Ways to help, besides cash: part 1: Houston

Los tres presidentes will be asking for money, money, money for hurricane relief, and let’s hope they ask for some from the oil companies.

 

Meanwhile, the basic needs of water, food and shelter have to be fulfilled before financial donations can be processed. You can participate by joining a group near you to collect materials, or by starting a collection drive and helping it get to the refugees. That means getting hold of a truck and taking the essentials of water, ice, energy bars, bug spray and first aid straight to the victims, as a group in my community (Cheverly, Maryland) is doing.

 

Houston, Texas, is taking in at least 45,000 refugees. Here are some Houston destinations in need of items dropped off or delivered:

 

1. The Houston Food Bank needs volunteers and paper goods, cleaning supplies, bottled water, peanut butter, heat-and-eat foods, single-serving foods and snacks that don’t require refrigeration. (713-223-3700 or www.houstonfoodbank.org/katrina.htm)

 

2. The Astrodome in Houston needs most non-perishable items, but especially baby products like diapers and wipes. Drop off supplies at Gate 11, between McNee and LaConcha streets, on Kirby.

 

3. Food is needed at North Channel Assistance Ministries, 13837 1/2 Bonham Street.

4. Food is needed at St. Peter Claver, 6500 N. Wayside.

5. Food is needed at LangstonFamilyLifeCenter, 2814 Quitman.

 

6. The Katy Chamber of Commerce at 2501 S. Mason Road, Suite 230, is taking donations of goods and services. (www.katychamber.com or 281-828-1100)

 

7. The Houston Chapter of the Red Cross is accepting donations of bottled water in crates of 24 only. Drop them off at their office, 2700 Southwest Freeway.

8. The U.S. Coast Guard station at Houston’s Ellington Field is seeking donations of goods for hurricane victims. Call 713-578-3000 for information on their needs.

 

Products typically needed include:

Bottled water

Baby food and formula, baby wipes, diapers

Toilet paper, sanitary wipes, feminine products

Insect repellent

Socks

Flash lights with batteries

Aspirin, Neosporin, first aid kits

Plastic garbage bags

Propane tanks

Camping utensils, tarps, tents

Manual can openers

Pet food

Generators

Small AC Units

Liquid Soap

Canned goods (with can openers), trail mix, nuts, cereal bars, crackers

 

One way to help the hurricane victims: with bottled water

Getting water promptly to the victims and refugees of Hurricane Katrina is essential. One relief effort being coordinated in the rural South is the bottled water drive through Delta State University, in Cleveland, Mississippi – on Highway 61, about an hour and a half south of Memphis.

 

The campus Student Government Association is partnering with the BolivarCountyEmergencyOperationsCenter and the local Red Cross chapter. Donations will be accepted through Friday, Sept. 9.  

 

Here are the addresses for dropping off or delivering factory-sealed containers of water, as soon as possible:

·        Delta State University, Highway 8, Cleveland MS 38733 (1-800-GO-TO-DSU or 800-468-6378). Drop off at the information booth, first floor of the H.L. Union Building

·        Knight Rider Mart, intersection of Highway 8 West and Bishop Road (664 Highway 44 North), no phone number given

·        The Bolivar Commercial newspaper, 821 North Chrisman Av, ClevelandMS (662-843-4241) 

 

N.b.: The Bolivar Commercial office is probably the best bet, for now, unless you can reach someone at the local Chamber of Commerce or through the county. “Suitcase campuses” tend to be partly closed down on weekends, especially over a holiday weekend.

 

Call the Bolivar EOC (fire dept) at 662-843-2300 before sending or giving them any more water, because as of 3:46 p.m. EST they still had some left and want to clear out the space before taking on more water supplies.

 

“The water will be transported and dispersed throughout Mississippi to victims and work crews dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”

  

Call the statement office at (662) 846-4715 for further information. [Unfortunately, phone communications will be at a minimum over the Labor Day weekend.]

Capital Plaza could have helped the hurricane refugees

Once again, we are all paying a price for the small-time chicanery of big corporations, and not solely with regard to surging (gouging) gasoline prices. Capital Plaza, at 6200 Annapolis Road in Landover Hills, Maryland, is geographically far removed from the initial impact of Hurricane Katrina, but it is still a microcosm of what could have been done.

 

As PG residents inside the Beltway know, the Capital Plaza mall space has sat underused for several years now while its owner-manager, the Nellis Corporation, tried unsuccessfully to land a series of big stores to serve as anchors for mall development. Some of the underused space was left when Hechinger’s, the large local hardware chain, went bankrupt, some when other department store chains went under. Compounding the problem, the landlord kept the mall’s remaining tiny, struggling business tenants on month-to-month leases for more than two years, basically guaranteeing that no vibrant mall traffic could grow and develop. This year, they terminated even those leases.

 

The result:  one million eight hundred thousand-plus square feet (1,805,560 sf) of commercially developed space goes begging, almost half a million square feet of it (491,650 sf) enclosed.

 

On behalf of the victims of the dreadful hurricane, we could have made some halfway decent lemonade from this lemon. Let’s start with the most important issue:  life and death. Citizens of New Orleans, Biloxi and Gulfport among other cities have been displaced and stranded with only their lives — without belongings, without shelter, without even food and water – sitting and lying on what remains of streets and highways. The cities and their terribly poor outlying rural surrounding areas have people clinging to their last half-bottles of water. These desperate American citizens do not have facilities even for sewage, much less for ordinary amenities that usually taken for granted. Making the situation more desperate is the fact that help can hardly get to them unless it is transported by air – meaning that cargo planes and helicopters are needed. And they can hardly get out to safer havens without air transport – meaning, again, cargo planes and helicopters.

 

The Capital Plaza parking lot is big enough for helicopters to land in and is also located conveniently near the College Park airport, which serves private planes.

 

The mall buildings at Capital Plaza are not palatial, by any means. I am well aware that only desperate people would appreciate being sheltered what remains of a shopping mall.

 

But the flood refugees are desperate. And those mall buildings do have, or until days ago still had, some essentials for minimal shelter, aside from floors, roofs and walls, they have or recently had plumbing, security, even air-conditioning. The parking lot is also more than big enough for back-up generators.

 

I am aware that the logistical difficulties of conveying refugees to this area would be immense. But the local American Legion and countless other organizations stand ready to help, should any organizing ability be offered at any level.

 

Unfortunately, the Capital Plaza property has been leased by the Wal-Mart corporation, after a stealthy local lobbying campaign using tactics of infiltration and duplicity. (Wal-Mart, of course, is the source of many of those guns now being used in looting New Orleans.)

 

And now Wal-Mart has already begun demolition at Capital Plaza. Perhaps if we move fast enough, we can intervene and can still use this space for the valuable effect of saving lives and health.

President Tlevesoor rides again

The power of a fantasy is not always reduced by its ludicrousness. Tin-pot “Il Duce” of Italy, Benito Mussolini, envisioned himself as heir to Julius Caesar and proposed twentieth-century Italy as a “New Roman Empire.”

 

George W. Bush, whose personal fondness for dressing up in costumes has been amply demonstrated, apparently fancies himself the rightist avatar of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a figure on the world’s stage on course to reverse everything accomplished by FDR and by the New Deal.

 

The parallel, which exists only in Mr. Bush’s mind, is becoming progressively more overt. CNN reports that the president is about to set out on a course of public speeches to compare the “war on terror” to WW2. The objective, bizarre as it is, is to make the “war on terrorism” seem a global war, and thus to make it into a global war. That innocent people are dying by thousands, and that American service personnel are being injured and killed, hardly weighs in the scales. The odd unit in the White House wanted to invade the Middle East (“We’re at war,” Bob Woodward quotes Bush as saying immediately after 9/11), and they did it; they want to exert an inappropriate control over the other branches of government, the states, and the press, and they’re doing that too.

 

The objective is not to reduce terrorism but to pump it up into the “global war” that administration mouthpieces keep claiming it is, relying partly on the self-evident fact that every nation includes a young male population, and partly on the reliability of their own policies to inspire hatred around the globe. Any thinking person knows you can’t actually fight “terror” with a “war” or send legions around the world to deal with guerrilla tactics, but the administration and its media outlets use the most transparently offensive Orwellian language to discredit peace itself, or any notion that maps onto rationality, and every Bush appointment and policy amounts basically to throwing gasoline on the flames. Meanwhile, that we actually have, in office, in the White House, an odd crew that at some level wants a world war is so genuinely unthinkable that it is almost impossible to state in public discourse. The unthinkable has become unmentionable, but it’s happening: our President Tlevesoor is operating to reverse Roosevelt on every significant foreign and domestic policy.

 

The signs are accumulating. Bush has made increasingly explicit criticisms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt personally, including remarks about “Yalta” made abroad. Inveterate antagonists of New Deal policies including Social Security are being nominated by Bush for positions they would never have gotten before, including judgeships. The White House has even attacked Social Security (backing off for now), and according to Professor Yoshi Tsurumi of Baruch College, who taught Bush at Harvard Business School, Bush referred to Social Security and Medicare as “socialism” thirty years ago. Tsurumi has confirmed these remarks to me in a telephone interview.

 

The assault through private depredations is not just on Social Security but on all security. The Bush administration is not merely attacking Social Security; it is bent on undermining all security for a huge and self-confident middle class. The attacks are indirect as well as direct. When an employer like Wal-Mart moves into an area without providing affordable health benefits, the cost of employee health care is thrown upon Medicare. Policy moves that weaken private charity or state services throw a further health burden upon Medicaid. Meanwhile, corporate employers are not exactly being encouraged to provide good pensions for their employees. While corporate income at the top goes ever upward with bonuses, stock options and “golden parachutes” either not tied to performance or tied mainly to stock price, pensions are joining health insurance as a benefit out of reach even for middle management. A court decision allowed bankrupt United Airlines to break its pension promises.

 

Meanwhile, the White House has not supported the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which was designed to shore up employees’ retirement plans like those at United. And while taxing huge inheritances is falsely called a “death tax,” the administration continues to impose what amounts to a “survival tax”; patients in long-term care or assisted living generally have to use up all their assets in the world to qualify for Medicaid. And it goes without saying that any effort to prevent or to redress abuses through collective bargaining, public agencies like OSHA, or private litigation is savagely opposed by everyone working with the White House.

More on ‘Plamegate’: not just trifles

Even a short chronology from the over-all ‘Plamegate’ timeline is informative:

 

April 21, 2003: Judith Miller article appears in the New York Times, buttressing administration claims about Iraq WMDs (“smoking gun” etc); Miller also appears on Fox News the same day making the same claims about an Iraqi scientist as source for WMD claims.

 

April 22, 2003: Miller appears on PBS with similar claims.

 

June 7, 2003: New York Times reporters Judith Miller and William Broad publish an article, “Some Analysts of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use,” substantively revising or deflating Miller’s previous reporting on Iraq bio-weapons.

 

(Sarcastic Internet comment: “Using a canvas-sided truck for production of an inflammable gas always made more sense from an engineering standpoint.”)

 

June 8, 2003: then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appears on Meet the Press, maintaining that administration allegations about Iraq WMD were not inflated or wrong and denying that warnings or qualification reached the top level of the administration.

 

June 9, 2003: former ambassador Joseph Wilson gets in touch with Times editor David Shipley, who offers him “fifteen hundred words to tell my story,” according to Wilson’s book (The Politics of Truth, p. 332).

 

June 10, 2003: a State Dept memo by a Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst refers to Mrs. Wilson/Valerie Plame, and expresses continuing INR doubts re the Niger uranium.

 

June 30 (approx.): Joe Wilson emails his op-ed column to the Times, according to Wilson in response to emailed questions. He also states that some time that week, he discussed the piece with Shipley. The op-ed casts serious doubt on administration claims that Iraq tried to purchase “yellowcake” uranium from the poor African nation of Niger.

 

July 5: at “about 10:30 p.m.,” according to Wilson’s book, the op-ed hits the Times web site; at 10:32 Wilson gets a call from a New York Post reporter; at 10:34 he gets a call inviting him on Meet the Press the next day (p. 333).

 

July 6, 2003: Joseph Wilson’s op-ed appears in the New York Times.

July 7, 2003: the White House retracts the allegation that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger.

(This claim underlay the “sixteen words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech. Reportedly it was also inserted into a Dec. 2002 State Department “fact sheet” on Iraq by John Bolton, now our ambassador to the U.N.)

July 7: Bush and other members of his administration take off on a trip to Africa.

July 8: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, VP Cheney’s chief of staff, meets with Judith Miller and they discuss Wilson’s wife; a friend of Wilson’s encounters conservative columnist Robert Novak; and the friend then informs Wilson that Novak mentioned Wilson’s wife in connection with Niger.

July 8 or July 9: presidential aide Karl Rove talks with Novak; Wilson’s wife is mentioned.

July 11: Novak’s column naming Wilson’s wife as a CIA operative and saying that she had suggested his Niger trip, as “confirmed by two senior administration officials,” goes out on the AP wire; Karl Rove holds conversation about Mrs. Wilson with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper (Cooper then emails his bureau chief about the conversation; email now has been turned over to the grand jury); Karl Rove emails Stephen Hadley about the conversation

July 12, 2003: an administration official tells Washington Post Walter Pincus that  Wilson’s Niger trip was a “boondoggle” from his wife, a WMD operative.

July 14, 2003: Novak’s column appears in many daily newspapers.

July 16, 2003: then-CIA head George Tenet testifies to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the president had been “warned off” some wording regarding Niger and alleged Iraq WMD. (The president subsequently accepted Tenet’s resignation from the CIA.)

July 20, 2003: Andrea Mitchell at NBC tells Wilson that a senior White House source told her to press Wilson’s family relations rather than the 16 words.

July 21, 2003: Chris Matthews tells Wilson that Karl Rove called his wife “fair game.”

July 24: the CIA reports possible violations to then-Attorney General Ashcroft. According to the blog “Daily Kos,” the web site of oddly un-credentialed White House reporter “Jeff Gannon” (Guckert, who also solicits sex on the Internet with some mention of money) debuts the same day.  (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/191334/075)

July 30: the CIA files a crime report regarding the Plame leak with the Department of Justice.

August, 2003: the Washington Times publishes apiece by PNAC member Frank Gaffney Jr. implying bias at the INR: “This bureau’s intelligence products have tended to reflect the policy predilections of State’s permanent bureaucracy, rather than the facts.” Subsequently, rightwing web sites target the INR as a holdover of treasonous liberals.

Sept. 26, 2003: DOJ’s Counterespionage section decides to pursue a criminal investigation.

Sept. 29: DOJ requests FBI to investigate the leak; DOJ notifies CIA that Counterespionage also requested an investigation.

Sept. 30: at least 12 hours later, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales emails White House staff, telling them to preserve all materials and emails relating to the investigation.

Oct. 3: White House gives staff until 5:00 p.m. on Oct. 7 to turn over phone logs, records, etc., pertaining to the leak.

Nov. 3, 2003: “Talon News,” i.e. Jeff Gannon/Guckert, posts a third segment on Joe Wilson, casting doubts on the INR and its notes/memo re the CIA meeting that instigated Wilson’s Niger trip.

Nov. 7, 2003, a Friday:  John J. Kokal of the INR is found dead at bottom of the State Department building. Kokal worked in the Near East division. According to a D.C. Fire Department spokesman, he “was wearing a dress shirt, tie and slacks, but was not wearing shoes nor a suit jacket.”

[A shorter version of this piece appeared in this week’s Prince George’s Sentinel. ]

Our new Supreme Ct Nominee: His wife is big in satellite systems; her company is targeting Iraq

Yet another first for our boundary-breaching White House: for the first time in American history, we’re going to have a justice on the high court whose spouse facilitates financing and putting together global satellite systems.

 

Also, the company in which she is a partner, Shaw Pittman, emphasizes among other things its expertise in facilitating business in Iraq:

 

We offer one-stop service to clients pursuing projects in Iraq, from solicitation and RFP counseling to working with key government and multilateral agencies, and from initially penetrating the Iraqi marketplace to final project implementation. Our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their fields, and at the cutting-edge in a variety of disciplines relevant to Iraq reconstruction. A number have served in senior government positions in key agencies – including the Departments of Transportation, Navy, Justice and Commerce, as well as the Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank.”

http://www.pillsburylaw.com/go/areamaster.nsf/practices-all/International:%20Iraq%20Reconstruction

 

Iraq has not yet been able to achieve an integrated communications service (many Iraqis don’t even have their electricity back, yet.) By numerous accounts, satellite communications/networks loom as a large unfilled need in Iraq. Jane Sullivan Roberts’ credentials are solid, and business-wise, her walk in life is largely helping clients put together and get financing for satellite systems, according to her company bio:

 

Ms. Roberts practices with the firm’s communications and global sourcing groups, concentrating in representing clients in sophisticated transactions involving technology. She has extensive experience in representing clients in the buying and selling of space-related goods and services, including companies involved in the development of multi-billion dollar global and regional satellite systems. Ms. Roberts’ experience also includes representing clients in information technology outsourcing transactions; software licensing, development, and maintenance contracts; and professional services arrangements. Prior to 1992, Ms. Roberts practiced litigation in a wide variety of matters before various courts and decision-making bodies, including large international commercial arbitrations involving nuclear power plants before the International Chamber of Commerce.” http://www.pillsburylaw.com/Go/bios.nsf/professionals/Jane%20Sullivan%20Roberts

(I like that afterthought re nuclear power plants. Shades of Homer Simpson.)

 

The following statements by and about Ms. Roberts come from an article titled “High flyers, high margins, high society and space VC,” in the publication Space Business International (4th quarter 2000):

“Shaw Pittman is a composite organization, in which teams of associates, corporate finance partners, technology procurement and transfer partners, intellectual property strategists, corporate deal-makers work together with the clear aim of dominating Washington’s high-tech legal world. They’ve made a good start – hands on involvement already in 25 percent of all metropolitan VC closures in Q1-2000.

‘Despite the March 2000 downturn in US stock markets, there is still lots of VC money available’, says Roberts. ‘But the way the money is channelled has changed – it’s harder to fund business-to-business dot.coms, especially where you have to build a brand; and likewise for business-to-consumer deals. But there is still plenty of money left to fund wireless technologies, Internet infrastructure, next generation networking devices and b2b software plays.”

 

‘And Washington DC is cementing its position as an international hub of the commercial space and satellite industry. In terms of corporate headquarters, we have many major players, including Loral Cyberstar, Astrolink, Skybridge, Hughes Spaceway, Final Analysis, Ellipso, INTELSAT, COMSAT, WorldSpace, and XM Satellite Radio. Not to mention the major aerospace players …’”

 

Ms Roberts’ specific targets are the procurement of satellite systems and related services and technologies such as launch services, launch insurance, terrestrial networks, terminals, call centers and billing systems. ‘As a technology transaction lawyer, my role is to use contractual techniques to minimize my client’s completion risk, that is the risk the satellite system will not be completed – designed, built and deployed – within established performance, cost and schedule objectives. For a company seeking venture capital, it is critical to demonstrate to potential investors that the company is successfully managing its completion risk.’”

 

“So – how to close a transaction to buy a satellite system: ‘In a typical transaction where a client lacks substantial financial backing, we call up our experts in intellectual property, export control, bankruptcy, securities, debt financing, and dispute resolution. We have roughly 300 lawyers in the DC metro area and if, need be, we can call upon another one hundred lawyers in our New York, Los Angeles and London offices. Each of those offices is also focused on the high-tech industry.’”

[This link is down, but you can get to the article by clicking “cached” in a google search.]

 

A quite good, concise article by Ms. Roberts, on the risks of putting together a new satellite system and attempting to break into the market, is found at

http://www.pillsburylaw.com/go/News.nsf/news-publications-all/52D9281973A9BE6B85256FD40066ADE8?OpenDocument

The risks of building and financing a new satellite system fall into three broad areas: market, regulatory and completion. Market risk is the risk the target market does not want or cannot pay for the satellite services offered. Regulatory risk is the risk of not obtaining all regulatory approvals required to build and operate the satellite system, such as for orbital locations allocated by the International Telecommunications Union, spectrum licensed by the satellite operator’s “host” or “home” government, and “landing rights” granted in each country that will receive the new satellite service. Completion risk is the risk the satellite system will not be completed—designed, built and deployed—within the established performance, schedule and cost objectives.”

(from Satellite Finance, Issue 16)

 

Perhaps it will surprise few people that Shaw, Pittman, where Ms. Roberts is a partner, is offering its services for a newly privatized Iraq:

“Pillsbury’s Iraq Reconstruction Practice is mobilized to offer clients strategic legal advice in their postwar reconstruction efforts. Comprised of lawyers from several offices and backgrounds with relevant legal, industry and regional experience, the team is well poised to support virtually every endeavor in post-war Iraq, including:

·                                 Infrastructure development, construction and procurement

·                                 Intellectual property, technology and outsourcing services          [etc.]

www.pillsburylaw.com/go/areamaster.nsf/practices-all/International:%20Iraq%20Reconstruction

 

The company’s web site does not indicate that Ms. Roberts is on its Pillsbury Iraq Reconstruction Team. A call to the company to inquire whether she has yet had clients/projects in Iraq has not yet been returned. Stay tuned.

 

Meanwhile, the nominee husband’s numerous investments also include Shaw Pittman. One wonders whether a Justice Roberts would have to recuse himself on any cases involving Iraq, including cases about profiteering; procedure re “detainees” rounded up in Iraq; Iraq contract fraud; and/or regulatory or other violations by satellite systems companies that hired his wife’s firm or his wife herself.

 

Two articles on the London bombings

[The following two articles on the London bombings, from the London Mirror and Agence France-Press, were sent among others. Interesting idea, although nothing conclusive yet. ]

 

 

(1) Subject: Mirror.co.uk – EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?16 July 2005
EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of ‘Allah Akhbar’? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?
By Jeff Edwards

THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.
Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately. A security source said: “If the bombers lived and were caught they’d probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not.”
The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at
Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry “Allah Akhbar!” – “God is great” – usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.

Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items.
Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.
Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again.
Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.
Additionally, two of the bombers had strong personal reasons for staying alive.
Jermaine Lindsay’s partner Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, mother of his one-year-old son, is expecting her second baby within days. Mohammed Sidique Khan’s wife Hasina, mum of a 14-month-old daughter, is also pregnant.
Our source disclosed: “The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link.
“We think it’s possible they were told that when they pressed buttons to set off timers they’d have a short time to abandon the bombs and get away before the blast. Instead, the bombs exploded immediately.”
Another intelligence source added: “Whoever is behind this didn’t want to waste their best operatives on a suicide mission. Instead they used easily recruited low-grade men who may have believed they’d walk away.”
At least 54 people were killed in the 7/7 blasts. Khan, 30, of Dewsbury, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, of
Leeds, and Jamaican-born Lindsay, 19, of Aylesbury, Bucks, detonated devices on the Tube at Edgware Road, Aldgate and King’s Cross.
Hussain, 18, of
Leeds, blasted the bus at Tavistock Square. The Tube explosions went off almost simultaneously. But the bus went up an hour later.
Yesterday, Hussain’s family told of their horror at the teenager’s involvement in the massacre. They said in a statement: “We are devastated over the events of the past few days. Hasib was a loving and normal young man who gave us no concern and we are having difficulty taking this in.
“Our thoughts are with all the bereaved families. We have to live with the loss of our son in these difficult circumstances.
“We had no knowledge of his activities and, had we done, we would have done everything in our power to stop him. We urge anyone with information to cooperate fully with the authorities.”
Police are urgently investigating the missing 81 minutes between Hussain arriving from
Luton in London and the time his bomb went off. His device may have malfunctioned. He may have lost his nerve. Or he may have panicked when he discovered the Northern Line, on which he is
thought to have been due to travel, was suspended.
Officers want to discover if Hussain met anyone else who either strengthened his faltering resolve or reset his flawed bomb.”

 

 

(2) Sunday, July 17, 2005|09:05 IST
London bombers may have been tricked: Report
Agence France-Presse
London, July 17, 2005
 
British police are considering the possibility that the four key suspects in last week’s London attacks may have been tricked into setting off their bombs, a British newspaper reported.
“We do not have hard evidence that the men were suicide bombers,” a Scotland Yard spokesman told The Sunday Telegraph. “It is possible that they did not intend to die.”
According to the paper, one police hypothesis is that the bombers were tricked by a “master” who told them they would have time to escape — when in fact the devices were set to go off immediately.
“The bombers’ masters might have thought that they couldn’t risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators,” an unnamed security official told the Telegraph.
Lending weight to the theory is the fact that all four men had paid up their parking tickets before boarding a train at
Luton for King’s Cross, and that they all bought return tickets to the capital.
Moreover, the paper said, the men were carrying their explosives inside rucksacks, as opposed to strapped to their bodies as is common practice among suicide bombers.
None were reported to have cried “Allah Akbar” (God is Greatest) before setting off their charge — something that most Middle Eastern suicide bombers do.
“It is possible they were duped into believing there would be a delay, but what we know is that they carried bombs onto Tubes and a bus and set them off, killing themselves and innocent people,” one senior officer said.
“But we are keeping an open mind until we have firm evidence one way or another,” said the officer.”

Those bomb-in-the-subway drills, London, July 7th

[On July 7th in London, a private security company called Visor Consultants was actually conducting a drill, pertaining at least partly to bombs being placed in the London subways. I emailed the company for comment. Here is their response, in full:]

“Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows:  It is confirmed that a short number of ‘walk through’ scenarios
planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results.   One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.”

 

“However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences.  It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario – but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little
disconcerting.”

 

“In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.”

 

“Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power
Visor Consultants Limited”

—– Original Message —–
From: “Margie Burns” <margie.burns@verizon.net>
To: <info@visorconsultants.com>
Cc: <margie.burns@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: questions re drill on July 7th

> Hello. I am a journalist in the Washington, DC, area. I have received more > than one email saying that your company was conducting drills that > coincided exactly in timing with the bombings in London on July 7. Three > questions:
>
> 1) Is the above true and correct?
> 2) Did the drills concern or include representations of the London subways > being bombed?
> 3) Did you give an interview on this topic to the BBC on the evening of > the 7th?
>
> Any information appreciated. No one is accusing you of any wrongdoing, but > it is always best to get even trifling facts straight.  Thank you very > much.
>> Sincerely, Margie Burns>
>

 

[A couple of thoughts, here: obviously the individuals who planted those bombs took advantage of the drill, along with the advantage of extra crowds in London that day amid the hubbub of the Olympics announcement. Just as obviously, the individuals who planned the strikes of 9/11 took similar advantage of the drills on that date. Any genuine investigation would look into the question of who knew about those drills. I’m not expecting that the knowledge was particularly restricted – undoubtedly it was easily accessible, especially with the “911” date — but it numbers among several obvious starting points for inquiry. The inquiry cannot be confined to individuals “in government,” either. It must extend to private firms, both in the U.S. and in Britain.]

White House versus Pentagon: Press Loses

Back in the Sixties, some French auteur – Godard, I believe – had a scene in one of his films about the political uses of anti-Semitism. In the scene, a young rich woman is berating an older blue-collar man, a driver who accidentally killed her young rich boyfriend. The driver fights back. The scene ends, however, with the two heated participants in class warfare walking off with arms around each other, after they reconcile by mutually dumping on “Jews.”

 

This scene exactly parallels the way the story about Islam’s holy Koran being put into toilets at Guantanamo has played out. In an ongoing but largely sub rosa battle between the White House and the Pentagon, the two antagonists have (temporarily) reconciled by mutually dumping on the press.

 

Let’s not forget that the item – alleging that military interrogators were under investigation for defiling the Koran — was leaked to Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff by a “senior administration official.” This, in the journalistic code for background sources, signifies at least an Undersecretary and should signify a Cabinet member.

 

The leak comes shortly after the Army took its remarkable step of announcing that all its recruiters are going to “stand down” for one day this month, ostensibly because of abuses (lying) by recruiters. When I heard Bob Schieffer report that on CBS Evening News, I couldn’t help remembering what an uncle of mine once told us about being recruited. He’s my only uncle who wasn’t in World War II – by a lucky break, too young for WW2 and too old for Vietnam – and he was reflecting on the difference between before (getting in) and after. Once in, he said, he “never heard that [recruiter’s] voice again” – “so sweet, kind . . .” And that was in good times.

 

Not to get anyone into trouble, but the point here is that military recruiters have been lying for years. You pretty much have to shade the truth, if you want people to think that getting shot at is a good way to make a living.

 

The military is having increasing problems in recruiting; meanwhile, signs are that the White House wants to move on Iran if not Syria; service personnel are on beepers if they’re home and are prevented from coming home if abroad; cuts in pay and benefits for veterans and active duty personnel are constantly being mooted by the White House’s GOP boosters in Congress; another round of base closings is about to begin; and the Pentagon is under constant pressure from the White House and the GOP in Congress to cover up everything from prisoner abuse to security lapses before and after 9/11 to contractor corruption, even while facing public frustration at the cover-ups. That Army recruiters took a collective day off solely because of recruiting abuses is, shall we say, not a given.

 

My take on all this is (1) that the announced one-day stand-down was a protest, (2) that it got noticed at the White House, and (3) that the White House riposted.

 

Enter our “senior administration official.”

 

The Bush White House has evinced intent to dominate and control the Pentagon since first coming into office in January 2000. The story deliberately put out by an administration spokesperson about the Koran being put into toilets is only the most recent chapter in a consistent strategy of keeping a large power base off-balance (parallel to White House strategy of keeping the Fourth Estate off-balance, through a combination of attack, buying off, protective mimicry, infiltration and disinformation). The Pentagon may have bought itself time, temporarily, by joining the White House in an attack on Newsweek. But that superficial unity cannot possibly shore up the armed forces, caught up partly unknowingly and partly knowingly in a demented strategy to heighten and inflame terrorist strikes into “global war.”

Border patrols, militiamen, and “left”-“right” misunderstanding

Current reports over the controversial vigilante decision to patrol the US-Mexico border offer a perfect example of the right getting it wrong and the left not getting it, to borrow from the title of a book I haven’t read.

 

(N.b.: I plan to read the book, but the “why” in this kind of formulation often turns out to be theory about a nonexistent phenomenon. Most liberals still need to read David Brock’s book on the “noise machine” and to quit denying that 30 years of paid propaganda have taken their toll. Of course, “liberal” pundits or writers who timidly knuckled under to a nonexistent rightwing groundswell won’t be eager to admit it. Envy and competitiveness take their toll, too.)

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch – when I wrote, last year, about the open entrance of “OTMs” – “Other Than Mexicans” along “Arab Road” into Arizona, after a report about them in the Tombstone Tumbleweed, the article drew numerous responses, mostly favorable. But if you believe that the Democratic Party and “liberal” commentators immediately seized upon those reports to demand an investigation, and to point out that the so-called “War on Terror” is a sham, then I have a bridge in Arizona to sell.

 

Predictably, the only political action was by rightwingers in Congress wanting to halt the entrance of minority populations into this country, and reporting on the local action – which is NOT exclusively by white supremacists – has been dominated and characterized by the emphasis on racism.

 

As I said, a perfect example of the “left” not getting it and of the “right” getting it wrong.

 

That numerous Middle Easterners, intriguingly nicely dressed and showing no sign of having trekked through the desert, are among those coming into the US illegally through Arizona of all places, is a sign:

 

It is a sign of utter neglect by the Bush administration of the most elementary security measures. (Probably, genuine border patrolling ranks low among White House priorities partly because it doesn’t generate corporate contracts on a scale with Iraq and Afghanistan.)

 

As such, it is a sign that the “war on terror” is a sham. An administration genuinely concerned about domestic security would have taken on-the-ground measures first – even at the risk of offending corporate donors in the chemicals and transportation sectors.

 

As such, it is a sign – yet another sign — that the invasion of Iraq is not a “war on terror.”

 

As such, it is a sign that the White House is not interested in warring on terror; it is interested in goosing up terrorism into a world war. The envious and insecure George W. Bush, brought up to be resentful of American great families including the Roosevelts, thinks he’s another FDR, on the right instead of on the left. Another Yalta awaits – with Bush, the Saudis, and China in the key positions.

 

But the purported intellectuals in media, in academia and in government who have turned a blind eye to this horrendous picture have little vested interest in exposing it. In exposing it, after all, they also expose their own blindness, but even more of a chilling effect is the insidious pressure exerted by status. To be engaged by genuine public health and public safety issues is low-status. (The WashPost, having reported the release of Plague virus to several thousand labs, backpedaled and ran a ridiculous article saying, in effect, No cause for alarm, folks; nothing to worry about – but very skimpy on details.) To this day, even the best of the Post’s commentators – William Raspberry, Colbert King – have not forcefully opposed incarceration under the vile and cowardly policy of “indefinite detention.”

 

It’s as though they cannot see that the White House is deliberately (1) inflaming global tensions and (2) attempting an inappropriate degree of control over this country’s political and judicial system.

 

We all engage in denial at times. But remember back when Miss Lewinsky was the big news story? – The WashPost ran an entire pull-out section on her, titled “The Presidency in Crisis.” (After opinion polls showed differently, the title appeared in smaller print; then the section became part of the front section; then it disappeared altogether. That editor then took leave to spend more time with her family.) We will know that our national press, and democracy, are thriving when the Post starts running an entire pull-out section on the indefinite incarceration of prisoners: when the prisoners’ families get entire pages devoted to their relatives; when the fact that the prisoners are not being allowed lawyers gets front-page and full-page attention; when the fact that the prisoners are not even being told the charges against them gets lengthy full-section rehashing — with experts weighing in from every point on the political spectrum — the way Miss Lewinsky did.

 

Meanwhile, I doubt whether any individual, regardless of how ignorant, sincerely believes that the US would be endangered by prisoners being told the charges against them. Bush and his team must themselves be bemused at the extent of their control over the national political press.