was reported on here , these facts became clearly evident:

Meanwhile, Whitman's newly released financial-disclosure forms show that she said seven months before 9/11 that she would not get involved in any issue related to the finances of the Port Authority - which owns the WTC site - because she or her family owned PA bonds. Its finances could be impacted by lawsuits growing of the cleanup.

"I understand the following interests that belong to me, my spouse or my children present a conflict of interest," Whitman wrote at the time. She then listed various investments, including the bistate agency.
But Whitman was involved at Ground Zero despite that refusal, although she or her family also owned shares of Citigroup, whose insurance-company subsidiary, The Travelers, paid out hundred of millions of dollars in claims to downtown residents displaced by the attacks.

Not surprising then that Whitman does not want to testify. She is totally compromised and clearly in very deep trouble. Congressman Nadler himself blasted Whitman when this was revealed stating:
"She conspired [with the White House] to convince people to go into an unsafe environment . . . For that, she ought to be prosecuted," Nadler said. "People are dead because of her."

However, it must be remembered that Whitman and the EPA are accountable to the White House and act under the direct authority of the Bush Administration.

It was the 2003 EPA Inspector General's investigation that revealed that it was the White House that had pressured EPA into changing its press releases to add more "reassuring" language.

The further memos revealed that Whitman conspired with the White House to falsely reassure New Yorkers that the air was safe.

The New York Post also reported on the fact that the internal documents show it was Condoleezza Rice's office that gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was "safe to breathe,".

Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council - "the final decision maker" on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.

And it cannot be forgotten that Rudolph Guiliani , who was mayor at the time, also said repeatedly that the air was safe.

Furthermore it has been the Bush Administration that has PURPOSEFULLY blocked millions in health compensation programs for ground zero workers and continuously attempted to stonewall the issue because to do otherwise would be an admission of responsibility for exposure to harmful substances after the government had already given the all clear. It has been the Bush administration that has allowed 9/11 heroes to die while at the same time disgracefully using the event as a cart blanche excuse for their own criminal actions at home and abroad.

It seems Whitman knew immediately that she was being fingered as the ultimate scapegoat. When the new information broke last September, she was quick to blame the city for not forcing Ground Zero workers to wear respirators.

In a "60 Minutes" interview, Whitman maintained that the nation's leading environmental agency did not have authority to enforce rules at the site, though the agency did warn the city about dangers in the air at Ground Zero.

"We didn't have the authority to do that enforcement, but we communicated to the people who did," Whitman stressed.

A 2004 report by the Sierra Club however detailed gross malfeasance by EPA, FEMA, and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) and then suggested a cover-up of the public health hazards of Ground Zero ensued.

The report found that the EPA and FEMA, in concert with New York City's own health department, told families that they could clean up the contaminated dust themselves with wet rags. In fact, they actually discouraged area residents from wearing safety masks.

Some preliminary scientific studies have indicated that as many as 400,000 people were exposed to toxic ground zero dust. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have fallen ill, and several have died from lung ailments blamed on inhaled Trade Center ash.

Any probe into this issue that cannot establish these basic conclusions and pinpoint those at fault AT ALL LEVELS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT will be highly suspicious. It is blatantly clear that not only Whitman and her EPA counterparts were complicit in a conspiracy and cover up the environmental hazards at ground zero, but also that high ranking officials with the Bush administration are also complicit.

It is also apparent from reports that Whitman had significant financial interests in the ground zero site, which should also be investigated in addition to the financial interests other officials complicit in this diabolical case also had before and after 9/11.

The Nadler's hearing is scheduled for May 22, Clinton's is set for June 20.