TomDispatch - Tomgram: A Permanent Basis for Withdrawal?

It's always nice when, after I tire of screaming about something no one seems to notice or care about, I see mention of the exact same thing in a place where someone might actually notice it.

This is such an article:
"Can you say 'Permanent Bases'?

Nieman Watchdog

Here is a refreshing site. The Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard asks questions of apparently very well connected, experienced folk with experience deep inside government who actually know what's going on and what questions should be asked.

This particular article is about Chas Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who seems to understand both the problems we have in the area and others and the nonsense that's spouted by this administration and the media about it. Read it. It's fun. It's like hearing someone who's awake.

Semi-Annual User Survey

I have heard from several (ok, more than one) persons that they "read in my blog, (whatever)"— but, considering the dearth of comments on this page, I'm wondering if they were just feigning readership and being polite.

So, the task for you, if you are indeed there, is to leave a comment here. Just this once. Let me know you are there, or let me forever write these pithy posts to myself in peace.

Either thank you for your time, or nevermind...

Sinister Events in a Cynical War - by John Pilger

It was published in September, 2005, but Sinister Events in a Cynical War - by John Pilger has some items in it that, in light of the Mosque bombing, need to be reviewed.

Although reported initially by the Times and the Mail, all mention of the explosives allegedly found in the SAS [British Intelligence] men's unmarked Cressida vanished from the news. Instead, the story was the danger the men faced if they were handed over to the militia run by the "radical" cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "Radical" is a gratuitous embedded term; al-Sadr has actually cooperated with the British. What did he have to say about the "rescue"? Quite a lot, none of which was reported in this country. His spokesman, Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, said the SAS men, disguised as al-Sadr's followers, were planning an attack on Basra ahead of an important religious festival. "When the police tried to stop them," he said, "[they] opened fire on the police and passersby. After a car chase, they were arrested. What our police found in the car was very disturbing – weapons, explosives, and a remote-control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists."

The episode illuminates the most enduring lie of the Anglo-American adventure. This says the "coalition" is not to blame for the bloodbath in Iraq – which it is, overwhelmingly – and that foreign terrorists orchestrated by al-Qaeda are the real culprits. The conductor of the orchestra, goes this line, is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. The demonry of al-Zarqawi is central to the Pentagon's "Strategic Information Program" set up to shape news coverage of the occupation. It has been the Americans' single unqualified success. Turn on any news in the U.S. and Britain, and the embedded reporter standing inside an American (or British) fortress will repeat unsubstantiated claims about al-Zarqawi.

Two impressions are the result: that Iraqis' right to resist an illegal invasion – a right enshrined in international law – has been usurped and delegitimized by callous foreign terrorists, and that a civil war is under way between the Shi'ites and the Sunni. A member of the Iraqi National Assembly, Fatah al-Sheik, said this week, "There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupiers to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people and spread rumors in order to scare the one from the other. … The occupiers are trying to start religious incitement, and if it does not happen, then they will start an internal Shi'ite incitement."

The Anglo-American goal of "federalism" for Iraq is part of an imperial strategy of provoking divisions in a country where traditionally the communities have overlapped, even intermarried. The Osama-like promotion of al-Zarqawi is integral to this. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, he is everywhere but nowhere. When the Americans crushed the city of Fallujah last year, the justification for their atrocious behavior was "getting those guys loyal to al-Zarqawi." But the city's civil and religious authorities denied he was ever there or had anything to do with the resistance.

"He is simply an invention," said the Imam of Baghdad's al-Kazimeya mosque. "Al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of the war in the Kurdish north. His family even held a ceremony after his death." Whether or not this is true, al-Zarqawi's "foreign invasion" serves as Bush's and Blair's last veil for their "war on terror" and botched attempt to control the world's second biggest source of oil.

On Sept. 23, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, an establishment body, published a report that accused the U.S. of "feeding the myth" of foreign fighters in Iraq, who account for less than 10 percent of a resistance estimated at 30,000. Of the eight comprehensive studies into the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the "coalition," four put the figure at more than 100,000. Until the British army is withdrawn from where it has no right to be and those responsible for this monumental act of terrorism are indicted by the International Criminal Court, Britain is shamed.

Hotter, Faster, Worser

This is a real inspiring piece of writing about the possible synergistic efferts of positive feedback on global warming. A little over the top—I hope!

Daily Kos: Science Friday: The Science of Deception

This is a great description of how hurricanes develop, operate, and respond to warming water temperatures. They are, after all, heat engines.

Dahr Jamail | Who Benefits?

"This is as 9/11 in the United States," said Adel Abdul
Mahdi, a Shiite and one of Iraq's two vice presidents.

"This" being the Mosque bombing. Pretty heavy stuff. Let's think about this.

Concerning that bombing, here's an article which supplies an answer to a question that more people should be asking: Who stands to gain by inflaming Shia against Sunni?

I can't imagine the Iraqis themselves want a civil war. Who does? The only war most of them are interested in is a war to free their country from occupation.

The Occupiers, however, may have a desire to see Iraqis fight each other. How did the British, from such a tiny island, manage to get a worldwide empire, over vastly larger populations? Divide and conquer is what I've always heard.

The PNAC Plan for world hegemony is predicated on planting US bases around the world, particularly around the Middle East and in countries surrounding China. The US is not in the habit of constructing billion dollar military bases and then giving them away. After wanting a staging area in Iraq and control over its resouces, the US is not about to go home, no matter what Bush and his cronies might say. Ain't gonna happen.

Here are two possibilities:

(1) the US installs a government that can run Iraq to our specifications, allowing the US military to do whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases. This is more or less the plan over the past two years. Only a government that immediately extended an invitation to the US to remain was allowed to take power. However, the Iraqis, for some reason, didn't feel like accepting the puppet government as legit. The most unifying thing in Iraq today is the desire of virtually all indigenous parties to have the occupiers leave, immediately.

This poll taken in August 2005 by the British Sunday Telegraph for the Military, shows that Iraqis just plain don't want us there:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

Poles said that's why the vast majority of Iraqis voted—they thought voting was a prerequisite to moving to the next step, which they hoped was Sending the Occupiers Home. The occupation actually has promoted unification between the Sunni and the Shia—against the occupation. So, the next most likely way to justify the continuation of the occupation is...

(2) an event (their Pearl Harbor? their 911?) which would divide and terrorize the country, and justify continuation of the occupation, simply to provide security for the population that the wretched US-trained Iraqi forces cannot.

Now that quote at the beginning of this post makes some sense...

"This is as 9/11 in the United States," said Adel Abdul
Mahdi, a Shiite and one of Iraq's two vice presidents.

MediaCitizen: Network Neutrality: Dead on Arrival?

I'm not exactly sure that I understand this but it sounds pretty grim.

Someone explain it to me a little more fully, ok? Does this mean that the Internet is liable to go the way of Cable TV? That's what it sounds like.

UAE Terminal Takeover Extends to 21 Ports

There's something fishy going on here, and I don't think it's just the normal fish smell that you get around port cities.

Let's think about this. Here's a story about a foreign company (not just any old foreign company, mind you, but a company owned by a foreign government) taking control of, among other things, the details governing the security of a bunch of our strategically important ports. (Remember the other day when we were talking about 6 ports? Turns out now it's 21.) And not owned by just any foreign government, but one of just three in the world who recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Not just any foreign government, but one who's Royal Family has partied with Osama himself—and in fact that's one reason given by the CIA for not taking out Osama before 911.

Ok. Just suppose someone wanted to smuggle one o' those fabled WMD things into the US—say into a port. The security details of that port might be something you'd like to know ahead of time.

Aw, pshaw, you say. Such things just don't happen. Surely the US wouldn't allow such sensitive information into the hands of terrorist-connected folk?

Travel back in time with me, to before 911, the "event that changed everything." On June 17, 2005, right wing website Frontpage.com had this article telling about a company you've probably never heard of called Ptech:

"Ptech, which recently changed its name to GoAgile, developed a software, also called Ptech, that was used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints that held every important functional, operational, and technical detail of a given enterprise."
. . .
"Ptech’s clients in 2001 included the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, the FAA, IBM, Sysco, Aetna, and Motorola, to name just a few. "
. . .
"In October 2001, former Vice-President of Sales for Ptech approached the FBI Boston office with detailed information regarding possible links between Ptech and the 9/11 attacks. He was followed by Indira Singh, a risk consultant at J. P. Morgan Chase, in May 2002, who approached the Boston FBI office, the NY Joint Terrorism Task Force, the management of J. P. Morgan Chase and FBI headquarters with more documentation regarding possible Ptech penetration of US government agencies and corporations."

...and, the point of this article—

"So, how could a small, Saudi-financed company with questionable terrorist connections obtain significant government and business contracts, and who facilitated this? Was Horizons, its Egyptian branch, ever investigated? Why wasn’t Ptech shut down? Why is it still allowed to operate? And even more importantly, are there other Ptechs around?"(*)

The author of this article, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, "a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, is Director of the American Center for Democracy, and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It (Bonus Books, 2004,2005)"

Computers and programs reach understanding

agree to coexist peacefully

After a trying day on the phone to the local ISP and an on-screen chat with the DSL guy, amazingly, everything vital seems to be working once again. Mac Mail—messages go both in and out. Never had it working this well before.

Now, what was I doing...? Ah yes. Off to Napa. Check on the remnants of the Estate Sale. Do the Jessel's thing.

Computers took so much of my time this week—

— I had no time left to blog on my computer.

Here's the story.

A week ago yesterday it occurred to me that it would be fun to network two of my macs together—my internet mac (the iMac I'm typing this on) and the G4 over there with Flash on it. Just for fun. Everything was working fine. Just thought I'd have some fun. Just for fun.

I had a short ethernet cable. Figured it might work, or it might not work—some Macs need a crossover cable, but some don't. Enabled my ethernet—settings I'd never messed with, but they seemed simple enough. Plugged in the cable. Hmmm. Nothing doing. Tried various things, but my macs never seemed to see each other. Oh well. Must need that crossover cable! Disconnected the cable from the iMac. Didn't turn it off first. Didn't think about it.

Then I noticed that the mouse cursor was frozen, up in the upper left-hand corner of the screen. Keyboard worked—cursor keys worked—but the mouse was dead as a doornail. Tried to think of things to do. Restart in another OS? Couldn't quite do it without the mouse. Start from a CD? Wouldn't work. Change the name of the boot drive to force a start from another drive? Wouldn't let me. Hmmm.

Got desperate and tried something foolish. I upgraded my operating system from OS 10.2.8 to 10.3.5 that a friend loaned me, foolishly thinking that this might clear things up. Hah!

It did get the mouse working. Ah! I had control of the craft again! I could steer it where I wanted to go! Except most of the programs no longer worked!

Perhaps a fresh install, after wiping the hard drive, would have helped. But a not-so-fresh install, without wiping the hard drive (wiping it would get rid of all those cool programs that came loaded on the iMac!) apparently had muddled things up horribly. I was introduced in a not-so-friendly way to the horrid world of "Permissions" and Unix.

OK. I'll just go online and Google "Permissions" and find out what's up. Then noticed that I wasn't online. DSL was always online. But I couldn't get online. Checked internet settings—nothing seemed to have changed, but DSL was no longer. Kept getting "Cannot locate a PPPoE server" over and over again. What exactly had I done in those Ethernet settings?

Hmmm. Well. DSL comes in here from the modem by an Ethernet cable. I checked the SBC DSL help page (on Bonnie's computer) and followed all the instructions. I tried logging in as if I were registering for the first time. I tried logging in as Bonnie. I tried everything I could think of. I gave up and went to bed about 3am.

This continued, off and on, for the next couple of days. Finally I got onto an SBC DSL helpline chat, using my dialup SVN connection. The first human I engaged said, well, get rid of all your settings. What? OK. So I undid all the stuff I'd read to do at the help page. Doing this disengaged me from the chat. Still didn't work.

Got on with another human, this time one from India (I asked what the weather was there)— and this time I was told to uncheck the "Use Ethernet" box. But doesn't it come in on Ethernet?
Well, yes, this helpful person said, but the modem takes care of all that. The iMac needs to do nothing at all. Oh yeah? Hmmm. You know, that sounds familiar... Well, I guess I had enabled ethernet to try networking the macs. Well. I was chatting on Bonnie's laptop this time, so I was able to tell the helpful person that, hey, it worked! Unchecking that one box did it. Counterintuitive it was, but work it did.

But meanwhile, there was that "Permissions" thing.

Every other time I'd try to run a program, or open a file, I'd get this "you don't have Permission to do that!" message. What?? I own this computer! I wrote that file! What do you mean, I don't have permission? So I went through about a zillion files and folders and applications, hitting Command-I for the Info screen, which I remembered had a Owners and Permissions thing that I'd never bothered with before. Hadn't had to.

So I'm thinking, if I set these things to give ME permission, that should fix things, right? And there's a box that says "reset permissions for all included folders and files." Great! that's just what I want it to do. So I did that, too.

Only it still didn't work. Firefox ran. IE didn't run. Photoshop ran. Mail didn't run. Tried importing Mail from the previous system, but all of it wouldn't import. Quicktime wouldn't run! Things that are included with the Operating System, just installed, wouldn't run! Yikes.

So I searched the internet for possible similar problems and possible fixes. Everywhere I turned there was talk of "Fixing Permissions" and "Clean installs" and the fact that OS 10's command to "reset permissions for all included folders and files" doesn't actually do that, but this utility called "BatchMod" could, and would fix things. Hmmm.

Downloaded this BatchMod. And it wouldn't run! Yikes again.

Also found online where OS 10.3.5 wasn't recommended for this iMac. Yikes. Ok. I had the discs for 10.2.5. It worked before. Maybe I could "De-grade" my OS to that. Ok. So I reinstalled 10.2.5, and then upgraded to 10.2.8 (where I was before all this foolishness) using an upgrade that I downloaded over DSL. Now things should be like they were.

Things seemed ok. But BatChmond still wouldn't run. Hmmm.... maybe an older version would work... Download from another site a slightly older version, and it ran. Hooray! Read a 25 page online book excerpt on Permissions, and figured I sorta knew what was up. Used BatChmond to reset premissions of all sorts of things. (And, by the way, most things had to be run through BatChmond several times before they somehow got fixed. How this is possible in a computer, which only does what it's told by its program, is beyond me.) Most now worked. Some still don't. I don't know why.

After "fixing" Mail it ran, but wouldn't download any mail. And there were no mailboxes! Imported my mailboxes from the Previous System—ah, there they are. All my mailboxes. Fine! at least that's working!

Only, when I checked the boxes they were all empty!

I'm tempted to just migrate everything to Gmail and be done with it, but I somehow don't feel secure having all my mail on a distant server. Just silly on my part, I suppose.

Emailed my dialup isp and asked about the mail thing. It still won't download mail, and the server's getting filled a little more than I'd like. Scott the SVN tech emailed back to call during business hours and talk to someone. Ok. I'll try to remember to do that.

Online I found that one helpful thing to troubleshoot is to create another "user" and log in as that user, and try to run things. Sure enough, as another user, I could run many things that wouldn't work if I was me. Quicktime still won't work, except sometimes, but IE now works. Only this other user doesn't have access to all the stuff I've got on the computer.

These permissions are a royal pain! Sure, if I'm running a network, or other people are using my computer, it might be very handy. But I'm from the one user/one computer paradigm of BYTE and Pournelle from the 80s, and I object to having to deal with this stuff.

Ok, I could go back to OS 9.2.2 where permissions don't exist. But I've only used OS 10 on this machine. It would be like starting over again. None of the stuff I've done for the last year would be accessable.

I'd gone a year without having to even think about OS 10 being Unix. Now this.

Yikes.

Cleveland, City of Light

City of Magic
Cleveland, City of Light, you're callin' me.
Cleveland, when I tried to put up posters
Cops threw me to the ground and hauled me away...

(apologies to Randy Newman)

This so reminds me of those stories of Life in Communist Russia that I grew up with, stories from the John Birch Society, stories from Voice of Americanism with Dr. Stuart McBirnie on KFAX that my mom listened to every day.

Only this is a real story of something that happened last week in Cleveland. You know, Cleveland, in Ohio, in the United States. The United States has a Bill of Rights last time I checked. Maybe I should check again.

Oh, No, Not Chomsky!

Yes, Chomsky.

He's roundly dismissed by nearly everyone in the US media and culture: He's old. He's an "egghead." He's out of touch with mainstream thought. He says things that are darned unpopular and just not said in polite company.

Perhaps that's the biggest argument against him -- he's impolite. He says things that good, upstanding citizens just don't say. How dare he use unfair things like logic and reason! And above all, facts, facts, facts culled from newpapers of record all over the world, things that polite people don't read, or, if by some mistake they encounter them, they are surely too polite to bring up, facts are at his fingertips, and they burn, they burn us! We hates them! Gollum, gollum!

But if you're daring, if you feel like having a bucket of cold water poured over your safe preconceptions of US reality, and, mainly, if you have a couple of hours, because this sucker is long (!), by all means read Chomski's the Terrorist in the Mirror at Counterpunch's site.

(Now that I think of it, the most common argument against Chomsky is that his writing is dry. This automatically disqualifies it from consideration, since we demand entertainment above all else. It's only when someone gets past this that they get to the unpleasant impolite facts Chomsky always manages to have on hand...William F. Buckley famously countered one of Chomsky's cogent and incisive arguments by saying,"I'd like to punch you in your goddamned face!")

Osama's just not himself these days

Must be the dialysis...

On this fascinating site, read an analysis of the premiere appearance before the world via video tape of that famous 1980s model Soviet-Fighting Freedom Fighter. This is when and where most of us were introduced to him, where we learned he was now a hateful villian claiming credit for the disaster of 9/11. But what makes you think that guy on the video tape was him?


The first four pictures, (A) through (D), are real verified actual photos of Osama in action at various events. (E), as anyone with functioning eyeballs can tell, has apparently suffered a head transplant. His nose, his cheeks, the shape of his head -- all wrong. It's a different guy, I tells ya!

Curiously, (E) is the one on the "Osama Confesses to 911" video.

Now, honestly, have you ever seen these pictures together before? What do you think now that you have?

Rove named as a source of Plame leak

Ever heard of the National Journal? I hadn't. But look what this article in it today says:

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Iraq, Niger, And The CIA (02/02/2006): "On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller met again. During a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, according to testimony Miller gave to the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Libby first told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Office.

Around the same time, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and at least one other senior Bush administration official leaked information to a number of journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission."

"one other senior Bush administration official" -- hmmm -- who could THAT be?

Hamas - everything you know may not be true

Or it may be. But here's a couple of stories that may have some details you may have missed: Hamas history tied to Israel and Hamas says they will uphold their end of the cease fire.

Responses to State of the Union Address -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)

Here's some Responses to State of the Union Address from the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA). They have a link to a pdf of their critique of the address here.

Has it finally come to this?

Land of the free. Home of the brave. Believe George is good and you are free to do so. Be brave enough to stand up for your rights and you may be jailed.

What Really Happened.
by Cindy Sheehan
Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 01:19:44 AM PDT

Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan."

At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy