I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".

On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.

The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.

“We’re very important,” he says, abandoning self-flagellation. “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle.” To drive home his point, he makes a remarkably bold claim. “We have a social purpose.”

The New York State government is trying to invest in the clean energy sector and other sunrise technologies and industries, but funding is fragmented and difficult to obtain, and small entrepreneurs and parts suppliers remain almost entirely dependent upon the individual decisions of larger producers and assemblers who outsource much of their operations overseas.

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy).--Steve Kangas, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

Since 9/11, the Bush administration has been propping up Musharraf's military regime with $3.6 billion in economic aid from the US and a US-sponsored consortium, not to mention $900 million in military aid and the postponement of overdue debt repayments totaling $13.5 billion. But now the administration is debating whether Musharraf has become too dependent on Islamic extremist political parties in Pakistan to further US interests, and whether he should be pressured to permit the return of two exiled former prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who have formed an electoral alliance to challenge him in presidential elections scheduled for next year.--Pakistan: Friend or Foe? The US shouldn't prop up President Musharraf's military regime, Selig S. Harrison

When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.Benazir Bhutto, A False Choice for Pakistan

The May 12 terrorist attacks on the al Hamra, Jadawal and Vinnell compounds in the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh, which killed more than 90 people, were not merely assaults on “symbols” of the imperialist West. The bombers were also intent on weakening the rule of Saudi royal family.While the timing of the bombings in Saudi Arabia and in other countries — just hours before US Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Saudi Arabia — suggested a coordinated assault on US targets, the bombings in Riyadh were targeted at key props of the reactionary regime.All three Saudi Arabian targets were associated with Saudi Arabia's role as a US client state: residential compounds housing mainly expatriates working in the country, the offices of the Vinnell Corporation and the residences of its employees.Vinnell, founded in California in 1931, first gained a foothold in Saudi Arabia in 1975. An article by Matt Gaul in the June 1998 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, revealed that it was the culmination of a close relationship between the corporation, the US military and Washington's intelligence agencies. This relationship stretched back to the end of World War II, when the US government used the company to ship supplies to the China's counter-revolutionary party, the Kuomintang.During the 1950s and '60s, Vinnell constructed US military airfields in Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Thailand and southern Vietnam. According to Gaul, it was during this period that Albert Vinnell, the corporation's founder, “offered his staff's services to the [CIA], and several CIA agents used employment with Vinnell as cover for operations in Africa and the Middle East”.-- Rohan Pearce, CIA front targeted in terrorist attacks, 28 May 2003

It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.--Steve Kangas, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance. In the geopolitical vision driving current US policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. --Robert Dreyfuss, Mother Jones

“...it is essential to provide background on the scope and nature of its worldwide operations. Between 1961 and 1975 the Agency conducted 900 major or sensitive operations, and thousands of lesser covert actions. The majority of its operations were propaganda, election or paramilitary. Countries of major concern, such as Indonesia in the early 1960s, were usually subjected to the CIA's most concerted attention. Critics of the CIA have aptly described the mainstays of such attention: "discrediting political groups... by forged documents that may be attributed to them. . . ." faking "communist weapon shipments,'' capturing communist documents and then inserting forgeries prepared by the Agency's Technical Services Division. --Ralph McGehee

Why I moderate commentsSPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders. Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

"The prestigious Cardinal John J. O'Connor Pro-Life Award is being given in response to the former president's eight years of pro-life legislation. Legatus cites his administration's opposition to embryonic stem cell research, an executive order barring federal funds from being used for abortion related projects abroad, the appointment of two pro-life Supreme Court Justices and a rule protecting federally funded health employees from taking part in abortion or practices that conflict with their faith as policies that Bush helped enact during his presidency," the Catholic News Agency reported. According to the Legatus magazine website, "In one of his of his last acts as president, Bush declared Jan. 18, 2009, as "National Sanctity of Human Life Day," stating that the "the most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent."

The Jewish leaders’ intervention produced an open letter to Clarke’s Jewish constituents in which she expressed her regret for supporting the congressional letters. “Unfortunately, these letters are uneven in their application of pressure and do not sufficiently present a balanced approach/path to peace,” Clarke wrote, adding that the letters have “a provocative and reactionary impact.”… Clarke’s retraction of her support for the Gaza letters echoes similar pressure put on lawmakers in the run-up to J Street’s first national conference, in October 2009. Then, too, some members of Congress from strongly Jewish districts came under constituent pressure to withdraw from a list of sponsors for the event.

A center-right group, "Im Tirtzu," issued a report last week charging that the Goldstone report relies on documentation from 16 local rights organizations that were vocal critics of Israeli conduct during the war. The report singled out a common financial thread, the multimillion-dollar New Israel Fund, which raises money among American Jews and foundations for progressive causes. That sparked a drive in the Israeli parliament to approve an investigation to determine whether the work of those nonprofits undermines Israel’s legitimacy. The investigation could lead to the outlawing of some groups.

At least one of the signatories to the letter, U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY), has apparently withdrawn her signature, change her political attitude when the issue hit a little closer to home. A long-standing representative of the Brooklyn community of Crown Heights, Clarke recently joined a photo-op snapped with Brooklyn Jewish community leaders who had gathered donations for the earthquake-stricken people of Haiti.  “We all see the swift and expert work of Israeli doctors and rescue teams on the ground almost immediately following the 7.0 earthquake,” she told reporters covering the event at the time. “The Jewish response to the pain of others is legendary — and today’s gathering is a continuation of the special heart the Jewish community always shows in times of crisis.”

The outspoken Harvard Law School professor has told the Forward that he didn’t intend to call the lead author of the controversial Goldstone Report a moser, a Jew who informs on other Jews, in a recent interview on Israel Army Radio. Indeed, Dershowitz, who graduated from a Jewish elementary school and high school, says that he does not even know the meaning of the word — a term from Jewish religious law that the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin cited to describe why the Israeli leader deserved to die. Instead, Dershowitz claims that he thought he was telling his interviewer that the South African jurist was “absolutely” a “monster.”… “I wrote to the broadcaster, retracting my word ‘traitor,’” Dershowitz told the Forward. “But if you’re asking me deep in my heart and soul do I believe that the word fairly characterizes him, in light of the way he’s used his Jewishness, both as a shield and a sword? You know, if the shoe fits.” …In the Israeli Army Radio segment, “Ma Boer” host Razi Barkai asked Dershowitz regarding Goldstone, “Do you hint, professor, that he is a moser, someone who betrays his own people?” “Absolutely,” Dershowitz responded. The term moser entered the Israeli political discourse in 1995 in the wake of Rabin’s assassination by radical settler supporter Yigal Amir, when Amir cited some rabbis’ designation of Rabin as a moser as part of his justification for carrying out the murder.

Israel’s democracy and those who defend its commitment to basic civil rights are under attack – and we need to fight back right now. Growing crackdowns by Israeli authorities in Jerusalem against peaceful political activists. [1] Leading Israeli feminists threatened with charges for the "crime" of holding a prayer service at the Western Wall. [2] Swiftboat style ads, funded by extremist groups based in the States and reminiscent of propaganda from the darkest days of Jewish history, attacking pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-democracy activists in Israeli papers. [3] Alan Dershowitz inciting against a political opponent, calling him "evil" and a "traitor" to the Jewish people on Israeli Army Radio. [4] Those of us who believe that Israel should be a symbol of Jewish and democratic values in action must fight back right now. The very character and quality of Israel’s democracy and civil society is under threat. Click here to sign our open letter in support of Israel’s democracy and civil society. Our plan is to collect 10,000 signatures on this open letter, then publicly and personally deliver them to the organizations and individuals who need to hear our pro-democracy, pro-civil rights, pro-Israel message. We’ll push our story hard with the media – and use these deliveries to generate coverage. Our first delivery stop will be the pro-civil rights protesters in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s Executive Director, will go to show them that American Jews who love and care about Israel’s vibrant democracy stand with them as they exercise their basic democratic rights and protest Palestinian home evictions in East Jerusalem. Then, we’ll take your signatures to the extremist organization – Im Tirtzu – running that despicable ad against the New Israel Fund, demanding they end their attacks on the preeminent defenders of Israel’s civil society. We’ll also make sure everyone knows where Im Tirtzu gets its money — $100,000 from Christians United For Israel, whose founder, John Hagee, once said that Hitler was sent by God to force Jews to move to Israel, and the New York City-based settlement-funding charity called Central Fund for Israel that holds their accounts. [5] [It's always easy to bash Christian Zionists, though big American Jews are all over this deal... --Weiss] The same fund supports trips to the United States for extremist settler activist Nadia Matar, who even called for the assassination of Mahmoud Abbas in a New York City synagogue during one of her trips. [6] We will also make sure your open letter ends up in the hands of Alan Dershowitz, so that he sees that 10,000 Americans who support Israel also reject over-the-top personal demonization, even about political opponents, to achieve narrow political gains. We won’t stop there – not for a moment – because we all know that there are many more challenges to Israel’s democracy, the lack of a two-state solution being at the top of the list. Click here to sign our open letter in support of Israel’s democracy. Thanks so much for all you do. We’ll be in touch soon about next steps for this critical campaign. – Isaac Isaac Luria J Street Campaigns Director February 2, 2010 P.S. View the despicable ad attacking the New Israel Fund here. [1] "Court frees Sheikh Jarrah protesters, says arrest was illegal," by Nir Hasson. Haaretz, January 17, 2010. [2] "Women of the Wall Leader Interrogated by Police," by Jane Eisner. The Forward, January 6, 2010. [3] "Rightists Target New Israel Fund Over Grantees’ Goldstone Testimony," by J.J. Goldberg. The Forward, January 31, 2010. [4] "Dershowitz: Goldstone is a traitor to the Jewish people," by Haaretz Service. Haaretz, January 31, 2010. [5] "Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer," by Didi Remez. Coteret, February 1, 2010. [6] ‘Rabbi Rejects Assassination Call at N.Y. Shul," by JTA Wire Service. The Baltimore Jewish Times, March 26, 2009. [Weiss: Interestingly, I broke this story, but Luria credits JTA. And I know why. Mondo is radioactive in the Jewish community, or is perceived by organizational leadership that way. So Luria can't credit me. Hey it comes with the territory.]

He [the unnamed source for the piece, a highranking Israeli officer] added that the majority of casualties were caused in his brigade area by aerial firing, including from unmanned drones. "Most of the guys taken down were taken down by order of headquarters. The number of enemy killed by HQ-operated remote … compared to enemy killed by soldiers on the ground had absolutely inverted," he said.

Until now, the testimony has been kept out of the public domain. The senior commander told a journalist compiling a lengthy report for Yedhiot Ahronot, Israel’s biggest daily newspaper, about the rules of engagement in the three-week military offensive in Gaza. But although the article was completed and ready for publication five months ago, it has still not appeared. Yedhiot has not commented on why its article has not been published.

In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.

The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. ...

For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.

Because the ultimate aim -- the only aim, really -- of the militarists' policy toward Iran is regime change. They don't care about "national security" or the "threat" from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal; they know that there is no threat whatsoever that Iran will attack Israel -- or even more ludicrously, the United States -- even if Tehran did have nukes. They don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people under a draconian, repressive and corrupt regime. They are not worried about Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism," for, as we've seen, the militarists thrive on -- when they are not actively fomenting -- the fear and anguish caused by terrorism. This fear is the grease that drives the ever-expanding war machine and 'justifies' its own ever-increasing draconian powers and corruption.

No, in the end, the sole aim of the militarist policy is to overthrow Iran's current political system and replace it with a regime that will bow to the hegemony of the United States and its regional deputy, Israel. There is no essential difference in aim or method between today's policy and that of 1953. (Except that the regional deputy in those days was Britain, not Israel.) What they want is compliance, access to resources and another strategic stronghold in the heart of the oil lands -- precisely what they wanted, and got, with the installation of the Shah and his corruption-ridden police state more than a half-century ago.

They play the long game, our militarists. For example, they agitated openly -- and  plotted covertly -- for the invasion of Iraq for almost 10 years before they finally got their way. They have worked for 30 years now to restore a client regime in Iran, and today, with the relentless bipartisan demonizing of the Iranians -- and the "mushroom cloud" fearmongering over a non-existent nuclear weapons program -- they are as close as they have ever been to their goal.

‘San Patricio' (the Spanish name for St. Patrick) tells the nearly forgotten story of the brave San Patricio battalion - a downtrodden group of Irish immigrant conscripts who deserted the U.S. Army in 1846 to fight on the Mexican side against the invading Yankees in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).

Although the members of the San Patricio Battalion were reviled as traitors and deserters in the U.S., Chieftains' founder and frontman Paddy Moloney says, "the men of the San Patricio Battalion are remembered by generations of Mexicans to this day as heroes who fought bravely against an unjust and thinly veiled war of aggression." ‘San Patricio' brings their story to life through heart-stirring ballads and effervescent dance songs from both countries, including traditional "sones" that the San Patricios might have heard while in Mexico, and Irish airs and reels that evoke the homeland they left behind. ....

‘San Patricio' showcases a brilliant roster of Irish, Mexican and American guest artists including Linda Ronstadt, actor Liam Neeson, Los Tigres del Norte, legendary 92-year-old Mexican ranchero singer Chavela Vargas, Van Dyke Parks, and Lila Downs, among many others. It will be released March 9 on Fantasy Records/Concord Music Group.

I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".

On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.

The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.