Firefighters Urge "Peeling Of Giuliani's 9/11 Onion"

Spokesman for largest Firefighters' union speaks out Steve Watson Infowars.net Monday, March 12, 2007

The press secretary of the biggest firefighters' union, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) has today shed more light on the furor surrounding last week's press coverage of Giuliani's snubbing of the firefighters invitation to an upcoming presidential candidate forum.

Alex Jones was joined on air today by IAFF's Jeff Zack, who revealed in no uncertain terms that the image of Giuliani as some sort of a 9/11 hero could not be further from the truth as far as the firefighters of New York are concerned.

Last week the AP reported:

After Giuliani pulled out of a planned appearance at an International Association of Firefighters presidential forum next week, the group released a stinging draft letter indicating that it almost didn't invite him at all because of continuing anger at his "despicable" role in pulling firefighters off the Twin Towers' debris pile in 2001 before all hope of finding their dead comrades' remains was exhausted.

"The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families, and our New York leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten," said the three-page letter, drafted by union leaders in late February and first disclosed on Newsday's Web site Thursday.

A CNN report covers this in more depth here.

Mr Zack explained on the Alex Jones show that the initial decision from those debating the issue from New York City and from the national office was that Rudy Giuliani shouldn't be invited. Zack explained that this was:

"Because of the egregious way he treated our fallen and those attempting to pursue a dignified recovery of the citizens and firefighters that lost their lives that horrific day. In making that decision a discussion ensued about, well, how are we going to communicate to our membership that we're not Inviting Rudy because, you know, he would be the only person that was not invited, every other major candidate was invited from the Republican party and the Democratic party. So we drafted a letter to let people know of exactly the circumstances that were discussed and why Rudy didn't deserve an invitation."

Before there was a final decision another discussion ensued and it was finally decided that Giuliani should be given a platform regardless, so he did get invited, confirmed his appearance last Monday and then two days later changed his mind and canceled. The firefighters' union, feeling somewhat snubbed, decided to release their previous draft letter anyway in order to give more clarity to the situation.

Mr Zack went on to explain exactly why the firefighters hold Giuliani in such low esteem:

"There were a number of issues over which our firefighters had severe disagreements with the mayor prior to September 11th, and then his actions following that horrific day where he made the decision to pull firefighters off the pile from searching for citizens and firefighters that lost their lives, and he went to a full what we call 'scoop and dump', where he was just taking all what he determined was trash, putting it on a barge and sending it to Fresh Kills landfill. Well that what he called trash contained the remains of thousands of citizens, hundreds of firefighters, and we felt that the families of those people deserved some sort of closure and some sort of dignified recovery process because they were innocent victims."

To this day the remains of hundreds of innocent victims of the September 11 attacks are still sickeningly buried in the world's largest rubbish dump, on Staten Island, where it has been decalred by New York officials that they will stay for ever. Officials, citing financial constraints, have refused to make any concessions and wish to leave those victims to rot in the ground with acres of stinking trash.

Giuliani's official reasoning for this was that he was acting in the interest of safety. The IAFF believes this to be totally false, Jeff Zack commented:

"For him to determine that it was unsafe, OK this actually was the most unstable unsafe destruction area in the history of the Untied States. but for Rudy Giuliani to all of a sudden become concerned, six weeks after the initial accident where hundreds and thousands of people had been coming through and working on that pile for weeks and weeks, all of a sudden he became concerned about the safety of people on that pile? That's disingenuous."

Zack then reiterated the real reason behind Giuliani's action:

"The real reason was that the Bank of Nova Scotia's assets were buried in that rubble, the day they got those assets out of that pile, Rudy shut the pile down, said 'everybody off, we're going to full scoop and dump'... It was gold, it was silver, it was other assets, I've seen a lot of numbers too, I don't have an exact one so I don't wanna give it to you... Our firefighters were on the pile helping excavate the gold as well, our problem is that all Rudy cared about at the end of the day was the gold bricks, not the lives and the memories of those that were the true heroes that day."

At the time, in November 2001, it was reported that $200 million in gold bullion has been recovered from the site. One day later around 50% of firefighters were removed from the job and totally denied access.

Many declared they were being disrespected, that the city was more concerned with gold than people. Others said the city wanted to speed up the removal of debris to save money.

'We're on a mission, and we won't leave until it's done,' insisted fireman Chuck Horack. 'We see the site as sacred ground. Our brothers are still in the debris. No one can ever know how important it is to bring their husband home to a widow.' Mayor Giuliani launched a bizarre and savage attack on the firemen, saying their actions were 'sinful'. 'They have absolutely no monopoly in caring about the people there,' he said.

Another huge 9/11 scandal that has angered the firefighters and first responders, is that of the criminal culpibility on behalf of government officials who certified the air safe to breathe in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Mr Zack stated:

"That's a whole nother issue, the extreme denial, not only in which the Federal Government was, but the City of New York in cooperation with the Federal Government, about how dangerous it really was to be on that pile, not just working on the unsettled situation but breathing that air full of the toxic particles that we now know it was full of.

There was a whole lot of discussion including the Environmental Protection Administration, which said 'the air there is not a problem', New York City and Rudy Giuliani's administration agreed with that assessment and continued to put forward the idea that it wasn't a problem and that it was OK."

We have previously exposed in great detail how not only did the government know on the day itself that rescuers were being exposed to harmful dust, they also ordered misleading information to be given to the public, they ordered scientific research results on the air to be falsified, they allowed residents to return to their homes in the immediate vicinity knowing the air was corrosive and lethal and, to top it all off, they have since embarked on a collective program to block compensation and funding of health programs because that would be an admission of guilt.

We have also previously exposed how Rudolph Giuliani admitted to Peter Jennings that he got a warning that the South Tower was about to collapse.

Why is this important?

No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history. The event was unprecedented. To know the building was about to collapse would require inside knowledge of 'the 9/11 script' and how it was supposed to unfold on that fateful day.

Remember, right before the building collapsed, firefighters reported minimal fires which they could quickly and easily extinguish.

Why didn't the brave firemen and rescue workers who were rushing into the building get the same warning? Even if the warning was only only communicated minutes before the collapse, countless lives could have been saved.

Consider the amount of people on the lower floors, in the lobby and immediately outside that could have rushed to safety in those few minutes.

In the years after 9/11 Giuliani has made millions in speaker's fees, going around the country, billing himself as "America's Mayor". As Jeff Zack commented:

"Rudy Giuliani has made millions and millions of dollars off of 9/11, and the story he likes to tell about 9/11, and he has used those millions of dollars and those speeches around the country to build up this image that he was a hero that day and in the days following. As far as the firefighters of New York are concerned he is anything but a hero.

You should really be skeptical about someone who calls themselves a hero. Who spends millions and millions of dollars after the fact, building up an image as an American hero when in fact if you go back and look at what really happened that day and what the real heroes of that day really think of Rudy Giuliani, that's the true measure of who Rudy really is.

This Story, Rudy's onion will continue to be peeled and America will learn the true character and who Rudy Giuliani really is."

Giuliani called wanting to search for and give proper burials to fallen heroes 'sinful' while he was ordering them to be scooped up, shipped off and disposed of in a stinking trash heap. He knowingly lied and ordered false information to be released about the toxicity of the air at ground zero. Now this man has the gall to paint himself up as a 9/11 hero and want to use that to become President of the United States.

For an MP3 of this interview click here.

Bush's sarcastic response sends a girl into tears

Raw Story
Thursday, July 12, 2007

Although his biting sarcasm in response to unfriendly questions can make members of the White House press corps grumble under their breath, President Bush got a different reaction from a 13-year-old girl who asked him about immigration during a forum in Ohio.

The Washington Times reports Jessica Hackerd was left in tears after Bush gave her a wry "yeah, thanks" in response to her query, drawing laughter from the crowd of 400 in Brecksville, Ohio Tuesday. Bush immediately began to backpedal when he saw the reaction from Hackerd, who told the Times she was crying because she is very shy and was nervous questioning the president.

"No, it's a great question. No, I appreciate that," Bush said, before giving a more-than-1,100-word answer about the death of his immigration bill.

The 13-year-old, who was at the forum with her parents and younger sister, continued to wipe tears from her eyes for several minutes, the Times reported, and Bush again tried to encourage the young girl.

"It's a great question by the way, and I'm glad you asked it," he said.

After the appearance, a Bush aide ushered Jessica and her family backstage to meet with the president.

"He said it was really brave of me to do that and he said he probably wouldn't have been able to do that," Jessica told the Times. "And he said it was the first time anybody had asked him about [immigration] since it happened."

Iraq heist nets thieves nearly $300M

Iraq heist nets thieves nearly $300M

Employees arrive to find doors open, cash gone; guards are suspected

Reuters

Updated: 8:27 a.m. ET July 12, 2007

BAGHDAD - Thieves have stolen nearly $300 million from a bank in Baghdad, police and a bank official said on Thursday, in what is probably one of the biggest thefts in Iraq since the 2003 war to topple Saddam Hussein.

Police said the thieves were three guards who worked at the private Dar Es Salaam bank in Baghdad’s Karrada district.

They said that when bank employees arrived for work on Wednesday they found the front door open and the money gone. The guards, who normally slept at the bank, had also disappeared, they said.

An official at the bank said about $300 million in U.S. dollars had been stolen, as well as 220 million Iraqi dinars ($176,000). He declined to give further details.

Police said the Interior Ministry and the Finance Ministry had set up a committee to investigate the theft.

It was not immediately clear why the bank had so much cash on hand, but Karrada is a key commercial district in Baghdad.

Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, most transactions have been conducted in cash because of limited facilities to transfer money through banks or other financial institutions.

Huge amounts of money were looted from Iraq’s banks during the invasion.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19725342/

Climate Expert Questions Gore's Global Warming Campaign Greg Flakus

Greg Flakus
VOA
Thursday, July 12, 2007

This past weekend concerts took place around the world to focus attention on the problem of global warming, which former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says is the greatest single threat facing humankind today. Most of the world's scientists agree that it is a problem and that it is largely caused by human use of fossil fuels, which produce so-called greenhouse gases that trap the Earth's heat. Al Gore and scientists who wrote the United Nations report on climate change say the debate is over and the time has come to act. But some prominent climate scientists are objecting to that, claiming that the debate has yet to even begin. VOA's Greg Flakus recently spoke to one of them and filed this report from Fort Collins, Colorado.

In Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, the dangers presented by global warming are shown in graphic fashion, with photos, maps and charts. In his view, there is no time to lose in addressing global warming.

GORE: "That is what is at stake, our ability to live on planet Earth."

The poster and cover art for the movie show a huge hurricane coming out of a smoke stack. But that image and much of what Al Gore presents in the film is rejected by one of the most respected men in the field of climate studies in the United States.

William Gray, 77, the principal force behind the annual hurricane forecasts done by Colorado State University's School of Atmospheric Science, has little good to say about Gore and his movie.

"He is making statements that I could never make. He is making assumptions that are just not true. I think there are many factual errors in his movie," he said.

Gray rejects Gore's assertion that hurricanes are becoming more frequent and more intense as a result of global warming. A number of other scientists, even some who support Gore's position in general, have also questioned some of the claims made in the movie.

But not William Gray. He does not dispute that the world is warming, but he does not see it as a crisis and he does not think emissions of CO2, methane and other gases have much to do with it.

"Yes, we have seen some global warming. I think it is primarily natural due to the global ocean circulation features," he added.

Gray says the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle and that the world may soon enter a cooling phase.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently reported that climate change is accelerating even faster than had previously been predicted, adding to the urgent need to take action. But Gray and other critics say these predictions are based on unreliable computer models. He says the IPCC has a political agenda and that skeptics are kept out of the discussion.

"The IPCC and all these reports, I have been over 55 years working in the field and they never have come to me one time," he said. "I have just been isolated and I know other colleagues of mine, who I respect for their knowledge. They never consulted them either. If they know how you think, they just leave you alone and go on."

IPCC scientists reject such characterization of their consensus view and defend computer modeling as a way of understanding how greenhouse gases are affecting climate.

Gray believes the cutbacks in fossil fuel use advocated by the consensus scientists would hurt the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations and, in the end, do little or nothing to stop global warming. He says all the attention focused on global warming is distracting people from the world's real problems.

"We have so many other important problems around the world that are much more critical," he explained. "For instance, poverty, AIDS, terrorism, all these problems we have in the world. To me this global warming is sort of a red herring. They have been saying it is the greatest problem facing mankind now. That is a gross exaggeration."

William Gray plans to write a book to refute Gore's and other global warming activists' arguments. He says he and other skeptics have been shunted aside and dismissed as "global warming deniers." Critics also claim the skeptics are financed by large oil companies, but William Gray says he has never taken any money from the energy industry.

While he may not have convinced some of the scientists who believe in human-induced global warming, he may yet have a chance to make his case. Some scientists from the global warming camp are now saying that debate should be allowed. As Gray and other skeptics have argued, science is advanced through constant questioning and testing of hypotheses, not by consensus.

Ron Paul On Tucker Carlson 7/11/07

You Tube
Thursday, July 12, 2007

Ron Paul talks about how he raised more money than McCain and how the momentum of his campaign is growing at a breakneck speed.

CIA said Iraq instability seemed ‘irreversible’

CIA said Iraq instability seemed ‘irreversible’

Hayden painted bleaker picture than Bush to Iraq Study Group

By Bob Woodward

The Washington Post

Updated: 8:32 a.m. ET July 12, 2007

Early on the morning of Nov. 13, 2006, members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group gathered around a dark wooden conference table in the windowless Roosevelt Room of the White House.

For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a "Churchillian" vision of "victory" in Iraq and defend the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. "A constitutional order is emerging," he said.

Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said "the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible," adding that he could not "point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.

"The government is unable to govern," Hayden concluded. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function."

Later in the interview, he qualified the statement somewhat: "A government that can govern, sustain and defend itself is not achievable," he said, "in the short term."

Hayden's bleak assessment, which came just a week after Republicans had lost control of Congress and Bush had dismissed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was a pivotal moment in the study group's intensive examination of the Iraq war, and it helped shape its conclusion in its final report that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating."

In the eight months since the interview, neither Hayden nor any other high-ranking administration official has publicly described the Iraqi government in the uniformly negative terms that the CIA director used in his closed-door briefing.

Among the 79 specific recommendations the Iraq Study Group made to Bush was withdrawing support for the Maliki government unless it showed "substantial progress" on security and national reconciliation. And it recommended changing the primary mission of U.S. forces from combat to training Iraqis so that combat units could be withdrawn by early 2008.

Urgent message
In effect, the report from the bipartisan group -- co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) -- was an urgent message from the old Washington establishment to the Bush administration to change the direction of its Iraq policy. But Bush did not initially embrace any of the key recommendations, although bipartisan groups in the House and Senate have recently introduced legislation that would make them official U.S. policy.

Instead, the president in January announced that he was sending more troops to Iraq as part of a "surge," which he said would lead to the victory that had so far eluded U.S. forces.

Both Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, have repeatedly said that there is no military solution to Iraq and that the sectarian strife and the insurgency can be resolved only by the Iraqi government.

Hayden's description of Iraq's dysfunctional government provides some insight into the intelligence community's analysis of Maliki and the situation on the ground. Five days before his testimony, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley had written a memo to Bush raising doubts about Maliki's ability to curb violence in Iraq, but his assessment was not as bleak as Hayden's.

Bush's own optimistic statement to members of the study group did not reflect the viewpoint of his CIA director. But a statement from another administration official interviewed by the panel the same day -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- took it into account.

Asked by former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a member of the study group, if she was aware of the CIA's grim evaluation of Iraq, Rice replied, "We are aware of the dark assessment," but quickly added: "It is not without hope."

A spokesman for the CIA, Mark Mansfield, disputed this account of Hayden's testimony to members of the study group. "That is not an accurate reflection of what Director Hayden said at that meeting, nor does it reflect his view, then or now," Mansfield said.

A senior intelligence official familiar with Hayden's session with the Iraq Study Group said that Hayden told the panel his assessment was "somber" and acknowledged that Hayden had used the term "irreversible." But the official insisted that Hayden instead said, "The current situation, with regard to governance in Iraq, was probably irreversible in the short term, because of the world views of many of the [Iraqi] government leaders, which were shaped by a sectarian filter and a government that was organized for its ethnic and religious balance rather than competence or capacity."

But another senior intelligence official confirmed the thrust and detail of Hayden's assessment, saying that the intelligence out of Iraq this month shows that the ability of the Maliki government to execute decisions and govern Iraq remains "awful."

Reputation as candid briefer
Hayden, 62, a four-star Air Force general and career intelligence officer, has a reputation as a candid briefer. Since 2003, the CIA, which has more than 500 personnel in Iraq to assist in providing intelligence and analysis, has offered the most pessimistic view of any intelligence agency of both the Iraqi government's performance and the situation on the ground there.

Testifying publicly before the Senate Armed Services Committee two days after meeting with the study group, Hayden was more cautious in his conclusions. He said that there were serious problems in Iraq but that the government was "functioning."

Former defense secretary William J. Perry, one of the five Democrats on the Iraq Study Group, confirmed that Hayden told them the Iraqi government seemed beyond repair.

"That was what we'd been hearing everywhere," Perry said. "He just said it a little more clearly and more explicitly than other people."

O'Connor, a Republican, also confirmed Hayden's assessment. She said she did not agree with his conclusion that it was irreversible, but she said she was pessimistic.

"It is a dire situation," she said. "I don't think it has gotten any better. It just breaks your heart. . . . Iraqi people are dying, American soldiers are dying. So far it does not seem we have achieved any kind of security there."

Arriving at the White House on the morning of Nov. 13, members of the study group spent the day interviewing almost every key figure involved in Iraq policy. In addition to Hayden, Bush and Rice, they also questioned Rumsfeld; Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Zalmay Khalilzad, then U.S. ambassador to Iraq; and, by videoconference from Baghdad, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Bush was joined in the interview by Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and Hadley, but they did not speak. "We thought with that whole group there, we were going to get briefings, we were going to get discussions," said Perry. "Instead the president held forth on his views on how important the war was, and how it was tough."

In his meeting with members of the study group, Hayden described a situation in which the Iraqi government either would not or could not control the violence consuming the country and questioned whether it made sense to strengthen its security forces. He depicted the United States as facing mainly bad choices in the future.

"Our leaving Iraq would make the situation worse," Hayden said. "Our staying in Iraq may not make it better. Our current approach without modification will not make it better."

According to the written record and others in the room, Hayden at one point likened the situation in Iraq to a marathon. He said there comes a point in each race when the runner knows he can complete the challenge. But Hayden said he could see no such point in Iraq's future.

"The levers of power are not connected to anything," he said, adding: "We have placed all of our energies in creating the center, and the center cannot accomplish anything."

Numerous U.S. generals already had told the study group that success in Iraq could not come without national reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites. Hayden agreed, saying: "The Iraqi identity is muted. The Sunni or Shia identity is foremost."

But he clearly saw no end to sectarian killings. "Given the level of uncontrolled violence," Hayden said, "the most we can do is to contain its excesses and preserve the possibility of reconciliation in the future."

He compared the Iraq situation to the prolonged warfare in the Balkans. "In Bosnia, the parties fought themselves to exhaustion," Hayden said, suggesting that the same scenario could play out in Iraq. "They might just have to fight this out to exhaustion."

Sources of violence
Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

Members of the study group said Hayden's stark assessment of the Iraqi government dovetailed with what they had heard in September during their visit to Iraq. There, they met with a senior CIA official who held an equally unenthusiastic view. "Maliki was nobody's pick," the CIA official had said, according to written notes from that meeting. "His name came up late. He has no real power base in the country or in parliament. We need not expect much from him."

Given the constant threats and persistent violence, the official had said, it was remarkable that Iraqi government employees showed up for work.

"We continue to be amazed that the Iraqis accept such high levels of violence," he told the study group. "Maliki thinks two car bombs a day, 100 dead a day, is okay. It's sustainable and his government is survivable."

But the government itself was responsible for some of that violence, the CIA official said. "The Ministry of Interior is uniformed death squads, overseers of jails and torture facilities," he said. "Their funds are constantly misappropriated."

In his testimony, Hayden said that the United States had fundamental disagreements with Maliki's Shiite-dominated government on some of the most basic issues facing Iraq.

"We and the Iraqi government do not agree on who the enemy is," Hayden said, according to the written record. "For all the senior leaders of the Iraqi government, Baathists are the source of evil. There is a Baathist behind every bush."

Several participants in the interview described Hayden as dismayed by the startling level of violence in the country but skeptical of the ability of Iraqi forces -- either the military or the police -- to do anything about it.

"It's a legitimate question whether strengthening the Iraqi security forces helps or hurts when they are viewed as a predatory element," he said. "Strengthening Iraqi security forces is not unalloyed good. Without qualification, this judgment applies to the police."

‘Uneven, in this case, is good’
In one bit of qualified good news, he said that the training of the Iraqi army had produced better results than that of the police. "The army is uneven," he said, adding: "Uneven, in this case, is good."

Hayden's frustration with Maliki provides a context to the administration's continuing efforts to pressure the Iraqi leader into finding a political settlement between Sunni and Shiite factions in Iraq. During one week last month, three senior administration officials visited Baghdad to try to speed up the political process.

In her testimony Nov. 13, Rice recounted her discussions with Maliki in which she bluntly told him the importance of making progress on national unity and reconciliation. Rice said she had told the prime minister, "Pretty soon, you'll all be swinging from lampposts if you don't hang together."

Brady Dennis and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19719435/

Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law

Peace Mom warns of false flag terror as she prepares to take on sell-out Pelosi

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Thursday, July 12, 2007

Cindy Sheehan, the famous Peace Mom who recently expressed her intention to run against Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco, says there's a "distinct possibility" that America will be hit with another staged terror attack that will allow Bush to enact the martial law provisions he recently signed into law.

Sheehan spoke to The Alex Jones Show as she prepares to embark on a two week trek towards Washington to confront Pelosi.

Asked what she thought of numerous recent comments on behalf of politicians, military analysts and GOP kingpins that the Bush administration needs more terror to save a doomed foreign policy, along with recent legislation that establishes the framework for martial law in the event of an emergency, Sheehan was open to the plausibility that another false flag attack could be visited upon the American people.

"I definitely think that is a distinct possibility, that there will be some kind of attack whether it's manufactured or real....I think it's really possible that these people will do that - why would he [Bush] put in that presidential directive if he didn't need to use it - I think it's really really frightening," Sheehan told The Alex Jones Show.

"Does anybody think that [Bush's] recent presidential decision directive wasn't for declaring martial law and suspending elections - that's why they have to be stopped," added Sheehan.

Recently liberated from the straightjacket of partisan control, Sheehan attacked the Democrats for failing to achieve what they were voted in to do last November.

"The culture of corruption doesn't stop at the Republican party and people need to realize that Democrats are not our saviors," said Sheehan.

"Over 600 soldiers have died since the Democrats took over power and many thousands of Iraqis, the blood is on their hands, they have the power to stop it and support our troops, support the people of Iraq, save America from more threats from the Bush administration and get them out of power," added the anti-war activist.

Sheehan told Pelosi that if she didn't have impeachment on the table by July that she would run against her in San Francisco and the Peace Mom has now taken that course of action.

"I will run against you and I will give you a run for your money," challenged Sheehan.

Sheehan slammed Pelosi as a warmongering elitist who lives in a mansion on a hill and is completely out of touch with her electorate, as well as a major supporter of AIPAC, a group which has expressed its explicit support for an attack on Iran.

"You can't have allegiance to two countries when you're a lawmaker in one of those countries," said Sheehan, adding that many politicians put America's best interests second behind Israel.

Asked why the candidacy of Ron Paul has become so popular, Sheehan commented "People are hungry for change, people are hungry for people to tell the truth, no matter what, people are hungry for those who act out of their integrity."

Al-Qaeda cell is headed for U.S.

Al-Qaeda cell is headed for U.S.
By Herald Staff
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - Updated: 03:07 AM EST

A senior official told ABC the concern of a new terror attack is higher than it has been in some time.

A small al-Qaeda terror cell is on its way to the United States or may already be here, ABCNews.com’s “The Blotter” reported last night, citing unnamed senior U.S. intelligence officials.
The White House has scheduled an multi-agency meeting for tomorrow afternoon to address the intelligence about a possible new threat, ABC reported.
“It suggests they have information that the cell or cells . . . want to attack a government facility,” Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and ABC News consultant, said.
ABC said the information gleaned from suspects in the recent unsuccessful firebomb attacks in London, specifically their use of the Internet, provided clues that has helped intelligence officials decode other e-mails that had initially been deemed unimportant but are now taking on new significance.
The attacks also have provided important new clues about possible al-Qaeda terror tactics.
A senior administration official told ABC that the level of concern of a new terror attack is now higher than it has been in some time, and that the White House meeting planned for tomorrow is one of several that are being convened over new intelligence and as a result of what happened in London.
Last week, ABC reported that U.S. officials have received intelligence that al-Qaeda is planning a “spectacular” attack in the United States this summer.

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1010646

1998: Muslims, Yeltsin denounce attack

Muslims, Yeltsin denounce attack

Remains of pharmaceutical plant in Sudan

Allies express support

August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 9:57 a.m. EDT (1357 GMT)

(CNN) -- International reaction to U.S. attacks on alleged terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan included outrage from Muslim countries and Russian President Boris Yeltsin , while traditional U.S. allies offered support.

President Clinton described the attacks he ordered on Thursday as acts of self-defense against imminent terrorist plots and retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania two weeks ago.

Cruise missiles hit six sites in Afghanistan that allegedly housed supporters of purported terrorist Osama bin Laden. Missiles also struck a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudeanese capital of Khartoum that the U.S. believes housed chemical weapons.

ALSO:

World reaction FBI director cuts Kenya trip short Poll: Most Americans support strikes Airports boost security after U.S. strikes

Sudan

Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir warned that his country "reserves the right to respond to the American attack using all necessary measures," Egypt's Middle East News Agency reported Friday.

Protesters chant in front of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum

He denied an earlier report that Sudan was recalling its diplomats from Washington.

El-Bashir said he would call for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss the U.S. attack and asked the United Nations to send a delegation to Sudan to investigate whether the plant was used to produce chemical weapons.

"We will retain the right to protest, and will ask the Security Council to investigate the truth ... about this factory," el-Bashir said on Sudanese television.

Civilians in trucks heading toward the plant chanted "Down USA" in English. Many said they were shocked that the United States struck a factory in the heart of the capital. "Are these people crazy? Do you think this is really a weapons factory?" said a young woman who worked at the factory.

Earlier Friday, Sudanese demonstrators stormed the empty U.S. Embassy compound in Khartoum and pulled down the American flag to protest the attack. U.S. diplomats pulled out of Sudan in 1996.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement denied charges it provides a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and insisted that the U.S. attack killed only innocent civilians.

"I assure you that he (Osama) is still alive," Taliban spokesman Abdul Hai Mutamaen said Thursday.

Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar told a Pakistan-based Afghan news agency that his movement had already shut down bin Laden's operations and that the U.S. attack was actually aimed at the Afghan people.

The Taliban, a purist Islamic movement, control 90 percent of Afghanistan's territory, but have been recognized only by the neighboring Pakistani government.

"This attack is not against Osama, but it is a demonstration of enmity for the Afghan people," Omar said. "There is no camp of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We have already closed his camps."

Worldwide reaction

In other areas of the world, reaction was mixed.

U.N. Secretary-General Koffi Annan, on vacation in West Africa, said he was informed by Washington of the attacks minutes before the strikes occurrml. A spokesman for Annan said the secretary-general was "concerned over these developments and awaits further details." Russian President Boris Yeltsin condemned the U.S. action. Washington "should have carried out nego|iations to the end, including in them all countries that might be involved there. That wasn't done," he said on arrival Friday in the far northern Russian city of Murmansk. RELATED VIDEO In Europe, allies support U.S. Matthew Chance reports. Windows Media 28K 56K "I didn't know that this strike would be carried out. It turns out the whole world didn't know it. That is even more dishonorable," Yeltsin said. But his press secretary, Sergei Yaztrzhembsky, toned down those remarks. "Russia and the United States are in the same boat in everything that concerns the fight against world terrorism," he said. There was no official reaction from Kenya, where FBI agents and Kenyan authorities are conducting a joint probe into the U.S. Embassy bombing in Nairobi. Kenyan media reacted indifferently to the U.S. strikes. "The bombing of the U.S. embassies was aimed at Americans ... America is hitting back," said an editor at The Nation, the newspaper with the largest circulation in east Africa. "What they do is up to them ... we can't say good or bad." China issued a cautious reaction that neither supported nor condemned the attacks. A Foreign Ministry statement said the response to U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa should be handled according to the U.N. charter and international law. It did not make clear whether Beijing believed the United States had acted within international law. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, was indirectly critical. A statement by the Foreign Ministry did not even mention the United States. "Indonesia strongly condemns any form of terrorism, although in the fight against terrorism Indonesia can not condone intervention or aggression toward sovereign nations," the ministry said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he "welcomes the U.S. decision to strike targets of terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan." Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval said: "Israel salutes the United States, which has proven once again that it will fight the scourge of terrorism which, as last week's bombings in east Africa have shown, endanger the entire free world." Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi telephoned the Sudanese president and expressed his country's support for Sudan's efforts "in the fight against this aggression," Libyan state television reported. Gadhafi also led an anti-U.S. rally in Tripoli, Libya's capital. Iraqi state television said Iraq was "ready to cooperate with any Arab and international countries to confront the U.S. hostile policies." It also compared the strikes and previous U.S. actions against Iraq, saying: "The terrorist crimes practiced by the United States against the Iraqis, in particular, and the Arabs, in general, are continuing." British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he "strongly" supported the U.S. strikes and compared the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa with the recent bomb attack in Omagh, Northern Ireland. "The atrocities this month in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and Omagh have shown the pain and suffering terrorism can bring to innocent people," Blair said in a statement. Cuba's state run news agency said, "President Clinton ignored the sovereignty of Sudan and Afghanistan and launched a theatrical bombardment which overshadowed his recent sex scandal." Australian Prime Minister John Howard said the United States was entitled to respond to the East African embassy bombings. "The Americans have been subjected to a large number of indiscriminate attacks, and they have a perfect right to defend themselves," Howard said. Pakistan denounced the U.S. missile strikes on neighboring Afghanistan and on Sudan as a violation of the territorial integrity of two Islamic countries. In Islamabad, about 150 protesters chanting anti-American slogans gathered outside the U.S. Information Service center and burned a replica of the U.S. flag. Protests also were held elsewhere in the capital and in other cities after traditional Friday Muslim prayers. Pakistani officials have said repeatedly in recent days that the United States had not approached them about attacking bin Laden, and defense officials said Thursday they were taken by surprise when cruise missiles flew across Pakistani airspace to hit the Afghan sites. Answering questions in Parliament, Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi said "Japan understands the United States' resolute attitude against terrorism" but he withheld his final judgment until his government gathered more information about the attacks. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said on Friday his government supported U.S. strikes carried out on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan on Thursday, saying he condemned "every kind of terrorism." One popular Turkish newspaper was partiularly blunt in assessing Clinton's motivation for ordering the strikes. "The Monica Missiles," read a headline in popular daily Hurriyet. Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

US concern at al-Qaeda strength

US concern at al-Qaeda strength

Al-Qaeda's operating capabilities are at their strongest since the 9/11 attacks, according to leaks of a US intelligence report.

It suggests the network has rebuilt itself despite a six-year campaign to dismantle it, an official told AP.

The classified report identifies Pakistan's western tribal areas as the group's safe haven, and examines threats posed to the US and its allies.

It was compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center.

The five-page threat assessment document, Al-Qaeda Better Positioned to Strike the West, is to be discussed at the White House on Thursday.

BBC Islamic affairs analyst Roger Hardy says the report chimes with the view of many independent experts that al-Qaeda is indeed resurgent.

'Robust training'

Al-Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official told the AP agency, paraphrasing the report.

"They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

We see more training; we see more money; we see more communications; we see that activity rising John Kringen Senior CIA official

He said the report suggests al-Qaeda has "the most robust training programme since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives" and that there were "significant gaps in intelligence" so the US may not be aware of planned attacks.

The latest thinking of US intelligence was reflected in the testimony on Wednesday - before the House Armed Services Committee - of three senior officials.

The CIA's deputy director for intelligence, John Kringen, told the hearing that al-Qaeda had created a safe haven in "the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan" - a reference to the rugged, lawless terrain of the Pakistani-Afghan border.

"We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising," he said.

Our correspondent says the extent of the "safe haven" is not clear but the current view is that the core leadership, "al-Qaeda Central", is playing an operational rather than just inspirational role.

Sustained criticism

The three US officials made it clear they think the US, as well as Europe, remain prime targets.

But they distanced themselves from remarks by the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that the US might be attacked this summer, with one official saying there was no known specific and credible threat.

Our correspondent says that for US President George W Bush, this is not good news - at a time when his Iraq policy is under sustained criticism, it is also hard for him to maintain he is winning on the much bigger front of the global war on terror.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6294526.stm

Published: 2007/07/12 11:39:40 GMT

UN concerned over US Iraq policy

UN concerned over US Iraq policy

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed concern about worsening violence in Iraq and where US policy on Iraq might be heading.

He told the BBC that he was making contingency plans in case of a sudden change of direction in American policy.

He said his main concern was ensuring the safety and security of his staff.

Mr Ban's comments come as a new interim report on Iraq is expected in Washington, amid mounting political pressure for troop reductions.

Mr Ban was speaking in London, after talks with the new UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

"I'm not quite sure what kind of a strategy the American government will have," he said.

I am sure that the new administration of the United Kingdom will have a new leadership under new circumstances Ban Ki-moon

"But whatever the strategies they may have, I hope that they will have a close consultation."

Mr Ban said the situation in Iraq was a problem for the whole world, and he found the continuing civilian casualties and sectarian violence there deeply troubling.

He said both he and his special envoy in Baghdad had talked it over with the Iraqi leadership, but the safety and security of his staff was a priority.

The secretary general said he expected a different relationship with Mr Brown from the one he had with his predecessor, Tony Blair.

"Different circumstances will require different leadership," he said.

"I am sure that the new administration of the United Kingdom will have a new leadership under new circumstances."

Mr Ban said Mr Brown had agreed to collaborate on climate change, Darfur, and the UN's Development Goals.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6294122.stm

Published: 2007/07/12 01:51:27 GMT

The Untouchable, Unstoppable Ron Paul

Dana Gabriel | July 9, 2007

First they tried to ignore him, then they tried to embarrass him, and now the attack dogs are out in full- force. In a desperate attempt they are trying to dig up any dirt from his past, but Ron Paul doesn't have any skeletons in his closet. He is a model of consistency, which can't be said for most politicians. The hit pieces are mounting, and many are trying to misrepresent him and his message, but to no avail. You must be doing something right when you are getting attacked from all sides. If Ron Paul has no chance of winning and he is nothing more then a second-tier candidate, as many are suggesting, why is there such a concerted effort to discredit and silence him?

Ron Paul is a threat to the establishment, to the Republicans and Democrats, and to this whole fake paradigm. A transformation is taking place, and he represents the common-sense revolution. Many in the anti-war movement who supported the Democrats and helped them gain control of the Senate and Congress now feel betrayed. He is restoring hope to those who have given up on the political process and his passion for freedom has many gravitating to his campaign. He is the only one out of the Republican presidential candidates who opposed the Iraq war. He favors a humble foreign policy and wishes to spread democracy by setting a good example-- one that other countries will want to emulate. The good doctor prescribes a restoration of the constitution, and his message of liberty, limited government, lower taxes, and preserving American sovereignty is resonating with many voters.

Recently, Ron Paul was not invited to participate in a Republican candidate's forum in Iowa. The event was co-sponsored by the Iowans for Tax Relief. Something didn't seem right-- after all, Dr. Paul has never voted to raise taxes. It then came out that one of the key organizers was active in the sinking ship that is now the John McCain campaign. What a contrast to Ron Paul, who has momentum and is a candidate on the rise. Something had to be done to try and slow him down. Ron Paul stated, “It's the control by the political establishment to want to exclude the viewpoints, which many people consider telling the truth.” He went on to say, “But there is a limit as to how much they can do to silence us.” He was right, and instead of hanging his head down and feeling sorry for himself, he did something about it. A rally was held in the same venue as the forum and Ron Paul outdrew all the other candidates combined. Talk about something blowing up in your face.

Ron Paul is running for president because he loves this country and wishes to save it. He is very approachable and makes himself available to everyone. He represents ordinary middle class Americans, those in the anti-war movement, freedom lovers, and those sick of big government corruption. Republicans, democrats, libertarians and independents; there is room for all in the Ron Paul tent. His message is such a contrast to the bought and paid-for candidates, and that's what makes the dynamics of his campaign so exciting and refreshing. Does he have a chance of winning? I believe so, but even if he didn't, supporting him is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, many have to be associated with one of the media-chosen front runner candidates, as it empowers them. They feel they have to be on the winning team and choose between the lesser of the evils. This time we don't have to--we have the right man with the right message.

The attacks on Ron Paul are becoming more frequent as the mainstream media and some of the other candidates put a negative spin on his campaign. There is an effort to downplay all his accomplishments. This includes his huge internet presence, the fact that he has won several on-line polls, and the success of his rally in Iowa. When reporting they refer to his campaign as doomed and say that he is little known outside of Texas, with no chance of winning. This is the underdog story the media usually loves to report on. They have exposed themselves and by continuing to attack him this will only bring more people to our side.

His detractors in the mainstream media and some in his own party might have thought that Ron Paul was going to be a pushover and just fade away into obscurity, never to be heard from again. To the contrary, he is in this fight to win, and the lesson is to never underestimate your opponent. This serious miscalculation could very well come back and bite them. Ron Paul is doing something revolutionary in the sense that he is speaking the truth, and the people are ready to listen. This race to the White House isn't over by a long shot. Ron Paul isn't about to throw in the towel. The longer he stays in this race the more people his message will reach. We are on the verge of something big, and we all have a chance to make history.

Woman Arrested for Not Watering Lawn

Dollar sinks in US subprime, credit quicksand

By Jamie McGeever

LONDON (Reuters) - The dollar weakened broadly on Wednesday, striking a record low versus the euro and a 26-year trough against sterling as growing fears surrounding the U.S. subprime mortgage and credit sectors gripped financial markets.

These concerns, heightened on Tuesday after two ratings agencies issued warnings on more than $17 billion of debt linked to risky mortgages, made investors less willing to take on risk.

This helped trigger a sharp selloff in equity markets, slide in bond yields, rise in implied FX volatility and some unwinding of carry trades where low yielders like the yen are sold for higher return units such as the New Zealand dollar.

The Federal Reserve's broad dollar index on Tuesday showed the greenback's nominal, weighted value at its lowest level in a decade. Against a selection of major currencies, the dollar hit its lowest level ever in the free-floating currency period since the Fed's records began in 1973.

But as European trading progressed Wednesday, traders took time out to assess the damage and prices retraced slightly.

"We continue to see two themes play out: the dollar taking the brunt of concerns about credit markets, and whether this should lead to more substantial risk aversion and unwind of carry positions," said Laura Ambroseno, currency strategist at Morgan Stanley in London.

"We've certainly seen that over the last day or so but market participants may not be quite convinced this will be a prolonged unwind, or if the reprieve is a good buying opportunity."

At 1000 GMT the euro was flat on the day at $1.3745, having set a record high of $1.3784, according to Reuters data, earlier in the day.

Sterling was up 0.25 percent at a 26-year peak of $2.0316, while dollar recovered from a one-month low of 121.02 yen to trade at 121.55 yen.

"It looks like markets are taking a breather and licking their wounds now," said one European bank trader.

BOJ EYED

The dollar's sell-off on Tuesday was exacerbated by reports from credit rating agencies Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service on Tuesday that warned on over $17 billion of debt related to risky mortgages, much of it subprime. Subprime loans are extended to borrowers with poor credit.

The effect across financial markets was stark.

Ten-year Treasury yields slumped back below 5 percent, equities tumbled, spreads moved against the dollar and implied volatilities on short-term currency options jumped.

"Clearly with the weakness in equities and concerns about the U.S. housing market it is probably not surprising to see some short covering and unwinding of carry trades. But I would be very cautious to call this a general turn against carry," said Michael Klawitter, currency strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort in Frankfurt.

"I would expect the dollar index to remain under pressure. Euro/dollar risks are clearly for a move towards $1.40."

The dollar index fell to a 2-1/2 year low of 80.627.

Subprime worries prompted market to price in a greater risk of a Federal Reserve interest rate cut this year or next.

"Near term, these credit concerns should drive currencies, and that means the dollar remains under a bit of pressure," said Ambroseno at Morgan Stanley.

In contrast to the Fed, other central banks around the globe are expected to continue tightening monetary policy, with yield differentials thus set to move to the detriment of the dollar.

The Bank of Japan is widely expected to hold interest rates steady on Thursday, although some of the more hawkish members of the board may vote for a hike to 0.75 percent.

Treasurys Boosted by Housing Market Woes

AP

U.S. Treasury bond prices fell Tuesday as investors focused on problems in the housing market and forgot their concerns about rising inflation even as the Federal Reserve chief sought to address them.

At 5 p.m. EDT, the 10-year Treasury note was up $9.38 per $1,000 in face value, or 30/32 point, from its level at 5 p.m. Monday. Its yield, which moves in the opposite direction, fell to 5.02 percent from 5.15 percent.

The 30-year bond rose 1 25/32 point. Its yield fell to 5.12 percent from 5.24 percent.

The 2-year note rose 7/32 point. Its yield fell to 4.84 percent from 4.95 percent.

Yields on 3-month Treasury bills were 4.95 percent as the discount rate rose 0.01 percentage point to 4.81 percent.

Such safe-haven buying into government bonds has become a more regular occurrence in recent months amid rising angst over the state of the U.S. housing sector. On Tuesday, investors were frightened by a couple of dire reports from home builder DR Horton and Home Depot and a slew of negative ratings actions on subprime assets by ratings firm Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service.

There's certainly been little else to coax investors into government bonds, with the Federal Reserve widely deemed to be taking a "perma-hold" position on interest rates. Last month marked a year anniversary of the target rate at 5.25 percent, and the central bank's policy statements continue to stress inflationary pressure as the dominant concern.

Tuesday's speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to the National Bureau of Economic Research didn't invite much market response as he did nothing to dispel the image of a Fed primarily concerned with keeping inflation expectations in check.

On this point, he ventured only that the public's expectations of inflation remain "imperfectly anchored," and change based on incoming economic news, though the situation is better than it was 20 years ago.

The Fed's bias toward inflation - though perhaps subtler today than it has been in the past - doesn't mean it's ignoring the squeals from the troubled housing sector, which it has described as a potential drag on the economy for sometime to come.

Scott Gewirtz, head of Treasury trading at Lehman Brothers in New York, points out that "the housing market is not about to turn around and be a source of growth anytime soon. The Fed is focused on both things."

TJ Marta, fixed income strategist at RBC Capital Markets in New York said it's worth remembering that recent developments have nothing much to do with the fundamental appeal of Treasurys.

"I think that the market is reacting to issues that probably involve some fraud and negligence and greed and lack of oversight, none of which can be fixed by the Fed cutting 25 basis points," he said.

"The market is going to become fixated on CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), adjustable-rate mortgages resets, declining or moderating consumption, and the Fed is still going to be looking at inflation pressures."

IMF presses for gas price hike

DAILY STAR
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has suggested that the government increase the price of natural gas before adjusting the prices of electricity, fertiliser and petroleum products.

"Higher gas prices will imply a need for further adjustment in electricity and fertiliser prices but reform of energy sector policy will be incomplete and distortionary unless adjustment of gas prices is included," an IMF report placed to the government recently said.

Finance ministry sources said the government's recent move to increase natural gas prices is in line with the IMF recommendations. "The government will raise the natural gas prices and then adjust prices of fertiliser, electricity and different petroleum products," a ministry official said.

Asked about IMF's influence on the move, he said, "Yes, there are some suggestions from the IMF. But, our concern is to minimise huge losses of the state-owned enterprises."

Energy Adviser Tapan Chowdhury told newsmen on Monday that the government has no alternative but to increase the prices of gas and petroleum. "We are yet to chalk out any plan for adjusting petroleum prices, but a proposal regarding the prices of natural gas has been sent to the chief adviser for approval," he said.

Zaid Bakht, research director of Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, said it is very difficult for the government to bear such a huge amount of subsidy for the state-owned enterprises (SOE) for an unlimited time.

Referring to the increasing trend of inflation rate Bakht said rise of prices of natural gas, electricity, fertiliser and other petroleum products may have a negative impact on the macro economy.

The IMF report said pricing of natural gas in Bangladesh is considerably below the international levels, resulting in the forfeiture of a significant source of government revenue. It also creates substantial market distortions by encouraging conversion to CNG as a source of fuel.

The report said price adjustments and financial restructuring of loss-incurring SOEs are also needed.

"BPC [Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation] alone accounts for about two-thirds of accumulated SOE losses, with the state airline, fertiliser, and power companies accounting for the remainder," the IMF report said.

The IMF also suggested that the government continue the process of privatising the loss-making SOEs.

Earlier, the advisory committee on economic affairs in separate meetings sent back proposals for increasing prices of electricity and fertiliser asking the ministries concerned for more reviews in the proposals.

The present caretaker government, which took office in January, has increased the price of power the decision of which was taken by the BNP-led coalition government.

Prices of petroleum products were also increased in April and Finance Adviser Mirza Azizul Islam in his budget speech announced that the government would introduce pricing formula for the petroleum products from the current fiscal year.

A committee headed by the BPC chairman will sit shortly to fix how much price increase of petroleum products is needed to minimise losses.

Sources said the government's move to adjust prices of fuel, electricity and fertiliser are in line with the reform agenda of the IMF and World Bank. "The government is expecting new poverty reduction growth facility [PRGF] loans from the IMF and budgetary support from the World Bank," a government official said.

"Adjustment of fuel prices as well as fertiliser and power are part of the donors' conditions," he added.

Zaid Bakht criticised the IMF's economic policy saying donors are concerned only about the impact of huge subsidy on the budget. "But we have to keep it in mind that there will be an adverse effect on the agriculture while inflation may increase further if the government withdraws the subsidies," he observed.

Bakht suggested that the government cut Annual Development Programme to continue subsidy.

Families should have no more than two children - thinktank

NIALL FIRTH
Daily Mail
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Comment: This is just modern-day eugenics wrapped up in phony environmentalism and it's aimed at middle class white people, whose population in most industrial areas of Britain is rapidly declining anyway. What would be the deterrant for people having more than two children? Would government agents abduct women off the streets, drug them and perform forced abortions as happens in China? Is the threat of global warming, like terrorism, severe enough to sacrifice all our freedoms and live in a society where the state regulates every single aspect of your personal life?

Families should have no more than two children if they want to help combat climate change, according to new research by a thinktank.

According to the report, published by the Optimum Population Trust, Britain's high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change, which can only be combatted if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have.

The report calls for a 'two-child' policy in the UK that would reduce the nation's population from 60 million, as it currently stands, to no more than 55 milllion by 2050.

With the UK having the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe the thinktank is also calling for the Government to increase investment in family planning clinics and to look at ways of discouraging teenage girls from becoming pregnant.

At its current rate the report estimates that the UK's mid-century population is projected to be 68-69 million with the planet having the largest generation of young people in history - what it terms a 'youthquake'.

High population and accelerating consumption means that humans are outstripping the planet's biological capcity, says the report. By 2050, with the global population rising to 9.2 billion, humans will be using twice the Earth's natural capacity.

Figures released in the report highlight the links between human population and climate.

It claims that every additional Briton will 'burn' during their lifetime roughly the same amount of carbon as is found in a hectare of old-growth oak woodland - an area about three quarters the size of a Premiership football pitch or 50 average-sized UK gardens. Commenting on the figures, Prof John Guillebaud, the report's author, said: "Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet but most of the solutions seem to involve national or international agreements that look as far away as ever.

"We're nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless.

"The answer lies in our own hands. We're simply failing to acknowledge the link between human numbers and global warming.

"We have to recognise that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers – in other words, human beings, in the UK as well as abroad - so deciding to stop at two, or at least to have one child less, is probably the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren."