The Dream Is Dead - the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet

The Dream Is Dead

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: December 12, 2007

WASHINGTON

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Maureen Dowd

The man crowned by Tommy Franks as “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet” just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet.
Doug Feith, the former Rummy gofer who drove the neocon plan to get us into Iraq, and then dawdled without a plan as Iraq crashed into chaos, was the headliner at a reunion meeting of the wooly-headed hawks Monday night at the American Enterprise Institute.
The room was packed as the former No. 3 at the Pentagon, previewing his upcoming book, “War and Decision,” conceded that the case could be made that “mistakes were made.” His former boss, Paul Wolfowitz, and the former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle sat supportively in the front row.
But he wasn’t self-flagellating. He was simply trying to put an egghead gloss on his Humpty Dumpty mishegoss.
“At the end of the day, here we are, and as of now there’s a reasonable chance that the country is going to remain united,” he said. Not quite the original boast of democracy cascading through the Middle East.
Feith also inanely noted that his personal view was that his de-Baathification policy — which created a huge, angry pool of unemployed men that fueled the insurgency — “was not basically a big error. It’s been criticized very severely. I think there actually was a lot of good thought that went into the de-Baathification policy.” It just spiralled out of hand, he said. Mistakes were made.
He thinks everything would have been fine if America had not lingered so long in Iraq. If only Paul Bremer and the generals had just turned Iraq over to the slippery con man Feith wanted to put in charge, Ahmad Chalabi.
Asked about getting tough with Iran and Syria, Feith offered this incandescent insight: “As we all know, the president said he’s The Decider. That actually is quite a profound point. The president is The Decider and the main thing he decides about is risk.”
He noted that in battles through American history, “the military fights better over time.” This from a guy who sent our military into Iraq without the right armor, the right force numbers or the right counterinsurgency training.
“A strategic alliance of the ousted Baathists and foreign jihadists was something that our intelligence community did not anticipate,” he said, continuing to spread the blame.
But the intelligence community didn’t miss it. The neocons tried to scrub out that sort of analysis, knowing it would make the war harder to sell.
Classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council warned that rogue elements of Saddam’s government could hook up with existing terrorist groups to wage guerrilla warfare.
In “Fiasco,” Tom Ricks wrote that Feith’s Pentagon office was dubbed the “black hole” of policy by generals watching him drop the ball.
“People working for Feith complained that he would spend hours tweaking their memos, carefully mulling minor points of grammar,” Ricks wrote. “A Joint Staff officer recalled angrily that at one point troops sat on a runway for hours, waiting to leave the United States on a mission, while he quibbled about commas in the deployment order.”
Jay Garner, America’s first viceroy in Iraq, deemed him “incredibly dangerous” and said his “electrons aren’t connected.”
Feith’s disdain for diplomacy and his credo that weakness invites aggression were shaped, Ricks reported, by personal history: “Like Wolfowitz, Feith came from a family devastated by the Holocaust. His father lost both parents, three brothers, and four sisters to the Nazis.”
Feith told Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker that “My family got wiped out by Hitler, and ... all this stuff about working things out — well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn’t make any sense to me. The kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car that declare that ‘War is not the answer,’ are they making a serious comment? What’s the answer to Pearl Harbor? What’s the answer to the Holocaust?”
What’s the answer to bin Laden? According to Feith, it was an attack on an unrelated dictator. He oversaw the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, whose mission was to amp up links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
It defies reason, but there are still some who think the chuckleheads who orchestrated the Iraq misadventure have wisdom to impart.
The Pentagon neocons dumped Condi Rice out of the loop. Yet, according to Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff, Condi has now offered Wolfie a job. It wasn’t enough that he trashed Iraq and the World Bank. (He’s still larking around town with Shaha, the sweetheart he gave the sweetheart deal to.)
Condi wants Wolfie to advise her on nuclear proliferation and W.M.D. as part of a State Department panel that has access to highly classified intelligence.
Once you’ve helped distort W.M.D. intelligence to trick the country into war, shouldn’t you be banned for life from ever having another top-level government post concerning W.M.D.?

Protesters abused for heckling Raymond Tanter Terrorist Financier

Doctor 'not guilty' for protecting anti-war protester
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
By: Dylan Wilkerson

Jury finds providing health care is not a crime

On Dec. 3, an Arbor Michigan jury found Dr. Catherine Wilkerson not guilty on both criminal counts she was facing. Dr. Wilkerson was charged with two counts of attempted obstruction/interference/assault of a police officer and a paramedic for assisting a victim of police brutality at a demonstration. It is a victory for protesters and their right to necessary medical assistance in the face of police violence.

The phony charges stemmed from an incident on Nov. 30, 2006 at the Michigan League in Ann Arbor where several

protesters where arrested for heckling Raymond Tanter. Tanter is a former national security advisor for Ronald Reagan and current Georgetown University faculty member who was speaking at the University of Michigan campus at an event organized by the American Movement for Israel, a right-wing Zionist organization.

Tanter was there to discuss "regime change" in Iran. He not only advocates taking military action, but also using tactical nuclear weapons and depleted uranium against Iran.

Several protesters were dragged from the event and arrested for heckling Tanter. One protester, Blane Coleman, was taken down forcefully by University of Michigan Department of Public Safety officers Mark West and Janet Conners. They pinned Mr. Coleman face down and held him to the floor, while handcuffing him behind his back. Coleman complained that he could not breathe and then he collapsed unconscious.

Dr. Wilkerson identified herself as a physician and asked permission to examine Coleman. She was allowed to examine him as the group waited for Huron Valley Ambulance medics to arrive. Dr. Wilkerson was concerned that Coleman was at risk for a condition called positional asphyxia. Positional asphyxia occurs when people are handcuffed with their hands behind their back as weight is pressed on them, causing them to be unable to draw a full breath. Positional asphyxia has caused several recorded deaths.

Upon HVA arrival, Dr. Wilkerson relinquished Coleman’s care to HVA medics, but was forced to intervene a second time when one of the medics, Dean Lloyd, began using a series of ammonia inhalants on Coleman. Lloyd cupped his hands over Coleman's mouth and asked "You don't like that do you?" as Coleman retched and spit from the noxious fumes.

At Dr. Wilkerson’s trial, both officer Conners and Lloyd testified that they believed that Coleman was faking his medical emergency.

Dr. Wilkerson denounced the behavior of the medics when the incident occurred: "Ammonia inhalants have no medical efficacy," she said. An Ann Arbor Police officer on the scene, Kevin Warner, removed Dr. Wilkerson forcefully, using a painful restraint technique on her arm and throwing her face-first into a wall. She was held for some time and then released.

Dr. Wilkerson was never arrested at the scene. She was not charged with a crime until nearly two months later, one week after she filed a citizen complaint against Warner with the Ann Arbor Police.

The trial was an obvious attempt to silence public criticism of police and paramedic behavior at the protest. Another woman, Dr. Kathryn Babayan, a University of Michigan history professor, testified that she was also charged with similar crimes after she filed a complaint against police due to the incident.

The prosecutor in the case, Margaret Connors—who is making a bid to become a judge—attempted to prejudice the jury against Dr. Wilkerson throughout the proceedings by referencing her political views as evidence of her guilt. During her cross-examination of Dr. Wilkerson, Connors asked questions like, "Is it true that you list Ho Chi Min as one of your 'heroes' on your myspace page?" and "Did you say that you needed 'international solidarity' during your interview on KUCI radio?"

These attempts appeared petty and irrelevant to court room observers. They did not have the intended affect on the jury.

Despite a parade of police and paramedic witnesses called by the prosecution, Connors was unable to demonstrate any evidence that Dr. Wilkerson ever did anything during the incident other than verbally criticize police and paramedics for their treatment of Coleman.

When asked pointedly during cross-examination, officer West testified that "verbally interfering with an arrest and criticizing police is not a crime." Another prosecution witness, Jeff Green, a University of Michigan student and building manager of the Michigan League who witnessed the event, testified that Coleman's treatment by DPS officers seemed "overly harsh."

Several HVA medics testified that ammonia inhalants are no longer carried on HVA ambulances or used by HVA medics as a result of the incident.

The defense presented several eye witnesses who testified on Dr. Wilkerson’s behalf. Despite Connors attempts to discredit them as political fanatics, their testimony lent further credence to Dr. Wilkerson's account of the incident.

The defense also called Dr. Bledsoe to the stand, one of the nation's leading experts on emergency medicine and paramedic training. Dr. Bledsoe testified that ammonia inhalants are potentially dangerous and have no real medical application.

Additionally, Dr. William Wilkerson, the defendant's husband and a court recognized emergency medicine and paramedic expert, testified that ammonia inhalants are just plain bad medicine. He said that HVA did not follow their on-scene patient-doctor protocols with Dr. Wilkerson.

There also was considerable political support for Dr. Wilkerson’s case. More than 4,000 people signed an ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) national petition demanding that all charges be dropped.

The trial was more than a victory for Dr. Wilkerson; it was a victory for free-speech and the rights of protesters. If Dr. Wilkerson had been convicted, it would have established a precedent criminalizing protesters who complain or criticize police behavior during unlawful arrests.

Reprinted with credit to the Party for Socialism and Liberation

The Wrong Choice for a National Hero’s Museum

The Wrong Choice for a National Hero’s Museum
[November 05, 2007]

Monte Melkonian would have turned 50 On November 25th. The Government of Armenia has decided to mark the National Hero’s jubilee with a formal celebration. The commission established for the occasion and headed by the minister of defense has planned a number of activities, among which is the establishment of the Monte Melkonian Museum.

The commission intends to lay a wreath on Monte’s grave in the morning of November 25th and then to visit School # 11 in the Southwestern district of Yerevan to officially rename it after Monte Melkonian, to unveil a bust of Monte in the Alley of Glory leading to the Military Museum in Victory Park, and to hold a commemorative evening at the National Opera House. The establishment of the Monte Melkonian Museum is among these very appropriate measures, but no one knows who decided to establish the museum at School # 11.

It is one thing to have a corner illustrating the life and achievements of the person the school is named after (which, by the way, does not require a special decision by a state institution and can be done by the school administration itself) and another thing to pass a decision to create a museum dedicated to a national hero and to set it in an inaccessible outlying district. One can only congratulate the students, the administration and the staff of School # 11, along with the people who live in the neighborhood.

Alec Yenigomshian, Chairman, Monte Melkonian NGO

US Supported Terrorist Group Guilty of War Crimes

MKO Accused
Of Anti-Iraq Crimes

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 11--Iraq’s High Court accused terrorist group Mujahideen Khalq Organization of committing crimes against the Iraqi nation.
Head of the High Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, Jafar Al-Mousavi, told reporters on Sunday that the court’s prosecutors have collected concrete proof for putting MKO agents on trial, IRNA reported.
“Written, audio and video evidence pertaining to MKO has been found based on which MKO members are accused of murdering and displacing thousands of Iraqi citizens in the north and south of Iraq,“ he said.
Al-Mousavi said the team of prosecutors is seeking to file two complaints against MKO in this regard. He did not disclose the time of the trial and the names of suspects.
There are close to 4,000 MKO agents held by US forces in Camp Ashraf, Diyala province.

Saudi Princes Funding Terrorits Groups MKO and Al-Qaeda

Saudi Princes Funding MKO

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 1--A senior Iraqi official has disclosed that Saudi Arabian princes are providing financial support to an anti-Iran terrorist group in Iraq.
In an interview with Al-Alam TV channel on Tuesday, Iraq’s National Security Counselor Fazel Al-Shavili said the Iraqi government has found documents showing that Saudi princes are paying $30 million monthly to the armed terrorist group Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO), whose agents are largely based in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf.
The MKO agents were allied to executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in suppressing the Iraqi people and carrying out terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians and officials for almost three decades.
Following the ouster of Saddam, the terrorist MKO has made efforts to attract the attention of war-mongering American officials who are currently protecting the terrorist group as a tool against Iran.
The Iraqi official noted that apart from making regular financial donations to MKO, Saudi princes are also funding Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq as well.
Shavili pointed out that half of the foreign insurgents and bombers entering Iraq through the western borders are Saudi citizens.
The Iraqi western borders are controlled by US occupation forces.

Wolfowitz's Indonesia record the trail of SLIME

Wolfowitz's Indonesia record eyed By ROBIN McDOWELL, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 4, 3:24 AM ET

JAKARTA, Indonesia — The controversy surrounding World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz spotlights a lack of ethics that was apparent two decades ago when he was U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, say critics who recall how he failed to speak out against corruption and rights abuses.

Today, as head of the bank, Wolfowitz has been arguing that corruption is crippling the world's poorest nations. But that was "the very thing he closed his eyes to" when he served as ambassador from 1986 to 1989 during the regime of the dictator Suharto, said pro-democracy activist Binny Buchori.

"He's a hypocrite," she said. "He should quit."

Wolfowitz is fighting for his job after disclosing that he helped arrange a promotion and raises for his girlfriend Shaha Riza soon after taking over the bank's helm in 2005. Wolfowitz says he is the victim of a smear campaign and has refused to resign.

But Jeffrey Winters, a professor of political economy at Northwestern University, said that Wolfowitz's past career already showed he was ill fit to run the World Bank.

"From the very beginning, I felt this was the wrong person for the job," said Winters.

He pointed to the radical deregulation of Indonesia's banking sector in 1988, promoted by Wolfowitz's economic team and international lenders. It "opened the floodgates for local crony conglomerates to set up private banks and take in deposits from a trusting public."

With no rule of law, there was no oversight and no supervision, he said.

"The foxes were running wild in the financial chicken coop and no one, including Wolfowitz, pressured the Indonesians to design safeguards to protect the public's deposits," he said. One result was the 1997-98 financial crisis "that plunged tens of millions into abject poverty."

Suharto, who ruled for 32 years, was toppled in 1998 by pro-democracy demonstrations.

The former dictator's family has been accused of embezzling an estimated $35 billion in state funds during his regime, according to corruption watchdog Transparency International. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed under the dictator's brutal reign.

Supporters say Wolfowitz pushed quietly for economic and political reforms. One example: a call for greater openness at his farewell speech at Jakarta's American Cultural Club in 1988.

"I wouldn't say it was brave, after all he was moving on," said James Castle, a former head of the American Chamber of Commerce, adding that the comments would also have need Washington's approval. "But he was the first ambassador to challenge the Suharto government, and that speech became quite famous."

Others say he helped fight the Suharto regime in subtle ways.

"It seemed like he was hugging a dictator, but he was actually supporting us," said Bambang Harymurti, editor of the hard-hitting magazine, Tempo, noting that "persons non grata with the government" were often invited to embassy receptions.

"Sometimes it would be a small gathering, and Paul would have someone like me sitting next to a military general," Harymurti said with a chuckle. "In this way he sort of empowered the pro-democracy activists."

But critics said Woflowitz's actions were too little, too late.

"Wolfowitz never criticized human rights issues, let along corruption," said Asmara Nababan, executive director of the pro-democracy research institute, Demos. By staying silent, he "was saying 'don't worry about your domestic problems, America is here to back you.'"

___

Associated Press reporters Zakki Hakim and Irwan Firdaus contributed to this report from Jakarta.

Chris Carney alarming and unfounded prewar claims about Iraq

Elected as a war critic, he was part of prewar errors
Chris Carney, who worked at the Pentagon, still believes there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
November 22, 2006


WASHINGTON — Of all the Democrats who rode a wave of public anger over Iraq to election victories this month, Chris Carney had the most unlikely credentials as a war critic.

Before winning the race for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, Carney was part of a controversial intelligence unit at the Pentagon that was responsible for some of the most alarming — and, it turned out, unfounded — prewar claims about Iraq.

Assigned to search for links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the unit reached a series of conclusions, including that a Sept. 11 hijacker had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, that have since been widely discredited. The Pentagon unit was created and run by one of the Iraq war's principal architects, then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith.

Carney took part in briefings at the White House and the Pentagon that disparaged the CIA for underestimating the relationship between Baghdad and the terrorist network. Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials frequently touted the findings to bolster the case for war.

Despite his background, Carney campaigned as an antiwar Democrat and said he got a "very warm reception" when he arrived at Capitol Hill this week to take part in orientation activities for incoming members. Carney is a lifelong Democrat, according to his press secretary.

"They are intrigued," Carney said of his fellow freshmen. "But I'm not sure all of them know about this."

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Atherton) said she was disturbed by the work that came out of Feith's office, but doubted that members would hold that against Carney.

"I think that in retrospect that what happened there is deeply troubling and we're paying a price for it," Eshoo said. "But I don't want to cast judgment on him."

Carney, 47, is not apologetic about his work at the Pentagon.

"I certainly stand by the fact that I believe there was some sort of relationship," he said in an interview. "On a scale from zero to 10, with zero being no relationship and 10 perfect operational coordination," Carney said, the Iraq-Al Qaeda link was "somewhere in the 2.5 range."

That appears to be a more qualified assessment than the so-called Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group presented to policymakers during a series of briefings in 2002. In one briefing slide, the group asserted that there were "more than a decade of numerous contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that there were "multiple areas of cooperation," possibly including the Sept. 11 attacks.

Carney, a reserve officer in the Navy and political science professor at Penn State University, wasn't expected to win his conservative-leaning district in eastern Pennsylvania. But his chances improved when the Republican incumbent, Don Sherwood, admitted he'd had a five-year extramarital affair and was forced to deny accusations that he had choked his mistress.

Carney said he initially was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq but has been dismayed by the handling of the postwar insurgency. His stance hardened, he said, when one of his college students returned from Iraq and complained of how ill-equipped U.S. fighting units were.

"They had to scrounge Iraqi scrap yards for junk metal to weld onto their trucks," Carney said.



Carney ended up working for Feith after being called up for duty as an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Carney was detailed to Feith's office in 2002 after the noted neoconservative asked the DIA to provide two analysts for a special project.

Carney and another DIA analyst, Christina Shelton, spent months poring over thousands of raw intelligence reports. They quickly concluded that the CIA, which had been skeptical of any serious relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, was getting it wrong.

"I found it kind of curious the way they were so equivocal in the analysis," Carney said of the CIA reports. "It was frustrating to me and others with all the caveating that was going on."

So the Feith team assembled a competing report called "Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The document cited "fundamental problems" with the CIA's analysis and offered conclusions without caveats. It said Baghdad was providing training to "non-Iraqi terrorists" and had "provided safe haven" for terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi. Under the heading "Known Iraq-Al Qaeda Contacts," the document listed the alleged 2001 meeting of Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta with an Iraqi agent in Prague as if there were no doubt the meeting had occurred.

When the group's findings were leaked to a conservative publication, Cheney described the report as the "best source" for understanding ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Like much of the prewar intelligence on Iraq, the allegations of ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda have crumbled under postwar scrutiny. A recent investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Atta never met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, that Baghdad did not give safe haven to Zarqawi, and that Hussein was so wary of Al Qaeda he had issued an edict barring anyone in his government from having any dealings with the terrorist network.

Carney defends his work by saying that many of the postwar conclusions are based on information that wasn't available to analysts in 2002.

Polls show a significant minority of Americans still believe Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but Carney disputes that his work contributed to that misperception or pushed the U.S. into war.

"I was one voice among hundreds talking about this," Carney said. "Ultimately, the decision to go to war rests with the president, and I am certain that the president had lots of information other than what I had."

Carney said that much of his focus in Congress would be on domestic issues, including healthcare and job security. Still, he said that he believed U.S. intelligence agencies suffered from a lack of creative thinking, and that he had ideas about how to fix some of the community's problems.

"There are a number of things I'm looking at as committee assignments, and the intelligence committee is certainly one of them," he said. If selected, he added, "I think I would apply the same kind of rigor to those issues that we did in the Pentagon."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
greg.miller@latimes.com

Roozbeh Pournader of Tehran Enemy of Iran - Dangerous Revolutionary

Roozbeh Pournader of Tehran, Iran is a prominent Anti-Islamic revolutionary. He has been deeply involved in turning Wikipedia into a propaganda tool to attack the Islamic republic of Iran. Roozbeh Pournader has posted a huge amount of slander against IRI leaders including Imam Khomeini and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On his web page Roozbeh Pournader of Tehran describes himself as:
I work as the CTO of Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc., a company doing software localization, internationalization, standardization, and free software and Open Source customization, consulting, and development. We have our own GNU/Linux distribution, its users including Royal Dutch Shell branch in Iran.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjan

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a hard man to pin a label on. He is regularly castigated in the American press as a hard-liner. However he played a crucial role in freeing Western hostages held in Lebanon. He is called a Conservative and President Khatami is called a moderate but Rafsanjani's Brother-in-law is Khatami's new Vice President. (see Notes on Vice President Seyed Hossein Mar'ashi), Clearly Rafsanjani is a pragmatist who will do what is best for Iran even if it means coming to terms with the US. Unfortunately the US has rebuffed every peace initiative and treated him shamefully.

State versus the Anti-State, Post Modern War - A look at President Bush's response to 911

State versus the Anti-State, Post Modern War
A look at President Bush's response to 911
In regards to Churchill's "melancholy paradox" Wohlstetter wrote,
"If peace were founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers, this would be, as Churchill has said, "a melancholy paradox;" nonetheless a most comforting one." That simple thought caused me to dash off the following thoughts:
In the late 1950s America charted a defense strategy that Churchill termed "a melancholy paradox". Peace was founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers. This we now know as MAD, mutually assured destruction. America and the Soviet Union lived in fear of a "First Strike" and both lived in grim realization of the other's ability to launch a massive "Second Strike". This spawned 30 years of Cold War maneuvering. MAD worked because we knew where the Soviets were and they knew where we were. I remeber the Rand Surveys where they would rank American cities as to their likelihood as targets in nuclear war. As a child I grew up in Scranton which was about 50 on the list as I remember it. We could target them and even if we missed their leadership we could cripple their system.
As long as the mutual terror was state terror the state was always vulnerable. On September 11, 2001 a new terrible enemy arose and launched a "First Strike" terror attack. The enemy which we call al-Qaeda is not a state, it is a loose knit group based in Wahhabi Islam. The strategy that protected us through the Cold War was now applied to a non-state "First Strike" Scenario.
A massive "First Strike" called for an immediate "Second Strike". George Bush looked immediately to his key advisors for a military solution. Obviously someone had to pay and the United States must respond. But respond to who, attack what. al-Qaeda was not a state, it lacked clearly identifiable targets. What states sponsored the terror attack? Obviously Saudi Arabia was deeply involved. The money and the majority of the participants were Saudi. Close behind was Pakistan whose ISI worked closely with al-Qaeda.
How then did the Bush advisors react? Paul Wolfowitz proposed attacking Iraq. This completely ignored a host of obvious facts such as that Iraq was not involved in the terror attack on the United States. However attacking Iraq was not without merit. Iraq was the great blemish on the Bush family honor. For the elder President Bush Iraq was a major strategy blunder. While we can debate most of the first Bush presidency Bush failed miserably in Iraq. Our military did everything asked of them but Bush snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. This was a burr under the saddle as they say in Texas of the Younger President Bush. Iraq was far easier to attack then isolated Afghanistan and most importantly at least to Wolfowitz Iraq was an enemy of Israel. I do not suggest that Wolfowitz has dual loyalties but Wolfowitz sees the world through Likud tinted glasses. Bush disregarded Iraq for the time being and went with Afghanistan as a target. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were key allies in our old cold war strategy so the Bush crew took them off the list. Afghanistan was a good possibility because as a country it had few friends.
Attacking Afghanistan is an interesting choice. Imagine that a man came home to find a man raping his wife. That man then goes out and picks out a weaker friend of the rapist to thrash as revenge for the rape.
Afghanistan is surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Iran was viewed as an enemy by the Bush team so there was no loss to the US no matter how Iran reacted to an Invasion. (N.B. Perhaps Bush's greatest weakness is that he sometimes rashly categorizes opponents as enemies when he does not need to do so.) Turkmenistan was pursuing a non-aligned course. Uzbekistan was a secret ally with the United States against al-Qaeda so we could count on their support. During the Clinton Presidency US Green Berets were put into Uzbekistan and even conducted covert missions in Afghanistan. Tajikistan had a close affinity with the Northern Alliance so they were on-board for an invasion if the NA was a part of it. Pakistan was the skunk in the woodpile so to speak.
Most of Afghanistan was in the hands of Taliban. The Taliban was a creation of Pakistan's CIA, the ISI, with the help and financing of Saudi Arabian Intelligence. Part of the price of Saudi Arabian support was al-Qaeda. Pakistan was between the rock and the hard place. As a state Pakistan was targetable so being a prudent man General Musharraf deemed it better to give up Afghanistan then to face American wrath.
The United States then rolled through Afghanistan in a brilliant fashion. The combination of massive air power, the Northern Alliance, Special Forces, and CIA commando teams were ideally suited to attacking and destroying Taliban. It was Air-Mobil warfare in a way Robert McNamara never imagined . There was however a small problem in that Taliban was not the one who attacked us, al-Qaeda did. The Afghan invasion was costly to al-Qaeda but not destructive. They delivered a "First Strike" and our response was annoying, irritating, but not destruction in the way necessary to make a MAD like strategy successful.
To make matters even worse in November2001 the United States allowed thousands of Taliban, ISI operatives and al-Qaeda men to leave Kunduz Afghanistan by plane. We do not know who got on those planes. It is very possible even probable that top terrorist leaders including Osama Bin-Laden merely got on a plane and slipped away to freedom. What we do know is that Mullah Omar, Osama Bin-laden, al-Zawahiri and many others slipped through our fingers. Our Second Strike was unable to find much less touch our enemies.
What did we really accomplish against al-Qaeda and their supporters. Today Osama Bin-Laden is a free man living a life not terribly different than how he lived before 9/11. The same goes for Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. al-Qaeda has paid a price but it is a price they are willing to pay. Their supporters primarily Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have escaped very lightly. In Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Abdullah who was very close to al-Qaeda was preempted by the return of Fahd to day to day oversight of the monarchy. Losing the Regency was a small price to pay for his active role in the attack upon America. In Pakistan Musharraf became a defacto vassal state of the US to avoid the retribution that was so richly deserved. al-Qaeda is larger and in many ways more deadly than ever. The states that supported al-Qaeda flourish.
Has the US response been so terrible as to discourage any future terrorist attack on the US? No, our second strike capability is so flawed as to future action against the US is virtually assure future action against the US.
In the Post Cold War Era we have replaced MAD with MAR (modestly accomplished retaliation). When it came time to sow salt in their fields all we could do is sow their fields with the blood of our children. When it came time to fight we allowed the fight to be subverted to the foreign policy goals of a third power. After Afghanistan we allowed a Likudnik cabal to trick us into war with Iraq.
How do we fight non-state terrorism?
First of all true believers who are willing to die for a cause are almost impossible to stop. Still we must adopt a strategy that makes a significant portion of the less than true believers think of the cost.
First of all a terrorist is one who plans, prepares, or implements an act of terror but we must also consider those who aid and shelter them to be terrorists as well. If a mosque or a club is used by the terrorists then it should be destroyed. If a company helps terrorists it should be dealt with severely. If a country supports terrorists then it should pay a severe price.
False dichotomies of good terrorist and bad terrorist are extremely destructive. All terrorism must be seen in the same light. The Bush policy of sheltering the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq sends the wrong message to nations considering aid or comfort to Terrorists. No terrorist should be tolerated.
Our strategy must be morally comprehensible. If torture is wrong then it is always wrong. The Bush policy of stripping "enemies" of their human rights or protection under the Geneva Convention is morally wrong. What President Bush allowed at Abu Ghraib prison was barbaric, immoral, and evil. Even our friends in the Moslem world look at this abomination and ask how can we claim "One Nation Under God" and then do the evil we do. It validates everything that the extremists suggest when the call us "The Great Satan". The essence of fighting terrorism is massive response in a matter befitting One Nation Under God.

JCPenney: "Today's the Day" Commercial - a happy song

There is a lot to be said for a happy song. You know what I mean, one of those songs that just makes you smile. Recently I heard the JCPenney: "Today's the Day" Commercial. The next time I heard it I listened more closely. The third time I told my children that they had to be quiet for the ad. They thought I was really strange. So I looked it up and found out it is "How can It Be" by Forever Thursday.
I hate iTunes and refuse to use their stupid site. but being a pragmatic man I had my wife Jodi download it for me. I insist on paying for all my music so I buy CDs and put them on my computer. When CDs are not an option I pester Jodi... oh well.



"how can it be" lyrics

i say, and so say i
my morning thought
it knew itself just fine
until across the room
it caught its first glimpse of my afternoon
how can it be
that these things live in me?

i say, and so say i
my mornings day seems nothing like its night
my night so self assured
was all at sea when faced with dawns strange world
how can it be
that these things live in me?
http://www.myspace.com/foreverthursdaymusic
Thank you,
Barry O'Connell

IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran - Yahoo! News

IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran - Yahoo! News: "IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran By Mark Heinrich
1 hour, 48 minutes ago



VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.

Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.

The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.

It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.

"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.

The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.

The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."

Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.

"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations. "

Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties - Yahoo! News

Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties - Yahoo! News: "Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT




Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.

The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war."

Armitage Betrays Country in CIA leak - Yahoo! News

Armitage says he was source in CIA leak - Yahoo! News: " Armitage says he was source in CIA leak By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The former No. 2 State Department official said Thursday he inadvertently disclosed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame in conversations with two reporters in 2003.

Confirming that he was the source of a leak that triggered a federal investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he never intended to reveal Plame's identity. He apologized for his conversations with syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.

"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said in a telephone interview from his home Thursday night.

He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.

Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon — claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.

He described his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought at the end of a lengthy interview.

"He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there,'" Armitage recalled.

He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.'"

Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Armitage said he considered coming forward late last month when a flurry of news reports identified him as the leak. But he said he did not want to be accused of trying to get the story out during the summer's slow news cycle.

"I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only administration official charged in the CIA leak case. He faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.

Armitage said he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo."

Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job? | the Daily Mail

Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job? | the Daily Mail: "Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job?
From SHARON CHURCHER and ANNETTE WITHERIDGE, Mail on Sunday

Last updated at 18:05pm on 20th March 2005

Nomination: Paul Wolfowitz was a controversial choice for the World Bank
Look here too...Skip gossip links to more articles
Story: Bush backs Wolfowitz for World Bank post
Vote: Do you think Wolfowitz should get the job?
News: Briton killed in Qatar theatre bomb
News: Queen may bar Camilla from Trooping the Colour
Showbiz: Kylie's Showgirl tour hits the road
Sport: Alonso triumphs in Malaysia
HeadlinesBalcony plunge dad's tearful court appearance
Captor's colleague says sex slave girl 'looked happy'
Tesco launches revolutionary non-food home shopping service
Air passengers cleared to use mobiles on Ryanair
NHS should deny obese women IVF, say doctors
Hospital told mother 'to take body of daughter home in her car'
Web hunt for 'immoral' British man seducing China's women
Government misses targets to reduce drug deaths
Madonna and Guy row over schooling
Woman fined £5,000 for over-use of family pool
Man jailed for driving motorbike over policewoman
Smellies and Bottoms among surnames list of shame
Chinese court freezes assets of iPod expose journalists
Nun study reveals God's flickering effect on the brain
NEWS HOMEPAGE
Pictures & videoVideo: New website shows you how to...do everything!
Gallery: Our readers' stunning wildlife photography
Gallery: Our eye-catching pictures of the day
Amazing pictures: Candid snaps show a softer side to wild child Pete Doherty
Video: The moment a mountain lion paid a house call
Video: Joyrider caught leaving pedestrian for dead
MORE PHOTOS & VIDEO
The appointment of George Bush's leading hawk as head of the World Bank was heading for a crisis over his relationship with a senior British employee.

Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that Paul Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is so besotted with Oxford-educated Shaha Riza he cannot be impartial.

Extraordinarily, they claim she played a key role in pushing the 61-year-old Pentagon official into the Iraq War. And the row comes amid claims that Wolfowitz's wife Clare once warned George Bush of the threat to national security any infidelity by her husband could cause.

A British citizen - at 51, eight years younger than Wolfowitz's wife - Ms Riza grew up in Saudi Arabia and was passionately committed to democratising the Middle East when she allegedly began to date Wolfowitz.

She studied at the London School of Economics in the Seventies before taking a master's degree at St Anthony's College, Oxford, where she met her future husband, Turkish Cypriot Bulent Ali Riza, from whom she is now divorced.

After they moved to America, Shaha worked for the Iraq Foundation, set up by expatriates to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. She subsequently joined the National Endowment for Democracy, created by President Ronald Reagan to promote American ideals.

Bulent Riza said Shaha started to "talk to Paul" about reforming the Middle East. And New Yorker magazine's respected commentator Paul Boyer observed that a senior World Bank official "named Shaha Ali Riza" was an "influence".

Downing Street 'furious' at nomination

Wolfowitz became known around the world as one of the fiercest proponents of invasion of Iraq. The Mail on Sunday has learned that Downing Street is "furious" about his nomination, fearing his hardline attitude could alienate large sections of the international community.

But it is his tangled private life that could stop him taking up the World Bank post.

Critics say it would be impossible for Wolfie - as he is nicknamed by Bush - to make independent decisions when his lover, who works on Middle Eastern and North African issues, is so committed to overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes.

"His womanising has come home to roost," a Washington insider said. "Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress."

One of his opponents at the bank said: "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest."

National security risk

Wolfowitz married Clare Selgin in 1968. But they have lived separately since 2001, after allegations of an affair with an employee at the School of Advanced International Studies where he was dean for seven years.

According to one Republican Administration insider, Clare was so upset by rumours about the affair that she wrote to then President Elect Bush, saying if the story were true it could pose a national security risk.

Yesterday, she refused to comment on whether her husband had been unfaithful before their separation, saying: "I really do not want to share this with you."

She also refused to confirm her marital status - reports of his appointment repeatedly describe Wolfowitz as divorced but The Mail on Sunday has been unable to find any records. Asked if she is separated or divorced, Clare replied: "That's my business."

On the claim that she wrote a letter to Bush, she said: "That's very interesting but not something I can tell you about."

A friend of Wolfowitz insisted last night that he had not been unfaithful: "Paul and Clare have been separated since 2001. It is my understanding they are now legally separated."

By tradition, the United States picks the bank's president, but the decision must be approved by its board. The US has a 16 per cent vote, but Europe collectively has about 30 per cent.

The bank's staff association has told executives it has been swamped with complaints from employees about Wolfowitz.

However, Wolfowitz's only comment on the complaints has been a terse statement issued through a Pentagon spokesman. He said: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with bank policies to resolve the issue.""

Pasadena - Samuel Zeligian Mardian

Samuel Zeligian Mardian and wife Acabi, with their four children, Aram,
Sam, Agnes, and Florence. A baby, Robert, was born the second week of my arrival in
Pasadena. (Samuel Mardian was the sponsor of the Malian family and their gang. He
became in later years a widely-known building contractor. At present, 1978, Aram, Sam
and Bob have a multi-million-dollar construction company in Phoenix, Arizona, with
Aram as president. Sam was the mayor of Phoenix for two terms. Robert Mardian was
Assistant Attorney General under John Mitchell in President Nixon's cabinet.)

Armenian Assembly of America - Press Center - Jim Renjilian

Armenian Assembly of America - Press Center - NR# 1997-57: "Armenian Assembly Press Release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission '97 Has a Dramatic Impact on Diaspora Armenian
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 1997
Web: www.aaainc.org CONTACT: Hrant Jamgochian
Phone: (202) 393-3434
E-mail: info@aaainc.org

The dramatic changes Jim Renjilian saw on his first visit to his historic homeland Armenia left him astonished and a "changed man." "I knew Armenia has numerous economic problems, yet everyone I met was a strong testament to the Armenian spirit and the will to survive. After being there and seeing the country first-hand, I cannot help but be optimistic about Armenia's future" said Renjilian, a long-time board member and former government affairs chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America. Renjilian is a Maryland native, who was a member of the Assembly's Mission '97. Over 100 participants made the 10-day visit, the largest by the Assembly to date.
The most striking contradiction in Renjilian's mind was the visit to a small school in Gumri. The school was built from metal shipping containers, heating and electricity are sporadic. "The children were so bright, beautiful and articulate. They sang songs for us and recited poetry in Armenian. But, one couldn't help but be horrified by the school's primitive conditions," stated Renjilian.

Renjilian was also deeply touched by his visit to the Genocide Monument and Museum. "The pain of remembering the tragedy of 1915 was great. The visit to the museum was even more emotional as I saw the horrific pictures of what the Turkish government attempted to do to my people," said Renjilian. "Yet, I was so inspired by what the monument symbolized, the triumph of the Armenian spirit and people."

Another of Renjilian's lasting memories was the sight of hundreds of construction cranes scattered throughout Armenia-most of them at a standstill. "No matter where we went, these cranes appeared to be in abundance. Yet, none of them were ever in operation," said Renjilian. He was disheartened by the number of buildings that stood unfinished and at the same time the thousands of people who are unemployed.

The highlight of the trip for Renjilian, and for many mission participants, was the visit to Etchmiadzin, the birthplace of the Armenian Church. "Even as a Protestant, I couldn't help but be moved by the 1,700 years of history speaking to me from the stones of Etchmiadzin," said Renjilian. Vehapar Karekin I Catholicos of all Armenians held a special luncheon for the group during their visit. The Vehapar thanked the Armenian Assembly for organizing such a pilgrimage to the homeland. The Archbishop of Shushi Barkev Martirosian also addressed the group and expressed his excitement at their presence during Armenia's "second baptism," as Communist suppression of religion is no longer an obstacle which was even more evident in Nagorno Karabagh under Azeri rule.

The Armenia '97 mission also took part in the Yerevan ceremonies commemorating the sixth anniversary of Armenia's independence. Mission members attended the President's reception for government officials and foreign dignitaries and later viewed a musical extravaganza and fireworks display in Yerevan's Republic Square. The group also met with several government officials including outgoing Senior Presidential Advisor Jirair Libaridian, President Levon Ter-Petrossian and Prime Minister Robert Kocharian.

The Armenian Assembly of America is a nationwide nonprofit organization which promotes public understanding and awareness of Armenian issues."

James Renjilian Obituary

http://www.amaa.org/AMAA%20News%20-%20Aug-Sept-Oct%202002%20-%20Vol.%20XXXVI,%20No.%204.pdf

AMAA NEWS, AUG/SEPT/OCT 2002 23
O B I T U A R I E S
James Renjilian
James Renjilian,
long an active and
vibrant member of
the Armenian community,
died on
May 21, 2002 in
G e r m a n t o w n ,
Maryland of complications
from a
stroke. He was 64.
Born a refugee in Athens, Greece on December
17, 1937, Jim emigrated to the United
States with his mother, Verjin Giragossian
Renjilian, in 1939. His father, the Rev. Mihran
Renjilian, had come to the U.S. some months
earlier with Jim’s older siblings Armen and
Anne.
Reunited in the U.S., the Renjilians lived
first in Washington, D.C. but eventually settled
in Troy, N.Y. where Rev. Renjilian led the
United Armenian Calvary Church. There, Jim
attended Troy High School and Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
After serving as an intelligence officer in
the Army, Jim attended George Washington
University law school. Following a brief stint
with General Electric in the Boston area, Jim
worked as an attorney at the United States
Patent Office in Washington, D.C. He remained
with the Federal government throughout
his career, serving at the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board, and the Department of Energy.
Jim’s life is warmly remembered by family
and friends for four overarching themes: his
devotion to family; his commitment to community;
his pride in his Armenian heritage; and
his dedication to his Christian faith. He was
also known to many as a particularly avid collector
of toy soldiers, having amassed hundreds
of figures that he displayed prominently in his
home. Finally, he enjoyed a reputation as a
keen and passionate observer of political affairs.
Jim’s many community and civic interests
included serving as an elder of Southminster
Presbyterian Church and, later, Rockville
(Md.) Presbyterian Church. He was also an
active adult troop leader in the Boy Scouts of
America. In addition, Jim played a prominent
role in the Armenian Assembly, where he was
especially focused on achieving official recognition
from the United States government
of the Armenian Genocide.
Funeral services were held at Rockville Presbyterian
Church, Rockwville, MD on Friday,
May 24, 2002 followed by the interment at
Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington D.C.
Memorial contributions were made to the
AMAA.
Jim is survived by his sister, Anne Kalfayan,
of Marco Island, FL; his brother Armen
Renjilian of Albany, N.Y.; his son Christopher
Renjilian of Potomac, MD; his daughter Julia
Luther of North Bethesda, MD; and his son
Timothy Renjilian of Atlanta, GA. He also
leaves behind three granddaughters whom he
dearly adored.
Additional information about James
Renjilian can be found on the Internet at
www.lifefiles.com.

Allen F. Ertel Election Observer in the Ukraine

Williamsport Sun-Gazette: "City attorney has opportunity to watch democracy in action

By LAUREN McLANE lmclane@sungazette.com



They have a history of parties stealing elections,” Allen F. Ertel, a local attorney, said.

He is referring to the Ukraine, the former Soviet bloc country now struggling to embrace democracy. Ertel recently returned from observing the Ukraine’s March 26 parliamentary elections.

As a former member of Congress, Ertel is among those who can be tapped to serve the international community in such a way.

“The former (Congressional) members group sent around an e-mail requesting volunteers, and I signed up,” he said. “I’d been to the Ukraine in 1994-95, just after the fall (of the Berlin Wall).

“Then, we’d been arranged to discuss legislating with the Rada (the Ukrainian parliament). It was amazing how unknowing they were about the legislative process,” he added.

As a Soviet satellite, the Ukraine was more or less controlled by the Kremlin. When the Soviet empire split up, it and several other newly-independent countries became self-governing for the first time in a generations.

Nevertheless, Russia still wields influence in the region. It was a Russian-instigated energy crisis — a disruption in gas supplies — that led to a vote of “no confidence” in President Viktor Yushchenko’s government and made the March 26 election necessary.

Yushchenko was swept into power in the “Orange Revolution” in 2004 after a fraudulent election, during which he was poisoned. Because of that episode and other irregularities, outside observers were invited to monitor this time.

Five major parties and 40 minor ones took part. The five majors were the Party of the Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovich; Yushchenko’s Orange Party; the Timoshenko Party, led by Yulia Timoshenko, Yushchenko’s recently-sacked prime minister; the Communist Party; and the Socialist Party.

Jealously guarding its newfound rights, the Ukraine has built in so many election safeguards it became cumbersome, Ertel said.

There were clear plastic ballot boxes, covered with seals to prevent tampering. There was an election commission of 14 observers, picked from among all 45 political parties, at each polling station.

Each polling station was open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and all 14 observers had to be present for the entire time. Each party was allowed to have an observer of its choosing present also. Once the polls closed, the 14 commissioners were locked in the room while the ballots were counted, he said.

The ballots were paper ballots, and some of them had as many as five elections on them — mayoral, district and two regional elections, as well as the parliament.

Each district had to account for the number of registered voters, the number of ballots cast, the number cast in absentia, and so on, Ertel said.

“The whole commission must wait until the ballots are confirmed,” which can take hours, he added.

“Our role was to see if there was a way the system could be hijacked. The interplay between the parties (at the polling station) prevented people from committing fraud. If there was fraud, we didn’t detect it,” he said.

In the Ukraine, as in many European countries, parties rarely win an absolute majority of the seats in the legislature. Instead, the party with the largest percentage of votes forms a coalition government. A vote of no confidence in the legislature leads to parliamentary elections, to re-align the balance of power.

One way in which the Ukraine differs from America is in allowing prisoners to vote, Ertel said. There are polling stations set up in the prisons themselves, and prisoners are taken from their cells, shepherded to the polling area, given ballots and allowed to vote.

He said he observed the elections in a prison, and his role was to ask the prisoners if any undue influence had been exerted over them to cause them to vote a certain way. No one said he had been coerced, he said.

Another difference is that two days before the election, all campaign materials must be taken down. The day before and the day of the election, which was a Sunday, no campaigning is allowed, he said.

By and large the parties complied with the rules, he said. The five largest parties got all of their materials down; some of the smaller parties didn’t manage to remove all their fliers.

When the election results came out, “Timoshenko blew away Yushchenko,” he added.

It was widely expected by international observers and the American ambassador to the Ukraine, that Yanukovich would win the majority of the vote, Yushchenko would take the second-largest percentage, and Timoshenko would be a close third.

Although Yushchenko’s party lost seats in the Rada with the election, the president is directly elected and will not lose his office. However, Yushchenko must now form a coalition government with the party and the man he defeated in 2004 and the party of the woman he fired.

One of the things that impressed Ertel the most was “the patience.”

“People stood in line two, two-and-a-half hours to vote. It’s such a cumbersome system — 15, 20, 30 minutes to vote because there are so many choices,” he said.

Overall, “it was an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. The media made it known that we were there. I believe we had a prophylactic effect on anyone who wanted to commit fraud.”"

No Subpoena Yet For Zinni in AIPAC Spy Case

National News: "Suppression of Witness Names Underlines Battle in AIPAC Case

Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger
JTA Wire Service

MARCH 23, 2006
Washington

Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Anthony Zinni: For a few hours, the list of subpoenaed witnesses on the docket in the classified information case against two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee read like a Who's Who of U.S. foreign policy.

And that probably was precisely the point for defendants eager to prove that trading inside information with the most senior government officials was par for the lobbyists' course.

Similarly, the suppression of the witnesses' names within hours last Friday was consistent with a prosecution -- and a court -- that is keeping as much of the case under wraps as possible.

Lawyers for Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, subpoenaed 10 current and former administration officials ranging from Rice, the current U.S. secretary of state, and Hadley, the national security adviser to the White House, through Lawrence Franklin, the former mid-level Pentagon analyst whose guilty plea is the crux of the government's case against Rosen and Weissman. JTA obtained an original copy of the docket with the names intact.

The court, the defense and the government would not comment about the subpoenas or their subsequent suppression on the docket, but the roll call reflects what sources close to the defense have said will be their case -- that interactions of the kind described in the indictment last August were routine and above board."I presume it's an attempt to provide some context for the information that was disclosed," said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Secrecy Project at the Federation of American Scientists and who has been following the case closely. "If such information was already in public circulation or widely disseminated, that could arguably mitigate anything the defendants did wrong by communicating it."

The crux of the indictment is that Franklin leaked information on Iran to Rosen and Weissman on several occasions in 2003 and 2004.

In July 2004, Franklin joined the FBI in a sting against the two, telling Weissman that Iranian agents planned to kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq. Rosen and Weissman relayed the information -- which, according to the indictment, Franklin made clear to Weissman was classified -- to an Israeli diplomat, a Washington Post journalist and the executive director of AIPAC, Howard Kohr.

Rosen and Weissman have been charged under a never-used 1917 statute that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.

AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC practices, but stopping short of accusing the men of anything illegal.

Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post journalist, said he had not been subpoenaed. AIPAC would not comment on whether Kohr or anyone else had been subpoenaed.

Israeli officials have confirmed in the past that they are negotiating the terms of testimony for Naor Gilon, the diplomat who received the information from Weissman and Rosen. Gilon returned to Israel last summer after completing a three-year term as a political officer.

In addition to Rice, Hadley and Franklin, the defense subpoenaed David Satterfield, the current U.S. deputy ambassador to Iraq; William Burns, the current U.S. ambassador to Moscow; Ken Pollack, research director at the Saban Center, a Middle East think tank; Michael Makovsky, another mid-level Pentagon analyst; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; Zinni, formerly the top peace envoy to the Middle East; and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state. Prosecutors and the witnesses themselves may challenge the subpoenas.

Satterfield and Pollack are significant, because -- like Franklin -- they appear in the indictment as alleged leakers to Rosen, but neither has been charged.

Pollack discussed Iraq policy with Rosen and Weissman over lunch in 2000, when he was on the Clinton administration's National Security Council.

Pollack told JTA last year that he could not imagine having relayed classified information to them. He told JTA this week that he had yet to receive a subpoena, but would not be surprised if he did.

Satterfield was an assistant secretary of state in 2002 when, according to the indictment, he leaked classified information on Al-Qaida to Rosen.

No one on the list, aside from Pollack and Zinni, returned calls from JTA asking for comment.

Zinni, who said he also had yet to receive the subpoena, said he had met Rosen just once."I met Mr. Rosen once at a dinner while I was the envoy," the retired Marines general and former head of U.S. Central Command wrote in an e-mail to JTA. "It was a casual event and we discussed the process I was then involved in. The dinner was with four others."

Zinni, who now is a consultant in the private sector, served as an envoy to Israeli-Palestinian talks in 2001-2002.

The court and the government would not comment on the subpoenas, but Aftergood says it's consistent with the secrecy that has enveloped the case. Judge T.S. Ellis III allowed the government to keep from the public and from the defense what apparently is the bulk of the transcripts of years of taps on Rosen and Weissman, although the recordings are principally of the defendants.

Ellis also has sealed pre-trial motions that principally argue established case law and do not reveal details of the case aside from those appearing in the already published indictment. The documents were eventually unsealed.

In contrast to Aftergood and a number of free speech groups that have weighed in on the case, Ellis made clear that he does not believe First Amendment issues have much bearing."Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Ellis said Jan. 20 when he sentenced Franklin to more than 12 years for his role. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."

Ellis turned down a friend-of-the-court brief from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, saying it was inappropriate."Secrecy seems to be the default here," Aftergood said. "It appears the judge wants to discourage media coverage."

Laurie Levenson, a legal expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the prosecution may move to quash the subpoenas, and could have requested the seal to keep the putative witnesses' names out of the spotlight until the judge rules on the motion.

"This leaves the spotlight off the witnesses and leaves it on the defendants," she said. "They'd rather keep the focus on the named defendants."

This story reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency."