Political News — December & January 2006–07

Gulf Stream headed south

Likely cause is the increasing amounts of fresh water from the Glaciers of Greenland and icefields of the artic--jk Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream · Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather· Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade Ian Sample, science correspondentThursday December 1, 2005The Guardian The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today. Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago. The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously. The network should also answer the pressing question of whether the significant weakening of the current is a short-term variation, or part of a more devastating long-term slowing of the flow. If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said. Although climate records suggest that the current has ground to a halt in the distant past, the prospect of it shutting down entirely within the century are extremely low, according to climate modellers. The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor. Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current. The researchers measured the strength of the current at a latitude of 25 degrees N and found that the volume of cold, deep water returning south had dropped by 30%. At the same time, they measured a 30% increase in the amount of surface water peeling off early from the main northward current, suggesting far less was continuing up to Britain and the rest of Europe. The report appears in the journal Nature today. Disruption of the conveyor-belt current was the basis of the film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicted a world thrown into chaos by a sudden and dramatic drop in temperatures. That scenario was dismissed by researchers as fantasy, because climate models suggest that the current is unlikely to slow so suddenly. Marec Srokosz of the National Oceanographic Centre said: "The most realistic part of the film is where the climatologists are talking to the politicians and the politicians are saying 'we can't do anything about it'." Chris West, director of the UK climate impacts programme at Oxford University's centre for the environment, said: "The only way computer models have managed to simulate an entire shutdown of the current is to magic into existence millions of tonnes of fresh water and dump it in the Atlantic. It's not clear where that water could ever come from, even taking into account increased Greenland melting." Uncertainties in climate change models mean that the overall impact on Britain of a slowing down in the current are hard to pin down. "We know that if the current slows down, it will lead to a drop in temperatures in Britain and northern Europe of a few degrees, but the effect isn't even over the seasons. Most of the cooling would be in the winter, so the biggest impact would be much colder winters," said Tim Osborn, of the University of East Anglia climatic research unit. The final impact of any cooling effect will depend on whether it outweighs the global warming that, paradoxically, is driving it. According to climate modellers, the drop in temperature caused by a slowing of the Atlantic current will, in the long term, be swamped by a more general warming of the atmosphere. "If this was happening in the absence of generally increasing temperatures, I would be concerned," said Dr Smith. Any cooling driven by a weakening of the Atlantic current would probably only slow warming rather than cancel it out all together. Even if a slowdown in the current put the brakes on warming over Britain and parts of Europe, the impact would be felt more extremely elsewhere, he said.

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream · Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather· Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade Ian Sample, science correspondentThursday December 1, 2005The Guardian

The powerful ocean current that bathes Britain and northern Europe in warm waters from the tropics has weakened dramatically in recent years, a consequence of global warming that could trigger more severe winters and cooler summers across the region, scientists warn today. Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago. The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously. The network should also answer the pressing question of whether the significant weakening of the current is a short-term variation, or part of a more devastating long-term slowing of the flow. If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said. Although climate records suggest that the current has ground to a halt in the distant past, the prospect of it shutting down entirely within the century are extremely low, according to climate modellers. The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor. Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current. The researchers measured the strength of the current at a latitude of 25 degrees N and found that the volume of cold, deep water returning south had dropped by 30%. At the same time, they measured a 30% increase in the amount of surface water peeling off early from the main northward current, suggesting far less was continuing up to Britain and the rest of Europe. The report appears in the journal Nature today. Disruption of the conveyor-belt current was the basis of the film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicted a world thrown into chaos by a sudden and dramatic drop in temperatures. That scenario was dismissed by researchers as fantasy, because climate models suggest that the current is unlikely to slow so suddenly. Marec Srokosz of the National Oceanographic Centre said: "The most realistic part of the film is where the climatologists are talking to the politicians and the politicians are saying 'we can't do anything about it'." Chris West, director of the UK climate impacts programme at Oxford University's centre for the environment, said: "The only way computer models have managed to simulate an entire shutdown of the current is to magic into existence millions of tonnes of fresh water and dump it in the Atlantic. It's not clear where that water could ever come from, even taking into account increased Greenland melting." Uncertainties in climate change models mean that the overall impact on Britain of a slowing down in the current are hard to pin down. "We know that if the current slows down, it will lead to a drop in temperatures in Britain and northern Europe of a few degrees, but the effect isn't even over the seasons. Most of the cooling would be in the winter, so the biggest impact would be much colder winters," said Tim Osborn, of the University of East Anglia climatic research unit. The final impact of any cooling effect will depend on whether it outweighs the global warming that, paradoxically, is driving it. According to climate modellers, the drop in temperature caused by a slowing of the Atlantic current will, in the long term, be swamped by a more general warming of the atmosphere. "If this was happening in the absence of generally increasing temperatures, I would be concerned," said Dr Smith. Any cooling driven by a weakening of the Atlantic current would probably only slow warming rather than cancel it out all together. Even if a slowdown in the current put the brakes on warming over Britain and parts of Europe, the impact would be felt more extremely elsewhere, he said.

The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously. The network should also answer the pressing question of whether the significant weakening of the current is a short-term variation, or part of a more devastating long-term slowing of the flow.

If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said. Although climate records suggest that the current has ground to a halt in the distant past, the prospect of it shutting down entirely within the century are extremely low, according to climate modellers.

The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor. Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current.

The researchers measured the strength of the current at a latitude of 25 degrees N and found that the volume of cold, deep water returning south had dropped by 30%. At the same time, they measured a 30% increase in the amount of surface water peeling off early from the main northward current, suggesting far less was continuing up to Britain and the rest of Europe. The report appears in the journal Nature today.

Iraq Study Group Report--Palast

IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT, PRO PRESIDENT’S POSITION PRETENDS TO OFFER REAL ALTERNTIVES. The co-chairman’s reveal its bias. Of importance is to not the Bush-Baker links to the Saudis and that the Saudi back the Sunni faction—thus we will stay the course, rather than permit a Shia ran government. Truth is no more important to a politician than an attorney, both are advocates The Baker Boys: Stay Half the Course Greg Palast, 12/8/8 Iraq Study Group or Saudi Protection League?by Greg Palast

James Baker III and the seven dwarfs of the "Iraq Study Group" have come up with some simply brilliant recommendations. Not.Baker's Two Big Ideas are:1. Stay half the course. Keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq is a disaster getting more disastrous. The Baker Boys' idea: cut the disaster in half -- leave 70,000 troops there.But here's where dumb gets dumber: the Bakerites want to "embed" US forces in Iraqi Army units. Question one, Mr. Baker: What Iraqi Army? This so-called "army" is a rough confederation of Shia death squads. We can tell our troops to get "embedded" with them, but the Americans won't get much sleep.2. "Engage" Iran. This is a good one. How can we get engaged when George Bush hasn't even asked them out for a date? What will induce the shy mullahs of Iran to accept our engagement proposal? Answer: The Bomb.Let me explain. To get the Iranians to end their subsidizing the Mahdi Army and other Shia cut-throats, the Baker bunch suggest we let the permanent members of the UN Security Council -- plus, Germany -- decide the issue of Iran's nukes. Attaching Germany is the signal. These signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agree that Iran should be allowed a "peaceful" nuclear power program.More... Now, I am absolutely wary of neo-con nuts who want to blow Iran to Kingdom-come over its nuclear ambitions. But that doesn't mean we should kid ourselves. Iran has zero need of "peaceful" nuclear-generated electricity. It has the second-largest untapped reserve of natural gas on the planet, a clean, safe, cheap source of power. There's only one reason for a "nuclear" program, and it's not to light Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bedside lamp.Here's the problem with Baker's weird combo of embedding our boys with Iraq's scary army while sucking up to the Iranians: it won't work. The mayhem will continue, with Americans in the middle, because the Baker brigade dares not mention two words: "Saudi" and "Arabia."

Saudi Arabia is the elephant in the room (camel in the tent?) that can't be acknowledged -- and the reason Baker is so desperately anxious to sell America on keeping half our soldiers in harm's way. {I wouldn’t consider the 70,000 troops a serious recommendation—because it is impractical given current conditions, which have only been deteriorating.}James III wants to seduce or bully Iran into stopping their funding of the murderous Shia militias. But the Shias only shifted into mass killing mode in response to the murder spree by Sunni "insurgents."Where do the Sunnis get their money for mayhem? According to a seething memo by the National Security Agency (November 8, 2006), the Saudis control the, "public or private funding provided to the insurgents or death squads." Nice.Baker wants us to bribe or blackmail Iran into stopping one side in Iraq's uncivil war, the Shia. Yet we close our eyes to the Saudis acting as a piggy bank for the other side, the Sunni berserkers. (The House of Saud follows Wahabi Islam, a harsh, fundamentalist sect of Sunnism.)Why is Baker, ordinarily such a tough guy, so coy with the Saudis? Baker Botts, the law firm he founded, became a wealthy powerhouse by representing Saudi Arabia. But don't worry, the Iraq Study Group is balanced by Democrats including Vernon Jordan of the law firm of Akin, Gump which represents … Saudi royals.Of course, the connections between Baker, the Bush Family and the Saudis go way beyond a few legal bills. (See, "The Best Little Legal Whorehouse in Texas" from my book Armed Madhouse.Baker is more than aware that, two weeks ago, Dick Cheney dropped his Thanksgiving turkey to fly to Riyadh at the demand of the Saudis for a dressing down by King Abdullah. The Saudis have made it clear that they will crank up their payments to warriors in Iraq to protect their Sunni brothers if America pulls out our troops.King Abdullah's wish is Cheney's command -- and Baker's too. The Saudis want 70,000 US troops baby-sitting the Shia killers in Iraq's Army -- and so we will stay.What gives King Abdullah the power to ghost-write the Iraq Study Group recommendations? It's not because the Saudis sell us broccoli.And therein lies the danger. Behind the fratricidal fracas in Iraq is something even more dangerous than bullets in Baghdad: a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia to control Iraq's place in OPEC, the oil cartel. What is painted by Baker's Iraq Study Group as an ancient local clash between Shia and Sunni over the Kingdom of God, is, in fact, a remote control proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the Kingdom of Oil.

James Addison Baker III (born April 28, 1930), American statesman and diplomat, was Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration, United States Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the administration of President George H. W. Bush. He is also the founder of the James Baker Institute.

Baker served as chief legal adviser for George W. Bush during the 2000 election campaign and oversaw the Florida recount. He was instrumental in getting the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida vote recount. He is currently (as of 2004) a senior partner at the law firm of Baker Botts and senior counsel to the Carlyle Group. {Both groups have received 10sk of millions from the Saudis}

Lee Hamiltomn, the Democratic Party’s representative and co-chairman of the Iraq Report prospective is close to that of Baker’s, so close that Republicans appoint him when needed to appear bipartisian, He was the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commision and currently serves on the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. He was the Democratic represntative to the House from Indiana for 34 years, until 1999. As chair of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.

What to expect of the future, is that the Saudis have enough clout with the Democrats that the U.S. will not allow a Shia dominated government. We will stay the course in order to appease the Saudis--jk.

Getting out of Iraq--Rep. Kucinich

There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq, prior to the end of President Bush's term: Congress must vote to cut off funds.

In Campbell v. Clinton, a case in US District Court in 1999, twenty six members of Congress, including myself, sued President Clinton for continuing to prosecute the war against Serbia without a declaration of war. The Court ruled in favor of the Administration because it could find no constitutional impasse existed between the Legislative and the Executive branch requiring judicial intervention. Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove US forces. The 'Implied Consent' Theory of Presidential War Power Is Again Validated. Military Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 202, September 1999 Geoffrey S. Corn. South Texas College.

Congress can debate and pass legislation for redeployment, phased redeployment, or an over the horizon presence. Congress can vote for a resolution to end the war and a resolution to bring the troops home. However, none of this will have any legal effect. Each appropriations approval was a vote to continue the Iraq war.

The Administration does not have to pay any attention to Congress' attempt to guide the administrative conduct of the war. Once Congress gave its consent for military action, it literally did not have the authority to guide the conduct of the war. At this point, the only option Congress has to guide the conduct of the war is to withdraw approval for the war through a cut off. Even a substantial reduction of funds could leave open the door for a legal claim that Congress still intends to keep troops in Iraq. The Administration can rummage through the DOD budget and find money to keep its desired troop levels. Unless the Congress totally cuts off funds, it leaves itself open to an imposition of Presidential will through the Food and Forage Act of 1861 which gives the President the authority to directly spend money for troops in the field absent a congressional appropriation.

The Campbell case makes it clear that as long as Congress continues to fund the war, it cannot simultaneously argue that its will is being usurped with respect to the war powers. Each appropriations vote gives the President "implied consent" to continue the war. So it is clear that this war is not only the President's. This war belongs to Congress as well, to Democrats and Republicans alike, in the House and in the Senate. And, unless and until Congress decides to force a new direction by cutting off funds, the United States will continue to occupy Iraq and have a destabilizing presence in the Middle East region.

The first appropriation bill regarding Iraq, is due early in 2007. While the legislation authorizing the War in Iraq passed on October 10, 2002, each and every time Congress was faced with an appropriation for the war, it gave consent for the war all over again.

A quick review of Congressional votes, under a Republican majority, shows Congress' willingness to continue the war in Iraq.

Bush as ususal, an horrific appointment

Bush as usual: a horrific appointment Don’t expect Bush to changes his strips. He will continue to represent fundamentalist Christians, the Oil industry, and the banking and international corporations. One of many confirmations of this (besides his rhetoric over not cutting and running) is his appointment of Mary Beth Buchanan. The article is about the women who heads the Violence Against Women Act Bush Appoints New (Terrifying) Director of the Office on Violence Against Women By Jessica Valenti (author and executive editor of Femisting.com), 11/29/6

Don’t expect Bush to changes his strips. He will continue to represent fundamentalist Christians, the Oil industry, and the banking and international corporations. One of many confirmations of this (besides his rhetoric over not cutting and running) is his appointment of Mary Beth Buchanan.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a tremendous feminist success story. The legislation, which was passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2006, allows for $3.9 billion in funding to help survivors of intimate partner violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Feminists were the driving force behind the drafting and passage of VAWA--it's our baby. So you can imagine my disappointment when I found out the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) (where VAWA lives) is going to be run by yet another wacky Bush appointee. Mary Beth Buchanan, US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is set to be OVW's Acting Director. Buchanan's claims to fame? She's an enthusiastic cheerleader of the Patriot Act. (It preserves civil liberties, she says!) She spent $12 million on "Operation Pipe Dreams," taking down 55 people for selling bongs. This included actor Tommy Chong--in the courtroom, Buchanan introduced his fictional pot-smoking characters as evidence of his "frivolous" attitude towards drug laws. She's an anti-obscenity crusader, prosecuting people for written stories on the internet and going after any and all porn. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of violent porn and the like, but Buchanan strikes me as more interested in enforcing morality than the law.) The legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU once called Buchanan "the vanguard of [former U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft's attempt to impose his morality on others." Yikes. I can see it now...VAWA funds being diverted to conservative anti-obscenity groups under the rhetoric of protecting women. So basically, this sucks. Other disconcerting appointmentents include naming Exxon chief to chart America’s energy future (Nov 06)

So you can imagine my disappointment when I found out the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) (where VAWA lives) is going to be run by yet another wacky Bush appointee.

Mary Beth Buchanan, US Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is set to be OVW's Acting Director.

She spent $12 million on "Operation Pipe Dreams," taking down 55 people for selling bongs. This included actor Tommy Chong--in the courtroom, Buchanan introduced his fictional pot-smoking characters as evidence of his "frivolous" attitude towards drug laws.

She's an anti-obscenity crusader, prosecuting people for written stories on the internet and going after any and all porn. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of violent porn and the like, but Buchanan strikes me as more interested in enforcing morality than the law.) The legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU once called Buchanan "the vanguard of [former U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft's attempt to impose his morality on others." Yikes.

Kofi Annan, review

Kofi Annan went to the Truman Presidential Library earlier this week and, in his final address to the United States, reminded Americans that, at the San Francisco Conference of 1945, they gave the world one of our nation's greatest gifts - namely the United Nations. Now, he said, the UN "system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition." Calling for the best in the human character is the enduring legacy of Kofi Annan.

Stephen Schlesinger is the former Director of the World Policy Institute at the New School University in New York City (1997-2006). Mr. Schlesinger received his BA from Harvard University and his JD from Harvard Law School. In the early 1970s, he edited and published The New Democrat Magazine. Thereafter he spent four years as a staff writer at Time Magazine. For twelve years, he served as Governor Mario Cuomo’s speechwriter and foreign policy advisor. In the mid 1990s, he worked at the United Nations at Habitat, the agency dealing with global cities. He is the author of three books, including Act of Creation: The Founding of The United Nations for which he won the 2004 Harry S. Truman Book Award; Bitter Fruit: The Story of the U.S. Coup in Guatemala (with Stephen Kinzer), which was listed as a New York Times "Notable" book for 1982; and The New Reformers. He is a specialist on the foreign policy of the Clinton and Bush Administrations. He is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers, including The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Nation Magazine, and The New York Observer. In 1978, he was a finalist for the National Magazine Award. He has appeared on CNN, Fox TV, NPR and other media outlets.

uiet by nature, modest in personality, and dignified in bearing, Kofi Annan took the helm of the UN in 1997 and became a world star. From the beginning, he willingly thrust the United Nations into the life of the planet in an unprecedented fashion. Beset by the reluctance of the United States to pay its annual dues, Annan met with the "Dr. No" of the American Congress, Senator Jesse Helms, and worked out a solution to the UN's funding crisis. He settled disputes in East Timor and Sierra Leone. He brought the world's business community into joint partnerships with the UN to finance its goals after making it meet strict guidelines on corporate behavior.More momentously, he challenged the member-states to do better in the field of human rights. Though knowing he would upset many of his friends in the Third World, he nonetheless advocated, given the failures of Rwanda and Sebrinica, humanitarian intervention by the international body when a state was attacking its own people - even in the face of the UN Charter's prohibition against interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation. He also pushed for the Millennium Development declaration which, among other things, asks countries to help reduce global poverty by fifty percent by the year 2015. He overcame the reluctance of the Western community that did not wish to send more of its wealth to the underdeveloped world. By the end of his first term, Annan won the Nobel Peace Prize.Annan's second term was stormier. First, the government in Washington changed from one of multilateralism (Clinton) to one of start-and-stop unilateralism (Bush). President Bush disdained most global pacts including the UN treaty; however, he soon sought the UN's backing for his invasion of Afghanistan; but he circumvented the body to attack Iraq; he reversed himself again to obtain the UN's imprimatur on America's Iraqi occupation and UN supervision of Iraqi elections. Still, in another about-face, Bush appointed an anti-UN envoy, John Bolton, to the body. Yet, soon after, he pushed for the UN to dislodge Syrian troops from Lebanon and finalize a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Most damagingly, though, was a rash of UN scandals. The most publicized was the Oil-For-Food affair that was initially laid at the feet of Kofi Annan -- for a time entangling his own son -- despite the fact that most of the oversight of the Iraqi program was borne by the Security Council. UN-bashers in Congress, however, tried to use this dereliction to drive Annan out of office. Then there were various sexual imbroglios involving UN troops in the Congo as well as the head of the UN's refugee agency, who was ultimately forced to resign over his personal peccadilloes. Annan responded to these troubles with the most sweeping reform proposals ever presented to the UN. He proffered across-the-board changes on matters ranging from Security Council expansion to stricter human rights enforcement to management fixes. If these renovations had passed, they likely would have led to a hugely improved, vastly more adept and far more open body. But the Bush Administration's ambassador, Mr. Bolton, and a few Third World allies, undermined many of them. Still enough survived to somewhat redeem the organization.For example, there is a now a broader definition of terrorism in which, for the first time, all governments clearly and unqualifiedly condemn terrorism "in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes." There is a new principle for the Security Council to use for assessing military intervention -- the so-called "responsibility to protect" against genocide and other mayhem. There is a Peacebuilding Commission and a Democracy Fund to help failed states rebuild and quash fanaticism. There is a new Human Rights Council which replaces the worn-out Human Rights Commission. There are new ethic rules requiring UN staffers to sign financial disclosure forms and a new whistleblower protection program. Meantime, Kofi Annan in his final years, saw an expansion of the UN's peacekeeping missions to eighteen, now involving over 80,000 troops - representing an extraordinary $7 billion commitment by the world community, signaling a robust vote of confidence in the UN's security role. In his two terms, Annan undoubtedly restored the moral authority to the earth's preeminent international institution. In his words and in his acts, he became something akin to the planet's secular pope. "Together we have pushed some big rocks to the top of the mountain", he told the General Assembly in his valedictory address, even if some have rolled back. Annan leaves office on December 31st . We will soon realize what we no longer have.

Federal spending on bio-terrorism

From Federation of American Scientists, at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/biosecurity/ Bush administration is into corporate welfare, so that is why they spent only 2% on prevention of other countries from developing or acquiring biological weapons out of a told of $36 billion spent since 01 Breakdown of Federal Funding for 2001-2007

Bush administration is into corporate welfare, so that is why they spent only 2% on prevention of other countries from developing or acquiring biological weapons out of a told of $36 billion spent since 01

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has released their analysis of US Federal Spending on Bio-defense from 2001-2007. The numbers are staggering: Since 2001 the U.S. government has spent or allocated over $36 billion among 11 federal departments and agencies on bio-defense. The Bush Administration has proposed $8 billion in bio-defense spending for FY '07, approximately $120 million (or 1.5%) over the '06 appropriation. Of particular interest was that only 2% of all federal bio-defense funding has been devoted to efforts to prevent the development, acquisition, and use of biological weapons by other nations and terrorists. —June 06. You can view their analysis here or download it as a PDF From Federation of American Scientists, at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/biosecurity/ Bush Administration cancels anthrax vaccine contract. Dec.06 The same day that President Bush signed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act into law, the government canceled their contract for the production of 75 million doses of anthrax vaccine. The contract, with VaxGen, was the most significant from the much criticized Bioshield program. But the cancellation was anticipated by many after VaxGen, who has never brought a vaccine or drug to market missed several deadlines and, most recently, had their application for testing their vaccine in humans rejected by the FDA. The company only has one other product in its pipeline, a new smallpox vaccine, but they do not have a contract to produce it. So, after shelling out approximately $175 million of its own cash, they have been left at the table with the bill. This scenario is precisely why no large pharmaceutical companies bid on the anthrax vaccine contract when it was offered. It was simply too much of a gamble. Granted, VaxGen’s 5 year time line for production of a next generation vaccine was overly ambitious by most standards, and they have no one to blame but themselves for signing a contract that there was little chance of completing on time. The US will continue to stockpile the previously available anthrax vaccine from Emergent BioSolutions even though its safety has been a topic of concern for some time and that it has to be delivered in several doses over 6 months. The cancellation of the contract and the passing of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act represent a welcome step back and reevaluation of how the US has been approaching countermeasure development. Amongst several provisions, the act calls for a reorganization of the Bioshield program and establishes the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, under the Department of Health and Human Services, which will be tasked with organizing vaccine and therapeutic development for potential bioterror agents. Having a more organized and accountable system for spending the $5.6 billion dollars in Bioshield funding will most certainly could be a step forward.

The numbers are staggering: Since 2001 the U.S. government has spent or allocated over $36 billion among 11 federal departments and agencies on bio-defense. The Bush Administration has proposed $8 billion in bio-defense spending for FY '07, approximately $120 million (or 1.5%) over the '06 appropriation. Of particular interest was that only 2% of all federal bio-defense funding has been devoted to efforts to prevent the development, acquisition, and use of biological weapons by other nations and terrorists.

The same day that President Bush signed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act into law, the government canceled their contract for the production of 75 million doses of anthrax vaccine. The contract, with VaxGen, was the most significant from the much criticized Bioshield program. But the cancellation was anticipated by many after VaxGen, who has never brought a vaccine or drug to market missed several deadlines and, most recently, had their application for testing their vaccine in humans rejected by the FDA.

The company only has one other product in its pipeline, a new smallpox vaccine, but they do not have a contract to produce it. So, after shelling out approximately $175 million of its own cash, they have been left at the table with the bill. This scenario is precisely why no large pharmaceutical companies bid on the anthrax vaccine contract when it was offered. It was simply too much of a gamble. Granted, VaxGen’s 5 year time line for production of a next generation vaccine was overly ambitious by most standards, and they have no one to blame but themselves for signing a contract that there was little chance of completing on time.

The US will continue to stockpile the previously available anthrax vaccine from Emergent BioSolutions even though its safety has been a topic of concern for some time and that it has to be delivered in several doses over 6 months.

Iraq War comments by Michael Moore--satire

From http://michaelmoore.com/, a great site with many links Dear Mr. President: Send Even MORE Troops (and you go, too!) ...from Michael Moore 1/10/07

Dear Mr. President, Thanks for your address to the nation. It's good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November. Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!! You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!! Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good. Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work: The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple. Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions: 1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America. 2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort. 3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel. Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead! We promise to write. Go get 'em W! Yours, Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com <mailto:mmflint@aol.com> www.michaelmoore.com <http://www.michaelmoore.com/>

THE TROOP SURGE IS DOOMED

History is repeating itself. The people are against the war, yet our government is committed to it—VIETNAM ALL OVER AGAIN. The two parties might squabble, but when the votes are counted, it is Vietnam all over again. The main reason that there will be more and more troops is that Iraq and the Middle East is the world’s principle source for oil. Leave and there is very likely a civil war with neighboring states sending troops. This certainly will affect oil product. Sending 20,000 more troops to a city must fail, for one city doesn't make a country, unless it is Monaco. Second reason is that the 41% Sunni minority is not going to let the Shia majority, with their government death squads practice religious/economic cleansing unopposed. Moreover, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states are supplying them with weapons; and once the U.S. leaves they would like actively intervene. Iraq is primarily Shia, while Saudi Arabia is Wahabbi, a sect very close to the Sunni. Popular support for one side are the other is strong in most Arab countries. History repeats itself, conditions resemble Europe in 1914, and prospects are bloody. A local bandage will not stop the bleeding. Just after the Republican defeat, Cheney was called (yes called) by Dictator Abdullah to meet with him. While what was discussed was not made public, two issues were likely set forward. One that Saudi Arabia would be forced into the civil war if the U.S. turned over the government to the Shia. Second that the oil prices would go through the ceiling. The Bush administration has made the second greatest blunder, they are following the Vietnam path—jk.

The main reason that there will be more and more troops is that Iraq and the Middle East is the world’s principle source for oil. Leave and there is very likely a civil war with neighboring states sending troops. This certainly will affect oil product.

Sending 20,000 more troops to a city must fail, for one city doesn't make a country, unless it is Monaco. Second reason is that the 41% Sunni minority is not going to let the Shia majority, with their government death squads practice religious/economic cleansing unopposed. Moreover, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states are supplying them with weapons; and once the U.S. leaves they would like actively intervene. Iraq is primarily Shia, while Saudi Arabia is Wahabbi, a sect very close to the Sunni. Popular support for one side are the other is strong in most Arab countries. History repeats itself, conditions resemble Europe in 1914, and prospects are bloody. A local bandage will not stop the bleeding.

Just after the Republican defeat, Cheney was called (yes called) by Dictator Abdullah to meet with him. While what was discussed was not made public, two issues were likely set forward. One that Saudi Arabia would be forced into the civil war if the U.S. turned over the government to the Shia. Second that the oil prices would go through the ceiling. The Bush administration has made the second greatest blunder, they are following the Vietnam path—jk.

On January 10, US President George Bush unveiled his government’s new plan for prosecuting Washington’s almost four-year-old counterinsurgency war in Iraq, which in a December 20 interview with the Washington Post he for the first time acknowledged the US was “not winning”.

In marked contrast to past statements in which Bush and his commanders repeatedly claimed that Washington was “on the brink of success” in its Iraq war, that “insurgents” had been “brought to their knees” and “we have broken the back of the insurgency”, in his January 10 speech Bush said: “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me.”

Bush argued that the “best way forward” is to increase US combat troop strength in Iraq. Reporting on Bush’s 20-minute speech, the January 11 Forbes business magazine observed that, “After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush’s last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3000 members of the US military as well as more than [US]$400 billion”.