The elephant in the room is that the US has become an evil power, as much as Mao’s China (as Billmon has just pointedly demonstrated) or Brezhnev’s USSR.
What seems an eternity ago, I posted a diary on Kos where I self-labelled myself a “traitor” because I realized I had come to root for the US’s “defeat” — hopefully a soft and merciful humbling (eg: end of Franco’s reign and transition to Juan Carlos’ in Spain) as opposed to a cruel, brutal one (defeat of Germany in WWII), but still.
Ultimtely, my wife and I lefdt the US because we could no longer reconcile ourselves with thre notion of living in a country whose defeat I aspire. I suspect uin 1933 I would have been among the Germans who left Germany too.
I still revere the American ideals (as I presume one might have loved Germany and the German culture while despising Naziism, ditto with Russia and communism), but not what America has become.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 17 2005 10:07 utc | 4

US Army asks for enlistment extension as recruitment numbers fall
WASHINGTON : The US Army asked Congress to allow it to extend enlistment contracts signed by soldiers by two years as top defense officials warned that key recruitment targets for the year could be missed…
… The appeal coincided with the release of a new congressional report that showed that the intensifying anti-American insurgency in Iraq and continued violence in Afghanistan were followed by a distinct drop in the number of volunteers willing to serve in the branches of the military that see the most combat….
U.S. military budget crunch fuels concerns in Congress that child care, services may suffer
WASHINGTON — Members of Congress voiced concerns Tuesday that funding for child care centers, barracks maintenance and other military base programs will be hurt by what they call inadequate money for construction and repair in the proposed 2006 defense budget.
As war costs rise, U.S. Air Force commands are ordered to reduce spending
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany — The rising cost of the war on terrorism and in Iraq is forcing major Air Force commands, including U.S. bases in Europe, to cut costs and help avoid a “budget crisis.”
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper has ordered the commands to slash spending and delay programs considered a lower priority compared to the war.
The service projects to be $3 billion short in maintenance and operations and have a $733 million shortfall in military personnel funding by the end of the fiscal year, Jumper told commanders in a March 1 message.

Posted by: Crisis? What crisis? | Mar 17 2005 10:34 utc | 6

A bit off topic: but did I hear correctly that Wolfowitz (god help us) has been tapped to run the world Bank?

Posted by: Diogenes | Mar 17 2005 11:08 utc | 8

new culture of greed, cleverly disguised as “Christian”

Posted by: Lupin | Mar 17 2005 11:30 utc | 10

Not really relevant, but extremely interesting:
Dark Clouds Over Detroit

GM plunged today to a 10 year low when it finally confessed just how bad its operations really are. The world’s largest automaker said it now expects a loss of about $1.50 per share in the first quarter, well below its prior target calling for breakeven results or better. For 2005 as a whole, GM scaled back expectations and now anticipates earnings of $1 to $2 per share, not the $4 to $5 in expected previously. This is a company headed for bankruptcy but the Wall Street pimps will not admit it until the bitter end. According to the S&P, GM and their finance arm General Motors Acceptance Corp. had about $300 billion in outstanding debt at the end of 2004. That will be one heck of a lot of write offs when they happen.
The S&P affirmed its long-term “BBB-” ratings and its short-term “A-3” ratings on GM and GMAC, but the outlook was changed to “negative” from “stable.” The change reflects S&P’s “heightened concerns regarding the profit potential of GM’s core North American automotive business in the wake of the company’s dramatically revised earnings and cash flow guidance,” analyst Scott Sprinzen wrote in a research note. “Confidence that performance will be bolstered by the eventual introduction of new products is diminished because sales of major new products it has introduced recently have generally not met expectations,” he said. Moody’s said it may cut ratings on GM and GMAC. The ratings agency currently rates GM’s long-term debt as “Baa2,” two notches above junk.
The real story in today’s fiasco is NOT the GM implosion but the fact that Fitch, Moody’s and the S&P have not and will not cut GM’s rating to junk. I am openly calling for the SEC to crack down on the relationship with rating companies and their clients. No one wants to be the first to upset a relationship or to spook the equity markets with a downgrade on a company as large as GM. At the current pace they will put this off for as long as they can, just as they did with Worldcom and Enron. Ratings companies are now totally useless. The problem here is clear, ratings companies should NOT be allowed to have relationships with the companies they rate.
How many times do Moody’s, Fitch, and the S&P have to prove they can not police themselves. The only hope for accurate rating is if the companies are totally independent.

Posted by: Greco | Mar 17 2005 13:09 utc | 12

Herold analysts: World’s major oil companies are almost tapped out

Today, the analysts at Herold -a research-only firm that issues valuations on
several hundred publicly traded energy companies- are making predictions even
bolder than their call on Enron. They have begun estimating when each of the
world’s biggest energy companies will peak in its ability to produce oil and
gas. Herold’s work shows that the best minds in the energy industry are
accepting the reality that the globe is reaching (or has already reached)
the limit of its own ability to produce ever increasing amounts of oil.
Many analysts have estimated when the earth will reach its peak oil
production. Others have done estimates on when individual countries will hit
their peaks. Herold is the first Wall Street firm to predict when specific
energy companies will hit their peaks.
Since last fall, Herold has done peak estimates on about two dozen oil
companies. Herold believes that the French oil company, Total S.A., will
reach its peak production in 2007. Herold expects 2008 to be critical, with
Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and the
Italian producer, Eni S.p.A., all hitting their peaks. In 2009, Herold
expects ChevronTexaco Corp. to peak. In Herold’s view, each of the world’s
seven largest publicly traded oil companies will begin seeing production
declines within the next 48 months or so.

Posted by: Greco | Mar 17 2005 14:51 utc | 14

You had better stop and think before you think, think!!
RIP, Lyn Collins. A wonderful voice, part of a wonderful generation of musicians.

Posted by: Ineluctable | Mar 17 2005 16:24 utc | 16

Secret U.S. plans for Iraq’s oil

Posted by: Nugget | Mar 17 2005 16:47 utc | 18

Grazie lei, Reverse Gear, for those great links to Berlusconi. I’m beginning to see Il Cavaliere as the Huey Long of our moment, perhaps rather menacing in a number of ways, but a truly gifted performer nonetheless, always and unfailingly entertaining. (When Prohibition was lifted, Long celebrated by putting out a promotional short feature–somewhat in the manner of Julia Childs–on the art of preparing a “New Orleans Gin Fizz”. He mixed the Gin Fizz with loving care, paused for a moment, winked at the camera, then knocked back the Gin Fizz in a single, glorious swallow,smiling as the film dissolved.)

Posted by: alabama | Mar 17 2005 17:55 utc | 20

in “thread open”, i queried
any mention in this speculation on the WB nomination of wolfowitz’s close ties/allegiance to israel?
this in yesterday’s jerusalem post:

Israel pleased with choice of Wolfowitz
Wolfowitz’s appointment to head the World Bank will have significance for Israel since the World Bank is expected to play a key economic role in Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal.
…
The World Bank is expected to supervise the implementation of hundreds of million of dollars worth of projects to rebuild Gaza. One official said that Wolfowitz would likely ensure that the Palestinians fulfill strict conditions regarding reform and democratization in order to get the money.
…
The World Bank is also the body that will oversee the channeling of millions of dollars into the Galilee and Negev for development of these regions as well.

Posted by: b real | Mar 17 2005 19:31 utc | 22

Asia Times
Although Pakistani forces conducted their customary vigorous anti-terrorism operations near the Afghanistan border prior to visits by US officials, the real interest in Wednesday’s meeting between President General Pervez Musharraf and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice centered on Iran.
Before Rice’s whirlwind visit to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (she also goes to Japan, South Korea and China) Washington was abuzz with talk that the Bush administration had convinced Musharraf to lend support to American action against Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.
This reinforces a number of reports by Asia Times Online’s Syed Saleem Shahzad over the past months that Pakistan had agreed to host American troops and intelligence assets near its long border with Iran in Balochistan province in preparation for a possible attack on Iran, including the training of special US forces in Karachi – see, for example, US keeps Iran in its sights
of January 28.
In return, the US seems to be more receptive to Pakistan’s long-term request for F-16 fighter aircraft. On Wednesday, Rice thanked Musharraf for “superb support in the war on terror”, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. The possible sale of F-16 fighter planes came up, Boucher said, but he gave no details.
There are further contours of the deal – Pakistan has provided material evidence to the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the items and scientific information that Pakistani scientists provided to support the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Again, ATol’s Syed Saleem Shahzad was the first to break the news that Pakistan was ready to surrender detailed material evidence of proliferation to Iran – see US goes back to the nuclear source of December 15 of last year.
Since September, Musharraf had been resistant to US demands to provide material evidence of Pakistani proliferation, especially if it was intended to give the US causus belli to act militarily against another Islamic country. However, Musharraf was the first to officially signal a Pakistani change of heart when in late February he made an acknowledgement that his country’s scientists may have transferred some centrifuge parts to Iran.
Last week, Sheik Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan’s information minister, said that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the mastermind of Pakistan’s nuclear program, had given centrifuges – rather than just blueprints – to Iran as part of a package of materials that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, either to produce energy or nuclear weapons. The minister added, “He [Khan] helped Iran in his personal capacity, and the Pakistan government had nothing to do with it.”
This declaration is significant because until now Pakistan has insisted that no nuclear material was ever sent from Pakistan and that the illegal trade was restricted to intellectual property, such as plans and blueprints.
Subsequently, a Reuters report from Vienna, where the IAEA is headquartered, said that Pakistan would submit to the long-term IAEA demand that it hand over its centrifuges similar to the ones its supplied to Iran, so that the agency could identify if Iran has been secretly enriching uranium or not. Uranium from various sources still maintains its radioactive “fingerprint” that experts can use to trace its origin. Even though the Pakistan Foreign Office denied the Reuters report, many don’t find the denial credible, given that Pakistan has made angry denials in the past of nuclear-related allegations that eventually proved to be true.
Interestingly, as the December ATol piece noted, former Pakistan army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg has been linked closely to Pakistan’s nuclear dealings with Iran. Beg has on many occasions openly endorsed nuclear cooperation with Iran and even called for a Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan military alliance against the US. Some observers wonder if Musharraf would “sacrifice” Beg to both appease the US, as well as fend off those who are skeptical of Pakistan’s blaming of the entire proliferation saga on one individual – Khan.
In this context, Beg has been recently writing op-eds published in the Pakistani and US media trying to justify Pakistan’s proliferation acts. Strangely, Beg also called for an India-Pakistan tie-up to provide a nuclear shield to Iran. However, one Western analyst who recently visited Pakistan expressed skepticism that the Pakistani establishment would ever sacrifice one of their own (Beg), even if he is currently out of favor.
For the Americans, this Pakistani admission is vital since it gets the US off the hook from the task of proving that Iran is cheating on its promise not to develop nuclear weapons. Even though many people (especially in Washington) believe that Iran is working on enriching uranium for weapons purposes, material evidence carries enormous weight in the diplomatic world. Until now, Iran had been stalling the IAEA by arguing that Western intelligence sources are wrong about its nuclear program, a claim that is strengthened by the Iraq weapons of mass destruction fiasco.
But a centrifuge sample handover by Pakistan changes the playing field, making it hard for Iran to wriggle out of its dealings with the IAEA, should they contain incriminating material. As a result, should Iran’s nuclear weapons program be found out publicly, the matter can theoretically be referred to the United Nations Security Council, leading to sanctions or even military action, although China may have something to say about that.
A few weeks ago, Richard Sale, the intelligence correspondent for United Press International, wrote that Musharraf had allowed Iranian anti-regime fighters to operate from Pakistan’s Balochistan province that abuts Iran. Sale claimed that the fighters included those from the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), which is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department. This report once again tallies with ATol’s January 28 story, which said that the US was using the MEK to work against Iran from southern Iraq, “… [the MEK] will attempt to play the role of a catalyst to organize an insurgency against the rule of Islamic hardliners in Tehran.”
Anti-Iranian Kurdish groups could be based in Balochistan because the Kurds are ethnically similar to the Balochis. One factor complicating this alleged ploy is the Pakistani Baloch uprising against Islamabad, which has picked up steam after an alleged rape of a woman doctor by a Pakistani military officer. (See ATol’s Tribals looking down a barrel in Balochistan of January 15.)
Despite that, Balochistan’s geography (long porous border with Iran) and sparse population make it too attractive for the US to pass up as a potential staging area as it weighs its options over Iran.
Meanwhile, for Musharraf and Pakistan, supporting the US against Iran fits into the pattern of behavior of acquiescing to one demand in order to deflect pressure off another. In this case, Pakistan has come under renewed pressure from the IAEA and the US to hand over Khan – he is currently under “informal” house arrest – and disclose more about the Pakistani nuclear network. Reuters reported this week that many European and American experts now have solid evidence of Pakistan trying to revive the nuclear underworld. In this context, one South Asia expert said that it makes sense for Musharraf to “give up” Iran in order to stave of the concerted pressure over Khan.
For the Pakistani establishment, this would also be a way to payback Iran for what Pakistani officials felt was Iran’s betrayal when it secretly revealed details of Pakistani nuclear support to the IAEA. That, along with Libya’s secret deal with the US directly provided enough evidence of Pakistani proliferation and led to the February 2004 televised confession by Khan. In a press conference following Khan’s TV appearance, Musharraf was visibly angry at Iran and Libya for “caving in”, and even mocked them for being weak-kneed in the face of international pressure.
In addition, the largely Sunni Pakistani establishment, despite the presence of mavericks like Beg, is generally suspicious of Shi’ite Iran. Pakistan-Iran ties hit rock bottom during the 1990s when Pakistan was sponsoring the Sunni extremist Taliban movement in Afghanistan, which took part in large scale massacres of Afghan Shi’ites, who were supported by Iran. The Taliban and allied Pakistani militants also killed nine Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif, exacerbating the tensions.
Post-Taliban, Iran-Pakistan ties seem to have improved. Iran’s concerns with regard to Pakistan’s backing of the Taliban seem to have been allayed somewhat with the Pakistani government reversing its earlier policy of support to the Taliban. Tehran and Islamabad have taken big strides with regard to a proposed US$4.5 billion natural gas pipeline from Iran’s oilfields through Pakistan to India, and the two have recently agreed to conduct joint naval exercises.
These, however, seem to be incidents of tactical cooperation between Iran and Pakistan. Mutual suspicion persists. Tehran blames Pakistan for the American presence in Afghanistan and Central Asia. It suspects Pakistan of cooperating with the US against Iran. Pakistan suspects an Iranian hand in the turmoil in Balochistan.
Pakistan’s Iran suspicions only heightened when a string of reports came out stating that Iran had signed a secret defense agreement with India that included a provision for India to deploy “troops, armored personnel carriers, tanks and surveillance platforms in Iran” during any crisis with Pakistan. Though lower-level Iranian officials eventually denied such a provision, top Iranian figures did not deny that there was an agreement with India.
The reports also mentioned that India would develop the new Iranian port of Chahbahar. Separately, India also signed a deal with Iran to develop a road link connecting Chahbahar to Central Asian points of trade, through Afghanistan. For Pakistan, Chahbahar is a direct competitor to the port of Gwadar in Balochistan that Pakistan is developing with Chinese assistance. Pakistan’s leaders have long marketed Gwadar as a destination point of choice for Central Asian commerce. Pakistan’s establishment has also been historically sensitive about any Indian access to its western flank, especially in Afghanistan, and news of Iran-India cooperation started ringing alarm bells in Islamabad.
In any event, the idea that Musharraf has made a decision to allow access to US forces in Balochistan was strengthened when the general recently spoke at a conference in Islamabad, “We hope the US doesn’t attack Iran. In the event of an attack, Pakistan will remain neutral.” One Washington-based analyst contrasted this statement with Musharraf’s past explicit denunciations of US actions against Iraq, as well as his opposition to military action against Islamic countries, and observed that this is about as close to an anti-Iranian statement as one could hope to get out of Musharraf publicly.
But the analyst also cautioned that while Musharraf may have agreed to allow the US forces to use Balochistan for now, he might be hedging by hoping that the US does not actually attack Iran. “Musharraf thrives by making carefully worded commitments that leave enough room for him to wriggle out should things change,” quipped the expert. The expert also raised the point that this could also be a short-term move by Musharraf to get the Bush administration to approve the sale of long-sought F-16 fighters to Pakistan. India is after the same hardware.
Many Pakistani and Western experts have noted that Pakistan has followed the development paradigm of a “rent-seeking state”, meaning that Pakistani leaders have always tried to parlay their country’s strategic geographical location to greater powers in return for aid and diplomatic recognition. The US, obviously, has been the biggest partaker of the services provided by the Pakistani elite, from the days of the Cold War to the current “war on terror”.
However, such acts of renting their country out have not always worked out well for Pakistan in the long term. It would be interesting to see how this latest move by Pakistan against Iran turns out, especially if the Iranian leaders are able to come out of the current nuclear crisis unscathed.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 17 2005 21:10 utc | 24

Russian energy official survives ambush.
MOSCOW – Anatoly Chubais, the powerful head of Russia’s state-controlled electricity monopoly and architect of its much-maligned 1990s privatization push, survived a roadside ambush Thursday when an armored limousine carrying him to work was raked by gunfire following an explosion.
The attack on one of the most controversial figures in Russia’s post-Soviet history raised questions about whether the motive was rooted in politics or an ambitious plan to divvy up the world’s largest power grid, creating a new constellation of winners and losers.

Posted by: Resource wars | Mar 17 2005 21:16 utc | 26

Hardened Artery:
Teapot diplomacy?

Arthur Morgan, Davy Hyland, and Pat McGinn are my kind of elected officials. Arthur and Davy did time in prison as part of the republican struggle. All three represent Sinn Féin, Arthur in the south, Davy and Pat in the north. All were influenced by Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers who ran for and won seats in the British Parliament or local offices. Arthur says he was struck by the irony of Irish leader Charles Haughey bringing a teapot to Margaret Thatcher while the hunger strikers starved. Davy, who counts James Connolly as his inspiration, was convicted by the testimony of a “supergrass,” one of the anonymous informers used the British government to target activists against whom there was no real evidence.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 17 2005 22:04 utc | 28

Wolfowitz, yesterday:

“Nothing is more gratifying than being able to help people in need,”

So many already he has helped.
It would be interesting to know if he and others like him believe this. My hunch is they don’t, and rather enjoy hoodwinking or outraging us all.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 17 2005 22:41 utc | 30

Citizen – being indirectly involved in the WB review (called the “Extractive industries Review”) I can tell you that it would be a terrible mistake for the World Bank to leave that sector.
Google “Equator Principles”. I will write about them one of these days…

Posted by: Jérôme | Mar 17 2005 23:34 utc | 32

Most of the comment I’ve seen about the Wolfowitz nomination, understandably, focuses on his apparent lack of any real experience or interest in international development. This assumes that he is being placed at the World Bank to continue its nominal policies. In that case, it is an odd fit.
But it seems to me that he is being put there as a true believer to effectuate institutional change no matter how many kneecaps have to be broken – which I gather was his charge at Defense. The institutional change I suspect is to convert the World Bank into a truly ruthless instrument. New motto: “You’re pre-approved for a new homeland equity loan. Or the Marines. Take your pick”.
The World Bank can also play some very useful new roles at this moment. First, with the demise of Riggs, we need a new BCCI. With the right kind of management, unconcerned about pesky externalities such as money laundering laws, many useful payments can be facilitated. Second, with the neocons having been frustrated in their plans to raffle off the Iraqui oil fields, mega-loans to the current pseudo-government there can be arranged with the oil fields pledged as security, if not on the face of the agreements then as a private codicil. The neocons are nothing if not persistent, and I’m sure Mr. Chalabi would play the honest broker for a reasonable fee. Third, as nations acting in their own self-interest lose stop buying American debt, strong-arm loans (especially ones earmarked to buy U.S. products) could be used to try to float the deficit and forestall the inevitable interest rates hikes.
Of course, doing such things requires running roughshod over international convention and consensus and purging or bypassing dissenters and namby-pamby traditionalists. In which case, Wolfowitz seems just the guy for the job.
I see before sending this that Krugman is questioning whether this makes it the Ugly American Bank. That’s a good one. But not nearly shrill enough I fear.

Posted by: Alvin | Mar 18 2005 4:22 utc | 34

Jerome,
I’m very interested in what you have to say about the Extractive Industries Review. I have not studied up on this, but had the impression the review’s recommendation was to put more effort into renewable resource investments.

Posted by: Citizen | Mar 18 2005 5:10 utc | 36

Lupin, I sooo understand you. That’s exactly how I felt when I left Serbia…I still love a memory of the country I used to love. I never liked communism or any government for that matter but after Milosevic came in power and all those wars began I felt just like you feel now. I couldn’t even “properly HATE” NATO and Americans for bombardment at the time…I felt really terrible…
I’ve lost my intimate contact deep in my heart with my country and I don’t even like visiting that much even today after Milosevic has gone. It’s not the same country, everything fundamentally has changed for worse thanks to those wars and as I feel very very sorry for what happened to my country and my people I am deeply SAD and heartbroken for them and even us who escaped same destiny by becoming emigrants…for all of us…so sad… after 11 years in emigration…

Posted by: vbo | Mar 18 2005 5:29 utc | 38

Leftist blog wars: On ethics versus ego, linking and loopiness and anything but unity
It’s a jungle out there!

Posted by: I said it first, no I did, no, I did | Mar 18 2005 5:56 utc | 40

Mr. Magoo goes to the World Bank

The problem with Paul Wolfowitz isn’t that he’s an evil genius. It’s that he has been consistently, astonishingly, unswervingly wrong about foreign policy for 30 years.

Posted by: Fran | Mar 18 2005 6:27 utc | 42

Journalists tell of U.S. Fallujah killings

Posted by: While you were sleeping | Mar 18 2005 13:16 utc | 44

What’s great about bartcop.com is that he really does, as he claims, “speak stupid.” (you know, the language) Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a rhetorical prize here:

The whole world is talking about Bush’s gay sex scandal – everyone but the pro-Bush American media.
They spend years on Clinton’s girlfriend, but they refuse to print stories about Bush’s boyfriend?

I know I should not laugh at this, but I do, and I just did again.

The “liberal press” won’t mention the facts (gigolo Gannon’s White House access) that they witnessed with their own eyes.

Less funny. Less dynamite. More important.

Posted by: Citizen | Mar 18 2005 14:51 utc | 46

Tipping point: only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today’s technological resources while maintaining property relations. Don’t want to improve the lives of workers, oh no. Better to go off and find someone to murder.
Pretty simple.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 18 2005 17:40 utc | 48

Well, happy belated, b. You were born on the ides of March?

Posted by: beq | Mar 18 2005 19:40 utc | 50

Smells like spring here too. I was born in April, the “cruelest” month. 🙁

Posted by: beq | Mar 18 2005 20:02 utc | 52

and the pool of cannon fodder

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 18 2005 20:45 utc | 54

more cannon fodder

Posted by: b real | Mar 18 2005 21:12 utc | 56

DERRICK DEPLEDGE, HONOLULU ADVERTISER – A Native Hawaiian federal recognition bill would give Hawaiians the same right to self-government as American Indians and Native Alaskans, but would not create new race-based preferences, Hawai’i lawmakers said yesterday. The Hawai’i congressional delegation introduced the legislation for the third time since 2000, and began the difficult political groundwork to overcome skeptical Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration.
“Extending the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Native Hawaiians is indispensable to further the process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States,'” said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai’i.
The bill, identical to a version that stalled last session, would recognize Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people with an inherent right to form a government that could have government-to-government relations with the United States. The bill also would establish a Native Hawaiian office in the Department of Interior and an interagency coordinating group to follow Hawaiian issues and programs in the federal government.

what’s this got to do with anything, you ask?

When the Senate voted on the Alaskan pillage bill two deserters from the Democratic opposition stood out: Senators Akaka and Inouye, both from Hawaii. What was the deal? A bridge from San Francisco?
Nothing so dramatic. Here’s the bill that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has co-sponsored to win the backing the Hawaiian senators…

Divide et Impera!
or “we’ll throw a bone to you indigenes in our southernmost imperial possession, if you agree to help us screw the indigenes in our northernmost imperial possession.” and it works. it works and it goes on working.

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 18 2005 22:02 utc | 58

one more snack — Palast has broken another big story, but of course it will not be big in the tame US media.

Two years ago today – when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad – protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq’s oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of “Big Oil” executives and US State Department “pragmatists”.
“Big Oil” appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began “within weeks” of Bush’s first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

well we all kinda knew that… still, it is nice to see the staid Beeb admitting it at last.

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 18 2005 23:43 utc | 60

@DM, yes, it will be little comfort to wheeze, from the confines of my death bed, that “I knew it all along” — as the exposes and glasnost-history books are finally published a generation after our time.
always assuming there are still books by then. or comfortable death beds for anyone but the truly wealthy. argh.

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 19 2005 0:49 utc | 62

Why Bush really went to war on Iraq: Mapping the oil motive

Posted by: Michael Klare | Mar 19 2005 16:45 utc | 64

IMF chief: Oil prices high for 2 years

Posted by: IMF on oil | Mar 19 2005 21:59 utc | 66