Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Former Reagan Official: Bush May Stage False Flag Events To Reinstate Draft


"Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" asks Roberts

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts has gone further than ever before, warning that the Bush administration could be about to stage false flag events and terror attacks in order to reinstate the draft, announce a dictatorship and attack Iran.

Roberts has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and is also a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.

In his weekly syndicated column, Roberts suggests that unfolding events and the nature of the rhetoric emanating from government quarters suggests that a major staged terror attack could be just around the corner.

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" writes Roberts.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

Roberts concludes that coming "terrorist" events within the next year will be the means for overthrowing constitutional democracy unless Congress moves to impeach Bush and Cheney immediately.


Paul Craig Roberts

Roberts' warning is dovetailed by a series of high profile individuals expressing the need for more terror as the only recourse for saving a doomed foreign policy and reversing anti-war sentiment in the U.S. that is now dominating the country.

In a July 8 Toronto Star piece, Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, said that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

"If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this [the occupation of Iraq] is necessary," he added.

Delaney's comments are in a similar vein to former Republican Senator Rick Santorum's statements to a radio show last weekend, in which he said that "unfortunate events" would occur along the lines of the recent car bomb attempts in the UK, that will change American's views of the war.

Last month, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

Yearning for more terror was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which hankered for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

It seems painfully clear that the Neo-Cons are still obsessed with the notion of using staged terror as the only ultimate means of facilitating their dark agenda, and that thousands and potentially millions of Americans could be about to pay with their lives to realize such a nightmare.

Russia warns UK over expulsions

BBC
Tuesday July 17, 2007

The Kremlin has warned Britain it faces "serious consequences" after expelling four Russian diplomats from the UK.

The move followed Moscow's refusal to hand over the former KGB agent accused of murdering Alexander Litvinenko in London last year.

Suspect Andrei Lugovoi, who denies involvement, claimed the charges against him had a "political subtext".

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Britain will make "no apologies" for expelling the four Russians.

Mr Brown said that because "there is no forthcoming co-operation, then action has to be taken".

The Foreign Office has not named the four Russian diplomats, but the BBC understands they are intelligence officers.

'Absolutely clear'

The BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow said the expulsions would not go unanswered and that the two countries were "facing off" in way not seen since the end of the Cold War.

Moscow has warned that what it describes as "Russophobia" in British politics would damage British-Russian relations, he said. A statement from Moscow is expected later.

Mr Litvinenko, another former KGB agent, died of exposure to radioactive polonium-210 in London in November 2006.

The radioactive isotope used to poison him was found in several places that Mr Lugovoi had visited in London.

But Mr Lugovoi told Russian television that the outcome of the inquiry had been predetermined.

He said: "The British authorities have in effect emphasised yet again that the Litvinenko case actually has a political subtext.

"In all the eight months that this row has been developing in earnest, I have not received a single official invitation from the official British authorities, and all those statements that the investigation was carried out competently are lies."

Action 'necessary'

On a visit to Berlin on Monday, Mr Brown said: "When a murder takes place, when a number of innocent civilians were put at risk as a result of that murder, and when an independent prosecuting authority makes it absolutely clear what is in the interests of justice, and there is no forthcoming co-operation, then action has to be taken."

The prime minister added that he wanted a "good relationship" with Russia.

Russia's Foreign Ministry chief spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said: "London's position is immoral.

"Such provocative actions masterminded by the British authorities will not be left without an answer and cannot but entail the most serious consequences for Russian-British relations."

Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitri Peskov said: "We don't want to be provoked into a ping-pong game, although of course the Russian side will provide a necessary response."

Mr Litvinenko's widow Marina said she was "very grateful" for the British government's actions and "proud to be a UK citizen".

Right to refuse

Under the European Convention on Extradition 1957, the Russians have the right to refuse the extradition of a citizen.

The UK has the right to request Mr Lugovoi be tried in Russia, but the UK's director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, has already turned down the offer.

The Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind was foreign secretary the last time Russian diplomats were expelled.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that it had always been unlikely that President Putin, himself a former KGB agent, would have allowed Mr Lugovoi's extradition.

"But you know it's important that the Russians, if they do choose to behave in this way... realise that there is a price and that price is the embarrassment, the inconvenience the difficulties caused by the expulsion of their diplomats," he said.

"Of course it will not produce the result we would ideally like, but it's important that the very, very deeply unsatisfactory nature of this event is well demonstrated."

The UK's director of public prosecutions has recommended Mr Lugovoi be tried for murder by "deliberate poisoning".

Britain has started diplomatic war: Russian media

Reuters
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Britain has declared diplomatic war on Russia by expelling four envoys from London and failing to respect Moscow's constitutional ban on extradition, Russian newspapers said on Tuesday.

Commentators accused Britain of double standards for punishing Russia over its refusal to hand over the chief suspect in the murder of former agent Alexander Litvinenko in London while ignoring numerous Russian extradition requests.

"Britain and Russia have plunged into a diplomatic war of unprecedented scale," said the business daily Kommersant, one of the more independent voices in Moscow.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband announced the expulsions on Monday, saying Russia had failed to cooperate with London's investigation into the murder of Litvinenko, who died after drinking tea spiked with radioactive polonium-210.

"Over the past six years, Moscow has sent Britain 21 extradition requests, but not a single suspect has been extradited," said the government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

"The suspects included fraudsters, killers, terrorists, drug dealers and persons involved in especially serious embezzlement of funds. Six of the people mentioned in the requests have been granted political asylum in Great Britain."

The remark appeared to be a reference to the cluster of anti-Kremlin emigres based in London, who include multimillionaire businessman Boris Berezovsky and Chechen representative Akhmed Zakayev, both wanted in Russia.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reacted emotionally to the expulsions on Monday, describing Britain's actions as "immoral" and "provocative" and promising to retaliate.

Russian newspapers said Britain clearly wanted to avoid damaging its substantial business interests in Russia, where it is among the biggest foreign investors, mainly in the politically sensitive oil and gas sector.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta quoted Russia's ambassador to Britain Yuri Fedotov as saying British companies invested $3.3 billion in Russia last year.

"It turns out that Russia and Britain have things to lose," the newspaper said.

The pro-government daily Izvestia recalled a 2002 incident in which Russia tried to extradite a citizen to Turkmenistan, one of the world's most repressive countries.

Murad Garbayev was returned to Russia and tried at home after an outburst of protests by international rights groups and a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

"It turns out that people cannot be extradited to Ashgabat, but they can be to London," the newspaper said.

Russia has said it will respond to the British action but has not said how or when.

Brown backs a European Treaty without referendum

Tony Paterson
London Independent
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Gordon Brown began his first trip abroad since becoming Prime Minister with a pledge to introduce the European Treaty without calling a referendum in Britain.

Mr Brown, who was in Berlin yesterday for dinner with Chancellor Angela Merkel, said it would be possible to make rapid progress on setting a date for the treaty agreed in principle at last month's Brussels summit. "We will not require a referendum on this. It is something that can be worked on closely by Parliament. I think we can make progress quickly on this," he said.

Mr Brown was welcomed at the Berlin chancellery with full military honours by Ms Merkel. However, the two leaders did not indulge in any of the flamboyant gestures employed in the Franco-German relationship. In keeping with their shared upbringing as children of churchmen, Mr Brown and Ms Merkel simply shook hands.

Mr Brown, who met Ms Merkel several times when he was Chancellor, congratulated the German leader on her success in brokering agreements at the recent Brussels and G8 summits. He also credited her with turning round the German economy which he said had contributed to the euro's current strength. He said that Britain would continue to "periodically review" the idea of switching to the euro.

However, the German media underlined Mr Brown's credentials as a eurosceptic. Several commentators pointed out that, as Chancellor, Mr Brown had intervened to prevent Tony Blair's plans to hold a referendum on the euro in Britain.

Mr Brown's presence was being seen as a clear sign that Britain was poised to break with Mr Blair's pro-Iraq war stance. "Brown seems to prefer a certain distance from the US - more out of conviction than populist need," wrote one newspaper.

Other commentators said the combination of a looming British general election and growing public opposition to the Iraq war had put Mr Brown in a position in which he needed European allies "particularly France and Germany" to find a way out of Iraq.

Exclusive: Google expanding its snooping capabilities?

Mike Swenson
truthorlies.org
Tuesday July 17, 2007

According to an article on CNN.com today, search engine giant Google "has agreed to buy Web-based security provider Postini for $625 million.

"Postini provides security and encryption services, protecting instant messaging, e-mail and other communications, to more than 35,000 businesses and 10 million users worldwide.", states the article. In fact, according to Postini's website, their clientele is quite expansive and interesting, to say the least. Clients include Amsouth Bank (now Regions Bank), Circuit City, United Technologies (a company that provides high technology products and services to the building and aerospace industries), Swales Aerospace, Merrill Lynch, and Invesco, just to name a few.

Should this buyout raise privacy concerns?

It is interesting to note that, according to an article in PC World back in June, "Google was rated dead last in privacy among top net companies." It states " the company's privacy practices are the worst among Internet service companies. Not one of the other 22 companies surveyed (including AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo) comes close to achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy" as Google, said Privacy International."

Further, an article on TechShout.com stated back in January of 2006 that "77% of Google users aren’t aware that Google is spying on them".

In the past, Google has had a reputation of shady dealings with the US Government. Back in October 2006, PrisonPlanet.com reported that "Robert David Steele, a former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives, claimed Google is in bed with the CIA....Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," said Steele.

Further, the PrisonPlanet article states that "Steele was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Stelle is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush and he has been cited by numerous Republican luminaries as a credible source.

Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage in nefarious practices, saying, "If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think it's important that be documented and publicized."

There is no doubt that this recent purchase will again raise privacy concerns, given Google's track record, especially if they continue to buy out more security companies.

We will provide any updates to this story as they become available.

Watchdog warns over number plate snooping

Richard Norton-Taylor
London Guardian
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Cameras that automatically record car number plates, a weapon in the fight against crime and terrorism, could breach human rights and privacy laws, the government's surveillance watchdog warned today.
Sir Christopher Rose, the chief surveillance commissioner, said that evidence obtained by the cameras could be challenged if used in court.

Though he did not spell out his concerns in his first annual report published today, he said his position was "the same" as that of his predecessor, namely that new legislation was needed to resolve issues "arising from enhanced technological capability".

The problem is that automatic photographing of number plates, with information passed on to the Highways Agency, can be classed as covert surveillance. However, it is not covered by existing laws regulating the use of covert surveillance.

Sir Andrew Leggatt, Sir Christopher's predecessor and like him a former appeal court judge, warned last year that the deployment of automatic number plate recognition constitutes surveillance when an identifiable image is recorded of a person in a vehicle.

He added that it could also amount to obtaining private information about the person whether or not the individual had been identified in the context of a specific investigation or operation. He said the practice "will therefore be vulnerable to challenge unless it is authorised".

The trouble, the surveillance commissioners say, is that if the number plate recognition system is set up to record any vehicle which is linked to a computer database, including that of the Highways Agency's camera records, it is unlikely that the system would be authorised.

Sir Christopher made it clear that the Home Office had ignored his predecessor's warnings of the need for new legislation to protect a system widely used by the police to pursue cars suspected of being involved in crime. Whitehall officials say that the system is also valuable in tracking terrorist suspects.

The office of the surveillance commissioners was set up by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Blast kills 4 near Iran embassy in Iraq

AP
Tuesday July 17, 2007

A car bomb has exploded across the street near the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, killing at least four people and wounding five others.

Police said the bomb was exploded in a vehicle parked opposite the Iranian Embassy in the upscale Karadat Maryam district near the fortified Green Zone compound, on Tuesday 11:00 am (0700 GMT).

Police spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release information.

The Iranian Embassy is near to, but not inside the Green Zone, home to the Iraqi government and parliament, the US and British embassies and many other foreign missions.

The blast rattled windows in surrounding buildings and cloaked the unpaved parking lot in a pall of gray smoke, leaving at least one vehicle engulfed in flames.

The area near the Iranian Embassy has been targeted before. In April two car bombs went off there but did not cause heavy casualties.

Troopers kill Capitol gunman

Mike McPhee
Denver Post
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Gov. Bill Ritter was interviewing a judicial candidate in his office when he heard shots ring out this afternoon.

The governor spoke on the steps of the state Capitol barely two hours after a gunman who claimed he was "the emperor" who had arrived to take over state government was killed by state troopers.

The man was shot just outside the governor's office around 2:25 p.m., in front of more than a dozen tourists and state workers.

State troopers, who provide security inside the statehouse, ordered the man to drop his gun. He didn't, and they shot him. The man died where he fell.

All the witnesses were taken to Denver police headquarters for questioning, and Ritter said he was "mindful" of the trauma they'd experienced.

"I have a great security detail. They take great care of me," said Ritter, when questioned about whether he felt safe.

Ritter would not provide many details about the incident, citing his experience handling investigations as Denver district attorney.

The man's identity has not been released. No one besides the gunman was hurt, spokesman Evan Dreyer said.

The Capitol is on lockdown while police investigate. The governor's office, near the front entrance, is closed for renovations. Ritter has been using offices on the north end of the first floor and was there when the man entered the Capitol. Dreyer said he was in his office at the south end of the first floor and did not witness the shooting.

Art Mendoza, 44, and his wife Rosa Moreno, 28, both of Los Angeles, were touring the second floor of the Capitol when they heard three shots fired. Moreno looked down and saw a person falling to the ground.

Moreno said that when she first heard the shots, she thought it was staged for the tour. Then she looked toward the sound.

"I saw the back of the guy as he fell down," Moreno said. "I just saw him drop."

A group on a tour of the Capitol saw a man in a tuxedo kneeling in the hallway praying. A few minutes later, they heard someone yell, "You're going to pay for this, you (expletive)."

The group of 12 to 20 people then heard gunshots, and afterward, many of them were in tears. Some of them were crouched on the floor hugging each other.

There were at least three different tour groups roaming the Capitol at the time of the shooting. After the shots were fired, the groups were told to stay where they were. One was in the Dome on the upper level, one was on the first floor and one on the second floor.

About 20 minutes later, an unidentified staff member at the Capitol came to the group on the second floor. She was breathless because she had run up the stairs.

"There's been a shooting at the governor's office," she said. "I don't know what's going on. We've been asked to evacuate the building."

Denver police responded to the scene, as did Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey.

At a news conference shortly after the shooting, State Patrol Master Trooper Ron Watkins said five troopers responded to a call from the governor's office. He said he did not know how many troopers were involved in the shooting. Four troopers are assigned to the Capitol; two are assigned to the governor and two provide transportation and additional security in the Capitol.

Rep. Edward Casso, D-Thornton, said he was returning to his third floor office from lunch when he heard the commotion. Looking down from the second floor, Casso saw a man lying in pool of blood, with blood splatters behind him.

Casso described the man as a white male, 30 to 40 years old, about 6-feet-2-inches tall and weighing about 225 pounds. Casso said the man was dressed in black or blue slacks and a white shirt.

He said 10 to 15 state troopers had secured the area around the governor's office, and one of them "was visibly shaken," he said.

Republican state Sens. Mike Kopp of Littleton and Andy McElhany of Colorado Springs said they were meeting in the Senate minority offices when they heard four loud bangs. They thought the sounds were from construction work.

Then a staffer burst into the room and told them there was a shooting.

"Your mind immediately races to the other tragedies that have taken place," Kopp said.

Both senators were certain that Capitol security would become part of the political debate in the next legislative session. They said that after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, metal detectors were placed in the Capitol, but they were removed after about a year when members of the House and Senate decided they were not necessary.

State Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said it is the first time she is aware of any security breach during her nine years at the Capitol. She said she would not seek security changes, such as installing metal detectors at the doors. "It would really make me sad if we had to shut down buildings," she said.

She added: I still don't feel threatened. I can't be intimidated by feeling that someone is going to come into the Capitol and put my life at risk." Denverpost.com will update this story as quickly as information becomes available.

Denver Post staff writers Mark Couch, Jennifer Brown, Felisa Cardona, Nick Martin and Karen Crummy contributed to this report.

Pace: US Weighs Larger 'Surge' in Iraq

ROBERT BURNS
AP
Tuesday July 17, 2007

The U.S. military is weighing new directions in Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.

The military must "be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," Pace said in an interview with two reporters traveling with him to Iraq from Washington.

"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, the details will have been studied, he said.

Pace, on his first visit since U.S. commanders accelerated combat operations in mid-June, said another option under consideration is maintaining current troop levels beyond September.

There are now about 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, reflecting a boost of about 30,000 to carry out the new strategy Bush announced in January. The plan is focused on providing better security for Iraqis in Baghdad, but the intended effect—political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites—has yet to be achieved, and many in Congress are clamoring to begin withdrawing troops soon.

Pace said the administration must consider not only what works best on the battlefield but also the growing stress of more than four years of war on American troops and their families.

He repeatedly mentioned his concern about soldiers and Marines doing multiple tours of duty and the decision in January to extend soldiers' Iraq deployments by three months, to 15 months.

"That has impact on families," he said in a separate Associated Press interview at a U.S. military headquarters on the outskirts of the capital after meeting with commanders and conferring by secure video teleconference with Bush.

Pace also conferred with Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, who said he did not currently foresee requesting more troops.

"Right now I can't find an assessment where I would say I need more troops," Odierno said, adding that he is confident that by September he will be able to give Petraeus his advice on how the troop buildup is working.

"My assessment right now is, I need more time" to understand how the offensive targeting al-Qaida in Iraq is working and how it could lead to political progress, Odierno said.

"I'm seeing some progress now here in Iraq. We have really just started what the Iraqis term 'liberating' them from al-Qaida. What I've got to determine is what do I need in order to continue that progress so that the political piece can then take hold and Iraqi security forces can hold this for the long term."

Pace said he saw signs of improvement since his previous visit in April, based in part on a 30-minute aerial tour of Baghdad in a Black Hawk helicopter as well as private talks with commanders.

"The surge is having very good positive results on the streets of Baghdad," he told AP. "We have yet to see the political progress and results that you would hope to see."

All the while, the violence continues. On Monday, a suicide truck bombing followed by two smaller car bombs killed more than 80 people and wounded at least 180 in Kirkuk, about 180 miles north of Baghdad.

There are deep tensions between Kurds and Arabs in the city, and Sunni insurgents are believed to be moving north, fleeing the U.S. offensive around Baghdad and consolidating to carry out deadly bombings.

At the same time, the U.S. military said American troops launched a new offensive south of Baghdad on Monday, aiming to stop weapons and fighters from moving into the capital.

As for the U.S. troop boost, some on the Joint Chiefs had argued against it in January, in part out of concern that it could not be sustained long enough to have the desired effect and that it would put too much strain on the military.

In the AP interview, Pace made clear that he believes the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are focused on their mission. He seemed more concerned about the possibility that families eventually would grow fed up with the strain of long separations and the worry about loved ones being killed or wounded.

The chiefs for a number of weeks have been studying the timing of a possible U.S. military transition away from today's combat-oriented mission to one focused mainly on training Iraqi security forces while also protecting Iraq's borders and continuing the fight against terrorists.

Without opining on any new course of action in Iraq, Pace stressed in the interview his concern that multiple combat tours for many in the Army and Marine Corps could tear at the fabric of the military. He said that is one reason he is visiting the troops now—to hear their concerns, assess their morale and explain to them why he advocated extending Army tours from 12 months to 15.

He said he also would stop in Germany this week to meet with family members of military units that are affected by tour extensions.

Pace, who will be replaced soon by Adm. Michael Mullen as Joint Chiefs chairman, was asked whether he feels political pressure amid a heated and prolonged Iraq debate in Congress and the approach of the 2008 elections.

"I don't feel any pressure" of that sort, he said.

Hillary Clinton Shuns Fox Debates, But Pockets Murdochs' Money

Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards may not want to participate in debates sponsored by FOX News, but they like taking cash from officials of the company considered an arm of the conservative movement by many liberal Democrats.

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: "We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

"We're going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We've previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more "appropriate venue."

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.

In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton's Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband's presidency.

She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch's support to the FT: "He's my constituent and I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."

Asked about the Murdoch contributions to Clinton's presidential bid, Howard Wolfson, director of communications, said he had no comment.

Obama has taken more $14,000 from NewsCorp/Fox executives, although none came from the Murdochs themselves. In the broad network of NewsCorp/Fox holdings, with many Hollywood and entertainment entities, there are a substantial number of Democrats on the payroll.

Obama's contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives included $2,300 each from Daniel Fawcett and Donna Isaacson; $1,000 each from Carla Hacken and Jospeh Hartwick; and a number of donations from other NewsCorp/Fox officials and employees. No comment from the campaign was immediately available.

Edwards received substantially less than Clinton or Obama. His contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives Louis Supowitz, Jonathan Sarrow, Sean A. Riley, and Jonathan Sarrow total just under $1,000. There was no immediate comment from the Edwards campaign.

Homeland Security Terrorizes Brown Concert Goers

Lee Rogers
www.roguegovernment.com
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Approximately 200 people attended the free concert at Ed and Elaine Brown’s home in Plainfield NH this Saturday to support the couple who have both been convicted of federal income tax evasion. The conviction is a fraud because there is no law that requires an individual to pay a tax on their labor. The Brown's are refusing to turn themselves in because the conviction itself is a fraud. and based on a non-crime. Recently a Louisiana attorney was acquitted of a similar non-crime because the government failed to identify a law that required the man to file an income tax return. Despite being a peaceful gathering, concert goers were continually terrorized by a Department of Homeland Security helicopter that circled the property throughout the entire day. Even into the night, the helicopter continued to fly around the property shining a spotlight on concert goers and into the surrounding woods in an obvious attempt to intimidate the Brown’s and peaceful visitors.

The concert was primarily organized by the We The People Radio Network with Jack Blood a radio show host with the Genesis Communications Network serving as MC. The concert organizers discovered that the helicopter circling above the Brown’s property was a Department of Homeland Security asset after researching the identifiable letters and numbers that were painted on the helicopter. Jack Blood announced the news to the crowd in between some of the musical acts which was amusing to everyone in attendance. Amazingly, the local police had no idea what agency was responsible for the helicopter circling the property until the concert organizers informed them.

The actions of the helicopter pilot were dangerous at times as they would fly very low to the ground over the concert goers. During the low fly bys the helicopter would fly only 200 to 250 feet above the concert goers. The actions of the pilot were irresponsible and unnecessary especially considering that there were families with children there.

Besides the on-going air show provided by the Department of Homeland Security, local police officers remained outside the Brown’s property stating that they were making sure that concert goers didn’t block any of the road. Other than that, the police presence was very light outside the property. The concert organizers even brought out hamburgers for the police officers.

All of the fear mongering from the government and establishment media about the so-called Brown fortress and this potentially dangerous gathering were entirely unfounded. The Brown’s have a very nice home and all of the people who attended the event were very friendly and considerate. It is no wonder why the Brown’s decided to bar establishment media journalists from their property because most of what they write is misleading and biased towards the government’s point of view.

The big question is why the Department of Homeland Security an agency that we have been told is primarily tasked to stop terrorism was assigned to endlessly terrorize people attending this peaceful gathering. Either they think the people who attended this event are terrorists or the main mission of the Department of Homeland Security is not to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism but instead to enslave the domestic population. The Patriot Act redefined what a domestic terrorist is and has been abused on several occasions. The Patriot Act has been used to harass a toy store owner, prosecute petty crimes and even threaten a photographer taking pictures of Dick Cheney. It is certainly possible that the government views many American citizens as terrorists including the people who attended this gathering at the Brown’s home.

Judging from this event, it is clear that the Department of Homeland Security and the government are the real terrorists. There was absolutely no reason for them to have a helicopter circle the property for hours on end. Ed and Elaine Brown have been convicted of a law that doesn’t exist and the gathering was entirely peaceful. Is the government prepared to kill people for refusing to follow a law that doesn’t exist? Let’s hope not.

20.5M decisions to classify documents

Pete Yost
AP
Tuesday July 17, 2007

There were 20.5 million decisions to classify government secrets last year, and a report to the president found serious shortcomings in the process.

The Information Security Oversight Office said more than 1 in 10 documents it reviewed lacked a basis for classification, "calling into question the propriety" of the decisions to place them off limits to public disclosure.

"The high error rate," the ISOO said in its annual review, can only be addressed by a multifaceted effort and continuous oversight.

The report comes as the office of Vice President Dick Cheney is refusing to cooperate with the office of the National Archives. The report noted that Cheney's office "did not report data to ISOO this year."

Executive branch agencies give the ISOO data on how much material they classify and declassify. Cheney's office provided the information in 2001 and 2002, then stopped.

"The reviews of actual decision making are striking, given the vice president's refusal to report" to the ISOO, said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel at the National Security Archive, a private group advocating public disclosure of government secrets.

The White House says it's clear that the president's executive order on the matter never intended for the vice president's office to be treated as an agency.

The ISOO said the Pentagon reported a 35 percent decline in its activity to classify documents, and that the amount of classification government-wide declined for the second straight year.

However, the amount of derivative classification activity rose by more than 6 million actions.

Derivative classification is the act of incorporating in a new form information that has already been classified.

Just another day in Iraq: 100 more fathers, mothers, sons and daughters killed

Patrick Cockburn

London Independent
Tuesday July 17, 2007

The United States surge, the use of the American troop reinforcements to bring violence in Iraq under control, is bloodily failing across northern Iraq. That was proved again yesterday when a suicide bomber detonated a truck packed with explosives in Kirkuk killing at least 85 people and wounding a further 183.

The truck bomb blasted a 30ft-deep crater in a busy road full of small shops and booths near the ancient citadel of Kirkuk, setting fire to a bus in which the passengers burned to death and burying many others under the rubble. Dozens of cars were set ablaze and their blackened hulks littered the street. Some 25 of the wounded suffered critical injuries and may not live.

In Baghdad, at least 44 people were killed or found dead across the city, police said. They included the bullet-riddled bodies of 25 people, apparent victims of sectarian death squads.

The attack is the latest assault by Sunni insurgents on Kurds who claim Kirkuk as their future capital.

Adnan Sarhan, 30, lost both his eyes and had his back broken in the blast. He lay on the operating table as his anguished mother, Mahiya Qadir, sat nearby with her daughter-in-law. "Will I ever see my son alive again?" she asked.

Two more car bombs blew up later in Kirkuk but caused few casualties.

The dispatch of 28,000 extra troops to Iraq starting in January, and the more aggressive deployment of the US army in the country, is not working. At best it is moving violence from one area of Iraq to another. The US is allying itself to local tribes and militias against guerrillas but that is angering the government in Baghdad and deepening the violence.

In Diyala, a mixed Shia-Sunni-Kurdish province south of Kirkuk and north-east of Baghdad, the US launched an offensive against al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent forces three weeks ago. It claimed to have killed many guerrillas and forced others to flee.

Hamdi Hassan Zubaydi, the Sunni leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party in Diyala, painted a very different picture. He described how some of the Sunni tribesmen had joined US troops to storm al-Qa'ida-held villages and had killed 100 insurgents. But when the US withdrew, al-Qa'ida returned and drove the tribesmen out.

Mr Zubaydi, who was jailed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, quivered with disgust as he explained the bloody complexities of sectarian war in Diyala.

The tough-looking former teacher in his fifties said 20 Sunni students on a bus had been abducted and he feared they would be killed. He said he knew who had carried out the kidnapping: "It was the emergency police forces led by Captain Abbas Waisi and Lt Zaman Abdul Hamid. I told the American special forces but they have done nothing."

We met Mr Zubaydi in the office of the Mayor of Khanaqin, a Kurdish enclave in northern Diyala, where he had come to ask for help. We had reached there through Kurdish-controlled territory along the right bank of the Diyala river that runs parallel to the Iranian border. Kurdish control ends at a dishevelled town called Khalar where we crossed the river over a long, rickety metal bridge with old tyres marking places where metal slats had fallen into the waters below. We picked up armed guards and then circled round behind Khanaqin to enter from the east.

Mr Zubaydi had a shorter but more dangerous route to Khanaqin from a town called Muqdadiyah, a few miles to the west of Khaniaqin, which he accurately described as "the most dangerous place in Iraq". His house had been attacked five times in the past month.

He was beset by the Sunni insurgents of al-Qa'ida on one side and the Shia militia of the Mehdi Army on the other. He gave an impressive list of the Iraqi security forces available in Muqdadiyah, in addition to a US battalion, including 1,200 police and 1,600 army.

The problem is that nobody is quite sure on which side the Iraqi security forces are planning to fight. Often they do nothing: "The house of the deputy police chief is just 10 metres from a police station but somebody blew it up," Mr Zubaydi said scornfully. He ran through a list of police and army commanders in Diyala, all of whom were Shia and unlikely to help the Sunnis.

There are at least three different wars being fought in northern Iraq: Sunni against Americans; Shia against Sunni; Arabs against Kurds. Alliances can switch. The Kurds are the Americans' only sincere ally in Iraq but many of them are also convinced that the Americans in Kirkuk city have a tacit understanding with the Arab insurgents not to attack each other.

The US does not want to be seen as siding with the Kurds in their struggle to join Kirkuk and its oil fields to their semi-independent enclave, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), in a referendum due at the end of the year. The US is restraining the Kurds but this may be more difficult after yesterday's bombings. "If we wanted to do so, we [Kurds] could secure as far as Khalis," a town far to the south of Kirkuk in Diyala Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani president of the KRG, told me.

The US is caught in quagmire of its own making. Such successes as it does have are usually the result of tenuous alliances with previously hostile tribes, insurgent groups or militias. The British experience in Basra was that these marriages of convenience with local gangs weakened the central government and contributed to anarchy in Iraq. They did not work in the long term.

Gap between rich and poor in UK widest in 40 years

Reuters
Tuesday July 17, 2007

The divide between rich and poor in Britain has widened to its greatest gap for more than 40 years, a social policy research charity said.

The greatest extremes tend to be clustered in the southeast of England, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said on Tuesday in its report "Poverty, Wealth and Place in Britain 1968 to 2005".

This has resulted in average households, described as neither poor nor wealthy, being pushed out of some areas.

"Over time it has become clear that there is less and less room in the south for them; they have either moved elsewhere, or become poor," said the report's author Danny Dorling.

The disproportionately wealthy are becoming segregated from the rest of society, creating a deep polarization. Some cities in Britain have areas where more than half of all households are struggling on the poverty line.

While the number of people living in extreme poverty may have fallen, the number of people living below the poverty line has increased, with more than one in four households, 27 percent, classed as "breadline poor" in 2001.

At the same time the number of asset-wealthy households rose dramatically between 1999 and 2003, with more than a fifth of families, 23 percent, now falling into this category.

The proportion of average households fell from around two-thirds of families in 1980 to just over half by 2000.

A second report published simultaneously found that people felt the gap between rich and poor people had grown too large.

The authors, Michael Orton and Karen Rowlingson, blamed people on higher incomes being overpaid, rather than those on low incomes being underpaid.

Orton said: "There is widespread acceptance that some occupations should be paid more than others: but the gap between high and low paid occupations is far greater than people think it should be."

Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?

Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans

Iraq Slogger
Tuesday July 17, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."

Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate.

The Presidential campaigns just released their quarterly campaign finance reports, leaving much of the mainstream media remarking on Paul's surge in online donations from his healthy Internet following, though the $2.3 million he raised still has him trailing far behind the front runners.

But a closer look at the reports reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military.

The site that crunched the numbers on the quarterly reports did not count donations coming from the US Marine Corps, which adds $1600 to the total of $15,825 total they report McCain raised from employees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. That failure slightly alters the conclusions they draw on the totals, since Paul received no money from Marines. Even so, the overall percentages indicate that the underdog candidate, whose overall fund raising cache is dwarfed by the leading pack of candidates, has appealed to segments of the military community.

News Corp. reaches tentative Dow Jones deal

News Corp. reaches a tentative Dow deal

Murdoch is reportedly close to buying publisher of Journal for $5 billion
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:25 a.m. ET July 17, 2007

NEW YORK - Rupert Murdoch moved closer to snagging Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. with a tentative agreement to buy the company for his original offering price of $5 billion, the Journal and The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The deal rests, however, on approval from Dow Jones’ controlling shareholders, the Bancroft family, which has been deeply divided over a sale to Murdoch on concerns of editorial independence and integrity at the storied paper.

The Journal reported that the tentative deal in principle would go to Dow Jones’ board late Tuesday. Representatives for Dow Jones and News Corp., Murdoch’s media conglomerate, didn’t return calls seeking comment early Tuesday.

Christopher Bancroft, a Dow Jones director, has reached out to major stockholders to buy enough shares of Dow Jones to block a sale, the Journal has reported.

Michael B. Elefante, the Bancroft family’s lead trustee, has scheduled a meeting for Thursday to present the agreement to the family, and he is expected to give the family members several days to make a decision, the Journal reported.

Murdoch resisted pressure from Dow Jones to raise his initial $60 a share offer, which represented a premium of about 65 percent over the mid-$30s level that Dow Jones stock was trading at before the proposal became public in early May. Shares closed at $56.95 Monday.

Murdoch has longed to own the Journal, along with its clout on Wall Street and a history of outstanding journalism. Murdoch has said he would invest in the Journal’s online and overseas operations, and help build a business-themed cable news channel that would rival General Electric Co.’s highly profitable CNBC network.

A union representing Journal reporters and other Dow Jones employees has objected to Murdoch’s bid, saying he would downgrade news coverage and interfere with newsroom independence for his own business interests.

The Bancrofts originally rebuffed Murdoch’s approach but then agreed to meet with him in early June. The two sides agreed to form a committee that would approve the hiring or firing of top editors at the Journal to ensure independence.

Dow Jones directors have been searching for rivals to Murdoch’s $5 billion bid, but it seemed unlikely that anyone can top it.

A committee of Dow Jones directors, including a representative of the Bancroft family, met last week with supermarket billionaire Ron Burkle and Web entrepreneur Brad Greenspan, but no counteroffer has emerged.

Besides the Journal, Dow Jones also owns Dow Jones Newswires, the Factiva news database, Barron’s, a group of community newspapers and several well-known stock market indicators including the Dow Jones industrial average.

News Corp. owns the Fox broadcast network, Fox News Channel, newspapers in the United Kingdom, Murdoch’s native Australia and the New York Post, the Twentieth Century Fox movie and TV studio and MySpace, the online social networking site.

The Bancroft clan trace their ownership of Dow Jones to Clarence Barron, a Dow Jones correspondent who bought control of the company in 1902. Over the years, their ties to Dow Jones have become more remote. No family member is involved in day-to-day operations, but the Bancrofts control the company through a special class of shares.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19798317/

Report: Al-Qaida eyes Iraq ties for U.S. attack

Report: Al-Qaida eyes Iraq ties for U.S. attack

Top U.S. security agencies highlight ‘persistent and evolving threat’
The Associated Press
Updated: 9:07 a.m. ET July 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the American homeland.

The declassified key findings, to be released publicly on Tuesday, were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

The report lays out a range of dangers — from al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups — that pose a “persistent and evolving threat” to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.

The report makes clear that al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here.

“Of note,” the analysts said, “we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.”

The analysts also found that al-Qaida’s association with its Iraqi affiliate helps the group to energize the broader Sunni Muslim extremist community, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives—“including for homeland attacks.”

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments of the 16 spy agencies across the breadth of the U.S. government. These agencies reflect the consensus, long-term thinking of top intelligence analysts. Portions of the documents are occasionally declassified for public release.

The new report echoed statements made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, but provided some new depth on their thinking and concerns.

For instance, the report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida’s ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

But, the report quickly adds, analysts are concerned “that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge.”

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13435571/