MySpace

The Howard Beal Report Curious ? google Howard Beal

MySpace | > rss | Connexion
Opus



Dernière mise à jour : 30/12/2009

> Email
> Message instantané
> Partage avec un ami
> Souscrire

Ville : Riverside
Région : California
Pays: US

Souscriptions
Paul Rieckhoff
SOON TO BE A MCKENZIE
Habeas Corpus
Free Gary Tyler
Chug Bleach

Archive du blog
[Plus ancien      Plus récent]
 /  / 
octobre 5, 2009 - lundi 8:24
 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
avril 1, 2009 - mercredi 1:05


Mexican Cartels
China USA Flag
The Pope & AIDS

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
novembre 26, 2008 - mercredi 5:30

Catholics no longer need to hide their love away, as newspaper forgives John Lennon for his 'bigger than Jesus' comment !

The Beatles in 1963

Bigger than Jesus? ... The Beatles in 1963

Closeted over all these years, the Vatican has finally announced that it likes the Beatles.

L'Osservatore Romano, semi-official newspaper of the Holy See, this weekend set aside its papal transcripts and clerical itineraries to disclose an affection for the Fab Four's "unique and strange alchemy of sounds and words".

The announcement was spurred by the 40th anniversary of the White Album, dubbed a "magical musical anthology" by the paper's editors. While the article isn't the White Album's first review in Latin - L'Osservatore Romano is written in Italian - it's probably the first Beatles review in a publication whose motto is about vanquishing the forces of hell.

The album's birthday was also celebrated on official Vatican radio, opening the possibility that Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey may soundtrack the next papal conclave.

It wasn't always thus. In 1966 the Church was incensed when John Lennon called his band "more popular than Jesus". "Christianity will go," Lennon told London's Evening Standard. "It will vanish and shrink ... Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

But L'Osservatore Romano turned the other cheek on Saturday, dismissing Lennon's remarks as "showing off, bragging by a young English working-class musician who had ... enjoyed unexpected success".

When it comes to other acts - the Stones, say, or Coldplay - the Vatican's editors were not so generous. The Beatles were praiseworthy, the article said, because they differed from the "standardised, stereotypical" music that haunts contemporary society. In other words, Pope Benedict XVI has heard the new Guns N' Roses album.

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
août 9, 2008 - samedi 10:28

 

By Gwen Ifill | TheRoot.com

Tim Russert was a rarity in Washington; when he said he wanted to understand other people, he meant it.

Gwen Ifill with Tim Russert on the set of 'Meet The Press' in February.

June 15, 2008--Here is something important you need to know about Tim Russert: On the night Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, even a casual viewer could tell Tim was beside himself with the joy of watching history unfold before his eyes. In that slightly over the top, nearly hokey way that characterized his love of election nights, he simply could not get enough.

I was watching at home, enough of a political junkie myself to know I had to hang in there to see the history being made, but fighting off sleep all the same. And then my friend Tim said something on the air that made me wish I'd said it first.

"I was thinking: What would I like to do tomorrow?" he said to the camera, his face shiny with excitement. "No more primaries to cover! One, I'd like to be in that meeting between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But absent that, I would LOVE to teach American history in an inner-city American school tomorrow morning. How GREAT would that be? Just to look in those faces and listen to those kids—what they witnessed and saw tonight."

I knew he meant every word.

Tim loved a lot of things, a lot of people. And we loved him right back. He hired me at NBC in 1994 on a dare, luring me from my comfy perch at the New York Times with a promise to teach me TV. His reasoning was simple; it was a better bet to teach a good reporter about television than to try to teach a TV-ready talking head about how to be a journalist. His own example was his guide. He took over Meet the Press in 1991 without a lick of television experience, but with a wealth of political knowledge.

He never had to say it, but I also know Tim considered it a bonus that, by hiring me, he was going to be able to add an African-American voice to his Washington bureau—someone who could keep up with him on politics but also tell him stuff he didn't know. He was keenly aware that, as proud as he was of his Irish Catholic, blue-collar roots, other people had different roots that they were equally proud of and that understanding those varied views of the world was important.

I was working for him at NBC during the 1995 Million Man March. As hundreds of thousands of men streamed onto the National Mall, he knew this was a big deal, and he knew there was something he could learn if he would just dig deeply enough. So he assembled a roundtable for that week's Meet the Press unlike anything Sunday morning had ever seen: all black men, including liberal Jesse Jackson and conservative Robert Woodson, Tim and me. It was no stunt. Tim really wanted to understand the significance of the event.

That kind of sincere interest is rare. Many powerful white men limit their curiosity to confirming what they already believe they know to be true. When Tim did not know something, he found someone who did. Over the years, he found me, and NPR's Michele Norris, and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson and CNN's Suzanne Malveaux and Joe Johns and other voices who could clue him in to how black folk thought, talked, acted—and to help him understand why there was no monolithic answer. When the National Urban League scolded him and other Sunday morning shows about lack of diversity on their roundtables, he showed up at the meeting himself to talk to them about how to address the problem.

I made my last appearance with him on Meet the Press a few weeks ago. We were talking about race in the context of this year's presidential contest and another panelist, Jon Meacham of Newsweek, remarked that race was a subject that made white folks queasy. I countered that black folks only get queasy talking about race when they are in conversation with white folks who get queasy talking about it. Tim's eyes twinkled when he looked at me. He absolutely loved that I was telling him something he had not thought of before.

I never minded talking about race with Tim because he was never queasy talking about it with me.                                                   

There is quite a line of people who, at various times, have taken credit for my career. I usually let them do it, even if I remember events quite differently. But Tim deserves the credit. He not only talked me into switching to TV against my first instincts, but—five years later—he engineered a way for me to leave NBC when I was offered the chance to become the first African American to host a weekly public affairs program, Washington Week, over on PBS. He not only talked NBC executives into getting me out of my contract, but he also looked me in the eye and told me this was something I absolutely, positively had to do.

Tim remained a friend to the end. Even when we disagreed—as happened during the infamous Don Imus episode last year—he never stopped wanting to hear what I thought. Imus was his friend, and he had appeared on the radio show many, many times. So when Meet the Press producer Betsy Fischer called to invite me to participate in a Sunday roundtable focused on the controversy, I at first refused.

I felt compelled to call Tim and explain. If I come on your show, I told him, I will be forced to criticize the journalists who had enabled Imus over the years, leading up to his stunning insult of the Rutgers basketball team. Tim knew—and I knew—that Imus had insulted me too, years before. When I told Tim I didn't feel I could come to his house and insult him, he quickly assured me that he wanted me to come and say what I had to say. People needed to hear it, he told me.

So I went, and I told him to his face that I found his defense of Imus disappointing. I got a lot of kudos for speaking truth to power that day, but the real news was that Tim allowed me to say what I had to say, knowing it would not make him look good. That does not happen a lot—in life or politics.

I am stunned and grief-stricken by Tim's death. In a world where many of us realize we are the only black friends our white friends have, I remember Tim as a guy who considered it a thrill to drop by my house, grab the first baby who wandered by in a house full of mostly black people, and work the room like he never wanted to leave.

Now that, right there, was my brother.

Gwen Ifill is host of ''Washington Week'' on PBS.

 

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
août 9, 2008 - samedi 2:09

Humeur actuelle :  mélancolique


http://www.slate.com/id/2196810/

Dude, you stole my article.

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
mai 20, 2008 - mardi 12:42

Iraq has shown the limits of U.S. power. We must change America, not the world.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
May 13, 2008
Donald Rumsfeld is today a discredited and widely reviled figure. Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's successor as Defense secretary, is generally admired for manifesting qualities that Rumsfeld lacked -- a willingness to listen not least among them. Yet on one crucial point, the two see eye to eye: Both believe that the United States has no alternative but to wage a global war likely to last decades.

In the wake of 9/11, Rumsfeld wasted no time in telling Americans what to expect. "Forget about 'exit strategies,' " he said on Sept. 28, 2001, "we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines." Speaking at West Point last month, Gates echoed his predecessor's assessment: "There are no exit strategies," he announced. Instead, Gates described a "generational campaign" entailing "many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world."

For the United States, the prospect of permanent war now beckons.

Well into the first decade of this generational struggle, Americans remained oddly confused about its purpose. Is the aim to ensure access to cheap and abundant oil? Spread democracy? Avert nuclear proliferation? Perpetuate the American empire? Preserve the American way of life? From the outset, the enterprise that Gates now calls the "Long War" has been about all of these things and more.

Back in September 2001, Rumsfeld put it this way: "We have a choice -- either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live; and we chose the latter." In this context, "they" represent the billion or so Muslims inhabiting the greater Middle East.

When Rumsfeld offered this statement of purpose and President Bush committed the United States to open-ended war, both assumed that U.S. military supremacy was beyond dispute. At the time, most Americans shared that assumption. A conviction that "the troops" were unstoppable invested the idea of transforming the greater Middle East with a superficial plausibility.

Yet by the time Gates spoke last month, the limits of American military power had long since become apparent. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the opening rounds of the generational campaign are now well underway. By historical standards, each qualifies as a fairly small war. In neither case, however, have U.S. forces been able to achieve decisive victory. In both cases, barring drastic changes in U.S. policy, fighting will drag on for years to come.

In the meantime, what has the Long War achieved? The answer to that question is indisputable: not much. Counting on military might to change the way they live isn't working. If anything, the effort has backfired.

Since 2001, the price of oil per barrel has quadrupled, adversely affecting all but the wealthiest Americans. Efforts to spread democracy have either stalled or succeeded only in enhancing the standing of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The much-hyped Iraqi nuclear threat turned out to be illusory. To sustain the overstretched American imperium, we are accumulating debt at a staggering clip. And with U.S. soldiers shouldering repetitive combat tours, the strength of our army slowly ebbs away.

Meanwhile, the immediate danger to the American way of life comes not from terrorists but from our own adamant refusal to live within our means. American profligacy, not Islamic radicals, triggered the mortgage crisis that underlies our current economic distress.

Bluntly, the Long War has proved to be a monumental flop. Yet Gates, channeling Rumsfeld, would have us believe that perpetual war constitutes the sole option available to the world's most powerful nation. This represents a profound failure of imagination. It also misreads our own history.

The truth is that the United States, with rare exceptions, has demonstrated little talent for changing the way others live. We have enjoyed far greater success in making necessary adjustments to our own way of life, preserving and renewing what we value most. Early in the 20th century, Progressives rounded off the rough edges of the Industrial Revolution, deflecting looming threats to social harmony. During the Depression, FDR's New Deal reformed capitalism and thereby saved it. Here lies the real genius of American politics.

Rumsfeld got it exactly backward. Although we do face a choice, it's not the one that he described. The actual choice is this one: We can either persist in our efforts to change the way they live -- in which case the war of no exits will surely lead to bankruptcy and exhaustion. Or we can recognize the folly of generational war and choose instead to put our own house in order: curbing our appetites, paying our bills and ending our self-destructive dependency on foreign oil and foreign credit.

Salvation does not lie abroad. It's here at home.
 
** Andrew J. Bacevich teaches at Boston University and is the author of the forthcoming "The Limits of Power."

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
avril 25, 2008 - vendredi 4:48

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Presents the
2008 Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award Dinner

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Reserve your seat at the table — purchase your tickets now.

Jump to:

About the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award

Hubert H. Humphrey

Each year, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights presents the prestigious Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award, celebrating the legacy of the former vice president, senator and civil rights pioneer.

Devoted to public service in the cause of equality, Hubert Humphrey's years of public service, leadership and dedication to equal opportunity changed the face of America. He was a tireless advocate who led the fight for passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Award is the civil rights community's highest honor, saluting individuals or organizations that best exemplify Vice President Humphrey's legacy of "selfless and devoted service in the cause of equality." The annual dinner, LCCR's principal fundraiser, is noted for bringing together people from all walks of life —members of both houses of Congress, officials from the Executive Branch, business leaders, educators, attorneys and young people representing the next generation of civil and human rights advocates.

"This year, as the Leadership Conference addresses issues of equality and inclusion in protecting civil and human rights, we are pleased to recognize three remarkable individuals who have been steadfast in their efforts to amplify the voices of those at the margins of our economy and our society," said Wade Henderson, president of LCCR.

Henderson noted that 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, a cornerstone of civil rights legislation. "Representative Conyers' advocacy for the Act and its amendments, Patricia Rouse's unflagging efforts to support fair housing, and Soledad O'Brien's pivotal role in telling the stories of Katrina's homeless make these honors all the more fitting. We have much further to go on the road to housing equality, and our honorees are among those who are leading the way. Our nation's minorities, the poor and the disenfranchised have no stronger advocates than this year's Humphrey Awardees."

2008 Honorees

We are pleased to announce this year's honorees:

John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI)

John Conyers, Jr.

Representative John Conyers has served in the House since 1964, representing Michigan's 14th District.

A leader throughout our nation's civil rights struggles and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Conyers has been a relentless voice for equality and equal opportunity. He has fought to protect working families, ensure equal pay for women and minorities, increase the minimum wage, address hate crimes and violence against women, and promote meaningful enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.

A champion of health care reform, he is leading the fight to ensure that every American, regardless of income, employment status, or race, has access to quality, affordable health care.

Patricia Rouse

Patricia Rouse

Patricia Rouse, as the co-founder of Enterprise Community Partners, has been a tireless advocate for fair and affordable housing, paving the way for countless low-income families to move from poverty to the mainstream of American life.

She was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the Commission on National and Community Service, has been a board member of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing and served on many Maryland and national boards of organizations dedicated to equality and opportunity in housing.

In the spirit of the Leadership Conference, she is a coalition builder, forging strong partnerships with diverse stakeholders to protect the poor, working class families, the homeless, the elderly and those displaced by natural disasters.

Soledad O'Brien

Soledad O'Brien

Soledad O'Brien is an anchor and special correspondent for CNN's Special Investigations Unit, delivering in-depth reports on current events and showing the human face of those affected by critical social and economic developments. Her highly acclaimed documentary of Martin Luther King offered fresh investigative insights regarding his writings and his life's work.

Ms. O'Brien has been lauded for sharing with America the personal stories of people caught up in the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane and the related housing shortage; the Southeast Asia tsunami; and the contested vote counts of 2004.

As CNN point-person during President George W. Bush's visit to Mexico, she delivered a series of eye-opening reports on conditions that are fueling the immigration crisis. Her objective and far-reaching coverage of topical issues has contributed to the dialogue over countless civil and human rights issues.

> Past Honorees

Event Information

Date & Time
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Reception 5:30 p.m., Dinner 7:00 p.m.
Business Attire

Location:
Hilton Washington Towers
1919 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

> Ticket and sponsorship information

For further information, contact LCCR at (202) 466-1887 or by email at dinner@civilrights.org

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
avril 25, 2008 - vendredi 2:46

Rev. Wright, Calls Coverage 'Unfair'

By Shailagh Murray
Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told PBS host Bill Moyers that inflammatory statements from his sermons were taken out of context, but he said he didn't begrudge the Democratic candidate for denouncing them.

"He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two different worlds," said Wright, who recently retired from Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago, where Obama has attended services for 20 years.

Wright's interview with Moyers, excerpted today, is scheduled for broadcast Friday night on PBS and represents his first high-profile appearance after the firestorm broke. He will speak at the National Press Club on Monday, seeking to put his remarks in context of African American religious traditions.

Referring to Obama's race speech in Philadelphia last month, delivered after Wright videos became an Internet and cable TV sensation, the former pastor told Moyers, "What happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician."

Wright is a well-known preacher and theologian, but often combative at the pulpit. He has been a lightening rod for Obama since the start of the Illinois senator's campaign, but he has kept a low profile, even as the current controversy unfolded.

Wright delivered his most notorious sermon the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001, when he suggested that the U.S. had brought on the attacks by committing its own acts of terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he said in the Sept. 16 service.

A 2003 sermon became another flashpoint. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright told the Trinity congregation. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Obama strongly denounced these statements and others, and has repeatedly asserted that he only became aware of them recently. He characterizes Wright as an elderly African American man who is reflective of an earlier, more difficult era. But supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now point to Wright as serious baggage for Obama as a general election candidate.

Wright defended his sermons, telling Moyers, "the persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the communication perfectly ... those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic."

He said his critics' motives are clear: to undermine Obama. "I think they wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at Trinity United Church of Christ. And by the way, guess who goes to his church, hint, hint, hint?"

But he added, "They know nothing about the church. They know nothing about our prison ministry. They know nothing about our food ministry. They know nothing about our senior citizens home. They know nothing about all we try to do as a church and have tried to do." Focusing only on the snippets, he said, "was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue. I felt for those who were doing that, were doing it for some very devious reasons."

Wright told Moyers that he didn't talk politics with Obama. "He goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God."

Posted at 7:26 PM ET on Apr 24, 2008  | 

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
avril 23, 2008 - mercredi 10:15
CBS) General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress this past week that there has been substantial progress, but not enough to begin withdrawing American troops. There are questions about the readiness of the new Iraqi army and the competence of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government, which is fraught with ethnic and religious divisions.

Electricity is still in short supply, medicines are available mainly through the black market, and there are long lines for fuel in a country that has the third largest oil reserves in the world. One of the biggest problems is corruption, which is robust even by Middle Eastern standards. According to U.S. and Iraqi officials, bribery and outright theft are flourishing in virtually every Iraqi ministry, and some of those ill-gotten gains are being used to kill American troops.


This story begins 18 months ago, in the fall of 2006, when correspondent Steve Kroft first reported that more than a billion dollars from the previous Iraqi Defense Ministry had been wasted, stolen or misappropriated. The money was supposed to supply the new Iraqi army with desperately-needed equipment to fight the growing insurgency. But according to audits conducted by the Iraqi government, and to Judge Radhi al Radhi, Iraq's top anti-corruption official, millions were misspent on old and antiquated equipment and the rest simply disappeared.

Judge Radhi told Kroft that he estimated that "more than half" of the $1.3 billion had been stolen. "As we hear from some friends abroad, that they never heard of such corruption and embezzlement to such a degree," he said.

Radhi, who was imprisoned and tortured under Saddam Hussein, obtained arrest warrants for the former minister of defense and his top aides, who all fled the country. As Iraq's commissioner of public integrity, Radhi had one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. He launched investigations against 20 current and former ministers, alienating the political establishment to the point that parliament tried to fire him. He had 30 body guards and received constant death threats.

To the remark that lots of people would like to see him dead, Radhi told Kroft, "I don't care. That's their problem."

That was in 2006.

Today he's living with his extended family living in a small apartment with donated furniture in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. The most public figure in Iraq's battle against corruption had finally been driven out of his job and his country and is now a refugee seeking asylum in the United States.

He showed Kroft pictures of some of the 31 members of his staff who were murdered. One was killed with his pregnant wife; the father of his security chief was found hanging on a meat hook.

"When we first interviewed you, I said, 'Look. There are all sorts of people that want you dead.' And you answered, 'I don't care,'" Kroft remarked.

"But this threat is now against my family too," Radhi said, with the help of a translator.

Asked what made him believe that his family was in danger, Radhi said, "At the end of July, a missile was fired at my home. It fell about five meters away. It hit another house next to mine, and of course my family was terrified."

"And it got to the point where his adversaries were left with few other options. But to possibly remove him, period," explained James Mattil, who was the chief of staff of the State Department's Office of Accountability and Transparency in Iraq.

It was his job to assist Judge Radhi to clean up corruption in Iraq. And Mattil believes Radhi did a good job given the resources at Radhi's disposal and the scope of the problem, which was outlined in a draft report prepared by the State Department.
"According to the report, these are some of the ministries where corruption seemed to be rampant: the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Oil, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Water Resources, Finance, Electricity, Labor, and Social Affairs, Displacement and Migration, Science and Technology. I mean, what's left?" Kroft asked.

"I was gonna ask you that. Okay? It's pretty much across the board in every ministry," Mattil replied.

Mattil says shortly after the unclassified report was leaked to the press last summer, the State Department decided to make it classified.

Asked for what reason it was classified, Mattil said, "The embarrassment factor, I would think."

But the State Department's decision to try and bury the report didn't change the facts in Iraq. In some cases, Mattil says the corruption involves outright theft of government funds, or bribery, with some of the money finding its way into the hands of insurgents or Iraqi militias.

"In other cases, it is the militias and insurgents themselves who control some of the ministries, who are involved in the corruption and funding their activities through these actions," Mattil said.

Asked if this is known and condoned by Prime Minister Maliki, Mattil said, "It's known and tolerated by the prime minister and other officials within the government."

"And they're aware of the level of corruption?" Kroft asked.

"Yes," Mattil said. "They would have to be."

"The point that must be clear is that that the American and the Iraqi funds are now going to the militias. And both Iraqis and the Americans are being killed with that. And this is the big problem," Radhi told Kroft.

The situation got so bad, Radhi says his investigators could not even enter certain government buildings.

Asked if his investigators were allowed Ministry of Health, Radhi said, "They entered the ministry and they conducted their investigations. But they were threatened to be kidnapped."

So they stopped, and Radhi said the same thing happened with the Ministry of Oil.

"These are ministries of the Iraqi government," Kroft pointed out.

"This is the reality," Radhi replied.

Another reality is there are few deterrents to corruption at the highest levels. Former Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan and his deputy Ziad Cattan were both convicted in absentia for their role in the Ministry of Defense scandal. And both are now living comfortably abroad.
Back in 2006, Kroft interviewed Cattan in Paris and played him recordings in which he discussed what sounded like a pay-off to someone described as a representative of the president and prime minister of the interim government.

"He wants to know...," Cattan said on the audio recording.

"He wants to know how much they are going to place in his account …?" the associate asked.

"Yes, of course," Cattan replied.

"How much?" the associate asked.

"45 million," Cattan said.

"He wants to know how much money is gonna be placed in his account and you say …'45 million,'" Kroft told Cattan.

"Yes. But not dollar. I don't say dollar," Cattan replied.

Asked what currency or units he was talking about, Cattan told Kroft "I don't remember."

"Well, you're gonna give him 45 million of something," Kroft pointed out.

"Yes," Cattan acknowledged. "But, I don't remember what the matter was."

Warrants for the arrest of Cattan and former Defense Minister Shaalan have been sent to police agencies around the world, but there is not much chance of them being picked up and sent back to Iraq.

The same goes for former Electricity Minister Aiham Alsammarae, an Iraqi-American businessman who got himself tangled up in the hot wires of Iraqi politics, and now faces prison time for mismanaging public funds. Alsammarae somehow escaped from Iraqi custody and made his way back to his home near Chicago. The only problem Kroft had finding him a few months ago was getting past the snowdrifts.

"I'm sitting here looking at a wanted poster from Interpol for Aiham Alsammarae, born 1951, Baghdad. Height: 1.9 meter, 75 inches, weight: 200 pounds,. This looks very much like you," Kroft said.

"Well it is me, but it is wrong because it is issued by Iraqi government based on false information," Alsammarae replied.

"You're not expecting the U.S. marshals to come in here and arrest you some day and send you off to Iraq to stand trial?" Kroft asked.

"Well, I will be so surprised if that happen in the States. Did I do anything wrong in United States? No. Did I pay my taxes, every penny, every year? Yes," he replied.

"Well, you're an international fugitive," Kroft remarked.

"The world is full of innocent victims. I am innocent and I will prove it," he vowed.

But there are indications that Alsammarae may have some problems here in the U.S.: his name has surfaced in connection with the corruption trial of his old friend, Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko.

In a closed-door session, federal prosecutors reportedly accused Rezko of bribing Alsammarae in order to obtain an Iraqi electricity contract. Alsammarae denies the charges and says he's doing everything possible to clear his name, short of going back to Baghdad where he says he will be killed, perhaps by Iraqis who are only getting a few hours of electricity every day, despite billions of dollars of investment from the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

In the months before he left Iraq, Judge Radhi and his commission on public integrity began getting more and more interference from Prime Minster Maliki.

"He wrote a memo saying we could not recommend pressing charges against anyone from the president's office or from previous or current ministers," Radhi explained. "Who is corrupt in the ministries if it's not the ministers themselves? If we don't recommend they be tried, then corruption will stay as it is."
According to James Mattil, Radhi's former advisor at the State Department, the memo prohibited investigations of current or former high level Iraqi officials without the permission of the prime minister himself.

"It basically put a stop to any anti-corruption activities within the Iraqi government. And it came directly from the prime minister's office," Mattil said.

"So the only way the prime minister could be investigated for corruption would be if he signed off on his own investigation?" Kroft asked.

"Correct," Mattil said.

"So he'd have to be corrupt and stupid?" Kroft asked.

"Yes," Mattil replied.

Mattil told Kroft he had seen the memo and shared the information with his colleagues at the State Department immediately.

Asked what the reaction was when he showed it to them, Mattil said, "None, that I am aware of."

But it did get some reaction in the U.S. Congress when Radhi, seeking asylum in the United States, was called to testify before the House Oversight Committee.

Chairman Henry Waxman grilled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about Radhi's allegations.

"Well, this is a big deal. This is the prime minister of the country," Waxman said.

"I agree with you; it's a big deal," Secretary Rice replied.

"It's his government that we are propping up with the lives of our soldiers and the billions of dollars of our taxpayers' money," Waxman said. "Prime Minister Maliki has issued an order saying that he may not be investigated, nor may his minister be investigated for corruption, which means they are immunized from the investigation. Are you aware of that order? And does it trouble you that such an order has been issued?"

"Well Mr. Chairman, I will have to get back to you. I don't know precisely what you are referring to," Rice said.

Six months later, Waxman's staff was still waiting for an answer. But a State Department official and a representative of the Iraqi government told 60 Minutes corruption is not condoned and fighting it remains a top priority.

After Radhi left Iraq, the prime minister went on TV and accused him of corruption.

"Did you bring a lot of money with you when you came from Iraq?" Kroft asked.

"Nothing but my last salary," Radhi replied.

Asked how he was getting by, Radhi said, "Actually with the help of American friends."

Until Radhi's asylum application is approved, he's unable to work. These days, he is getting most of his news on Iraq from television. The Maliki government said 2008 would be the year of fighting corruption.

"You don't think this is gonna be the year of fighting corruption?" Kroft asked.

"I think that this year will be more corrupt," Radhi predicted.
* To watch the entire 60 Minutes video go to CBS News.com and click on 60 Minutes.

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire
avril 23, 2008 - mercredi 9:59

 

No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush administration and John McCain always have an answer: 6 more months.

When the "surge" began a year ago, they told America things would get better by September. In September, they said we'd know more by spring. And this week, General Petraeus is on Capitol Hill asking for—you guessed it—6 more months. Senator McCain and President Bush couldn't agree more.

They don't have a plan for getting us out of Iraq. So they're trying to sell endless war on an installment plan.

Six more months won't change anything—except the body count and the price tag. It's critical that the news media and voters know that the Bush-McCain strategy in Iraq is to keep us there indefinitely—6 months at a time. So we've put together a video exposing their "6 month" gambit. Please check it out and pass it on:

What exactly are they saying?

Yesterday John McCain said the same thing he's been saying for the last 5 years: We have to stay in Iraq, but "success is in reach."

And General Petraeus told the Senate that it would be fall before he could say whether, or when, to draw down troops below the "pre-surge" levels. (Specifically, he recommended a 45-day period for "evaluation" starting in the summer, followed by an open-ended "assessment" process to decide what to do next).1

It all boils down to this: Demand more time and promise that victory is just over the horizon. Unfortunately, according to experts from the Iraq Study Group, the "surge" has gotten us "no closer to being able to leave Iraq than [we were] a year ago."2

More than 4,000 Americans are dead. We've spent almost $500 billion on this war. A year after the "surge" began, Americans are no safer, and there is no end in sight.

With the Bush-McCain wait-and-see strategy, we can expect to hear "6 more months" for years and years to come.

We can't just sit by. We've got to speak out now—please help spread the word.

Thanks for all you do,

–Nita, Justin, Eli, Marika, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
  Wednesday, April 9th, 2008

P.S. If you had trouble clicking on the video above, try this link:
http://pol.moveon.org/sixmonths/?id=12418-4262555-Ckd8D8&t=3

Sources:

1. "Petraeus Calls for Troop Withdrawal Halt," Associated Press, April 8, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3556&id=12418-4262555-Ckd8D8&t=4

2. "Report: US No Closer to Iraq Goals," Associated Press, April 6, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3555&id=12418-4262555-Ckd8D8&t=5

 
0 Comm.
(Ajouter un commentaire) |
Traduire