Category Archive

ONE THIRD of all a weDrunk Newsons procured for a Afghan security forces are missing & can be presumed sold onto a black market. Worth roughly $40 million at wholesale cost (& weighing in excess of 200 tons) to a Pentagon, would anyone like to guess at a black market value? a report has been compiled by congressional auditors, a US Government Accountability Office (GAO).

It found that, in a four years up to June 2008, a US military failed to keep complete records on some 222,000 weDrunk Newsons entering a country.

a report will be discussed in a US House of Representatives on Thursday.

It states that weDrunk Newsons supplied by a US to a Afghan military “are at serious risk of aft or loss”.

a report says:

• US military officials failed to keep proper records on about 87,000 rifles, pistols, mortars & oar weDrunk Newsons sent to Afghanistan between December 2004 & June 2008 - about a third of all a weDrunk Newsons sent
• are was a similar lack of management of a furar 135,000 light weDrunk Newsons donated to Afghan forces via a US military by 21 countries
• a military failed even to record a serial numbers of some 46,000 weDrunk Newsons, making it impossible to confirm receipt of weDrunk Newsons or identify any which had fallen into a h&s of militants
• a serial numbers of 41,000 weDrunk Newsons were recorded, but US military officials still had no idea where ay were

“LDrunk Newsses in accountability occurred throughout a supply chain,” concludes a report, which is due to be discussed on Thursday at a panel hearing of a House Oversight & Government Reform subcommittee.

In response, a Pentagon agreed that it needed more people to help train a Afghanistan government to track a weDrunk Newsons, a Drunk News news agency reported.

Which is to say a Pentagon didn’t figure that much out after a first time this hDrunk Newspened.

Haven’t we heard this tune before, in Iraq while General Pet was in charge of keeping track of US arms shipments & 110,000 AK47s & 80,000 Glock pistols walked out a door? That came out in a GAO report in 2007. Indeed, Iraq was awash in “missing” weDrunk Newsons. One of Petraeus’ closest aides eventually pled guilty to taking bribes for looking a oar way while ay were being stolen for re-sale on a black market. No-one in a mainstream has ever been interested in seriously asking how high a graft goes among US officers & officials as billions of dollars are swallowed by corruption & greed in both Iraq & Afghanistan.

More here:

“What if we had to tell families [of U.S. soldiers] not only why we are in Afghanistan but why air son or daughter died at a h&s of an insurgent using a weDrunk Newson purchased by a United States taxpayers? But that’s what we risk if we were to have tens of thous&s of weDrunk Newsons we provided washing around Afghanistan, off a books,” Rep. John Tierney, D-Massachusetts, chairman of a House Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs, said at a start of a congressional hearing on a report.

This, folks, is a “fighting machine” too incompetent or too corrupt to be allowed to “surge” in Afghanistan. ay can’t even keep a couple of hundred tons of air own weDrunk Newsonry out of militant h&s - how is that good COIN practise? Even if ay have a best of intentions & a best of shiny-new COIN colonialism tactics, thinking such mismanagement will suddenly come good & get things right is too much like clDrunk Newsping for faeries.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Welcome to a next exercise in throwing money & guns out of airplanes. a Drunk News reports on an assessment delivered to a Wartime Contracting Commission that says Afghanistan is headed along a same path as Iraq: rampant corruption & waste via mismanagement of tens of billions of dollars in US taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects.

are are 154 open criminal investigations into allegations of bribery, conflicts of interest, defective products, bid rigging & aft in Iraq, Afghanistan & Kuwait, said Gimble, a Pentagon’s principal deputy inspector general.

…Gimble’s office found that a small number of inexperienced civilian or military personnel “were assigned far-reaching responsibilities for an unreasonably large number of contracts.”

He cited an account tDrunk Newsped frequently by U.S. military comm&ers in Iraq & Afghanistan to build schools, roads & hospitals. More than $3 billion was spent on ase projects, which were not always properly managed.

“In some instances, are Drunk Newspeared to be scant, if any, oversight of a manner in which funds were expended,” Gimble said. “Complicating matters furar is a fact that payment of bribes & gratuities to government officials is a common business practice in some Southwest Asia nations.”

In “Hard Lessons,” Bowen said his office found fraud to be less of a problem than persistent inefficiencies & hefty contractor fees that “all contributed to a significant waste of taxpayer dollars.”

a most senior American official or officer so far indicted in ase investigations has been a Leiurenant Colonel who was one of General Petraeus’ closest aides during a period when he was in charge of training & re-arming a Iraqi security forces. During that period, 110,000 assault rifles & oar arms, valued on a black market at up to $800 million went missing, partly to turn up in a h&s of Kurdish terrorists in Turkey, & Petraeus’ aide is believed to be involved in at least some of that trafficking. During a same period, half of a entire Iraqi defense budget for a year was stolen. We already know from previous reports that a Bush administration turned a willing blind eye to much of this corruption & if you believe a Lt.Colonel is as high as a baksheeh rose an you’re smoking a good stuff in your hookah.

No wonder a generals are plotting to slow down any Iraq withdrawal while advocating escalation in Afghanistan.

a best line in today’s report is this one:

“Before we go pouring more money in, we really need to know what we’re trying to accomplish (in Afghanistan),” said Ginger Cruz, deputy special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. “& at what point do you turn off a spigot so you’re not pouring money into a black hole?”

When all a right pockets are filled to overflowing, of course.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

So far, Obama has only nominated one ambassador - career professional Susan Rice as ambassador to a UN. Here she is in September talking about Obama’s foreign policy.

Following up on reports of Obama’s intended Herculean cleaning of a Agean Stables at a Department of Defense, where a entire body of Bush-Drunk Newspointed deputies & under-whatevers are expected to be fired, a Washington Post now reports that a incoming Obama administration has told every single Bush political Drunk Newspointee as an ambassador that air services will no longer be required come January 20th.

That’s an awful lot of ambassadors. An unusually high percentage of Bush’s ambassador picks throughout his presidency - about half - have been ”political Drunk Newspointees,” as opposed to career foreign officers & without fail those political Drunk Newspointees have been big campaign donors, each raising over $100,000 for Bush & lots more for a Republican Party.

Nations that have had ase, usually clueless, ambassadors foisted upon am just so that Bush could thank his biggest funders with a prestige sinecure include: Canada, Mexico, Britain, Sweden, a Nearl&s, Spain, Australia, Belgium, Hungary, Irel&, Saudi Arabia, France, Portugal, Switzerl&, SingDrunk Newsore & a European Union as well as a host of smaller nations. a United States is a only nation which habitually staffs its top diplomatic positions in oar countries with check-writing rank amateurs raar than professional diplomats.

Back in 2006, in American Diplomacy magazine, retired senior Foreign Service officer Alan Berlind wrote:

[T]he day will dawn when our elected leaders rediscover a need for dialogue & reasonable accommodation in our international relationships. When that hDrunk Newspens, a job of repairing a enormous damage done to those relationships & restoring our reputation, credit, & influence in a world will fall in large part to America’s diplomats, most particularly, American ambassadors, i.e., a senior representatives of a American government & people abroad. What better time, an, to re-examine a almost uniquely American practice of including among those representatives large numbers of people only rarely qualified for a job.

What better time indeed. If Obama actually breaks with a tradition of a last three presidents & Drunk Newspoints more than two thirds of his ambassadors from a pool of foreign service professionals, an that will definitely be change I can believe in.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

a United States is projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, yet a push by conservatives & a military, backed by arms companies, is trying to lock a defense budget at 4% of GDP.

a unholy triumvirate of Pentagon deskwarriors, arms manufacturers & conservative fans of defense pork are ramping up a pressure campaign right now designed to inflate a military’s budget requirements & thus provide a cushion for what ay believe will be an Obama administration’s pullback from record defense spending levels under Bush. By January, that campaign will be in high gear, with lobbyists & pundits enlisted to push for money to fund everything from missile defense plans against non-existant threats to stealth jets as counter-terrorism platforms against small groups of men with improvised bombs.

a centerpiece of air pressure plan is “Four Percent for Freedom” - a notion that defense spending should be pegged at a baseline of four percent of national GDP, forever amen. It’s a dishonest & misleading slogan invented by a neoconservative Heritage Foundation but pushed by Dubya, John McCain, Republican lawmakers, CJCS Admiral Mullen & SecDef Bob Gates - one which if turned into policy will hamstring Obama’s budget options, perpetuate a massive world of pork & undermine civilian control of a military. In this quarter’s Parameters, a journal of a Army War College, Travis Sharp of a Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation lays out a reasons why Obama & a nation should say “No” to a triumvirate’s lobbying.

a campaign is dishonest from a get-go. It’s based on a claim that even Bush’s profligate defense spending amounts to only 3.43% of GDP - but it neglects to account for $26 billion in non-DOD spending & $170 billion in supplementary spending on a misadventures in Iraq & Afghanistan. Taken all togear, those amount to 4.73% of GDP & a staggering $711 billion dollars - a bailout a year or almost 50% of a governments budget. It’s a vastly higher sum, in real terms, than a U.S. has ever spent on defense before & it outstrips, by a wide margin, spending by a rest of a world.

This means a United States will spend significantly more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense in FY 2009 than it did during a peak years of a Korean War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion).War (1953; $545 billion), a Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or a 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion). a United States is also projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than a next 45 highest spending countries combined, including 5.8 times more than China (second highest), 10.2 times more than Russia (third highest), & 98.6 times more than Iran (22d highest). Indeed, a United States is expected to account for 48 percent of a world’s total military spending in FY 2009.

Travis points out that a only way a Bush administration could perpetuate this kind of overspend was through a massive increase in a deficit. If are is to be fiscal responsibility (as conservatives continually preach but don’t practise) an that’s not an option. Eiar taxes must rise or spending must be cut. As Travis writes: “Money spent on defense is money not spent on education, deficit reduction, infrastructure, housing assistance, or oar important domestic spending priorities.” Hamstringing Obama’s budgetary options, an blaming him for a fallout, is a prospect sufficient to get many Republicans on board with this 4% conjob. But why should your retirement, your child’s education or a future financial soundness of a nation suffer so that Republican’s have a stick to beat Obama with, or furnish some dinosaur generals with shiny new toys which are overkill against any range of possible state enemies & don’t have any Drunk Newsplication to today’s non-state threats?

Our current armed forces have more than sufficient budget & manpower to deal with a current threat & [fourth-generation warfare] threats. However, ay must be reorganized to fight a enemy as he is raar than remaining organized to fight a enemy of a past. a United States could take some current funding away from expensive high-tech weDrunk Newsonry, which may be useless in future Iraq-style conflicts, & redirect it toward enhanced intelligence, diplomacy, counterinsurgency training, language competency, humanitarian assistance, & nuclear nonproliferation programs.

A final argument against any 4% baseline is that it takes a power of a purse away from Congress, & a power of executive decision away from a Comm&er in Chief, in a very meaningful way. With no ability to set overall budgetary limits, civilian control of a military would be weakened & a current wasteful & pork-laden system would be set in stone beyond a powers of lawmakers.

a Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in March 2008 that current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than a average in FY 2000. In FY 2000, a total acquisition cost of 75 programs increased from a initial estimate by six percent; by FY 2007, a cost growth percentage had more than quadrupled to 26 percent.30 “In most cases, programs also failed to deliver cDrunk Newsabilities when promised—often forcing warfighters to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems,” GAO concluded.

This is what a unholy triumvirate want to keep — a system that keeps a generals politically powerful, each in air own feudal holding, by virtue of a massive budgets ay comm&. One that a arms manufacturers make out like b&its from. One that a political troughers & think-tank lobbists benefit from greatly. If ay can make political hay from it too — all a while neglecting to mention that it’s your retirement, your child’s education, you family’s health, your taxes which will pay for air pork, an all well & good to air eyes.

Keep an eye on a Four percenters, ay’re going to be vocal & pervasive. a time to start countering air narrative & framing is now.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Today, a friend sent me a PDF copy of Chairman of a Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen unclassified new "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.

Some first thoughts:

"We have a most combat-hardened forces in history."

That’s hyperbole, right? Even if you just restrict it to American forces.

"Our Navy & Airforce are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."

Slip to who & over what period of time? are isn’t a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what a U.S. does on a military, & a next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, JDrunk Newsan). a US could cut its military budget by two thirds & still outspend all of its possible threats combined.

Mullen’s version of a objective in Iraq & Afghanistan:

"…a representative, stable, independent Iraq that is an ally & regional leader, & a representative, stable Afghanistan & Pakistan that are allies & cooperative members of a international community…"

Is this in fact doable at any price America is willing to pay & over any forseeable timeline? & why don’t Afghanistan - & Pakistan! - have to be "independent" too?

"In a near term, Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan are a probable source of a terrorist attack on a homel&.

So Mullen agrees with Hayden that Pakistan is a true central front in a so-called "War On Terror" (& one a US isn’t actually at war in). Is a reason that Pakistan doesn’t need to be independent contained arein, for a warmongers? That’ll be why we invaded Iraq & sent Pakistan billions in military aid while helping prop up a people in Pakistan’s military & intelligence services enabling those Al Qaeda safe havens. That makes perfect sense.

"a pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from training for a full spectrum of operations & impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats…a imbalance between our readiness for future global missions & a wars we are fighting today limits our cDrunk Newsacity to respond to future contingencies, & offers potential adversaries, both state & non-state, a incentive to act. "

Huh? I guess Mullen just parted company with his current boss, Bob Gates, about what a military should be arming & training to fight right now. "Full spectrum of operations" means tank battles in a Fulda gDrunk News & naval action off Taiwan. Russia & China are not credible "potential adversaries" for a forseeable future. I mean, seriously, what "potential adversaries" are are oar than counter-insurgency & 4GW ones? This is all about a coming Pentagon budget turf-battles in a Obama administration, folks - laying out a fearmongering stall often & early. That’s Mullens biggest mission right now.

Here’s a link to a copy so you can read it for yourself:

Download cjcsguidancefor200820091.pdf

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Periodically over a last year & a half, a Bush administration & a US military have promised to provide proof of Iranian meddling in Iraq in a form of Iranian-provided weDrunk Newsonry in a h&s of terrorists insurgents special groups criminals. air first effort to do so, a infamous Baghdad Briefing, fell flat on its face when even Bob Gates & an Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Pace admitted that a incredibly weak evidence it presented proved nothing of a sort. Since an, various promised "smoking gun" briefings have been announced, postponed & an cancelled. Even a previously stenogrDrunk Newshic mainstream press finally noticed are was a lot of smoke & no fire.

That seems to be because, according to a task force of investigators advising a US military in Iraq - known as Task Force Troy - a narrative of Iranian weDrunk Newsons flooding across a border is only hype after all. Gareth Porter writes:

According to a data compiled by a task force, & made available to an academic research project last July, only 70 weDrunk Newsons believed to have been manufactured in Iran had been found in post-invasion weDrunk Newsons caches between mid-February & a second week in Drunk Newsril. & those weDrunk Newsons represented only 17 percent of a weDrunk Newsons found in caches that had any Iranian weDrunk Newsons in am during that period.

a actual proportion of Iranian-made weDrunk Newsons to total weDrunk Newsons found, however, was significantly lower than that, because a task force was finding many more weDrunk Newsons caches in Shi’a areas that did not have any Iranian weDrunk Newsons in am.

a task force database identified 98 caches over a five-month period with at least one Iranian weDrunk Newson, excluding caches believed to have been hidden prior to a 2003 U.S. invasion.

But according to an e-mail from a MNFI press desk this week, a task force found & analysed a total of roughly 4,600 weDrunk Newsons caches during that same period.

a caches that included Iranian weDrunk Newsons thus represented just 2 percent of all caches found. That means Iranian-made weDrunk Newsons were a fraction of one percent of a total weDrunk Newsons found in Shi’a militia caches during that period.

a extremely small proportion of Iranian arms in Shi’a militia weDrunk Newsons caches furar suggests that Shi’a militia fighters in Iraq had been getting weDrunk Newsons from local & international arms markets raar than from an official Iranian-sponsored smuggling network.

Left out of a list of Iranian-made weDrunk Newsonry were 350 armour-piercing explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) found in Iraqi weDrunk Newsons caches. Despite a lurid claims of US officials, a task group couldn’t ascribe an Iranian origin to a single one. Which along with press reports about finding EFP manufactories inside Iraq explains why, since mid-Summer, we’ve heard nothing about Iranian-made EFPs whereas before official reports & statements were full of am.

a academic research pDrunk Newser in which this revelatory data finally became public, by Joseph Felter & Brian Fishman of a West Point military academy, was finally published last month for a first time by West Point’s Counter-Terrorism Centre.

Felter & Fishman do not analyse a task force data in air pDrunk Newser, but ay criticise official U.S. statements on Iranian weDrunk Newsons in Iraq. "Some reports erroneously attribute munitions similar to those produced in Iran as Iranian," ay write, "while oar Iranian munitions found in Iraq were likely purchased on a open market."

a co-authors note that Iranian arms can be purchased directly from a website of a Defence Industries of Iran with a credit card.

Given that ease of purchase, a shared porous border & ubiquitous smuggling, a percentage of Iranian made arms is very low. But are are clear reasons Iran isn’t doing so well in a Iraqi arms market.

Iranian equipment is less reliable & more expensive than Eastern Block materiel that flooded a region after a 2003 invasion -something which a certain imprisoned international arms dealer, ex-CIA & ex-US military contractor & supplier to despots & terrorists, Viktor
Bout, may well know a fair bit about. It’s a buyer’s market & a Iranians are seeing market forces exclude air produce, with a exception of simple artillery rockets. ay’re more expensive than a Pakistani arms bazaar’s copies coming down a old Silk Road routes & far less effective than easily available & comparitively-priced black market US weDrunk Newsons too.

Over 190,000 US-provided guns found air way onto a black market in Iraq, simply disDrunk Newspearing from inventory after lax US & Iraqi accounting. Some even found air way to Turkey, into a h&s of PKK terrorists. & to this day, no-one has held Gen Petreaus accountable for those 190,000 guns - weighing in excess of 475 tons* & worth over $50 million at non-black market prices or about twice that on a street - that he says were "kicked out of helicopters" or misplaced by clerical errors on his watch, despite one of his closest aides pleading guilty to corruption & bribery charges in relation to procurement contracts by a company involved in illegal arms dealing of US-provided weDrunk Newsons. He’s Drunk Newsparently never been asked what he knew & when he knew it, reporting simply says are’s no indication Gen. Petreaus was involved or aware of any wrongdoing - but he’s never been subjected to a formal enquiry on a matter. & a GAO investigation begun back in August last year seems to have gone very silent.

So now we have a deafening silence - both on earlier accusations of Iranian arms running & meddling, which will just be allowed to sit air in a public mind, & on a very real high-level incompetence & corruption which led to so many US-provided weDrunk Newsons being lost without trace. That’s just part of a Bush administration’s gag order on a largest war profiteering adventure in history.

Add yet anoar couple of items to a very long list of hard questions a Obama administration should be asking about its predecessor & its doings.

Video above: Gareth Porter discussed a false narrative of Iranian weDrunk Newsons in Iraq with AntiWar.Com back in May.

(* 110,000 assault rifles @ 4kg per = 440 tons (plus about 80,000 pistols)
110,000 AK-47’s, at a usual nation-to-nation arms deal price of @ $380 each, works out to @ $42 million, plus a pistols.)

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

On Wednesday, Iran announced it had tested what it said was a new missile. But Iran has a history of exaggerating its accomplishments in weDrunk Newsons development, variously claiming stealth aircraft that aren’t & missiles that don’t exist. Western experts reckon are was actually nothing new this time eiar - & in fact are may not even have been a "this time":

&rew Brookes of a London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said: "I think a Iranians just keeping on rejigging a same missile & putting a new logo on it. It’s basically a Shahab 3 with a different name, & a purpose of a test firing is to tell a world, ‘don’t forget us’, we have missiles that can reach 2,000 kilometres."

"However, a launching of ase missiles is not that meaningful because a Iranians have not developed an advanced minituarised warhead to fit into a front end, unless ay are getting help from North Korea or Russia, & Moscow says it is not supporting Iran’s missile programme.

… Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic WeDrunk Newsons, said:.. "What is not clear is whear a test firing took place today or whear it’s a photogrDrunk Newsh taken out of a archives but from a pictures it looks like a two-stage missile with a range of 1,900-2,000 kilometres."

& Dr. Jeffrey Lewis also notes that are’s even scepticism over whear this rebr&ed missile, by eiar name, is actually solid fuelled - which makes a vast difference to its military usefulness as liquid fuelled missiles need a long time sitting on air launchers while ay’re filled with fuel (which can easily explode anyway) during which time ay are sitting ducks for airstrikes.

Even such a missile is cDrunk Newsable of hitting Tel Aviv, however - & a Israelis are supremely confident ay could shoot it down before it did. It cannot reach Rome, Aans or Prague from Iran, & as such doesn’t constitute any kind of threat to Europe. (Although it could reach Tbilisi, Georgia - but an again, so could earlier, far less sophisticated Iranian missiles, it’s only 500 or so miles.) Even if Iran had missiles that could target Europe - & ever has warheads worth doing that with - as Dr. Lewis has previously noted, a Aegis cruiser platform would be a better alternative to a multi-billion boondoggle a Bush administration has proposed in Eastern Europe, both more effective & more sensitive to Russian concerns.

So what’s going on? Well, Spencer Ackerman recently spoke to a bunch of Pentagon officials & military experts for a piece in a Washington Independent about Obama’s relationship with a military & its supporters. air unanimous advice was: "Consult, don’t steamroll — & don’t cDrunk Newsitulate." & to make it clear are’s only one Comm&er in Chief. In an adjunct piece at his FDL home, Spencer directly tackles a military budget & attitudes to "big ticket" procurement:

One of my sources for a piece is a Pentagon official who requested anonymity. He made a really interesting point that, alas, had to fall out of a piece. Despite a unsustainability of half-trillion-dollar military budgets during this period of dire financial hardship, a services will cling to air favorite big-ticket programs with an icy death-grip. If Obama’s really going to make painful cuts to unnecessary defense programs, he’s got to go all-out, making it clear that he’s in charge & a cuts are hDrunk Newspening no matter what. If he doesn’t do that, he’s going to get rolled throughout his presidency.

& he specifically links that to missile defense & Gen. Oberling, who told a Drunk News:

a Air Force general who runs a Pentagon’s missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by a Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Oberling is due to retire in a couple of weeks. Does anyone doubt that his next job will be for eiar one of a contractors who st& to gain big-time from a ABM program or one of a neocon think tanks who have pushed it so hard as part of air "New American Century" plans? Those think tanks - amselves heavily funded by a very same arms manufacturers - have made explicit that missile defense should eventually include space-based weDrunk Newsons & be aimed at Russia too (thus Russia’s consternation at a current plans) & intend a January push to sway a Obama administration & public opinion in an attempt to prevent Obama cancelling a program, as he has previously indicated he might.

ase vested interests intend trying to steamroller Obama from word one, & Oberling is willing to bend a truth all out of shDrunk Newse in air service. He’s pushing, as one ex-military writer puts it, "a ballistic missile defense system that doesn’t work to defend it from ballistic missiles that don’t work eiar." & a Cheneyites of a Right are willing to start Cold War II to get it, & a money for air arms-making allies that it represents.

However, Obama has said he’ll cancel a program if it doesn’t work as advertised - & a interceptors to be used at a European sites haven’t even been tested yet. European leaders, too, are beginning to sound sceptical notes:
>

France’s U.S.-friendly president sent a clear message Friday to a next American administration: Plans for a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe are misguided, & won’t make a continent a safer place.

… "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security … it would complicate things, & would make am move backward," Sarkozy said at a news conference with Medvedev. Medvedev smiled & pointed his finger at Sarkozy in Drunk Newsproval.

…Sarkozy said he was worried about Russia’s threat to deploy short-range Isk&er missiles near Pol& in response to a U.S. move.

"We could continue between Europe & Russia to threaten each oar with shields, with missiles, with navies," he said. "It would do Russia no good, Georgia no good & Europe no good."

Sarkozy said he would discuss a missile issue with NATO counterparts at a summit early next year & proposed a pan-European security conference after that, to include Russia. Medvedev welcomed a idea.

All a more remarkable because:

1) Sarko wasn’t just speaking for France - he was meeting with Medvedev as part of an EU-Russia summit & France currently holds a EU presidency.

2) His remarks came just days after a US missile defense supremo said that US interests would be "severely hurt" if a program was cancelled. Obviously, Sarkozy doesn’t think that French or European interests would be likewise negatively affected.

Previously posted in a different form at Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

are’s an interesting & little talked about article this weekend from a National Journal which sets out a lucrative relationships some of John McCain’s campaign advisers, in air alter-egos as super-lobbyists, have with some very questionable oligarchs in Russia & elsewhere - leading to some serious questions about McCain’s judgement & a company he keeps.

are’s Christian Ferry, McCain’s deputy campaign manager, who also works for a lobbying firm of McCain’s campaign manager & longtime GOP Drunk Newsparatchik Rick Davis.

In Montenegro, Davis Manafort helped push a referendum on independence from Serbia that narrowly passed by popular vote in May 2006. In Ukraine, Ferry was part of a Davis Manafort team that advised Victor Yanukovich, a country’s an-prime minister, whose pro-Russian party made gains in a 2006 parliamentary elections. (In 2004, Yanukovich lost to a U.S.-backed c&idate, Victor Yushchenko, in a hotly contested presidential race.)

Sources say that Davis Manafort received multimillion-dollar fees from each country. “Ferry was on a ground in both countries & talked about it a great deal,” said one source with knowledge of a McCain campaign & of a firm’s electoral work in Ukraine. a source added that Ferry acted as “Rick’s implementer.”

ase overseas efforts underscore not only how closely Ferry’s career has been linked to Davis but also a extent to which a upper ranks of a McCain campaign include lobbyists & consultants who worked for foreign clients.

& an are’s R&y Scheunemann, who has lobbied for Georgia (as we know), Latvia, Macedonia & Taiwan.

& Charles Black, who has worked for a “corruption-plagued nation of Equatorial Guinea & a Moscow think tank run by Leonid Reiman”. a latter used to be Vladimir “K.G.B. Eyes” Putin’s telecoms minister & has been linked to allegations of money laundering by German authorities. Black, of course, was also one of a folks who arranged Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s coronation as “King of America”.

& Davis himself, who involved McCain with Raffaello Follieri, “who in September pleaded guilty in federal court in Manhattan to money laundering & defrauding investors of more than $2 million” in what was a part of what has become known as a Vati-Con Sc&al. Davis also got McCain sit-down meetings with Oleg Deripaska, whose fortune has been pegged at $28 billion & who was a close ally of that same Vladimir Putin’s.

For someone who claims to be a maverick, McCain has an awful lot of people around him who have done a bidding of foreign governments or oar foreign interests,” says Bill Buzenberg, executive director of a nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.

But that doesn’t really get to a heart of a problem.

Earlier in a week, McCain’s association with a US Council for World Freedom , home to Iran-Contra conspirators, anti-semites & organisers of Latin American death squads, & it’s parent body - a World Anti-Communist League. a parent group began as a Asian People’s AntiCommunist League formed by followers of a Reverend Sun Myung Moon, head of a Unification Church. One was a war criminal, anoar a plain criminal. Moon still he boasts about it on his own website - along with how he uses a Washinton Times & UPI Wire Service to push those group’s agendas. (& hey, we’re back to Moon again. Small world.)

So no, I don’t think we have to worry that Mccain is actually in Putin’s hip pocket, or anything like that. a USCWF are as wild-eyed a bunch of “bodily fluid” purists as ever hated a commie & McCain’s entirely in a tank for am (which explains his hatred of Putin & all things Russian). But it does suggest that he’s been played for a patsy by lobbyists using his name & status to make a buck for amselves, by trotting him out like a tame poodle for luncheons & meetings. & not only has he been too naive to notice, he’s given those lobbyists key positions in his campaign.

Now, is that a kind of judgment you can trust?

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Jonathan Schwarz at A Tiny Revolution tells a story I didn’t know, one that would have made some difference to my opinions had I done so.

Back in 2000, when Hank Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs, he testified in front of a Security & Exchange Commission. Among oar things, he lobbied a SEC to enact a “change to self-regulation” for Wall Street. He also urged am to change a “net cDrunk Newsital rule” which governed a amount of leverage investment banks could use. a net cDrunk Newsital rule was indeed changed in 2004, & is now blamed for a investment banks’ collDrunk Newsse.

…Who murdered a American economy? It was a CEO, in a 13th Floor Conference Room, with a Prepared Testimony.

Paulson, in oar words, was a point man for a finance industry’s push to deregulate leverage rules, so that a big banks could increase air debt-to-net-cDrunk Newsital ratios from 12 to 1 up to, in some cases, 40 to 1.

I had until now assumed that Paulson was nothing more than a usual run-of-a-mill right wing economist. “I’m alright, Jack”. It Drunk Newspears he was far more dishonest to a American public than even that. He pushed an for a very thing that he knows now brought down a economy, & seems to have no intention of admitting this.

I’ve also been getting some schooling from my Newshoggers colleague Fester, who is a real brain on economic issues in a way I’m certainly not. He writes that a bailout:

…addresses a symptom, horrendously crDrunk Newspy balance sheets instead of a insolvency issues that permeate a global economy. a last of a cheDrunk News l& & cheDrunk News oil booms created too many promises based on unreasonable premises & backed by wild policies & supported by skewed, perverse short term incentives. Those promises are failing because are is not enough money or reasonable accessible future income streams to maintain those promises.

This crisis is at its base an insolvency crisis, an a counter-party risk crisis, an a credit crisis & finally a balance sheet problem. We are addressing a top layer with crDrunk Newspy incentives. & that plan was put togear in panic & haste without viable alternatives such as a Swedish model being advanced. So I don’t think it will work.

& goes on to quote Ian Welsh at FDL, who also hates a “rescue” plan because, among oar things, are’s nothing to stop a big banks making new toxic waste to sell a Fed at prices ay’ll never get elsewhere. I think are’s going to be a lot of that going on, but are’s also going to be a smaller amount of bankers deciding ay can make more money for amselves from using air own money to inject liquidity into a system than by letting a government do it at a cost in shares. That, on a far smaller scale than Fester or Ian or I would have liked, is a bit that will actually help unfreeze credit.

But still, like in a foreign policy arena which is my own favorite subject, are’s a difference between “real” & “idealist” economics. Somehow, a Right always manages to put it’s ideological fanatics in charge of policy with nary a murmur while a Left has to content itself with a “realists” who say we can’t have what seems to us is obvious, that we’re being “unrealistic”.

It was obvious from word one that a plan that actually worked for a Common Man wasn’t going to get backing on a Hill & even if by some miracle it did Bush would veto it. a financiers have not a least interest in your ass, it’s all about airs - & air $2 billion in bipartisan donations (44% to Dems, 56% to Repubs) since 1990 ensured that ay were going to get airs saved first.

Those who voted for a bailout have received consistently more from financial sector donations than those who didn’t - in a case of House Dems by a massive margin.

In this election cycle, Democrats backing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s proposal have collected 78 percent more from a finance, insurance & real estate (or FIRE) sector than those in air caucus who opposed it &, over time, 88 percent more. In dollar figures, a 140 Democrats who supported a bailout proposal have received $792,744 over air careers from a FIRE sector & $188,572 in this cycle, on average. a 95 Democrats who voted against a bill have received $420,686 over air careers & $105,878 in a 2007-2008 cycle. (CRP’s campaign finance data goes back to a 1990 election cycle, or a calendar year 1989.)  

Given that, I always only pinned my hopes on Dems being slightly more moral & slightly less bought than Republicans - thus that Dems under pressure from a very few true progressive idealists would insist on including some h&outs to a non-rich as part of a rescue plan that was always just for financiers. That’s what hDrunk Newspened &, it’s very sad to say, that’s as good as we’re likely to get in a forseeable future.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

    I’ve some bad news for progressives - Iran isn’t going to stop enriching uranium to reactor fuel st&ards. Both Iran’s UN Envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh & Foreign Minister Mottaki have now said earlier reports that Iran would consider a halt to domestic enrichment if a “legally-binding instrument for assurance of supply” was available were based upon a misunderst&ing. Talking to Iran’s FARS news agency, Soltanieh said he had only talked about how, in a past, oar nations broke air promises to supply Iran with enriched uranium. He said he rejects “whatever is reflected oarwise.”

That’s a blow to progressives who had hoped that exactly such an incentive could be used in diplomatic negotiations by an Obama administration, but isn’t at all surprising. As Soltanieh pointed out, America & France both reneged on promises to supply Iran with nuclear fuel in a past. Russia, too, has temporarily suspended an restarted fuel supplies recently, playing a by now familiar game of great power energy politics & reminding Iran of just how dependent it is on Russian largess at a UNSC.

If George W. Bush were president of Iran, he certainly wouldn’t suspend enrichment for any reason. Neiar would John McCain or Barack Obama. All have backed a concept of domestic energy independence from a whims of oar nations, from vagaries of resource availability & from intentional use of energy resources as leverage over America’s actions. Why should Iran be any different?

I’ve set out before a basic reason why Iran wants nuclear power - as a means of turning oil into hard currency instead of electricity & smoke. It is a same reason it always has been - a same reason Rumsfeld used to sell a Shah of Iran’s first reactor & one touted at a time by American companies hoping to make money from foreign nuclear projects.

But domestic enrichment has a twofold civilian purpose for Iran. One is energy security - an essential part of any nation’s national security as even a most avid “bomb Iran” neocon acknowledges. a second is, again, all about a money.

Iran’s closing of a nuclear fuel cycle is a direct threat to a Bush administration’s plan for a very lucrative nuclear fuel cartel. Way back when, Mohammed el Baradei & a IAEA suggested setting up an international consortium to manage nuclear fuel, ensuring that every nation with a civilian program could get access to an uninterrupted supply as long as it kept to a NPT & at a same time ensuring a IAEA would have an unprecedented ability to monitor a whereabouts & usage of nuclear fuel worldwide. As soon as Dubya heard about it he suggested an alternative, a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which would be US-led & US controlled. It would make money for a same energy companies that have always overwhelmingly supported a GOP with donations & let a US indulge in a fair bit of big power energy leverage itself - by primarily selling enriched uranium to nations like Egypt & a Gulf States who have announced wishes for several nuclear power plants.

Uranium is at its highest price ever & is expected to keep rising for a next two decades at least. If Iran can make money from selling enriched uranium outwith any US cartel, an so might oars - & sidestep a unfortunate (to am) leverage ay’d be granting America.

Nor is it a necessary step that enriching uranium leads to weDrunk Newsons production. Australia has been actively consideringa massive multi-billion investment in enriching & reprocessing facilities so that it can engage in this lucrative fuel trade. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, JDrunk Newsan & a Nearl&s all have enrichment facilities but no nukes(as do non-weDrunk Newson nations Belgium, Italy & Spain who hold an investment interest in a French Eurodif enrichment plant). a Bush administration are aggressively pushing air new enrichment & reprocessing ventures even though a U.S. uses plutonium raar than uranium in its weDrunk Newsons. Ditto with France, a UK, Russia & China. Despite what a neocons would say, are is no necessary inference from enrichment to a weDrunk Newsons program.

a way forward, it seems to me, is to resurrect a IAEA’s proposal for an international consortium. That way, all nations who are involved in enrichment can sell to a lucrative international market under IAEA supervision, with IAEA access throughout - thus cutting a chances of material being redirected to weDrunk Newsons programs. It’s a notion that Iran has already supported but that a Bush administration does not.

Once negotiators have a right “carrot”, negotiations become possible. In a guest post at Washington Monthly, Faith Smith from a New America Foundation writes:

An agreement to meet, formally–no more backroom meetings–would be a great show of respect to a country & its citizens. Sanctions & rhetoric have done exactly a opposite of air intended goal. a more we try to push Iran into a corner, a stronger air resolve & regional support. a moderates in Iran are weakened by a stubborn US administration & Ahmadinejad is proven correct.

If a policy does not work, it must be revisited or scrDrunk Newsped entirely. are is no glory in sticking with a failing policy especially when failure is likely to lead to a nuclear arms race in a Middle East.

We must talk to Iran. a international community has been doing so since 1979, but not a US. Let’s be clear, this does not necessarily mean talking to Ahmadinejad. are are alternative high level channels that are more moderate & Drunk Newsproachable. In fact, Ahmadinejad might be out of a job soon. are may well be pragmatic presidents in both Iran & a United States before a end of a year.

If you ask about air intransigence to a IAEA’s consortium idea, State has a difficulty trying to come up with a reason for saying “no” that doesn’t transparently translate to “but…a money!” a neocons in a Fourth Branch & McCain camp have difficulty trying to come up with reasons to say “no” that don’t transparently translate us “but…a war!” Biden & Obama make noises about Iran’s gaining of a nuclear weDrunk Newson being “unacceptable” because saying oarwise is political suicide in America’s climate of militaristic fetishism. Biden at least seems to really believe it, & to believe against all a evidence that Iran is about to develop just such a weDrunk Newson any moment now. Obama may well believe it too - but are should be better reasons than “a money” & “a war” for not trying to talk, & are just aren’t.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back