The Prime Minister is asking that the upcoming debate’s full hour be devoted to the economy, obviously in response to the current crisis in the United States. The NDP is supporting the amendment.

Something that should not escape anyone is the ability to use what is currently transpiring as a tool of political fear. President Bush attempted to cast the crisis in just such a light prior to Congress voting down the proposed bailout package, and he continues to do so. Of course, lost in his rhetoric, and that of many others, is the culpability of those responsible versus those that will ultimately be made to flip the bill – the people.

The United States is our foremost trading partner. But we are not alone in feeling the repercussions, and thus the fear produced, by what is currently transpiring. Markets around the world have been negatively affected by the wanton actions of financial institutions in a single country, and that is something that should not be overlooked. As has been the case for decades, the world’s foremost commodity markets are subject to the strength of the US dollar, and therefore the US economy itself.

One crucial example of US economic dominance is that of the oil market, which is universally represented in US dollars. Not one major oil bourse on the planet exists that trades oil in another currency. Were, for example, Iranian proposals to create an independent bourse controlled by the Euro ever to become a reality the repercussions on the US economy would be devastating – and make no mistake, that is a very real factor with regards to US disdain for Iran, even though it is little reported.

While the people of the United States are facing a crisis in which they may very well end up paying for the wanton greed of Wall Street’s elite, they won’t be the only ones that will be made to bleed for it - average citizens the world over will be there right along side of them simply because of the economic stranglehold that the United States has on the world. And while foreigners might not feel the affects as harshly, the reality remains that what is transpiring right now in the United States is not simply an American problem, but one that will be felt by people the world over.

Here at home, rather than a national debate taking place in which a variety of important issues are addressed, Canadians may very well be treated to an entire hour dedicated to addressing a financial crisis spawned in a foreign country, and all of the political fear mongering that such a crisis makes possible.

We’ll see.

If change is what this election is all about then tonight’s debate proved one thing – the sort of change that Americans can expect is equitable to removing dirty socks and putting on a new pair only slightly less so. There was absolutely no electricity or urgency emanating from Barack Obama, who played into McCain’s set pieces from the onset. It was the old Republican warhorse blowing his own horn and the champion of change, promoted as such primarily because of who currently inhabits the White House, who seemed more an obliging centrist than anything else.

This evening’s debate proved one thing - that the American political landscape is no less a quagmire than those foreign wars that the nation is currently embroiled in. The willingness to truly take chances, to risk, and through impassioned resolve ignite the imaginations of the people has fled, replaced by placation’s ever promising embrace of success. No, democracy is not alive and well in America, only the corporate branding of two political parties and their struggle to dominate the market. In fact, it’s a trait that is almost universal in the Western world.

Leading a nation requires, above all else, true vision, and neither man that stood on that stage this evening possesses it. True, they maintain beliefs, but in the end what occurred tonight was a tangle of rhetoric devoid of vision. Words were spoken, jabs were traded, experience and temperament were questioned, but a visionary leader was not in that building.

I took notes throughout the debate, but looking at them now it seems pointless to comment. Victory in Iraq? Defeat has already occurred, but like a car crash victim drowning in shock it simply hasn’t sunk in yet, just as it hadn’t in 1971. Venezuela claimed a rogue state, the linguistic misinterpretation of ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’ presented as fact, the Russians chastised for their actions while the Georgian government is showered with praise, and the unbelievable assertion that al-Qaeda will claim a foothold in Iraq if the US fails in its mission employed as the fear card. The Shia would eat them alive were the US to leave the country, but let’s not let reality get in the way.

No, tonight was a lesson in the exhaustive inanity of American politics. The Muses, it seems, have cast their euphoric haze and wait with anticipation to see what dead loss is born.

Throughout the day I have fielded numerous emails from readers regarding my last entry, which are what ultimately convinced me to remove it altogether. All of them made the same point, and it really is something that I should have thought through before I began typing this morning – I have nothing to prove, nor do I need to defend this website or my career. Adding fuel to useless fires is a pointless exercise. To be honest, in cases such as these, it’s a pleasure to realize that this site has such a well-rounded and intelligent readership – especially one that can point out that such rebuttals are a waste of time.

That said; there is a bit from the previous entry that I did want to keep, so I have included it below. Again, thanks to those of you that contacted me and talked some sense. We all need that now and again.

Archived

Arms proliferators feed off of conflict and the horrors that they produce. The big five have enjoyed that luxury for decades and yet we do not question it while, like lemmings, deride the inevitable backlash that it produces. The only difference between cutting the head off of a captured contractor and video taping it and helping to remove an unfriendly government and replace it with a friendly dictatorial regime is that one gets broadcast on the internet and the thousands of deaths produced by the other doesn’t. The point is; both are criminal and cowardly, but one cannot be viewed as such because to do so would require us to admit that even though we view ourselves as morally superior, we have been complicit in evils of considerable magnitude.

For a recent example of such culpability look no further than the Montréal International Conference on Haiti, what it produced, and our ultimate inclusion in the coup engineered to remove Aristide from power. Of course, here at home, Aristide was painted in a light necessary to maintain the illusion that freedom was being gifted the Haitian people. What wasn’t highlighted was that the ‘freedom fighters’ that entered the country from the Dominican to help depose him were drug lords and thugs – not some movement bent on bringing peace and stability to the country. In the end, it was Aristide’s refusal to privatize Haitian industries that led to his political demise and loss of control. And, like most Latin American leaders placed in that position, paranoia and a thin grasp on the maintenance of law and order pushed him into a corner in which acts that he might otherwise decry became undesirable options.

As Peter Hallward put it in March of 2004…

“Aristide was forced from office on Sunday by people who have little in common except their opposition to his progressive policies and their refusal of the democratic process. With the enthusiastic backing of Haiti’s former colonial master, a leader elected with overwhelming popular support has been driven from office by a loose association of convicted human rights abusers, seditious former army officers and pro-American business leaders.

It’s obvious that Aristide’s expulsion offered Jacques Chirac a long-awaited chance to restore relations with an American administration he dared to oppose over the attack on Iraq. It’s even more obvious that the characterisation of Aristide as yet another crazed idealist corrupted by absolute power sits perfectly with the political vision championed by George Bush, and that the Haitian leader’s downfall should open the door to a yet more ruthless exploitation of Latin American labour.

If you’ve been reading the mainstream press over the past few weeks, you’ll know that this peculiar version of events has been carefully prepared by repeated accusations that Aristide rigged fraudulent elections in 2000; unleashed violent militias against his political opponents; and brought Haiti’s economy to the point of collapse and its people to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe.

But look a little harder at those elections. An exhaustive and convincing report by the International Coalition of Independent Observers concluded that “fair and peaceful elections were held” in 2000, and by the standard of the presidential elections held in the US that same year they were positively exemplary.”

And where were we? Well, JTF2 was holding the airport, waiting for US operatives that had secured Aristide to arrive and usher him into exile so that the so-called ‘liberators’ of Haiti could do the rest. Haitians were indeed liberated in the two weeks following the coup, hundreds of them in fact. All by death.

We are not at war with a religion, only a fool would presume as much, only a fool who hasn’t the wherewithal to actually educate themselves would sit easy on the conclusion that we are currently engaged in a world wide struggle against several billion people that ‘hate us for our freedoms’. Generalizations and fear are terrorism’s most profound productions. That being the case, it would seem that we have been terrorized by voices amongst us as equally as by those zealots that adhere to an entirely warped and politicized religious ideology. There are examples aplenty stretching back through time that provide context with regards to how easy it is to scare the weak minded into the belief that what they fear is actually greater than what it is. That said; many have done a fantastic job of insuring that ignorance remains commonplace so that such distractions can continue to convolute reason. That is not to say that threats do not exist, only that we are just as much a threat to our own way of life than any exterior threat. And those that perpetuate that fear are, in the end, no better than those they condemn, even if violence isn’t their primary tool. Intolerance and ignorance have killed far more people through their complacency in our collective history than any single cabal of individuals. Because without that complacency their evils would never have succeeded in the first place.

What we stand for, in the end, cannot be defended by a staunch belief in insularity while at the same time promoting the violent deliverance of freedom to others. That is merely a hypocritical position preferred by those that often believe that arguments are won simply by the volume at which they profess their beliefs and not on their actual merits.

If ignorance is indeed bliss, then welcome to an age of perpetual contentment.

The recent Democratic debate hosted by ABC spoke volumes. It took an entire hour before a relevant question was asked either candidate – and that was about the economy, which one of the debate’s hosts had the audacity to claim one of the country’s most pressing issues, which it is, but only after an hour had passed.

Commercials, perhaps, got in the way.

Since, Senator Clinton has, for the first time, featured Osama Bin Laden in a campaign commercial, and both candidates have been guilty of placating the US-Israeli lobby, which is not surprising given former President Carter’s recent visit with leaders of Hamas.

Barack Obama, speaking to American-Jewish leaders in Philadelphia recently condemned Carter’s decision claiming…

“Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization. They obviously have developed great influence within the Palestinian territories, but they do not control the apparatus of power.”

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has gone directly off the deep end, and her comments should be viewed in the speculative context in which they were made.

In a recent interview she claimed that were Iran to strike Israel with nuclear weapons, which they don’t currently possess, the United States, under her command, would be able to “totally obliterate them”. Her rationale, of course, is that by making such a bold statement the Iranians might think twice – as if they were idiotic school children that would actually be stupid enough to attack Israel with nuclear weapons without realizing what the repercussions would be. That is, if they actually possessed nuclear weapons, which, it should be said, Israel does.

It must be fantastic to be the 51st State. You not only have one of the most powerful lobby’s in the United States, but are the recipient of enormous military aid and have the luxury of even your most suspect actions being defended by the world’s foremost power. You also retain the right to possess a nuclear arsenal that you claim doesn’t exist, one which, of course, has never been internationally inspected or monitored.

Oh - and while freedom reigns, the one man that had the guts to come forward and expose the existence of that nuclear program, well, he got thrown in jail for almost two decades and remains, to this very day, under heavy surveillance. Ironically, if an Iranian were to do the same thing, they would be hailed in the West as a hero.

A reader, Kevin Mejlholm, recommended the following lecture (*See update below) by David Ray Griffin regarding 9/11. I am posting this not to promote the ideas presented by Griffin, but rather to simply present information that I think should be presented. Therefore, if you want to spend the time watching this lecture, which is one hour and thirty-eight minutes in length, I would be interested to hear your views in the comments as an exercise in open public debate.

The video is too large to post directly on this page, meaning that its frame width is large, so please visit the YouTube page directly.

In the past I have not truly delved into my own personal beliefs regarding the events of September 11th as they relate to the need for such a catastrophic event to occur to support the birth of an American hegemonic era. The roots of the Bush Doctrine, when objectively examined, provide insight into a much deeper American global agenda. That, in itself, could be taken as a ridiculous notion, but the reality remains that a post Cold War preemptive and unilateralist foreign policy platform was first outlined in 1992 by then members of the United States government, individuals that would, during the Clinton era, cultivate and refine their beliefs. After 9/11, some of the same individuals involved in the initial creation and subsequent refinement of that policy were, and are, members of government, among them Paul Wolfowitz, who, at the time, held the position of Deputy Secretary Of Defense. It was Wolfowitz’s Defense Planning Guidance, written at the instruction of then Secretary Of Defense Dick Cheney that initially outlined the initiatives required to exploit US global military and economic dominance in the post Cold War world.

By saying this I am not going to take the position that 9/11 was orchestrated, but I do firmly believe that it was used as a catalyst with which to indoctrinate the Western public and therefore allow for the implementation of a hegemonic reality that, since 9/11, has been proven by US operations and initiatives abroad.

The US occupation of Iraq has been, from the beginning, an exercise in plugging holes, ones that continue to spring up in a variety of different areas only to be met with more corks, more excuses, and the ultimate reality that the United States is responsible for plunging a nation, and a region of the world, into disarray while its own population, for the most part, goes on with their daily lives oblivious to the traumatic realities in what has become one of the most dangerous and troubled nations on earth in which to live.

Thus far, the United States has pumped $25 billion dollars into attempts to reconstitute various elements of Iraq’s infrastructure. Unfortunately, despite that fact, 43% of the Iraqi population lives in poverty, 28% of Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition (prior to the invasion 19% suffered from malnutrition and that was while UN sanctions were in place that, over a decade, aided in the deaths of approximately 1 million Iraqis), only 30% of Iraqi children currently attend school at the elementary level (last year 75% of them did), and 70% of Iraqis do not have access to clean water (which is up 20% post invasion). Electricity and basic sanitation are still precarious at best in numerous locations, as is access to fuel.

Those that have fled the country, or are displaced within it, number in the millions, and the civilian death toll, which the Pentagon thought best not to bother keeping track of, is devastating. And while an entire generation of Americans will live with the traumatic remembrance of September 11th, an entire generation of Iraqis will spend the rest of their lives traumatized by years of bloody conflict that is not limited to the immediate first hand experience of the population of a single city, but a nation as a whole. Unlike the majority of Americans that watched the events of September 11th on their televisions, the majority of Iraqis have had to only open their front doors.

One of the most dangerous aspects of a reckless foreign policy doctrine is the politicization of war. Iraq provides one of the best examples of this reality in US history, even more so than Vietnam.

The politicization of the war in Iraq is entirely prevalent when one examines the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, two men who, for all intents and purposes, are not testifying objectively before Congress, but rather defending the politicization of a war that is, by no means, anything less than an utter disaster. Their unwillingness to admit as much only proves the point all the more.

One of the key elements of their testimony is the inclusion of anti-Iranian rhetoric that supports the current administration’s position to the letter. The assertion that the United States, and the current Iraqi government, are now confronting Iranian proxy forces in Iraq is not merely a slippery slope given the fact that President Bush has more than half a year left in the Oval Office, but one that could lead the United States into an open conflict with a nation that, no matter the Bush administration’s view of it, represents a far more dangerous affair than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

It has been suggested that a US assault against Iran would be primarily limited to aerial operations, which obviously speaks to the reality of the present condition of US ground forces, that being that they are in a state of serious over extension. Thus, a ground assault against the Iranians is not a realistic option that Washington can consider, and if the Bush administration is, then the loss of US lives in such an operation would make the war in Iraq look like a mild affair. I, for one, would not put it past those neoconservative Beltway voices that have been routinely relied upon to produce some of the most ridiculous analysis regarding US operations in the Middle East to suggest that Iran be ‘dealt with’ before a Democrat secures the White House and the opportunity is lost. In fact, I would expect no less of them or others in Washington with similar views.

Such voices, of course, represent a chorus of individuals that do not have to enact the policies that they engineer from the safety of their offices. That particular task is left to others whom they then have the audacity to call heroes who have been, from the get go, nothing but fodder for what is arguably one of the most dangerous and highly politicized foreign policy doctrines in American history.

With regards to the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker, take the following into account…

“Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate, barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad.

As they spoke, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr threatened to unleash his Mahdi Army militia against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Once again, it was Iran that stepped into the political vacuum and urged a halt to militia attacks into the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Petraeus and Crocker, have their offices.”

Of course, if objectivity is to be employed, the Iranians could very well be playing both sides of the fence – a tactic cultivated and perfected by the Americans and Russians on a global scale over the last sixty-one years. All one need do is employ a Google search to confirm that. And if the Iranians are dealing with both hands in two different fashions, it’s not as if they wrote the playbook on how to do it. Therein lies one of the immense ironies of this fiasco.

The ramifications of Petraeus and Crocker’s testimony may very well affect Americans more than they realize. And in doing so, the politicization of a conflict that has not only devastated a nation, but the lives of thousands of American families, may very well aid in not only prolonging the war, but perhaps even expanding it. There are those that will argue that it has been worth it, and that a confrontation with Iran is an unavoidable necessity. Such are the voices of those that have the luxury of creating and supporting wars that they do not have to fight. That, in the end, will never have to take their children to a monument so that they might run their fingers over the name of a father or mother that, when all is said and done, died for nothing more than the opportunistic ideology of individuals no better than those they perceived as enemies.

Well, it doesn’t look like President Bush or Vice President Cheney will be visiting Brattleboro, Vermont, after they leave office. The residents of Brattleboro directed town officials to draft indictments against both Bush and Cheney for violating their oaths of office. A vote was then held, with 2012 citizens supporting the indictment and 1795 voting against it.

The draft read…

“Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?”

In short, both the President and the Vice President would face arrest and detention in the town of Brattleboro after leaving office.

While many might scoff at the legal validity of the indictment, it sets a very important precedent with regards to holding both men accountable for their roles in breeching various tenets of the Constitution. While Congress has refused to act, even though grounds exist, this proactive stance taken by a single town echoes the sentiments of many Americans with regards to their outrage at the debasement of the Constitution by this administration.

And they should be applauded for it.

Of course, there are those that view such undertakings as wholly unpatriotic, commonly leaning on the ridiculous logic that to imperil the sanctity of the offices of the President and Vice President is to ‘embolden’ America’s enemies. In truth, the continued debasement of those offices by those currently holding them has imperiled America far more, providing victory after victory to those that are deemed its enemies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if the governing administration of a nation that has sworn to uphold the tenets one of the most forward thinking documents in human history can abuse it without being challenged, that the emboldening of its enemies is a foregone conclusion.

Many labour under the misconception that the goal of 9/11 was to simply take lives and traumatize the American people. Ironically, the effects of that event on the American government and its various institutions is rarely ever examined, nor are those that planned it ever viewed as being intelligent enough to have figured that aspect into the purpose of their plan. Unfortunately, the popular belief of what the attacks of September 11th were aimed at accomplishing has only helped overshadow the unconstitutional actions of the administration and provided it with one of the biggest blank cheques in American history. And in doing so has only helped amplify one of the most significant goals of the attack itself.

In a surprising move after reports that Turkey’s offensive in northern Iraq would be sustained for the foreseeable future, Turkish forces began withdrawing yesterday in force. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that the withdrawal occurred just after President Bush called on the Turkish government to end the offensive and a day after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited the Turkish capital to deliver Washington’s message that the incursion must not be open ended. Of course, the Turkish government and military is claiming that the withdrawal was preplanned and that it had nothing to do with US pressure, but that’s obviously transparent given the fact that the withdrawal itself began before any official Turkish statements were made regarding it.

Were I to venture a guess, I would say that behind closed doors Washington rubber stamped the Turkish invasion and then used condemnation of it to remove suspicions of complicity. And, of course, the Turks played along and got what they wanted out of it.

That would be my guess anyway.

Gaza

Here’s the back story via the BBC…

I want to state, for the record, that the use of violence by both sides in this matter is, in my opinion, unforgivable given the toll that it has taken on civilians, both at present and in years past.

That said; when one looks at this in a very hard, cold light, there are a few realities that must be addressed, though many of you might disagree.

The governing issue of Israel and Palestine as entities and the decades old arguments about how that region has found itself where it is now aside, there are a few truths that we should be willing to admit as members of a society that is primarily pro-Israeli.

The first is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, one that is supported by numerous benefactors throughout the Middle East. They fire homemade rockets into Israel from the slums of one of the world’s foremost ghettos where millions rely on international humanitarian aid to simply survive. That aid, by the way, is also one of the most outstanding examples of international blackmail in modern history.

Israel, on the other hand, is supported by the world’s foremost military super power and is the recipient of immense military aid. They possess a state of the art air force, replete with US made fighters, bombers, and attack helicopters. They possess state of the art armour and boast one of the best-trained and equipped armed forces in the world. They also possess a nuclear arsenal, a navy, and one of the world’s most feared covert intelligence outfits.

Were Palestinian militants to possess the same military capabilities as the Israelis, the need to lob homemade rockets and employ suicide bombers wouldn’t be required. In short, they would possess the same ‘honourable’ weapons of war as the Israelis and be in the position to employ them in the exact same fashion that the IDF does. That is, of course, not something that Israel, nor those that support it, would ever stand for. Thus, those who believe in the ridiculous use of violence as a measure with which to lash out against Israel wouldn’t be lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza and, in the process, endangering the lives of innocents that end up paying the price when Israeli forces retaliate – not to mention killing Israeli civilians.

That is, if you actually believe that a fair brawl between conventional forces doesn’t produce civilian deaths, which is, of course, a fallacy. In truth, they produce far more.

In this neck of the woods, the math is simple. A single Israeli life is equal to that of maybe 100 Palestinians. Let’s face it, they’re terrorists and extremists, or at least that’s what they’re painted as being by our media. The Israelis, on the other hand, are simply trying to defend themselves. Never mind the massive economic disparities between the two, never mind that Gaza is little more than a massive prison camp for all intents and purposes, which provides the sort of atmosphere in which those desperate enough are willing to focus their anger in ways that are unconscionable. If you cage an animal long enough it’s going to do one of two things. Wither away to nothing or start taking swipes through the bars at those on the other side.

Gaza is not internationally recognized as being a part of any sovereign entity, nor is it claimed by any, though it’s currency remains the Israeli Sheqel. After Hamas’ victory in Parliamentary elections in 2006, Israel, The United States, Canada, and the EU froze all funds to the Palestinian government, economically crippling it. Due to the fact that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, it is not viewed as a legitimate governing body, even within the tenuous confines of a government that never really had any international recognition beyond that required to placate those responsible for providing it economic aid. Thus, as long as Hamas remains in power, their presence will be used as an excuse to continue to punish the people as a whole, despite the fact that it was democratically elected – a process that those who refuse to recognize it claim to champion the world over (that is, as long as it conforms to their ideology).

Now, let me state for the record that I am not defending Hamas. Obviously, the recognition of Israeli’s right to exist is something that must occur. After decades of the same tired argument, the time has come to consider the welfare of the Palestinian people as a whole, which, for some, is a bitter pill to swallow. That said; there is certainly a reason why Hamas was successful in the elections in 2006.

Gaza is 41 kilometers long and 12 kilometers wide; that’s 360 square kilometers. In that space there are 1.4 million people, 1 million of which are officially recognized by the United Nations as refugees. Some 18% of children in Gaza between the ages of 6 months and 5 years old suffer from chronic malnutrition. 53% of women of reproductive age and children are anemic. Given such facts, one can begin to see why support for an organization that undertakes initiatives within the community to secure popular support, not to mention striking at those they view as their oppressors, might attract the support of the suffering and the disenfranchised. In truth, it’s not a phenomenon that is, by any stretch of the imagination, limited to that area of the world. It is a phenomenon that has been quintessential in the birth of Western democracies and, if we’re going to be completely honest, Israel itself.

Now, you can rush out and get a copy of The National Post and succumb to the bias that we’re exposed to on a daily basis regarding this issue, or you can spend some time trying to look at it from the other side of the fence (literally). I’ll not condone the use of violence as a method with which to enact change, but I will also not condemn those that feel they have no way out of a situation that is, in truth, entirely comparable to an existence in prison. There are better ways to go about it, I will admit that freely, and also not hesitate to suggest that such methods be embraced, but I do not live in Gaza, nor do I have to endure its realities, so that position remains one of a lofty Western idealist.

The Iranian Laptop Nuke Data

Gareth Porter provides some valuable insight regarding this issue…

“The George W. Bush administration has long pushed the “laptop documents” – 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop – as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear program.

But those documents have long been regarded with great suspicion by US and foreign analysts. German officials have identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization.

There are some indications, moreover, that the MEK obtained the documents not from an Iranian source but from Israel’s Mossad.

In its latest report on Iran, circulated Feb. 22, the IAEA, under strong pressure from the Bush administration, included descriptions of plans for a facility to produce “green salt,” technical specifications for high explosives testing and the schematic layout of a missile reentry vehicle that appears capable of holding a nuclear weapon. Iran has been asked to provide full explanations for these alleged activities.

Tehran has denounced the documents on which the charges are based as fabrications provided by the MEK, and has demanded copies of the documents to analyze, but the United States had refused to do so.

The Iranian assertion is supported by statements by German officials. A few days after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the laptop documents, Karsten Voight, the coordinator for German-American relations in the German Foreign Ministry, was reported by the Wall Street Journal Nov. 22, 2004 as saying that the information had been provided by “an Iranian dissident group.”

A German official familiar with the issue confirmed to this writer that the NCRI had been the source of the laptop documents. “I can assure you that the documents came from the Iranian resistance organization.,” the source said.

The Germans have been deeply involved in intelligence collection and analysis regarding the Iranian nuclear program. According to a story by Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer soon after the laptop documents were first mentioned publicly by Powell in late 2004, US officials said they had been stolen from an Iranian whom German intelligence had been trying to recruit, and had been given to intelligence officials of an unnamed country in Turkey.

The German account of the origins of the laptop documents contradicts the insistence by unnamed US intelligence officials who insisted to journalists William J. Broad and David Sanger in November 2005 that the laptop documents did not come from any Iranian resistance groups.

Despite the fact that it was listed as a terrorist organization., the MEK was a favorite of neoconservatives in the Pentagon, who were proposing in 2003-2004 to use it as part of a policy to destabilize Iran. The United States is known to have used intelligence from the MEK on Iranian military questions for years. It was considered a credible source of intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program. after 2002, mainly because of its identification of the facility in Natanz as a nuclear site.

The German source said he did not know whether the documents were authentic or not. However, CIA analysts, and European and IAEA officials who were given access to the laptop documents in 2005 were very skeptical about their authenticity.

The Guardian’s Julian Borger last February quoted an IAEA official as saying there is “doubt over the provenance of the computer.”

A senior European diplomat who had examined the documents was quoted by the New York Times in November 2005 as saying, “I can fabricate that data. It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt.”

Scott Ritter, the former US military intelligence officer who was chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, noted in an interview that the CIA has the capability test the authenticity of laptop documents through forensic tests that would reveal when different versions of different documents were created.

The fact that the agency could not rule out the possibility of fabrication, according to Ritter, indicates that it had either chosen not to do such tests or that the tests had revealed fraud.”

A few things to mention while I slip in and out of consciousness due to this ridiculous cold that I’ve caught.

The situation in Kenya remains precarious. Both Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga have agreed to begin negotiations, so let’s hope it leads to something substantial.

In Afghanistan, the Upper House of Parliament is supporting the death sentence of a journalist for blasphemy (the distribution of an article insulting to Islam). During last night’s State Of The Union address, President Bush went out of his way to paint Afghanistan as a budding democracy full of hope and new possibilities. It shouldn’t be overlooked that this is the very same democratic government that is supporting the death of this journalist based on religious grounds. It seems eerily familiar with regards to the actions of another Afghan group, doesn’t it?

In the US, while the Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the second time in nine days in an attempt to avoid a recession, both Rudy Giuliani (R) and John Edwards (D) have both dropped out of the Presidential race. Their departures signal what will probably be the last two withdrawals before Super Tuesday.

The second half of the Winograd report was released today and it looks like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is going to politically survive its implications.

Some 100,000 Liverpool FC supporters from around the world are launching a bid to buy back the club from its current American owners – and good on them for it.

From Tom Engelhardt comes Looking Up: Normalizing Air War from Guernica to Arab Jabour.

And lastly, US Attorney General Michael Mukasey reminds us why he’s the perfect man for the job – the inability to actually suggest that he doesn’t think it would be appropriate for him to “pass definitive judgement” on the legality of waterboarding.

I Have A New Favourite Band

I realize that I’m late to the party, but last night I finally got my hands on the first season of the Flight Of The Conchords (site hasn’t been updated since June of 2006).

In my opinion the show is utterly brilliant, but what is even more brilliant is the music produced for it. While it might be comedy based, the writing is, in truth, outstanding – that is, those songs that are original and not based on the songs of others (such as their parody of West End Girls).

There’s just something about the show’s entire situation and how it’s conveyed by the primary characters that is extremely refreshing to me.

Over the last few days I have had the interesting opportunity to venture on to some conservatively based blogs that have linked to the website (yes, that’s one of the finer features of Mint).

First, it’s always important to respect the political passions of others, unless, of course, they venture into a realm in which outright intolerance is espoused. When it comes to various conservative blogs, the intelligence of the author is obvious, and while I might disagree with some of their positions, the way in which they convey their convictions is not to be overlooked or simply discounted because of disagreement. I should also point out that there are liberally based blogs that are just as guilty of the sorts of unintelligent practices that many conservative blogs are, so it’s not as if they have a monopoly on producing the ever popular response of me holding my head in my hands in absolute bewilderment.

That said; there is a bizarre trend that I have noticed on numerous Canadian conservative blogs that, I must admit, confuses me, and it has to do with the American Civil Liberties Union.

First, the ACLU has no bearing on the political landscape of this country. Thus, railing against it seems rather bizarre. Unlike the current US administration, whose policies do have a significant impact on a global scale, the ACLU is a national organization that deals with issues regarding American civil liberties.

Formed in 1920, the ACLU’s purpose is to defend the civil liberties of Americans as ensured by the Constitution of the United States. Since its inception, it has, through legal means, brought about significant evolutionary changes in the practice of Constitutional law. One of the most significant cases in its history was Brown v. Board of Education, which ultimately led to the desegregation of public schools in the United States.

While there are those that ignorantly attack the ACLU, it should never be overlooked that its entire purpose is to work to ensure the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, of course, certain areas that are controversial with regards to the groups positions, such as their opposition to government funded displays of religious symbols on public property, the equality of rights for gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual individuals, prayer in public schools, reproductive rights, and so forth.

To some, such positions may seem ‘crazy’, but the truth is that the ACLU’s goal is to ensure that the freedoms ensured by the Constitution, not the historical implications of American society, such as it being thought of as a Christian nation, are of the highest import.

That said; there are some positions held by the ACLU that I disagree with, but that does not alter the fact that the organization’s overall purpose is immensely crucial. We live in a day and age in which the Constitution’s authority has been usurped by members of the current administration, and that is a reality, no matter foreign wars, that should alarm anyone that believes in the sanctity of governing documents that exist to ensure the protection of civil liberties above all other intrusions.

In short, to say that the ACLU must be stopped says something about ones views regarding the protection of liberties, not to mention those landmark events in US history in which the ACLU was involved that resulted in the production of just equality. If the ACLU ‘must be stopped’, then one must ask if everything they have done in the past is also suspect, including the ACLU’s role in the US Civil Rights movement.

Childish Monikers And Sensationalist Political Blogging

I have no idea when the term ‘Moonbat’ was first employed or by whom. I also have no idea as to when similar terms regarding conservatively minded individuals were first employed. In truth, the employment of any of them is equally unintelligent and juvenile.

When it comes to blogging, mudslinging is a popular pastime, and one that is engaged in largely because the ability to form cogent arguments is beyond the scope of those engaging in it. Throw in a few inflammatory lines and a few links, maybe a picture, and you’re off to the races.

Of course, that practice is universal in the blogosphere, and absolutely not limited to a single group. In truth, when it comes to blogging on a daily basis, it is quite difficult to write in-depth entries that delve into every complexity regarding a particular topic. That is, thank God, why books still exist.

When it comes to geopolitics, fluidity obviously plays a significant role in how one approaches blogging about current events. But that does not mean that the inclusion of some intelligent basis for an entry should be disregarded in favour of lowbrow posts that are devoid of, at the very least, archival relations that present at least some semblance of an intelligent platform of opinion.

It is, in truth, hard to take anyone seriously whose blog is replete with moronic politically based adverts that do not offer their readership anything other than adolescent jabs. Even worse, when it is clear that their understanding of a subject is so limited that you feel embarrassed for them.

Unfortunately, that is the reality of the political blogosphere. In truth, it’s home to far more ‘instapundits’ than it is those that actually take the time to offer well thought out entries on a daily basis.