Smartphone giant Samsung saw a drop of 3.6 percent in large cap stocks. Stocks in LG Electronics also dropped 4.7 percent, and LG Display fell 5.3 percent on the Korean Exchange.

The two South Korean companies account for over 50 percent of the global LCD Panel market.

Overall, South Korean shares have fallen as much as five percent today following the death of North Korean leader.

The South Korean Won also fell 1.8 percent following the announcement, made this morning at 12 noon Pyongyang local time.

The sudden drop in shares stems from fears about the stability of the region following Jong-il’s death; a potential consequence of the leadership transition in North Korea.

South Korean companies are not the only ones that might be affected by Jong-il’s death, with Japan’s Nikkei shares average also falling to a three-week low.

“The risk or fear that the death of Kim Jong-il will lead to provocation from North Korea is pressuring selling,” said Hiroyuki Fukunaga, chief executive of Tokyo-based Investrust. “Right now, there’s going to be a sell off as part of a risk off”, he added.

Japan’s finance minister Jun Azumi also expressed concern over the drop, saying that he was monitoring the financial market after the news.

He added that the news has put regional powers on edge over the potentially tumultuous leadership transfer, as the countries collapsing economy, and nuclear ambitions could pose a big threat to north-east Asia.

The Eurozone financial crisis has already been causing instability in stocks, and has been pushing down the price of commodities under the pressure.

Gold, often considered a safe asset in unsteady financial times dropped 0.7 percent this week. The Euro also fell 0.5 percent.

With credit downgrades anticipated in Europe, it’s a bad time for further instability.

This is President Obabmas first visit to Iraq since taking office. He did visit on a couple occasions while campaigning.

Morgan Tsvangirai left hospital Saturday, a day after his wife, Susan, was killed in the accident, officials said.

The couple, who were married in 1978, have six children.

The crash, on a two-lane highway between Tsvangirai’s hometown Buhera and the capital Harare, comes only weeks after the start of a power-sharing agreement between Tsvangirai and his political rival, President Robert Mugabe.

Tsvangirai’s political party, the Movement for Democratic Change, said Friday that it was too early to tell whether the crash was anything other than an accident.

But on Saturday, MDC members told CNN that Tsvangirai thought the crash was deliberate.

Tendai Biti, the MDC secretary-general, speaking during a tearful press conference, said Tsvangirai should have had better security.

Police escort would have warned oncoming vehicles of a VIP arriving. I think authorities must understand the omission.

“We hope that this omission will be rectified, that the prime minister must be given the protection that ought to be accorded to a prime minister.”

BBC News, Tehran

By Jon Leyne

President Barack Obama, in his first foreign interview earlier this week, offered what he called the hand of friendship if Iran “unclenched its fist”

In response, Mr Ahmadinejad jumped back in the boxing ring and resumed a verbal volley of punches.

First he wished former US President George W Bush on his way: “God willing, he has gone to hell.”

Then Mr Ahmadinejad laid before his audience the ever-growing list of grievances Iran holds against the US:

* American support for the coup that unseated a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953
* American backing for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war
* Support for the “Zionist regime” [Israel]
* Launching the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of 9/11 – an incident as questionable as the Holocaust, he suggested.

Americans had kept Iran away from scientific progress and injected the country with poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, he said. They had turned their embassy in Tehran into a “nest of spies”, Mr Ahmadinejad continued.

The US needed to stop talking down to the rest of the world, to change its language and act respectfully, he went on. All American troops should return home. And Washington should apologise for its crimes against Iran.

Election platform

It was an exceptionally long and angry tirade, even by the standards of Mr Ahmadinejad.

It was tempered only by a few slightly more encouraging words. If there really was a fundamental change in American policy, said Mr Ahmadinejad, then Iran would welcome it.

Tough talk indeed from the man who sent an unprecedented message of congratulations to the new American president after Mr Obama’s election victory in November.

So have the hardliners won the policy battle in Tehran? Or is this Mr Ahmadinejad’s eccentric way of opening a diplomatic dialogue?

Most observers in Iran believed Mr Ahmadinejad wanted some moves towards reconciliation with Washington, in order to help his bid for re-election in June.

But with a long silence from Tehran on policy towards Mr Obama, it was already clear that a fierce battle was going on behind the scenes.

In theory, it is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who is in charge of foreign policy, though in practice decisions seem to emerge from among a small group of senior officials, military officers and clergy.

When there are differences over policy, the default is always to return to the old certainties: “Death to Israel! Death to America!”

What a lovely man ‘Eh? Sure wish his mom would have given him a hug more often.

Yes, its now his responsibility to clean up after G.W’s nightmare, but for crisis sake, give the man a chance!

There are too many people out there that are acting like children going on a family vacation. “Are we there yet?” seems to be the most infamous line. “Dad, you SAID we were going to Disney World TODAY!”.

A car load of five whinny kids and a bitchy wife, and each want a different outcome. That’s when Dad has to pull the car over and rap their heads together and do whats best for the family. It may not be what everyone wants to do or see, but in the long haul, everyone comes out with a good feeling.

As we complain Robert Gates and our new President are making the NEW plan to get out of the mess that Bush got us into. And remember it was Bush that led us into a cluster fump, not Obama! And, no, I’m not all glossy eyed over the new Administration, there are a few things I would change, but ya know, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, and don’t feel I’m qualified to make these decisions, so I hold strong and support my country and the majority vote for our new President.

Here’s what is going on in Washington:

WASHINGTON – Congress is eager to hear from Defense Secretary Robert Gates how the Obama administration plans to salvage the war in Afghanistan and hold a relative peace in Iraq — all the while reducing the stress on a force stretched thin by years of combat.

Lawmakers, set to question Gates on Tuesday, also want to hear details on the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison, with some members of Congress concerned that their state might become the next location to house the nation’s most dangerous terrorist suspects.

“There are a lot of questions as to what victory and the redeployment out of Iraq means,” as well as plans to bolster forces in Afghanistan, said Rep. John McHugh of New York, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

President Barack Obama has vowed to shift military resources away from Iraq and move them toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he says is the central front in the struggle against terrorism and extremism. In a plan initiated during the Bush administration and endorsed by Obama, the Pentagon is planning to double the 34,000 contingent of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

But expectations in the troubled region may have to be tempered as top military advisers focus on showing even small security gains and development progress quickly.

“That’s clearly the message I’m getting is, `what are the near-term goals going to be?’” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said when asked about Obama’s agenda for Afghanistan.

While lawmakers mostly support the plan to send more troops, several Democrats have expressed the need for a clearer strategy.

Without an idea of when the commitment would end, “we tend to end up staying in different places and not necessarily resolving problems in a way that fits our national interest,” said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Senate Armed Services Committee member.

Gates, the only Republican Cabinet member asked by Obama to stay on, oversaw the same buildup of military forces in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 that Obama opposed. Gates also at one point urged caution against setting a firm timeline for troop withdrawals as Obama campaigned on the promise to bring U.S. forces home within 16 months.

But in recent months, the two are believed to have found much common ground, including Obama’s desire to step up diplomatic efforts

Last week, in a meeting with Gates and other national security advisers, Obama reiterated his plans to execute a “responsible military drawdown from Iraq,” according to a White House statement.

There was no mention in the statement of the 16-month deadline Obama frequently cited while campaigning for president. A current U.S.-Iraq agreement calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities by the end of June, with all troops gone by 2012.

Also in his first week in office, Obama ordered the eventual closure of Guantanamo Bay prison. With many of the details yet to be worked out, lawmakers are wondering where the detainees will go and how they will be tried. Mostly, members of Congress want to know if they’ll be consulted before the administration makes any decisions.

“These perplexing questions confounded the previous administration and will also test the new administration, but our duty calls us to set policies which keep America safe and conform to American values,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Another issue likely to arise at Tuesday’s hearing is defense spending and whether Gates expects the Pentagon budget to decline considering Obama’s increased focus on domestic spending.

The Obama administration is not expected to complete its review of the defense budget until this spring. Meanwhile, Gates has already estimated that the Pentagon needs another $70 billion in war costs to continue operations through September.

“The forces are now redeployed outside the Gaza Strip, and are prepared for any development,” a military statement read.

During their withdrawal, Israeli troops warned Gaza residents to avoid unexploded bombs or shells left behind and report their location to Israeli authorities.

Israel said it had achieved its goal to halt Hamas’ firing of rockets into southern Israel from Gaza. Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that has controlled the territory since 2007, also declared victory in the conflict during a rally in Gaza City on Tuesday.

Israeli troops began to withdraw Sunday following tentative, separate cease-fire declarations by Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Hamas.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who visited the territory Tuesday, criticized both sides and the international community for what he called their “collective political failure” in settling the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I have condemned from the outbreak of this conflict the excessive use of force by Israeli forces in Gaza. I view the rocket attacks into Israel as completely unacceptable. We need to restore basic respect for civilians,” he said.

The conflict, which began December 27, has left more than 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.

Confirmation of the Israeli withdrawal came within a day of the inauguration of Barack Obama as the new president of the United States, replacing George W. Bush, whose administration was among the most supportive of Israel in decades. Ban said he hoped Obama would consider settling the conflict “a matter of priority.”

Speaking during a visit to Sderot, the southern Israeli city that has endured rocket fire from Hamas for years, Ban said the Bush administration was “leading and heavily engaged” in the region, but added, “Unfortunately, we have not achieved the goals.”

Obama has vowed to move swiftly and has said he was assembling a strong team to be “immediately engaged” on “day one.” In a statement welcoming the new U.S. president, Olmert said Israel and the United States would remain “full partners in advancing peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Alexander Cockburn

When in trouble, reach for nuclear submarines. President Nicolas Sarkozy, derided by the French as a lightweight, rushed off at the end of March to launch Le Terrible, the fourth in France’s fourth generation of such submarines. Thus he seizes the torch of “massive retaliation” from his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, who said that a state-terrorist onslaught on France or even the EU might require a nuclear missile lobbed into the perp’s presumptive backyard, wherever that might be. Le Terrible is itself powered by a nuclear reactor, and the range of its 16 missiles, each armed with three warheads, is just under 5,000 miles, so M’sieu Ahmadinejad had better watch his tongue, otherwise it might be Teheran frappe.

Le Terrible’s deployment brings France’s full menu of warheads to 348 warheads, of which 288 are on submarines, 50 on air-launched cruise missiles. There are 10 old-fashioned bombs.

On his way out of office at the end of 2006, Tony Blair took the same line as Sarkozy. A Britain without up-to-date nuclear-armed subs, he proclaimed, would be the sport of every bully on the block. “Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate insurance,” Blair told the House of Commons. He cited Iran and North Korea as prime present dangers. Mind you, Britain’s present nuclear guardians — the Vanguard subs — are only scheduled to go out of service in 2022. It will apparently take 17 years to design and build the new subs. Double this to allow for screw-ups (more on screw-ups in a moment) and we won’t be seeing Britain’s last, best line of defense deployed until about 2050. By then global freezing will have rendered subs moot anyway.

Now, a familiar pattern is for statesmen and high functionaries to retire and then spend their sunset years denouncing nuclear weapons and “the balance of terror.” Not Jimmy Carter, I’m glad to say. You’d think that after years talking up peace and the benefits of peaceful negotiation, Carter would reel in shock if someone said, “I want our next nuclear sub to bear your name.” But he didn’t. After Bill Clinton tied down the Connecticut vote by OK-ing another Trident nuclear sub to be built at Groton, he announced in 2000 that it would be called the Jimmy Carter. As in, “Today Teheran is a smoldering, irradiated ruin after receiving a salvo of nuclear missiles from The Jimmy Carter.” It was probably Bill Clinton’s idea of a joke after Carter had said that he really loved Al Gore’s loyal and loving relationship with Tipper, so similar to his with Rosalynn.

But Carter was thrilled. The announcement came during the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in 2000. Larry King interviewed Carter and was clearly baffled at the contradiction:

KING: The USS Jimmy Carter is being constructed. It will be the newest submarine in the fleet.

CARTER: And the fastest and quietest ship in the world.

KING: Now that has got to be …

CARTER: I’m very flattered.

KING: I know, Mr. Former President, there’s a lot of things to be proud of, but that’s got to be kooky.

CARTER: Kooky?

KING: I mean, kind of like kooky. You’re going to go and slam the champagne against it. It’s your sub.

CARTER: My wife will christen the submarine.

KING: Permission to board the Carter, right? They’re going to say that.

CARTER: Absolutely. You’ll be welcome, by the way.

Sums it all up, doesn’t it? Here we have an absolute disconnect between the rational human who has criticized Israel for its apartheid policies and the lunatic reveling in having his name painted on a machine that could kill hundreds of thousands of people with a single detonation.

In the old days I would have ended with a pious paragraph or two about the pressing need to end the arms race. Not any more. We’ll never stuff that genie back in the bottle. Every country should have a couple of nuclear missiles and, if they really want one, a nuclear sub. You can get the sub from the Germans and put the missiles out for bid.

“Screw-ups,” I wrote above. Why so negative, Mr. Cockburn? As readers of this column may know, I speak as a maiden-voyageur on March 27 through Britain’s latest tour de force in technological incompetence — T5. This is the new British Air terminal at Heathrow, which cost about $7 billion to build across nearly twenty years. All systems failed. BA had forgotten to provide parking for the baggage handlers. The software for the entrail didn’t work either. A seasoned baggage handler said the conveyors went too fast anyway.

If you can’t design an entrail to put a bag on a plane, can you design a nuclear sub to launch untested armed systems to speed a nuclear missile on its way to Teheran or the Hindu Kush or Pyongyang and be sure it won’t swerve off course and hit Tel Aviv, capital city of our “stalwart ally,” as Barack Obama calls it even when he’s sound asleep?

Richard Rogers, designer of T5, is also the architect retained to do the redesign of the Javits Convention Center in New York. He was recently pressed by defenders of the reputation of our stalwart ally to explain his connection to a group called Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, which had criticized Israel’s wall. Rogers distanced himself from APJP at a speed approaching that of light, and said he thought the wall is a fine idea. Maybe the T5 disaster was retribution for this cowardice.

By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services

It’s hard out there for a surrogate. Especially for a Clinton surrogate being asked why Hillary Clinton has not released the last eight years of her tax returns. As congresswoman and Clinton surrogate Nita Lowey made clear on “Meet The Press” last weekend, the reason it’s so hard to give a good answer to “Why hasn’t Clinton released her returns?” is because there is no good answer.

Lowey gave it a shot, but it wasn’t pretty — or particularly intelligible. When Tim Russert asked about the returns, she opened with the main talking point the Clinton campaign has been using for weeks: “It’s my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

And she’s exactly right. There are 20 years worth of returns that have been released. What’s missing are the last eight years — years in which Bill Clinton has been making money hand over fist, and involving himself in all kinds of interesting financial deals (see Ron Burkle, Yucaipa, and the ruler of Dubai).

Lowey then quickly pivoted away from tax returns (clearly the 20-year line, as lame as it is, was the only arrow in her quiver) to make points about earmarks and the terrific work Bill Clinton’s foundation has done on HIV/AIDS in Africa — neither of which Russert had asked her about or have anything to do with tax returns.

Now, Nita Lowey is no slouch. She’s smart and accomplished. But when you are sent into battle armed with little more than nonsensical blather, you are not going to end up looking very good. And Lowey didn’t. And she seemed to know it — her eyes belied a classic case of surrogatancholy.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly paired herself with John McCain as of late, making the case that they are candidates with a “lifetime of experience,” so it seems appropriate that her refusal to release her tax returns is another thing they have in common.

While Clinton has been tossing verbal bouquets to McCain and attacking Obama for not being “vetted,” Obama has been living up to his promises about making government more transparent. Not only did he release his latest tax returns in April 2007 , he also just made public his list of earmarks, and sat down at the end of last week with the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times to answer all their questions about Tony Rezko. The conclusion of the Tribune?

“When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27 , we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict. . . . Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.”

It’s a standard not being met by either McCain or Clinton.

As Sheila Krumholz of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics said of Clinton’s not releasing her tax returns: “What is the holdup? She hasn’t exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them.”

Or as John Aravosis summed it up: “People with nothing to hide don’t usually hide.”

The main excuse we’ve gotten so far is that Hillary Clinton just has too much on her plate. “I’m a little busy right now,” she said during the Ohio debate. “I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public domain.”

That was three weeks ago. Two weeks ago, Howard Wolfson promised that the returns would be released “on or around April 15 .” But weren’t the returns completed and filed a long time ago? Doesn’t Clinton’s accountant have time to print them out and make some copies. (Note to Clinton’s accountant: Many Kinko’s are open 24 hours.)

As Andrew Sullivan notes, “Did they file an extension for the past few years? If they didn’t, the forms are available now.”

And it’s not as if the Clintons have attempted to make a reasoned argument as to why the returns shouldn’t be released — something about there being too much scrutiny of public officials. Instead, they’ve gone with Classic Clintonism: Envelope themselves in lofty, good-guy rhetoric while utterly failing to follow through. And then smearing their opponents, such as their absurd attack on Obama’s campaign for “imitating Ken Starr.”

The Clintons have obviously done very well during the Bush years — well enough that she was able to loan her campaign $5 million at a critical moment. Is it really Ken Starr-like to want to know where that money came from? Or to ask for a list of the donors who have contributed $500 million to her husband’s library? Or to ask what her policy as president would be regarding the transparency of huge donations from foreign interests to her husband’s charitable fund? (See the $31.3 million donation and additional $100 million pledge to Bill Clinton’s foundation after he helped a Canadian mining mogul secure a massive uranium deal with Kazakhstan.)

As a New York Times editorial put it: “As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is unencumbered by hidden entanglements.”

In short, it’s well past time for Hillary Clinton to be as “vetted” as she claims to already be — and to have this vetting done now by Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads. She needs to live up to the standard she laid out for Rick Lazio, the opponent in her 2000 Senate race. At that time, she said it was “frankly disturbing” that Lazio was holding back on releasing his tax returns.

What a difference eight years — and tens of millions of dollars (some of them from questionable deals) — can make.

Thursday, however, Clinton said that she would negotiate with Iran “with no conditions.”

“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works,” she said.

Obama responded on Friday, “So I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this–when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.”

Chris Kofinis, communications director of the Edwards campaign added, “You can’t have it both ways–on this or any other issue. Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans.”

For her part, Clinton said her comments Thursday were consistent with past statements. The difference between her stance and that of Obama, she insisted, was that she would open negotiations through the use of aides, rather than meeting such leaders face-to-face.

Democrats must give up the belief that they “can’t win elections unless they talk, act, and vote like Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and national security,” remarked Obama.

Yet for some reason, Democrats have fallen in love with the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. A presidency that looks very much like a probable continuation of current foreign policy coupled with a smoke-and-mirrors domestic agenda.

Why?    

1. Hillary Clinton–The top Democratic contender and media darling has seperated herself so far from the pack in the national polls that she has virtually been nominated already. At least that is the common wisdom. She continues to have many second-guessers, though, and the race may not be so cut-and-dried as the pundits would have us believe. The frontrunner is an advocate for several disturbing policies, although her quick-witted responses and carefully crafted strategy have deflected most of them. She is pro-special interest, in favor of Executive power, and not convincingly anti-war. Her healthcare plan is a sham. Her power to attract independant voters is questionable, and Republicans hate her.

2. Rudolph Giuliani–Has cemented his position at the top of the Republican leaderboard, although somewhat tenuously. The challengers also have problems. Rudy is too far to the left for the most socially conservative members of his party, but at least he comes across as the most intelligent candidate. He could seriously challenge Hillary Clinton were she the Democratic nominee, which seems likely. Others in his party would have more difficulty beating her in a general election.

3. Barack Obama–Although his star power has slipped in recent months, he is still the best bet to overtake Hillary in the Democratic primary process. He is more progressive, more flexible, and represents a new beginning to many voters. He is also an inspirational public speaker.

4. Mitt Romney–The best shot to overtake Rudy at this time, although his Mormon religion works against him with the Evangelical types who see their grip on the GOP slipping away. He also has a “finger in the wind” reputation, and I, for one, see him as an empty suit.

5. John Edwards–Candidate continues to plug along even as his stock continues to fall. A lack of funding, because of his refusal to accept corporate contributions, has hurt him, and his recognizability has suffered. Nevertheless, Edwards has some of the most progressive ideas of any candidate, and his views on healthcare and the elimination of special-interest culture in Washington should only benefit the struggling middle class. As such, he has been vilified by the MSM as a far-left radical.

Conclusions–The Democrats should still win this election, but it would be foolish to count the Republican electoral machine out. If Rudy and Hillary are the nominees, it will be a very close-run contest.

Manfred’s Best Bet–Hillary Clinton

Manfred’s Best Recomendation–John Edwards

THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

While US citizens remain hypnotized by events in the Middle East, and by Islamic terror in general, the creeping terror is already upon us. Nothing less than the eradication of the United States as we have known it for the past 231 years.

Global economists would have us believe that due to the dollar’s recent slide, and possible collapse, a drastic solution is needed; the incorporation of Mexico and Canada, along with the US into a single soveriegn state. Canadian and US dollars, along with the peso would be abolished and replaced with something called the ‘Amero.’

Borders would become irrelevant, and internal immigration between the three countries commonplace. This, they argue, would stabilize and augment the economies of all three previously independent nations.

It would also effectively replace current US laws, override Congressional oversight and remove the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority. In effect, this is an executive decision to dismantle the United States in order to allow multinational conglomorates free reign to squeeze as much profit as possible from their goods and services.

But it screws the common people. US workers would literally be forced to compete with third-world immigrants (who would be free to vie for jobs under this plan). Wages would drop dramatically.

This is not a joke, nor is it some pipe-dream of world business; it has already been set in motion.

Unfortunately, nearly every major presidential hopeful in the upcoming election supports this change in our government. Why shouldn’t they, it gives nearly dictatorial powers to the president, and renders the other branches irrelevant.

My recommendation is to vote Democratic because of their opposition to the Iraq war. The Republican plan for continuation of that war only helps drive us deeper into debt and closer to the NAU.

You may want to contact your congressperson, too. It’s their job that is in danger of being outsourced to Mexico.

“I heard somebody say, ‘Where’s Mandela?’ Well, Mandela’s dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.”

Nelson Mandela, 89, South Africa’s first black president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is still very much alive.

Although nobody outside of Bush’s inner circle is truly sure of their plan, it is believed that Cheney favors a gradual escalation of hostilities to be followed by massive air strikes using tactical nuclear weapons.

Their only problem may be getting Congress to go along with the plan. Even if they don’t, expect it to be set in motion unless funding is completely cut off.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security anaylist, said: “The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions.”

The president has obviously made a comittment to support Sunnis over Shias. This begs the question, why did we oust Saddam Hussein in the first place?  

Although the al-Maliki government is thought to be rudderless and ultimately untenable, Crocker will report that replacement is inadvisable at this time. Neither he nor Petraeus will recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troops.

Petraeus has hopes for elected office once his military career is over, so it is incumbant on him to make the President’s plan work.

Neither the General nor the Ambassador plan to meet with Bush again before their Congressional appearances, in order to preserve the “independence and the integrity of their testimony.”

The question now is whether Congress will continue to support the conflict out of fears of job security, or whether they will say “enough!”, and begin to end George Bush’s folly.

“Iran…is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. …Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. …Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. …Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have comitted no crimes. …Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

“Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere.   We will confront this danger before it is too late.

“I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

Wow. Sounds just like the run-up to war before the Iraqi conflict, doesn’t it? From the sound of this rhetoric, we’re already engaging Iranian forces on the field of battle.

In a resolution passed by the Senate just before the August recess, Bush recieved a 97-0 vote of confidence that will allow him to expand the War on Terror whenever he chooses.

Yesterday, he asked for a further $50 billion to prosecute the war. 

Bush and his people come from a group of old-time Cold Warriors who believe that not only should we have stayed in Vietnam, but that given enough time, we would have won that conflict. Again, he fails to mention that the larger Cold War itself ended in just over a decade following the fall of Saigon.

He stated that should we leave Iraq “the enemy would follow us home,” and acclaimed the US military as the “greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”

As if we did not already all know it, Bush then declared that we would never leave Iraq so long as he is President. Because he is right. Because everyone else is wrong.

The entire episode would read like a comedy of errors and stupidity, except for the fact that it isn’t funny. Al-Rawi was an intelligence source for MI5, keeping track of the cleric Abu Qatada. Mistakenly, a battery charger that al-Rawi had in his luggage was identified as a timer for an IED. A telegram was sent to the CIA identifying him as an “Islamic extremist,” and rendition proceedings began.

Read the firsthand account

This sad episode is only now coming to an end. But for others it continues. No trial, no conviction, no witnesses. Just paranoid suspicions can land one in an inpenetrable warehouse of darknes and torture. And even if does end, as it did for al-Rawi, one’s life is irrevocabaly changed. Years lost, never to be retrieved. Health shattered, never to be recovered. Mindset altered, ideals destroyed.

]]> http://manfredeye.com/rendition-to-kabul/feed/ 6 http://manfredeye.com/resurgance-of-legacy/ http://manfredeye.com/resurgance-of-legacy/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:02:59 +0000 Manfred http://manfredeye.com/?p=292

In 2006, financial and credit card companies gave $7 million in presidential campaign contributions, and banks $25 million. The biggest recipient of this largess was Hillary Clinton, with $378,000.

In no way, however, does Clinton deserve any more blame for America’s growing credit problem than any other candidate. The new bankruptcy law that requires filers to pay off much of their credit card debt–effectively making them debtors to the credit institutions for years, if not the rest of their lives–was initially supported by Joe Biden and John Edwards as well, and recieved the support of 36 Senate Democrats. President Bush also pushed hard for it’s passage.

In 2005, when the bill came up again, Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd voted against it, although Obama voted against an amendment that would cap interest rates at 30%. Clinton did not vote.

At this point, 40% of American housholds spend more than they make per year, the average houshold credit card debt is $10,000, and total US consumer credit card debt is $880 billion. That figure has increased 100% in the last 40 years.

The credit card industry is virtually unregulated, nationally. Companies can charge and change interest rates at will. Incomprehensible disclaimers insure that consumers cannot understand terms. And over 4 billion new offers are sent out in the mail every year. While states can regulate the industry, two, South Dakota and Delaware do not, and almost every credit card company is based in one of these two states.

Alone among all current presidential candidates, only John Edwards has pledged to do something about predatory loan practices, despite his yes vote in 2001.

Most politicians are too reliant upon contributions from these companies to even concieve of doing anything to anger them. It is another case of selling out the American people in favor of corporate special interests. Our jobs, our liberties, our very way of life is being slowly eaten away in favor of the freedom of big business to turn a profit.

Those whom we depend upon most to keep us secure have perverted the very meaning of security and turned it into a euphanism for world conquest, both militarily and economically. The American citizen has become a pawn in the game of wealth and power, an old shoe on the board of World Monopoly.

Although Bush laid claim to compassion when originally running for the office of president in 2000, it has taken 7 years to surface.

From The Guardian:

A president transformed