WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies conclude in a draft report that Afghanistan is in a downward spiral and they doubt whether the Kabul government can stem the Taliban’s rise, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

The classified report says corruption inside President Hamid Karzai’s government and an increase in attacks by militants operating from Pakistan have accelerated the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan, the Times said, citing U.S. officials familiar with the document.

Asked to comment on the intelligence report, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she had not seen it herself…….

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4985QW20081009

A pesar de tantas dificultades, América Latina está enrumbándose cada día, y con más fuerza, hacia el nuevo destino que sepultará su condición de “patio trasero” de los Estados Unidos, esa que ha tenido que soportar durante casi dos siglos pero sin dejar de luchar. Su marcha es percibida por todos los países a excepción del Gran Patrón que se aferra al pasado y no quiere ver los cambios, ni escuchar las voces prudentes de sus pocos sabios.

Por eso sonaban ridículas las amenazas de Condoleezza Rice a los rusos que mandaron dos aviones de guerra y una escuadra de buques a Venezuela para maniobras conjuntas. Rice dijo que “los rusos deben tener mucho cuidado en el hemisferio donde nosotros tenemos una poderosa fuerza militar”. Algunos miembros de la Cámara de Representantes fueron inclusive más lejos y presentaron una “resolución de condena a la expedición rusa que violaba la Doctrina de Monroe”. Es decir, siguen creyendo en lo que dijo el quinto presidente James Monroe en 1823: “América es exclusivamente para los norteamericanos”.

Hace un tiempo esta declaración hubiera asustado a la América Latina, pero ahora causó una sonrisa. Fue el presidente ecuatoriano Rafael Correa quien le contestó a Rice y le dijo: “si la 5ª Flota norteamericana está en América Latina ¿porqué la flota rusa no puede estar también? Ecuador está dispuesto a darles la bienvenida”. El Departamento de Estado quedó mudo. Sabían que esto iba a pasar pero no esperaban que fuera tan pronto. El documento “Global Trends 2025”, que fue entregado en 2002 al presidente George Bush por el Consejo Nacional de Inteligencia pronosticaba que “el dominio estadounidense en el hemisferio occidental se reducirá drásticamente, produciéndose la erosión de la supremacía norteamericana en las esferas de política, economía y cultura”.

En los tiempos del internet, hasta los sucesos geopolíticos sufren cambios acelerados. Y Estados Unidos, debilitado por dos guerras sin fin y sacudido por la bancarrota financiera, ya no tiene ni fuerzas, ni recursos para poner “orden en su patio trasero” que busca su propio camino hacia la prosperidad, sin la tutela del Gran Patrón.

No sólo está adquiriendo fuerza la formación de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR) —la que hizo fracasar un golpe fascista en Bolivia y de paso tranquilizó a los separatistas en Ecuador y Venezuela—, sino también, el Banco del Alba y el Banco del Sur están en marcha para solventar la integración política, económica y militar de América Latina. La mayoría de los países latinoamericanos, a excepción de Colombia, México y el Perú, sacó a tiempo sus reservas financieras del Tesoro norteamericano. Entonces hay recursos para invertir. A la vez, los chinos, rusos e hindúes están ansiosos de invertir en América Latina.

Contrario al modelo neoliberal, Latinoamérica debe orientar su crecimiento económico hacia adentro, y regulada por el Estado, instituciones o sociedad. Solamente así se podrá redistribuir mejor la riqueza y salir del subdesarrollo. Se está viviendo, como dijo Rafael Correa, “no cambios en la época sino cambios de la época”.

http://lastresyuncuarto.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/vicky-pelaezel-gran-patron-pierde-su-patio-trasero/

From CNN

 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday the road for the U.S. in Iraq has been "harder, longer, and more difficult than I personally imagined" and warned that despite some recent progress, success in Iraq is "not a sure thing."

I a Republican think McCain's choice for VP shows his lack of care towards IQ, experience, and basic knowledge tells me that he thinks all women should just be cute and fluffy and sit behind him. If McCain REALLY wanted to choose a valid woman for VP he had many better to choose from one comes to mind, Ms C Rice. He was not interested in choosing a woman that would represent women. He was only interested in choosing a woman that men would vote for if those men were thinking with the wrong head.

Está em dúvida sobre essa afirmação?

É só ver o vídeo abaixo e tirar a sua conclusão divertida:

Who?! 

Valeu!

Barack Obama

No iPod toca: Sinner – Judas Priest

O tempo lá fora é de: bem agradável.

The Lebanese army on Friday was reportedly preparing a "massive operation" against the northern Palestinian refugee camp of Baddawi similar to the offensive launched against Nahr al-Bared last summer. The German news agency DPA, citing a Lebanese security source, said security forces would likely kick off a massive offensive against Badawwi if investigation proved that those responsible for the recent bombing attacks against the Lebanese army had took refuge in the shantytown with the protection of Salafi groups aligned with Fatah al-Islam extremists.

What would happen if the culprits were blamed? A re-reading of Seymour Hersh's "The Redirection" wouldn't hurt:

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”)...

The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”

American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda....

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said....

In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”

This article was published on March 5, 2007. The war on Nahr el Bared broke out two months later. I have highlighted the key players' names in bold in the above-quoted paragraphs from Hersh's article. Notice, especially, Crooke's comments: who was it who paid Fatah al Islam? Possibly still pays Fatah al Islam? Who let them into the country, much of the time with their weapons? Who let them in and out of Palestinian refugee camps like Ein el Helweh and Nahr el Bared for which one needs a Lebanese army permit to enter? Who let them move from one area of Lebanon to the next with their weapons, through Lebanese army checkpoints? Why is it that Hariri bailed and then paid these militants?

These are questions that must be answered. These are questions that would lead one to try those whose names I emphasized above in the International Criminal Court. These are questions that I'm sure neither Palin nor Biden could answer. But Americans should answer, most notably Cheney, and in a framework of international law. The U.S. is largely complicit, if not responsible for, what happened in Nahr el Bared.

Neither could they answer about the Americans who seem to think that it is okay to invade and bomb Pakistan. Yesterday another American strike in northern Pakistan murdered at least 12 people. At the same time that Biden is mouthing off ridiculous claims of Pakistan's nuclear weapons as a threat to the state of Israel (of course, Fisk reminds us in the article below that no one ever mentions Israel's nuclear arsenal--which is more taboo the word Palestinian or Israel's nuclear weaponry?) the U.S. is busy making a nuclear weapons deal with India. Who is it who is the real threat to the region? Who is selling, making, using weapons of mass destruction and actually murdering innocent civilians every day? The Orwellian nature of this world is mind boggling.

As if things couldn't get any scarier, it seems that there are people advocating for furthering the process of making the Zionist state America's 51st state:

Without U.S. consent, says Ephraim Kam, deputy head of the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, it is highly unlikely that Israel would carry out an attack. But, he adds, if the U.S. does not give Israel the green light, then they need to offer an alternative.

"Some have mentioned the possibility of a (U.S.-Israel) defence treaty," he told IPS. "We need a clear-cut statement saying that any nuclear attack on Israel will be considered an attack on the U.S. That America would respond with nuclear weapons against Iran. This would be an important deterrent."

God help us if that happens. I can only imagine how it would be extended out to other contexts, for instance Israel's next invasion of Lebanon.

But the U.S. has found new ways to meddle in Palestine. In Gaza they are now actively aiding the Israeli Terrorist Forces in military operations:

US soldiers are aiding Egyptian officials in the search for illegal smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, according to a report published by a major Israeli newspaper on Thursday.

Hebrew daily Yediot Ahronot said Thursday that American soldiers-operating under the guise of civilian contractors-discovered 42 tunnels under Rafah over the past month.

US forces found the tunnels with advanced American technology, reported to be gradiometry, which measures deviations in the Earth's gravitational forces to detect underground voids, coupled with ground-penetrating radar and seismic techniques. They have also received help from other engineering experts, the paper reported. The tunnels were supposedly used for smuggling arms into the Gaza Strip.

There is an interesting news story on Al Jazeera this morning showing these tunnels and what they are mostly used for: basic household necessities that people in Gaza have no access to be cause of the siege:

Where does all of this meddling begin, you might ask. For the U.S. often with USAID, which is why its history was tied to the CIA. Rania reminds us of its recent removal from Bolivia because Morales has integrity as well as what USAID is up to in Africa and Lebanon. But this interference on the part of USAID and its history of participating in helping to destabilize countries and overthrow governments is why taking money or accepting services from USAID is never a good idea. This is why one news item today is particularly disturbing:

A 50 million US dollar program will see the water and sanitation infrastructure of the West Bank and Gaza expanded, repaired and rehabilitated over five years. The project will be administered by the American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA) and funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Yes, there is a serious water problem in Palestine. But this is due to Israel's consistent theft of Palestinian water sources as well as its complete lack of respect for human health and the environment when it comes to what its illegal settlements do with its water. I posted a link to this piece the other day, but Mitri I. Musleh's article is worth reposting along with its powerful title: "How do you explain to a Palestinian child he must ration his drinking water so an Israeli can swim?"

How do you explain to a young Palestinian that his father is being kept in Israeli jail because he was born Palestinian? How do you explain to a young Palestinian that his sibling was shot because he or she wanted to look out of the window? How do you explain to a young Palestinian that he has to ration his drinking water so an Israeli youngster can swim? How do you explain to a young Palestinian that all of the countries in the world are against you because you keep saying no to occupation, corruption and imperialism?

These are important questions that must be answered. That get at the root of the problem, if answered. Americans would not rather ask these questions. Nor would they like to know the answers. Because to do so means looking at the root cause of the situation and that would necessitate a real solution like the right of return for all Palestinian refugees under UN Resolution 194. Instead, with the increase of USAID here supposedly coming to help with Palestinian water issues, I expect that there will be more meddling. There is supposed to be an election here in Palestine in January. Wait and see just what USAID's role will be in that one.

Si buscáis en un buscador de internet marruecos, mohamed vi, Sáhara Occidental, no tardaréis en encontrar las noticias que publico en este blog. Muchos me acusan de manipular las informaciones pero todas están ahí. Normal que se avergüencen de cómo es su país realmente: a mí, también me avergonzaría. Buscad los nombres de Mohamed Erraji, Zahra Budkur y tantos otros y veréis qué es lo que sucede realmente en marruecos...

Durante muchos muchos años, pasara lo que pasara en marruecos rara vez llegaba aquí. Y hoy en día no ha cambiado mucho y es complicado encontrar este tipo de noticias sobre marruecos si no es investigando un poco o interesándose sobre el tema. Los medios de comunicación españoles suelen ser reticentes a publicar determinadas noticias sobre "nuestro país amigo" del sur (por ejemplo las masacres de Sidi Ifni). Durante muchos años nos hemos indignado con la masacre de palestinos en Oriente Medio, hemos salido a la calle en contra de la ocupación de Irak ... pero pocos salimos a las manifestaciones en favor del pueblo saharaui. Hemos visto con horror los resultados de los genocidios de Ruanda, Bosnia, Darfur... pero miramos con mucha más indiferencia el genocidio del pueblo saharaui. El genocidio que se ha mantenido desde la Marcha Verde hasta nuestros días.

Es fácil encontrar publicaciones, noticias, libros, películas... etc sobre Ruanda, Tibet, Darfur o Bosnia pero por qué el mundo no habla del genocidio saharaui? Por qué nadie habla sobre los bombardeos de Um Draiga con fósforo blanco y napalm sobre los que hasta ese momento eran tan españoles como yo? Por qué hay noticias casi diarias sobre Palestina y no sobre las torturas que sufre a diario el pueblo saharaui en los territorios ocupados? Los saharauis eran españoles hasta 1976 y de un día para otro dejaron de serlo. Permitiríamos esa misma situación con ceutíes y melillenses? Espero que no.

El gobierno español se ha vendido a los invasores. Son los que tienen más dinero y más medios y han pagado bien por ese apoyo. No es difícil ver la gran relación que tiene nuestro gobernante o nuestro ministro de asuntos exteriores con la cúpula del régimen marroquí. Y la estupenda relación entre nuestro rey y el súltan marroquí? Todos los gobiernos españoles en democracia sin excepción han vendido armas al invasor del sur mientras más o menos apoyaban la causa saharaui. La gran novedad de este gobierno es que sigue vendiendo armas a marruecos y ha dejado de apoyar la causa saharaui. Qué es eso de apoyar el plan marroquí de autonomía? Qué autonomía se puede tener en un país donde los problemas se resuelven a palos, puñetazos, patadas, violaciones, desapariciones y muerte? Esa es la famosa Alianza de Civilizaciones que pretende Zapatero?

Con qué nos paga marruecos? Con añejas e infundadas reivindicaciones sobre Ceuta y Melilla, con una inundación de droga en el continente europeo y por supuesto con ningunear a nuestro presidente y a nuestro gobierno. Cuando llegó Zapatero en la última visita a marruecos fue recibido con una minúscula bandera española... Bueno, por lo menos fue recibido por el sultán, quien ni se molestó en recibir a Condoleeza Rice. Estaría practicando ski acuático, que le gusta más que intentar sacar a su país del subdesarrollo. También nos paga con agresiones a policías en territorio marroquí. Pero bueno, que vamos a esperar de un sultanato que tiene como gran figura a alguien como Yahya Yahya, que además es presidente de la comisión de amistad de los senados de España y marruecos?

Desde luego, ningún país árabe es modelo en derechos humanos pero lo que ocurre en marruecos tiene pocos equivalentes en el mundo. Que Estados Unidos no levante la voz, lo comprendo. Marruecos se ha vendido a Estados Unidos y uno de los precios pagados es una base estadounidense en su territorio (Tan Tan). Pero nosotros, que una vez más somos los más tontos, qué nos llevamos de marruecos? Venta de armas? Condiciones leoninas para pescar en aguas que no son marroquíes? Todo eso vale el apoyo a un régimen feudal que viola a diario los derechos humanos?

Zapatero no ha abandonado al pueblo saharaui. Zapatero ha vendido al pueblo saharaui, decepcionando a parte de su electorado. España, como antigua potencia colonial (el Sáhara Occidental es un territorio pendiente de descolonización) tiene la obligación moral, histórica y política de defender simplemente lo que tantas y tantas resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU han repetido: el derecho incuestionable del pueblo saharaui a decidir su futuro. Esto no se puede vender a cambio de lo que haya obtenido España de marruecos por su cambio de postura. El pueblo saharaui vale millones de veces más que armas e intereses económicos.

Los españoles a los que nos interesa el tema, tenemos que presionar al gobierno para que cambie de postura como debe. Podemos y debemos hacer escritos, acudir a manifestaciones y hacer un boicot a marruecos. No comprar sus productos ni ir de vacaciones al sultanato bananero para no dar divisas al sultán. Lo que hace el sultán con ellas no es desarrollar su país. Prefiere enriquecerse, mantener una guerra y una ocupación ilegal y masacrar a todo el que no piense como él, en su país o en el Sáhara ocupado.

A los que no les interesa el tema, simplemente que sepan lo que pasa en marruecos. Que sepan como es su sultán, las torturas a estudiantes marroquíes y saharauis, las violaciones a hombres y mujeres en marruecos y en el Sáhara Occidental, las muertes, las desapariciones, los presos políticos, la falta de libertades... etc. A todos los que no están a favor de la causa saharaui o les de igual el tema, les pediría que no sean hipócritas y que no se lleven las manos a la cabeza cuando vean las atrocidades que se cometen en otras partes del mundo. No es bueno tener opiniones diferentes en cuanto a violaciones de derechos humanos dependiendo del lugar donde se cometan. Si se apoya el genocidio saharaui se debería apoyar el genocidio de Darfur, las matanzas de Bosnia y Croacia, la invasión y genocidio en Tibet... etc.

Basta ya de hipocresía. Que toda la sociedad española sepa qué pasa en marruecos y que se deje de silenciar las noticias que llegan de ahí. Que actúe quien considere que lo tenga que hacer y quien no quiera hacer nada, que al menos no sea hipócrita. O se defienden los derechos humanos o no. Sea en marruecos o no.

George W. Bush is sitting in the Oval Office playing with a slinky, right? In comes Condeleeza Rice. George goes "What's cookin' good lookin'?" She says "George, we have all of these used printer cartridges. What should we do with them?" The camera zooms in on George W.'s face and he says "I have the perfect plan" and harrowing music plays in the background. But then he drops his slinky and the camera zooms back out as he clumsily picks it up, but then it zooms back in and he repeats "...the perfect plan" with the same harrowing music playing in the background.

We cut to Osama Bin Laden sitting in a tent looking at dirty magazines (because what else do you have to do when you're in hiding?) All of a sudden he hears jets and starts running in circles and yelling indecipherable Afghani stuff. Soon, cartridges are poking holes through his tent, exploding in blazes of cyan, magenta, and yellow. It stops after about 15 seconds, and Osama is sitting in the fetal position, bewildered and confused, but unhurt.

Next we cut to a split screen between G.W. and Osama on the phone. "He he, I got you good" says GW. Osama goes, "Oh yeah! I was all like 'Holy crap, they know exactly where I am.' Bush goes, "Yeah, and we did, hahaha". Osama says "Lucky for me it wasn't a cruise missile. Am I right? Am I right?" At this point the camera shifts over to GW as he's rolling on the ground in hysterical laughter. Then after he's contained himself he goes, "Printer cartridges, bet you didn't see that coming... Osama?... OBL?... you there?" At this point the camera goes back to split screen to find Osama gone and the phone of the hook.

Cut to 25 years later with GW and John Kerry sitting in a retirement home. Bush is yelling "It was the greatest military victory since D-Day!" Kerry yells back "All you did was get ink all over his dirty magazines! He got away and we never saw him again! But he planned numerous more terrorist attacks!" Bush yells back, "IT WAS A STRATEGERIC VICTORY!"

for more on the topic, including the hypocrisy of the u.s government (a bit old, but not dated):

Double standard on divestment
Josh Reubner, Institute for Middle East Understanding, 11 January 2008

Today, two movements for the promotion of human rights in Sudan and Palestine seek to emulate the successful role played by boycotts, divestment and sanctions in achieving democracy and equality in South Africa. The two movements, however, have received radically different receptions on Capitol Hill. This double standard testifies to Washington's selectivity when it comes to promoting human rights around the globe and its tendency to overlook the faults of its allies while using human rights as a pretext to punish its adversaries.

On 31 December, US President George W. Bush signed into law the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, which was passed unanimously by Congress earlier in the month. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, authorizes state and local governments to divest their holdings from corporations that profit from dealings with the Sudanese government and immunizes mutual fund managers from lawsuits for doing the same.

The practical impact of this legislation, however, is doubtful. US corporate investment in Sudan is minimal due to a host of sanctions and the connection between US corporate profits and human rights abuses committed by the Sudanese government or the Janjaweed militia is indirect at best. Nevertheless, any encouragement for divesting from corporations that profit from human rights abuses is a welcome step towards increasing corporate accountability.

If Congress believes that institutions should divest from corporations that profit from human rights abuses in one country, then morality and logic dictate that US policy should promote divestment from any corporation that profits from human rights abuses anywhere in the world.

The dictates of politics, however, intrude on the ability of Members of Congress to act in an ethically consistent fashion when it comes to Israel and the human rights abuses it inflicts daily on millions of Palestinian civilians living under its forty-year military occupation and siege of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

In the case of Israel, the link between US policy, human rights violations, and corporate profiteering is much more direct and tangible than in Sudan. Israel is the largest recipient of US military aid. A memorandum of understanding signed in August between the two countries promised to increase US military aid to Israel by 25 percent per year, totaling $30 billion over the next decade. The Pentagon then takes this taxpayer money and fills Israel's shopping cart with goodies from US corporations: Caterpillar bulldozers for the demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of ten of thousands of olive trees; advanced communications gear from Motorola to facilitate Israel's myriad forms of travel restrictions and collective punishment of Palestinian civilians; and Lockheed Martin F-16's and Boeing F-15's to demolish Palestinian civilian infrastructure and injure and kill civilians.

Given that Israel repeatedly violates the terms of the US Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits US weapons from being used in an offensive manner or against civilians, and that US corporations are profiting handsomely from its violations of Palestinian human rights, one could reasonably expect that Capitol Hill would be at least as adamant, if not more, in encouraging divestment from these corporations as well as being supportive of boycotts to protest these violations.

Not so. In fact, just the opposite is true. Last year the House of Representatives voted 414-0 to condemn British institutions for voting to engage in boycott campaigns against Israeli institutions and products to protest Israel's human rights abuses.

Nor did Senator Dodd -- the champion of divestment from Sudan -- have anything to say about US corporate profiteering from Israel's human rights abuses in a recent "Dear Colleague" letter addressed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In it, Dodd argues for sustained US engagement after last month's Annapolis conference and enumerates confidence-building measures that Israelis and Palestinians should take to bolster recently launched negotiations.

Dodd's well-intentioned letter would be greatly strengthened if he and other Members of Congress would apply the same principles that govern their encouragement of divestment from Sudan towards ending US taxpayer subsidies to corporations that profiteer from Israel's human rights abuses of Palestinians.

Josh Ruebner is the Grassroots Advocacy Coordinator for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

Listen To The Entire Show Here

US Readies Largest Bailout to Date in Financial Crisis

Economy Dominates Obama, McCain Campaigning

83 Wall Street Lobbyists Among McCain Aides, Donors

Palin’s Husband Rejects Subpoena in Trooper Firing Probe

Nader on Ballot in 45 States, D.C.

Standoff on Troop, Contractor Immunity Jeopardizes US-Iraq Agreement

Soldier Jailed for 7 Months in Iraq Prisoner Shootings

2 US Troops Killed by Fellow Service member

Rice Rejects Hypocrisy Allegations in Russia Criticism

Israeli Settlers Attack Palestinian Groves, Property

States: Pentagon Retaliating for Pollution Clean-Up Calls

Sen. Dodd Protested for Plan Colombia Support

Yesterday's linkage:

Crooks and Liars report on a really nice sized rally of Alaska women who do not support Sarah Palin.

Feministe add to the growing amount of scary information on Sarah Palin's administration in Wasilla Alaska saying "no" to paying for rape kits.

The blogger at kmareka.com speculates that the reason Wasilla and Palin charged rape victims for their own rape kits may have been an insidious attempt to discourage getting the kits done so that the women would not have access to emergency contraception.

MOMocrats compare the educational history of the major presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Christian Liberal elaborates the differences between a nation using its power wisely versus using force.

Natalia Antonova has a snark filled post about the cluelessness of McCain and Palin.

Latoya at Racialicious compares Sarah Palin and Condoleeza Rice in a respectful but critical manner. I enjoyed this post!

Reappropriate has a post about the Republican party's sudden and hypocritical "embrace" of feminism.

Season of the Bitch critiques Saturday Night Live's sketch with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin.

Speaking Out has an awful story about a comatose woman who was raped by her husband.

Today's Linkage:

Marcella at abyss2hope writes about how the issue of rape is affecting an Oregon senate race.

Crooks and Liars reported on a vicious attack against the women who were part of the Alaska women's rally against Sarah Palin. A conservative talk radio host called the women "maggots" and gave the women's home addresses over the air.

Feministe has a fun and interesting post about how to make feminist ideas more accessible to everyone.

Hear Me Roar posts comments from actress Megan Fox slamming the way Disney treats their teenage starlets.

MOMocrats wonder aloud if the Bush Administration may not come with an October Surprise in the form of Osama bin Laden.

Rachel of Rachel's Tavern links to an essay examining white priviledge through the lens of the media coverage of the Palin family.

Racialicious documents a racist attack against Barack Obama that is trying to be passed off as political satire. *reaches for barf-bag*

Season of the Bitch has an interesting quote about feminists who attack feminine women and lipstick feminists.

Speaking Out talks about the terrible treatment of trafficked teenage girls in North Texas.

Cara at The Curvature has an action alert and information on Troy Davis, a man who is facing the death penalty and for whom there is doubt about his actual guilt.

White Trash Academic has a couple interesting links on higher education, including some not so surprising shenanigans from Liberty University.

Renee from Womanist Musings writes about the silencing white feminists do to women of color.

Sarah Palin è l’ultimo e più eclatante caso di Right Women for the job, sostiene la Perkins, giocando sul doppio significato di donna giusta per il posto e donna di destra.

C’è poco da fare: la Palin rappresenta tutto quanto una femminista degli anni 70 può odiare più dal profondo, memore dell’adagio di Simone De Beauvoir che le donne sono spesso le peggiori nemiche delle donne. La governatrice dell’Alaska è antiabortista, iperfamilista, clericale, tradizionalista e chi più ne ha più ne metta.

Certo. I casi selezionati dalla abile polemista corroborano la sua provocazione: a destra, Condoleeza Rice e Angela Merkel; a sinistra, la Perkins non cita il caso di politici di spicco donne e femministe, come la presidente finlandese Tarja Halonen. Mentre ricorda solo famose “trombate” come Hillary Clinton e Ségolène Royal, ma tant’è: ed un punto dolente è colto con sottile acume dalla giornalista del Guardian. Le donne, a destra, non devono esibire più il “patentino di femministe” per essere elette.

Mentre le politiche di destra apertamente si mostrano poco interessate ai temi cari al femminismo e vincono, quelle di sinistra fanno delle gender politics un punto fermo della loro agenda: e vengono trombate.
La polemica acquista ancora più spessore con riferimento agli States ed alla loro cultura politica comunitaria.
La Rice – pur essendo stata nominata e non eletta – non ne ha mai fatto una bandiera del suo essere nera e donna. La Clinton, invece, nelle primarie, cercava di catalizzare il voto femminile; mentre ora la Palin riscuote il massimo dei consensi (ma guarda un po!) proprio fra i maschi maturi, bianchi e conservatori.
Gli studi lo hanno dimostrato: prima del femminismo, erano le donne a scegliere testardamente politici, avvocati e medici maschi, infischiandosene di migliorare la condizione della Donna nella società.
Il femminismo, entrato nella cultura pop, ha cambiato un po’ le cose. Ma ora la situazione sta, forse, trasformandosi nuovamente. Anche in Italia.
Certo: da noi Stefania Prestigiacomo ha spesso cercato un consenso bipartisan su piattaforme femministe. Ma qualora la cultura femminista – anche in una versione edulcorata, leggera e deradicalizzata – fosse stata ancora patrimonio civico, credete sarebbe stato possibile incardinare nel ministero delle pari opportunità un’ex-soubrette?

(pubblicato su Notizie Verdi)

Social Bookmarks:

September 14, 2008

For Immediate Release

According to several recent reports of an interview with the Ha'aretz newspaper (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020471.html), Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas is quoted as indicating that he is willing to negotiate away the rights of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands of origin. This outrageous statement, which has not been denied to date, comes on the heels of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's latest visit and attempt to squeeze a 'peace agreement' from both the PA and 'Israel'.

ACTION REQUESTED

In keeping with the brief scenario outlined in the 6th issue of Until Return http://www.al-awda.org/until-return/danger.html, Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, is calling on all its members, supporters, and all people of conscience to respond to the current increased attempts to 'negotiate' away the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and lands of origin.

Please write to President Mahmoud Abbas c/o of the PLO Office in Washington, D.C. and The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations

TALKING POINTS

*President Mahmud Abbas' statement as reported in the Ha'aretz interview is at complete variance with the Palestinian people's inalienable, natural, legal, historical, individual and collective right to return to their homes and lands of origin, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Law and UN Resolutions 194 and 3236.

*According to international law, no agreement, negotiations or parties which purport to trade away the right to return or any other inalienable rights can have any legal basis and cannot bind or compel the Palestinian people to end the struggle for the fulfillment of their rights.

*Any attempt to abrogate the rights of Palestinian refugees would set a disastrous precedent in international human rights law. It would provide a clear signal that any invaders who expel civilians from their homes, steal their property, and prevent them from returning for long enough can expect to have their illegal territorial conquests blessed with international legitimacy.

*Implementation of the right to return as spelled out in UN resolutions is the core to a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

*Mr. Mahmoud Abbas should resign as president of the PA and chairman of the PLO forthwith. His statement as reported in the Ha'aretz, and which he has not denied to date, is outrageous and disregards the rights of 7.2 million Palestinians living in forced exile.

Send Letters to:

*PA President Mahmoud Abbas
c/o PLO Office in Washington, D.C.
1320 18th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Email: Plomission1[at]aol.com
Email: Palmission[at]aol.com
Tel: (202) 974 6360
Fax: (202) 974 6278

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations
115 East 65th Street
New York, NY 10021
Email: palestine[at]un.int
Tel: (212) 288-8500
Fax: (212) 517-2377

Please cc your correspondence to: alerts[at]al-awda.org

Countries that the U.S. has spent decades on intervening in, creating coups, training militias to fight in, creating massacres if not genocides in have basically had a reprieve since September 11th given that the U.S. fixated its energies on Western Asia instead. Thus, we've seen a revival of the left in places like Bolivia and Venezuela and solidarity among the political left. And we've also seen the increasing freedom from U.S.-backed dictatorships and coups in the region, all of which always included large-scale disappearances, massacres, and of course state-sponsored terrorism:

Former military dictator Jorge Rafael Videla and 16 other military leaders in Argentina will be prosecuted on charges of conspiring to kidnap and kill political activists in a scheme known as Plan Condor, developed by Henry Kissinger and George Bush Sr., head of the CIA at the time. Dictators in Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina killed opponents in the 1970s and 80s under the plan, also known as Operation Condor. The United States and Latin American military governments developed Operation Condor as a a transnational, state-sponsored terrorist coalition among the militaries of South America. In Argentina alone some 30,000 people were disappeared as result, leaving loved ones to seek justice decades later.

Instead of solidarity aligned with U.S.-backed dictators, it seems there is real solidarity not only between Venezuela and Bolivia, but also Honduras, El Salvador, Argentina, and Brazil. I'm sure those watching the news or reading the newspaper in the U.S. are horrified by the idea that these countries would kick out their U.S. ambassadors. But here is a perfect example for the world to examine the dangers of soft power and the ways in which the U.S. always uses "aid" as a means to corrupt and control other countries (this is why many smart Palestinians and Lebanese refused to have anything to do with USAID projects):

In the midst of the violence and property destruction, Bolivian president Evo Morales declared U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg "persona non grata" and asked him to be expelled, suggesting he is aiding organizations behind the violence and sabotage. Despite numerous requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. has not turned over all the names of recipient organizations of USAID funds. Bolivia is a major recipient of USAID money, with millions of dollars sent to groups there. The U.S. also funds groups in Bolivia through the National Endowment for Democracy and related organizations.

"USAID is not supposed to be a clandestine organization, but nevertheless the U.S. government refuses to divulge which groups in Bolivia are supported with U.S. tax dollars," Weisbrot said. "By providing clandestine aid to groups that are almost certainly in the opposition, it gives the impression that the U.S. is contributing to efforts to destabilize the Bolivian government."

The U.S. Embassy in Bolivia has been implicated in a number of events that suggest it may be seeking to undermine Morales' government. In February of this year it was revealed that the Embassy had repeatedly asked Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright Scholar to spy on people inside Bolivia. USAID has an "Office of Transition Initiatives" operating in Bolivia, funneling millions of dollars of training and support to right-wing opposition regional governments and movements.

Thus, there is a clear trajectory here of USAID as well as the Peace Corps and Fulbright alike being asked to or doing shady things for the U.S. government. It's not wonder that those of us who have had Fulbright scholarships, for instance, are often viewed with suspicion (and we should be!). And yet there is more--check this out on Goldberg, the former ambassador to Bolivia:

Goldberg is known by Bolivians and many in the policy world as "the Ambassador of Ethnic Cleansing" for his previous role as Special Assistant to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, one of the architects of the breakup of Yugoslavia. He also promoted the separation of Serbia and Montenegro, and helped foment conflict between Serbian and Albanian forces in Kosovo. It would seem that Goldberg has a particular knack for promoting racial and ethnic divisions, and that doing so has been central to his political career. Among Goldberg's closest friends are Croatian businessmen in Santa Cruz, who happen to be leaders of the opposition's "Nación Camba" movement and the local "Civic Committee," one of the main proponents of destabilization in Bolivia.

I'm sure that none of this gets reported in the American mainstream media. I can see it now: Morales is being portrayed as a leader belligerent to democracy and freedom. And if American troops were not already overextended they would surely have touched ground by now (or those trained in the School of the Americas would do the dirty work for them).

But here is what we can learn from this example of standing up to the U.S., standing up for justice. Because what they are standing up to is the usual divide and rule tactics that the U.S. and other imperial powers have always used and will continue to use. We can see parallels in Palestine with the Zionist state propping up Hamas in the early days and the Americans arming Fatah now; this is great for the U.S. and Israel: both of them think that it is far better and easier to have Palestinians killing themselves. It makes it easier for them to point at Palestinians and pretend like they can prove their racist claims.

But there is another precedent here, which I think is more pressing at the moment. As I read in the news today that Abbas may or may not be ready to sign an agreement selling most Palestinian refugees rights further down the river (as if that is possible), I cannot help but think that it would be such an amazing coup for the PA--or better yet reviving the old PLO, or just Palestinians around the world more generally--to just say no to such unjust compromises that only ever force Palestinians to submit to the Israelis while they never do anything or give anything; they only know how to take. Here is what is troubling me in particular:

Among the important points of this document is that Palestinians would give up the right of return for the Palestinian refugees who were dispossessed from their land in 1948 by the Jewish gangs.

On the other hand, statements Ahmad Qurie, the chief Palestinian negotiator and Dr. Sa’eb Ereikat, chair of the negotiations’ department who assured that no agreement has been reached are meant to absorb the expected rejection of such an agreement.

The document explains that only 15 to 20 thousand refugees will be allowed back to their land on a 10-year timetable, however, they are not allowed to return with their children and grand children. This means that people aged 60 – 80 would constitute the majority of the returnees.

Really, there are no words for the level of disgust and despair I feel over the ways in which these leaders sell out their people. I want to put them all on a plane and make them witness Chávez's example up close. We have so much to learn--especially from indigenous leaders like Morales who finally have taken their country back and are working hard to keep it for the people. Just for a counterpoint, here is how Americans still treat its indigenous population. Take a look at a Native American community from New Orleans and how it continues to be dispossessed by the state:

It is understandable why Americans would continue to call Oslo or the Road Map or Annapolis a "peace process," because the media is so horribly incompetent or racist or both in the U.S. Take this report from If Americans Knew.org: "Off the Charts: Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine The New York Times," which details precisely how skewed the reporting is, particularly when it comes to Palestinian deaths as compared to Israeli deaths. But this is not the only reason why Oslo has been an unending war that has accelerated Palestinian death and suffering in every possible way. Consider what Edward Said wrote about Oslo in Peace and its Discontents in 1996:

For the firs time in our history our leadership had simply given up on self-determination, Jerusalem, and the refugees, allowing them to become part of an undetermined set of 'final status negotiations.' For the first time in our recent past, we accepted the division of our people--whose unity we had fought for as a nation movement since 1948--into residents of the Occupied Territories and all the others, who happen today to constitute over 55 percent of the Palestinian population; they exist in another, lesser category not covered by the peace process. For the first time in the twentieth century, an anticolonial liberation movement had not only discarded its own considerable achievements but made an agreement to cooperate with a military occupation before that occupation had ended, and before even the government of Israel had admitted that it was in effect a government of military occupation. (xxix; emphasis mine)

Indeed many of the things that Said wrote in the 1990s turned about to be quite accurate premonitions. Consider this important comparison with Mandela and the ANC in South Africa:

The PLO will thus become Israel's enforcer, an unhappy prospect for most Palestinians. Interestingly, even after it won political recognition, the ANC always refused to supply the South African government with police officials until after power was shared, precisely in order to avoid appearing as the white government's enforcer. (12)

Re-reading Said's words the past few days has been a helpful reminder of several curious things to me. First, it is sobering to see cataloged all of the egregious violations Yasir Arafat participated in at the expense of his people--the most important and enduring one, unfortunately, has been his (and his predecessors) refusal to put the right of return at the top of the negotiating list. And yet when I see his face plastered about Palestine I always wonder: why? I mean, we're not in Jordan; one is not obligated to place photographs of Arafat everywhere. And fortunately there is enough variety that one can see various leaders, including PFLP leaders, around Palestine. But when he wholesale sold Palestinian rights down the river, why do people honor him and still have so much affection for him? It is really something that I have such difficulty grasping. So too is the subject of Bill Clinton. Many people in Palestine are under the delusion that somehow Clinton was good for them (by extension they believe any democrat will be helpful and thus want Barack Obama to win the election). But here is just one example from Said of what Clinton did with respect to Palestine:

...whenever he was challenged from the right, Clinton moved to the right. That was certainly the case in the Middle East, where he went along with everything the Israeli lobby--which effectively directs U.S. policy--has wanted. He changed the United States position on Israeli settlements, for example, no longer holding to the line taken by every other president before him, that the settlements were an obstacle to peace. He has made no comment about the concrete deterioration of Palestinian life as a result of Israeli military occupation policy. No president has been as Zionist as he. (114; emphasis mine)

And here is an example why all who were involved in Oslo--from whatever side--participated in something reprehensible, but especially those who sold their own people out and managed to dupe them in the process:

Because Palestinian leaders were concerned mainly about themselves, because so many Arab and Palestinian intellectuals (especially those who speak loftily of pragmatism, the New World Order, and "the peace process") have capitulated morally and intellectually, we find ourselves int he middle of peace negotiations that never raise the obvious and fundamental questions. Has Israel changed or is there still a basic conflict of interests between Arabs and Israelis? What does it mean to make peace with a state that is still the only country in the world with no internationally declared boundaries? What does it mean to make peace with a state that has declared itself the state of "the Jewish people wherever they are" and that is not the state of its citizens and inhabitants? And as [Israel] Shahak has so tirelessly shown, what does it mean to make peace with a state governed by profoundly ideological laws of a fundamentally religious cast, laws that make no secret of the fact that non-Jews are in every respect inferior to Jews? (130-131; emphasis mine)

It seems, for instance, so much has been sold out, including history--and one look at Palestinian textbooks and it is quite obvious how little Palestinian history people know here (contrary to Hilary Rodham Clinton and her illegal Israeli settler friends). On the danger of forgetting one's history, especially in the context of Oslo, Said has this to say:

The U.S. and Israeli line has it that all parties to the Palestinian-Zionist struggle must not dwell on the past since, as some liberal Israelis have put it, it has been a struggle between right and right. This of course is the biggest distortion of all and has been a central pillar of belief in the tactics of Peace Now and the so-called moderate Laborites. I fail to see how we are supposed to equate the "right" of a largely European people to come to Palestine, pretend it was empty of inhabitants, conquer it by force, and drive out 70 percent of its inhabitants, with the right of the native people of Palestine to resist these actions and try to remain on their land. It is a grotesque notion to suggest parity in such a situation and then also to ask the victims to forget about their past and plan to live together as inferior citizens with their conquerors. The proposition is especially galling since it comes from a movement that claims quite openly never to have forgotten its own history of persecution, and indeed allows itself every crime against the Palestinian people because it says it is living it he shadow of past persecutions. (132)

The above is an excellent series of examples of why Israel should be isolated as a pariah state and states should follow Lebanon's example and not normalize relations with them under any circumstances. It is also a reminder of how hypocritical Zionists are and it is also a great example of Jewish supremacy: it is very clear that when it comes to Jewish suffering that cannot be forgotten, but Palestinians (or anyone else for that matter--depending on whether or not it is run by the US Holocaust Museum first) should forget their past suffering.

But in fact Palestinians have the moral ground, they have the truth on their side (one of my favorite lines in Annemarie Jacir's new film The Salt of This Sea is when Soraya [Suheir Hammad] says "all we have is the truth"). And the truth bears out that there are many more reasons to mourn Oslo as the war process it has been. I spent the last couple of days trying to compile statistics on how many Palestinians have been murdered and massacred since 1993; how many have been assassinated; how many homes have been demolished; how many political prisoners have been kidnapped; how much land has been confiscated; how much illegal settlements have expanded. My statistics have been cobbled together as best I could given the fact that there are some years with no statistics available and sometimes they are grouped by first intifada and second intifada with little room to flesh out what happened in between (Oslo should also be mourned for the way it killed the first intifada).

Since 1993 there have been at least 5,267 Palestinians murdered by Israeli settlers and Israeli Terrorist Forces (ITF). Additionally, there have been 971 Palestinian children killed by the ITF and Israeli settlers since 2000. 3,706 Palestinian civilians have been killed by the ITF since September 2000 alone; there have been 36,033 related deaths and injuries due to the ITF (B'tselem; DCI; Palestine Monitor; Palestinian Centre for Human Rights)

Additionally, since 2000 at least 731 Palestinians have died as a result of ITF's practice of "targeted assassinations." (Palestinian Center for Human Rights)

Since 1993 there have been at least 39,460 Palestinians who have been held in administrative detention. Administrative detention refers to the detention of individuals without charge or trial, and is authorized by administrative order as opposed to judicial decree. At present there are approximately 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners, including 104 women and 375 children. Between 2001-2008 at least 8,805 children have been kidnapped and placed in ITF prisons or administrative detention centers. (Palestine Monitor; B'tselem; DCI)

Since 1993 in the West Bank at least 589 Palestinian homes have been demolished as a form of collective punishment for families who have family members accused of a "crime" by the ITF; since 2000 alone 2,958 Palestinian homes have been demolished in the Gaza Strip. From 2003-2008 at least 13,168 Palestinians have been rendered homeless as a result of ITF house demolitions. Additionally, in the West Bank since 1993 at least 1,307 Palestinian homes were demolished because the family did not have a building permit from the ITF. As a result at least 622 people were left homeless. In Jerusalem at least 1,180 Palestinian homes were demolished because the family did not have a building permit, which is nearly impossible to obtain for Palestinian families. In Jerusalem between 2004-2008 alone at least 1,135 Palestinians were rendered homeless as a result. (B'tselem; Palestinian Center for Human Rights)

Since 1993 at least 5,153 Palestinians from and living in Jerusalem have had their residency permits revoked meaning that they are no longer allowed inside Jerusalem, inside their own homes. (B'tselem)

Between 1993-2007 the illegal Israeli settlement population increased from 114,900 to 275,156. 76% of these illegal settlers live in 48 illegal settlements that are on the west side of the Apartheid Wall and the remaining live in the 74 illegal settlements lie to the east. Additionally, the West Bank houses 105 unauthorized illegal "outposts," which are temporary mobile trailer parks that are at the beginning stages of becoming new illegal settlements. (Passia)

The illegal settlements were in the news this last week in particular because they doubled in size last year:

The construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, seen as a major barrier to US-backed peace talks, has nearly doubled since 2007, an Israeli watchdog said Tuesday.

In a report published during the visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice the settlement watchdog Peace Now said settlement building in the first half of 2008 was double that in the same period last year.

But it is also massacres of the past, a recent past that includes the time since/during Oslo's so-called "peace process." One massacre happened in Jenin at the hands of the ITF:

A senior Palestinian, Nabil Shaath, accused Israel of carrying out summary executions and removing corpses in refrigerated trucks. He said close to 500 people had been killed. Israel says 70 Palestinian fighters died in the fighting. "The Israeli army took six days to complete its massacre in Jenin and six days to clean it up," Mr Shaath said.

Another massacre that happened in Khalil at the hands of an illegal Israeli settler:

In 1994 on Purim, Goldstein stormed a mosque and fired on praying Muslims in the West Bank city's Tomb of the Patriarchs - a shrine sacred to both Muslims and Jews.

Twenty-nine people died in the attack, and the angry crowd lynched Goldstein in retaliation.

Israeli extremists continue to pay homage at his grave in the nearby Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba, where a marble plaque reads: "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel."

Or consider this very recent news about Palestinian deaths at the hands of the ITF:

The death toll of Palestinians killed by Israelis has soared 100 percent since the U.S. sponsored November peace talks in Annapolis, according to Palestinian political leader Mustafa Barghouti.

The former Palestinian information minister and head of the Palestinian National Initiative political movement backed up his claim with data showing that the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed last year was the most unbalanced ever, at 40:1, up from 30:1 in 2006 and 4:1 from 2000-2005.

This is only a glimpse of what Oslo has had to offer. It is grim; it has been a long, debilitating war that has had many consequences that cannot even be accounted for in numbers. Most notably, the utter failure of those negotiating to deal with the right of return for Palestinian refugees. All of them. And reparations for those who choose not to return. But then again really negotiations are in appropriate. I mean, would the world have expected Jews to sit down and negotiate with the Nazis?

La jefa de la diplomacia norteamericana contaba el pasado domingo con encontrar una solución aceptable para las partes en conflicto, Marruecos y el Frente Polisario, señalando que «ya es hora de resolver este problema», lo que ha sido calificado por los observadores en
Marruecos como «un cambio de posición de EEUU sobre el conflicto del Sáhara Occidental».Estados Unidos de Norteamérica ha reafirmado que la propuesta marroquí no puede servir de base para reinstaurar la paz en la región, ha indicado el diplomático saharaui. Por otra parte, ha deseado que se reanuden las negociaciones directas con Marruecos supervisadas por la ONU antes que termine el presente año, añadiendo que en los próximos días se nombrará un nuevo representante personal del Secretario General de la ONU para el Sáhara Occidental como sustitución del diplomático holandés Peter Van Walsum, cuya misión terminó el pasado 21 de agosto.