*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

New Orleans Veterans for Peace
http://foodmusicjustice.com/2007/01/10/new-orleans-veterans-for-peace/

Guantanamo Uncassified
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5E3w7ME6Fs

Blue Man Group on Global Warming
http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=8453442377 878175440

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

RALLY AND MARCH TO END THE WAR ON IRAQ
SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2007, 12 NOON
POWELL AND MARKET STREETS, S.F.
Troops out of Iraq NOW!
Stop racism against Arabs and Muslims!
End the Occupation of Palestine!

Over 3,000 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands
of dead Iraqis. It's time to put a stop to the war machine.
Millions of people voted to get the Republicans out and
end the war, but we can't leave it up to the Democrats
to do the only reasonable thing:
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW FROM IRAQ!

President Bush just announced his intent to escalate the
number of troops in Iraq by over 20,000 more troops.

It's time to get the anti-war movement back in the streets!
On January 27, hundreds of thousands of people will march
in Washington, DC to demand an end to the war.

We're bringing the same message to the streets of San Francisco.
Make your own signs and banners and march with your friends,
family, co-workers, class-mates, church, union or organization.
Join us to show Bush and the new Democratic Congress
that the anti-war movement is back.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

MARCH AND RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO
SUNDAY, MARCH 18, 2007
(The annual St. Patrick's Day Parade is taking
place on Sat., March 17 in SF.)
ASSEMBLE 12:00 NOON
JUSTIN HERMAN PLAZA -
MARCH TO CIVIC CENTER
For more information:
http://www.actionsf.org/#local4
answer@actionsf.org
Phone: 415-821-6545
Fax: 415-821-5782

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ARTICLES IN FULL:
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Picking Up the Pieces
New York Times Editorial
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/opinion/14sun1.html?hp

2) Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf
By JOHN KIFNER
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html?ref=weekinreview
Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf (map)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/13/weekinreview/20070114_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

3) Nomadic Herdsmen Innocent Targets of Bombing in Somalia, Says OXFAM
By Joe De Capua
Washington
12 January 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-01-12-voa26.cfm

4) The Best We Can Hope For
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?ref=weekinreview

5) Busywork for Nuclear Scientists
New York Times Editorial
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/opinion/15mon1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

6) Democrats Are Unified in Opposition to Troop Increase,
but Split Over What to Do About It
By JIM RUTENBERG and PATRICK HEALY
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/washington/politicsspecial/15troops.html?ref=world

7) U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans
By JOHN F. BURNS
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/world/middleeast/15baghdad.html?ref=world

8) Opening a New Front in the War, Against Iranians in Iraq
News Analysis
By DAVID E. SANGER
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/washington/politicsspecial/15strategy.html

9) New York Rabbi Finds Friends in Iran and Enemies at Home
By FERNANDA SANTOS
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/nyregion/15rabbi.html?ref=nyregion

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Picking Up the Pieces
New York Times Editorial
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/opinion/14sun1.html?hp

It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night,
both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this
unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war. Indeed, most
Americans seem far ahead of the president. They understand that
what the country urgently needs is for Mr. Bush to chart a way out
of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind.

The president’s disconnect goes far to explain the harshly critical
reaction of Congress and the public to his plan to further bleed
America’s overstretched forces by sending some 20,000 additional
troops in an attempt to impose peace on Baghdad’s vengeful streets.
He proposes to do that without any enforceable commitments
from the Iraqi government that it will take the necessary political
steps that are the only hope for tamping down a spiraling civil war.

There are no really satisfying answers in Iraq, since all of the
remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others,
and Mr. Bush has come up with possibly the worst. He would mortgage
thousands more American lives and what remains of Washington’s
credibility in the region to a destructively sectarian Shiite government
that he seems unwilling or unable to influence or restrain.

•

Unlike Mr. Bush’s views on the American military presence in Iraq,
our views have evolved as the evident realities on the ground
have changed. At the outset, although we opposed Mr. Bush’s
invasion, we hoped the United States military could provide
enough security to allow an elected government to build the
foundations of national unity and eventual democracy.

As it became increasingly clear that Iraqi political leaders had
other, less noble intentions, we still hoped that a substantial
American military presence could be used to shield innocent
civilians from the growing violence, train reliable and professional
Iraqi security forces to take over that task, and exert leverage
on Iraqi leaders to follow a less divisive and destructive course.

Now, with Mr. Bush unwilling or unable to persuade Prime
Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to take the minimum steps
necessary to justify any deeper American commitment, we
recognize that even that has become unrealistic. Mr. Maliki
gave the latest White House plan an even chillier reception
than it received in the United States Congress, boycotting
a Thursday news conference in Baghdad announcing it. He
apparently would have preferred to see American forces sent
to fight Sunni insurgents in western Anbar Province, leaving
Baghdad as a free-fire zone for his Shiite militia partners.

But even knowing all that, America cannot simply wash its
hands of Iraq and go home. The region’s problems, many of
them made worse by this war, are unavoidably America’s
problems as well. For starters, Iraq is in imminent danger
of violently breaking apart, driving millions of refugees
across its borders — who will bring with them their ethnic
grievances, and in some cases their weapons — and potentially
unleashing a chain reaction of regional conflicts that could
draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and perhaps others as well.

•

Whatever else happens, Iran has already become more
formidable and dangerous. Where it once had a hostile
Saddam Hussein on its western border, it now has a friendly
Shiite fundamentalist government. Its other longtime enemy,
the United States, has had its diplomatic and military clout
severely diminished by this war.

The expanding power of a revolutionary, Shiite Iran is
profoundly unsettling to the conservative Sunni-led governments
in most of the Arab Middle East, which have been America’s
traditional allies in the region. If the United States is to recoup
any of its standing and influence there, it will have to find
a way to contain the chaos in Iraq. And it will have to do
a lot more to address other concerns of these governments
and their people, starting with a genuine and sustained
effort to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and
the Palestinians.

If Mr. Bush does persist in sending more American troops
to Baghdad, despite Congress’s amply justified opposition,
he will have to establish clear lines of command that assure
that those troops can enter the strongholds of the Shiite militias
responsible for much of the violence without militia leaders’
being tipped off by allies in the Iraqi government.

And so long as any American troops remain in Iraq, Mr. Bush
must put serious pressure on Mr. Maliki to support the troops’
efforts with a genuine program of national reconciliation. That
must include, at a minimum, ridding the police and other security
services of killers, torturers and criminals and disarming
all sectarian militias.

The government must also assure that Iraqi oil revenues are
fairly shared out among the entire Iraqi population. And it
must move quickly to offer an amnesty to Sunni insurgents
willing to put down their weapons, and narrow the legal
restrictions on former Baath Party members so that Sunni
professionals can once again fully participate in Iraqi national life.

These benchmarks should be accompanied by fixed timelines.
And they must be accompanied with a clear message that the
United States is prepared to withdraw its troops if the Iraqis
continue to refuse to take responsibility for their own future.
Mr. Bush and other American officials need to make clear that
as much as the United States will suffer from a complete collapse
in Iraq, Iraq’s leaders will suffer far worse from the loss of their
American protectors.

Mr. Bush should reinforce that message by convening a conference
of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss how they can help stabilize
Iraq — and what they can do to contain the wider chaos should
it come. With nearly two million Iraqis already seeking refuge,
mainly in Syria and Jordan, it is far past time for American
officials to begin their own planning and relief efforts.

If Mr. Bush refuses to deliver this ultimatum to Mr. Maliki,
Congress will have to do so in his stead. That’s not the usual
division of labor between the executive and legislative branches,
but it is one that Mr. Bush has made necessary by his refusal
to face realities. The potential consequences of his failed
leadership are so serious that neither the new Democratic
majorities in Congress, nor the public at large, can afford
the luxury of merely criticizing from the sidelines.

•

So far, Congress is off to an encouraging start, holding substantive
oversight hearings and asking probing questions of administration
officials for the first time in too many years. Similarly encouraging
has been the bipartisan character of this reinvigorated oversight.
The Congress should continue asking hard questions. And it must
insist on real answers before acting on any new requests for money
to support Mr. Bush’s plans to send more troops to Baghdad.
Congress has the authority to attach conditions to that money,
imposing benchmarks and timetables on Mr. Bush, who then
would be forced to impose them on the Iraqi government.

One immediate step could be a set of bipartisan resolutions
spelling out the broad policy directions Congress expects the
president to pursue on Iraq. That would send a useful message
to the American people that lawmakers are listening to their
concerns, if Mr. Bush is not, and also to Iraq’s leaders.

It’s now up to Congress to force the president to live up to his
constitutional responsibilities and rescue this country from the
consequences of one of its worst strategic blunders in modern
times.

History will surely blame Mr. Bush for leading America into Iraq,
but it will blame Congress if it does not act to push him onto
a more realistic path.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

2) Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf
By JOHN KIFNER
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html?ref=weekinreview
Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf (map)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/13/weekinreview/20070114_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

THE United States Central Command stretches across some of the
world’s most volatile real estate from Kenya in the southwest through
all of the Middle East to Kazakhstan in the northeast. It encompasses
two active combat theaters: Afghanistan, which is landlocked, and Iraq,
with a tiny uncontested shoreline.

In both, the main fighting is counterinsurgency, largely the task of light
infantry like the Marines and the Army’s 10th Mountain or 82nd
and 101st Airborne Divisions. CentCom, as it is known, has always
been run by a four-star general from the Army or Marines.

So why name a sailor — Adm. William J. Fallon — as CentCom’s new
commander, as President Bush did earlier this month?

One word: Iran.

Admiral Fallon’s appointment comes amid a series of indications
that the Bush administration is increasingly focused on putting
pressure on Iran and, perhaps, veering toward open confrontation.
They include the dispatching of a second Navy carrier battle group
to the Persian Gulf; a blunt singling out of Iran in Mr. Bush’s speech
Wednesday night, warning that America will “seek out and destroy
the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our
enemies in Iraq,” followed by a dawn raid Thursday on an Iranian
office in the Kurdish city of Erbil in which five Iranians were seized
along with files and computers.

The important thing is that Admiral Fallon is a naval aviator.

Now the ranking officer in the Pacific — the Navy’s traditional fief —
his résumé includes 24 years of flight assignments beginning with
combat in Vietnam and including commanding the air wing on the
carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the first Iraq war.

Iran thus far has been the principal beneficiary of the American
enterprise in Iraq, exerting influence over the Shiite parties it
nurtured in exile and expanding its own regional prestige. The
Iranians’ confidence and defiance have been bolstered by the
knowledge that American ground forces are stretched near the
breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But introducing more air and sea power, with their long reach,
in the gulf could change the military balance and options.

It is classic gunboat diplomacy.

The American naval presence in the gulf is the Fifth Fleet, based
in Manama, Bahrain. It usually numbers around 20 ships, capable
of putting 15,000 sailors and marines afloat. Its principal component
is a carrier battle group, so adding a second will, in effect, double
its air and sea power.

A carrier battle group typically consists of a Nimitz-class carrier
like the Eisenhower, a floating city so huge one can see the horizon
rise and fall without feeling the swell of the sea, and capable
of carrying as many as 85 aircraft, along with protective escorts.
These usually include two guided missile cruisers, two destroyers,
a frigate, two submarines and a supply ship. These smaller vessels
could be used for other tasks, like escorting tankers through the
narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s
oil passes, or enforcing sanctions or a blockade on Iran.

The Fifth Fleet also normally has a Marine landing force of 2,200,
roughly equally divided between ground troops and air support,
aboard three specialized ships that can be used in raids or other
operations.

Will this cow the Iranians? Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council
on Foreign Relations, thinks not. More likely, he said, is that “the
more radical militants will use this to berate the more moderate”
and “the notion of accommodating Western audiences will diminish.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

3) Nomadic Herdsmen Innocent Targets
of Bombing in Somalia, Says OXFAM
By Joe De Capua
Washington
12 January 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-01-12-voa26.cfm

The relief organization OXFAM says nomadic herdsmen have been
innocent targets of bombing in the south of the country. Beatrice
Karanja, a spokesperson for OXFAM in Nairobi, tells VOA the
bombings have affected some of the agency’s humanitarian
water and sanitation programs.

“Oxfam has been receiving reports from our partner organizations
in Somalia that nomadic herdsmen have been targeted in recent
bombing raids. And what this has been is bombs have hit vital water
sources, as well as the nomads and their animals, who had been
gathering around large fires at night in order to ward off mosquitoes.
What OXFAM is concerned about is that under international law
there’s a duty to distinguish between military and civilian targets.
But this principle isn’t being adhered to and eventually, as we see,
innocent people are paying the price,” she says.

Karanja says OXFAM and other humanitarian organizations need
greater access in Somalia to help those who’ve been displaced
or affected in other ways by the recent fighting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

4) The Best We Can Hope For
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?ref=weekinreview

NOBODY will quibble with President Bush’s line Wednesday night that
in Iraq, “Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers
achieved; there will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.”

Of course, that calls to mind his victory landing on the deck of the
carrier Abraham Lincoln off the coast of California in May 2003,
which he followed with a speech declaring that, “in the battle of
Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

But let’s not digress. Mr. Bush has now scaled back his strategy
for victory to a strategy for the best-we-can-hope-for. So, it must
be asked, what exactly is the best we can hope for?

“In the best-case scenario, we’ll be in Iraq for 15 or 20 years,” said
Stephen Biddle, author of “Military Power: Explaining Victory and
Defeat in Modern Battle.” He offers the example of the Balkans,
where everyone seems to have forgotten about the United States
troops who have been there for years, helping keep a peace
brokered in Dayton, Ohio, in 1995.

Under the best result Mr. Biddle said he could imagine, the
United States would cajole or force warring Shiites, Sunnis
and Kurds to agree to the standard-cookbook negotiated
ending to a civil war. There would be some kind of power-
sharing deal among the key combatants, yielding an uneasy
cease-fire that would have to be policed for a long time by
outside peacekeepers, since no warring side would trust another.

Sounds like paradise, doesn’t it? Except, Mr. Biddle said,
“If I had to bet my house mortgage on a scenario, it wouldn’t
be on that one.”

Before we get to the outcome on which Mr. Biddle is willing
to bet his piece of the American dream, we should, at least,
examine the second, optimistic resolution that Iraq experts
offer. This is the ending which, they said, President Bush
should embrace with both arms — if he can get it.

Remember the Spanish Civil War? The best America can hope
for, some experts said, would be for Iraq to turn into today’s
version of the Spanish Civil War.

For readers without immediate access to Wikipedia, the
Spanish Civil War lasted three years, from 1936 to 1939,
when the Nationalists, led by Francisco Franco, defeated the
Loyalists of the Second Spanish Republic. The death toll was
huge — estimates put it between 500,000 and one million.
People in just about every European country were passionate
about the fight: the Loyalists got weapons and volunteers
from the Soviet Union, while the Nationalists received help
from Italy, Germany and Portugal.

But, in the end, the Spanish Civil War stayed Spanish. The
Europeans sent money and arms and even volunteers, but
they didn’t let the war engulf the continent. (Probably because
the continent was busy getting engulfed in World War II, but
let’s not be too technical.)

The biggest worry in Iraq is not that Iraq will descend into
a civil war — most experts say that is a done deal — but
that an Iraqi civil war will not stay Iraqi. The fear is that
a civil war will engulf the entire region, with Saudi Arabia
and Jordan defending the Sunnis, Iran backing the Shiites,
and Iraqi Kurds declaring their independence, a move sure
to draw in Turkey, which has its own restive Kurdish population.

“There’s a difference between the Saudis providing help and
them actually sending in forces; there’s a difference between
everybody playing in the troubled waters of Iraq and actually
allowing it to spread beyond Iraq’s borders,” said Gideon Rose,
managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. “Given the
alternative, the Spanish Civil War was better than World War I.”

The Spanish Civil War script doesn’t bode well for Iraq itself.
The death toll would be enormous, and Iraqi Sunnis, who make
up only about 20 percent of the population, would face particular
hardship. But such a war wouldn’t become World War III. The
United States would eventually pull its troops out, the Iranians
would finance the Shiites, and the Saudis would support the
Sunnis, but neither neighbor would engage militarily itself.

America’s image abroad would suffer a blow, but not a fatal one,
and in the end, the United States would still be the sole world
power. “That’s the best we can expect,” Mr. Rose said. “Disaster
in Iraq, problems in the Middle East and a several-year period
to recover the losses in American foreign policy.”

Critics have been unstinting in their disapproval of Mr. Bush’s
plan to send more than 20,000 additional American troops,
mostly to Baghdad, where they will embed with Iraqi brigades.

The idea is that the presence of the American troops will prevent
the Iraqi soldiers, who are mostly Shiite, from slaughtering the
minority Sunnis. Eventually, the thinking goes, the Sunni
population in Baghdad will come to trust the Iraqi soldiers,
and reconciliation will happen between Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites
and Kurds.

The problem with Mr. Bush’s plan, said Vali Nasr, a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is that it doesn’t
provide enough American troops to do much more than stay
the course, to use Mr. Bush’s now-abandoned lexicon. The
way Mr. Nasr sees it, 20,000 additional troops is too few to
change the dynamic on the ground, but enough to escalate
tensions further.

“The best we can hope for is pretty much the same thing
we’ve had for the last year,” said Mr. Nasr, author of “The
Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future.”
“More of the same for another two years, but keep in mind that
it could potentially get much worse.”

That worst-case scenario is pretty scary, Mr. Biddle said. In that
picture, the United States would pull its troops out of Iraq, the
civil war would accelerate, and the Shiites, financed by Iran,
would conquer one Sunni village after another, driving the
Sunnis over the borders and into refugee camps in Saudi
Arabia and Jordan.

There would be a huge refugee crisis in the Sunni Arab countries,
where a dispossessed, bitter and highly politicized refugee
population would appeal to Saudi and Jordanian rulers to
make a last stand for Sunnis in Iraq. But since it would have
taken about 5 to 10 years to get to this point, guess who,
by then, would have acquired a nuclear bomb?

Iran.

“In the worst case, you could be looking at a couple of nuclear
weapons dropped on major cities — Baghdad, Riyadh, Tehran,”
Mr. Biddle said.

That possibility makes the one that Mr. Biddle views as most
likely seem almost palatable. Here it is:

“We get out, the civil war escalates,” Mr. Biddle said. “It’s funded
by all sides but they don’t send their own troops across the border.
The war just bumps along for 5 or 10 years and everybody eventually
gets so weary that diplomacy finally gets going, and there’s a cease-
fire, power-sharing deal. During that period, Iraqi oil output crashes,
there’s huge instability in the region and oil prices rise. And there’s
a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq.

“That’s not a very happy scenario,” Mr. Biddle acknowledged. “But it
beats the heck out of nuclear war in the Mideast.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

5) Busywork for Nuclear Scientists
New York Times Editorial
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/opinion/15mon1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Bush administration is eager to start work on a new nuclear
warhead with all sorts of admirable qualities: sturdy, reliable and
secure from terrorists. To sweeten the deal, officials say that if they
can replace the current arsenal with Reliable Replacement Warheads
(what could sound more comforting?), they probably won’t have
to keep so many extra warheads to hedge against technical failure.
If you’re still not sold, the warhead comes with something of
a guarantee — that scientists can build the new bombs without
ever testing them.

Let the buyer beware. While the program has gotten very little
attention here, it is a public-relations disaster in the making
overseas. Suspicions that the United States is actually trying to
build up its nuclear capabilities are undercutting Washington’s
arguments for restraining the nuclear appetites of Iran and
North Korea.

Then there’s the tens of billions it is likely to cost. And the most
important question: Nearly two decades after the country stopped
building nuclear weapons, does it really need a new one? The
answer, emphatically, is no. This is a make-work program
championed by the weapons laboratories and belatedly
by the Pentagon, which hasn’t been able to get Congress
to pay for its other nuclear fantasies.

The Rumsfeld team’s first choice was for a nuclear “bunker
buster” to go after deeply buried targets. The Pentagon got
concerned about “aging” warheads only after it was clear that
even the Republican-led Congress, or at least one intrepid
House subcommittee chairman, considered the bunker buster
too Strangelovian to finance.

One crucial argument for the new program took a major hit
in November when the Jason — a prestigious panel of scientists
that advises the government on weapons — reported that most
of the plutonium triggers in the current arsenal can be expected
to last for 100 years. Since the oldest weapons are less than
50 years old, supporters of the new warhead have fallen back
on warnings that other bomb components are also aging,
and that the nuclear labs need the work to attract and train
the best scientists. But the labs are already spending billions
on studying and preserving the current arsenal.

Then there’s that guarantee that there will be no need for
testing — one of the few arms-control taboos President Bush
hasn’t broken yet. While experts debate whether the labs can
really build a weapon without testing it, the more important
question is whether any president would stake America’s
security on an untested arsenal.

America would be much safer if the president focused on
reducing the number of old nuclear weapons still deployed
by the United States and the other nuclear powers. The new
Congress should stop this program before any more dollars
are wasted, or more damage is done to America’s credibility.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

6) Democrats Are Unified in Opposition to Troop Increase,
but Split Over What to Do About It
By JIM RUTENBERG and PATRICK HEALY
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/washington/politicsspecial/15troops.html?ref=world

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — The White House sought Sunday to head
off building pressure in Congress to cut off or limit financing
for sending more troops to Iraq.

But even as President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made
it clear that they would proceed with their plan to increase the
United States military presence in Iraq in the face of opposition
from the House and Senate, Democrats exhibited splits within
their ranks over how aggressively to oppose the plan.

Speaking on “This Week” on ABC News, Representative
John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee
on military appropriations in the House, said he expected
Congress to move to restrict financing for new troop deployments
— or at the very least tie approval to stringent conditions the White
House would have to meet first.

“If we have our way, there will be some substantial change and
tremendous pressure put on this administration to change
direction,” Mr. Murtha said.

But Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the new chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CNN on Sunday that
he did not believe Congress should “use the power of the purse”
to halt the president’s plan and that it should go no further than
approving nonbinding resolutions opposing it.

While most Democratic leaders have not endorsed taking steps
beyond seeking to pass nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop
increase, pressure has been mounting in the past week from
opponents of the war to take more direct and assertive action
to block Mr. Bush.

In an interview on “60 Minutes” that was broadcast Sunday night
Mr. Bush said: “Listen, we’ve got people criticizing this plan before
it’s had a chance to work. They’re saying, ‘We’re not even gonna
fund this thing.’ ”

“I will resist that,” he added.

On “Fox News Sunday” Mr. Cheney acknowledged that Congress
had fiscal oversight of the war but said, “You also cannot run
a war by committee.”

Mr. Cheney said the Democrats would be undercutting the troops
if they moved to block the president’s plan, adding, “I have yet
to hear a coherent policy out of the Democratic side with respect
to an alternative.”

Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said on
“Meet the Press” on NBC News that the White House had sufficient
money in its control to deploy troops as planned, and he
suggested that once they were in place, Congress would be
reluctant to cut off financing.

“I think once they get in harm’s way, Congress’s tradition is
to support those troops,” Mr. Hadley said.

The growing pressure on Democrats to confront the White House
was highlighted by a speech delivered Sunday by John Edwards,
the former Democratic senator from North Carolina who is
seeking his party’s presidential nomination. Mr. Edwards, who
voted to authorize the war when he was in the Senate in 2002
but has since said that it was a mistake, said Congress had
a moral duty to cut off financing.

“If you’re in Congress and you know this war is going in the
wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options
and keep your own counsel,” Mr. Edwards said at Riverside Church
in Manhattan, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once gave
a speech denouncing the American campaign in Vietnam. “Speak
out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit
the president from spending any money to escalate the war — use it.”

Mr. Edwards also called on fellow Democrats to support the
immediate withdrawal of 50,000 troops.

In making his speech, Mr. Edwards staked out antiwar turf in the
nascent Democratic presidential primary contest while challenging
others to do the same — most notably Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton of New York, who also voted to authorize military action
in Iraq in 2002 but has yet to take a position on legislative options
like withholding money. She visited Iraq on Saturday to speak with
military commanders, and plans to explain her views in fuller detail
when she returns Tuesday.

Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton, criticized
Mr. Edwards’s remarks by taking aim at the former senator’s image,
promoted by aides during the last presidential election, as an optimistic
and unifying figure. “In 2004 John Edwards used to constantly brag
about running a positive campaign,” Mr. Wolfson said. “Today, he has
unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks
on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.”

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, another likely Democratic candidate
and a longtime war critic, has stopped short of calling for a clamp
on financing for Mr. Bush’s plan.

While Congressional Democrats have been fairly unified in their
opposition to the president’s plan, the splits that have emerged
center on how to proceed against it. Some say that Democrats
won control of Congress with promises to force change and have
a responsibility to do so; others warn that the party could incite
accusations of undercutting the troops by limiting funds for them.

But with opinion polls showing overwhelming opposition to the
president’s plan — and support for some kind of intervention by
Congress — the trajectory over the past two weeks has moved
toward more aggressive Congressional action.

Two Democratic senators have backed away from earlier remarks
in which they expressed openness to a temporary increase in troops:
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is the majority leader of the Senate,
and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, a declared candidate
for the 2008 presidential election.

Mr. Dodd said in a statement on Sunday that he planned to introduce
a bill requiring Congressional authorization for the troop increase that
would be similar — but not identical — to one that Senator Edward
M. Kennedy of Massachusetts introduced Wednesday.

Public frustration with the war, and political moves like Mr. Edwards’s
on Sunday, will only heighten the pressure, especially on Democrats
running for president, to put real limits or conditions on the White
House war plan.

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama — neither of whom is
a declared candidate — said in interviews that the senators had
yet to conclude that the financing issue was the best way to
fight Mr. Bush.

Mr. Obama, on “Face the Nation” on CBS News, said: “The president
has already begun these additional deployments. We, unfortunately,
are not going to be voting on funding for several weeks, perhaps
months.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

7) U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans
By JOHN F. BURNS
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/world/middleeast/15baghdad.html?ref=world

This article was reported by John F. Burns, Sabrina Tavernise and
Marc Santora, and written by Mr. Burns.

BAGHDAD, Jan. 14 — Just days after President Bush unveiled a new
war plan calling for more than 20,000 additional American troops
in Iraq, the heart of the effort — a major push to secure the capital
— faces some of its fiercest resistance from the very people it
depends on for success: Iraqi government officials.

American military officials have spent days huddled in meetings
with Iraqi officers in a race to turn blueprints drawn up in Washington
into a plan that will work on the ground in Baghdad. With the first
American and Iraqi units dedicated to the plan due to be in place
within weeks, time is short for setting details of what American
officers view as the decisive battle of the war.

But the signs so far have unnerved some Americans working on
the plan, who have described a web of problems — ranging from
a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops
deployed in some of Baghdad’s most dangerous districts
— that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.

First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government
that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans
worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down
equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President
Bush has declared central to the plan.

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that
is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official
in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played
like a pawn.”

The American military’s misgivings came as new details emerged
of the reconstruction portion of Mr. Bush’s plan, which calls for
more than doubling the number of American-led reconstruction
teams in Iraq to 22 and quintupling the number of American
civilian reconstruction specialists to 500. [Page A7.]

Compounding American doubts about the government’s
willingness to go after Shiite extremists has been a behind-the-
scenes struggle over the appointment of the Iraqi officer to
fill the key post of operational commander for the Baghdad
operation. In face of strong American skepticism, the Iraqi
prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has selected an officer
from the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq who was virtually
unknown to the Americans, and whose hard-edged demands
for Iraqi primacy in the effort has deepened American anxieties.

The Iraqi commander, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, will be part of
what the Americans have described as a partnership between
the two armies, with an American general, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr.,
commander of the First Cavalry Division, working with General
Aboud, and American and Iraqi officers twinned down the
operational chain.

For the Americans, accustomed to clear operational control, the
partnership concept is troublesome — full of potential, some
officers fear, for dispute with the Iraqis over tough issues like
applying an equal hand against Shiite and Sunni gunmen.

It remains unclear whether the prime minister will be in overall
charge of the new crackdown, a demand the Iraqis have pressed
since the plan was first discussed last month, American officials
said. They said days of argument had led to a compromise under
which General Qanbar would answer to a so-called crisis counsel,
made up of Mr. Maliki, the ministers of defense and interior, Iraqi
national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, and the top American
military commander in Iraq.

The Americans said that while they had reluctantly accepted General
Qanbar, they had won concessions from the Iraqis in the appointment
of two officers favored by the American command for the two deputy
Iraqi commanders, one for the areas of Baghdad west of the Tigris
River, the other for districts to the east.

Still, the new command structure seemed rife with potential for
conflict. An American military official said that the arrangements
appeared unwieldy, and at odds with military doctrine calling for
a clear chain of command. “There’s no military definition
for ‘partnered,’ ” he said.

Along with those problems, the Americans cite logistical issues
that must be solved before the new plan can begin to work. Intent
on using the large numbers of additional American and Iraqi troops
that have been pledged to the plan to get “boots on the ground”
across Baghdad, they are planning to establish perhaps 30 or
40 “joint security sites” spread across nine new military districts
in the capital, many in police stations that have been among the
most frequent targets in the war.

But in many areas, there are no police stations, at least none suitable
as operational centers, so the planners are seeking alternate locations,
including large houses, that will have to be fortified with 15-foot-high
concrete blast walls, rolls of barbed wire and machine-gun towers.

There are no solutions yet to longstanding problems like who — the
American forces, or the Iraqis’ own anemic logistics system — will
supply the fuel required to keep Iraqi Humvees and troop-carrying
trucks running, at a time when the American supply chain will face
new strains in supporting thousands of additional American troops.

The plan gives a central role to the National Police, viewed as widely
infiltrated by Shiite militias and, despite an intensive American retraining
program, still suspected of a strongly Shiite sectarian bias. One American
officer said that the National Police commanders have been “dragging
their feet” over their role in the new plan and that they could seriously
compromise the operation.

Against those concerns, American officers cite several factors they
believe will lend impetus to the new offensive. The five additional
brigades of American troops committed by President Bush —
approximately 21,500 American soldiers, about 80 percent of them
to be deployed in Baghdad — will roughly triple the numbers of American
soldiers available for ground operations, as a relatively small proportion
of the new troop strength will be needed for “force protection,” the
military term for troops who safeguard bases and ensure the safety
of other soldiers.

Since the resignation of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
after the November elections, American commanders here have been
more candid in acknowledging something Mr. Rumsfeld often disputed:
that the commanders have had to play shell games with thinly stretched
troops, and that many crucial operations, including previous attempts
to secure Baghdad, have failed because troops have often been moved
on to other operations, allowing insurgents and militia groups to retake
areas vacated by the Americans. The new plan, the Americans say, will
go a long way toward redressing that problem, at least in Baghdad.

Another positive cited by American officers is the appointment by
President Bush of Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new overall American
commander in Iraq, succeeding Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who will leave
next month after more 30 months in command of the war. General
Petraeus, who has already completed two 12-month tours in Iraq, has
a reputation among officers who have served under him as an imaginative
commander who enlists strong loyalties among his troops.

Many officers interviewed for this article said they still believed the
tide of the war here can be reversed, with the additional troops, the
focus on regaining control of Baghdad and the more consistent military
strategy they said they expected from General Petraeus. The 54-year-
old native of upstate New York, a marathon runner, will come to Baghdad
after overseeing the Army’s reworking of its counterinsurgency manual,
parts of which he redrafted himself.

American officials in Baghdad and Washington have said that they
have limited time — perhaps no more than six to nine months — to
show gains from the new American push before popular support erodes
still further and the onset of the 2008 presidential campaign leads
American politicians to push harder for a troop withdrawal. There are
also questions of how long the overstretched American military can
sustain the stepped-up presence here.

Together, those factors have thrust American military planners into
the equivalent of a two-minute drill, trying to develop a plan that
will yield rapid gains in regaining control of Baghdad neighborhoods
that have slipped into near-anarchy as Sunni insurgents and Shiite
death squads have run rampant. While American officers are confident
the additional troops will make a major impact, they worry about what
will happen when the American troop commitment is scaled down
again, and Iraqi troops are left facing the main burden of patrolling
the city.

That prospect raises the specter of repeating what has happened
on several other occasions in Baghdad: Americans clearing
neighborhoods house-by-house, only for insurgents and militiamen
to reappear when Iraqi security forces take over from the Americans
and prove incapable of holding the ground, or compliant with the
marauding gunmen. That was the pattern with Operation Together
Forward, the last effort to secure Baghdad, which began with an
additional 7,000 American troops over the summer, and effectively
abandoned within two months when Iraqi troops failed to hold
areas the Americans handed over to them.

Another concern is that the target of the new Baghdad plan —
Sunni and Shiite extremists — may replicate the pattern American
troops have seen before when they have embarked on major
offensives — of “melting away” only to return later. Some officers
report scattered indications that some Shiite militiamen may already
be heading for safer havens in southern Iraq, calculating that they
can wait the new offensive out before returning to the capital.

“This is an enemy that will trade space for time,” one officer said.

Shiite neighborhoods present special challenges. Tightly woven
networks of militias backed by the government, the areas have
been largely off-limits to American forces. An early test will be
Sadr City, the largest Shiite enclave in the capital, and the main
stronghold for the Mahdi Army militia, led by the renegade cleric,
Moktada al-Sadr. American officers say it is far from clear that the
Maliki government will permit American troops to operate freely
in the enclave.

The number of Americans to be based at the new joint security
centers is another matter under debate. At a minimum, according
to officers involved in the planning, there will be an American platoon,
about 30 to 40 troops, working from each new center, with another
platoon patrolling nearby, serving as both a quick reaction force to
quell any surge of violence in the area and also to protect the
Americans stationed with the Iraqis.

That places American soldiers directly in neighborhoods where, until
now, they have appeared only transiently on patrols and raids. Under
the new plan, they will work closely with the Iraqi Army and police in
an attempt to establish a trust that has been elusive. The approach
has been modeled on a successful American campaign effort
18 months ago in Tal Afar, a northern city that saw dramatic drops
in violence and is now regarded as one of the few success stories
of the American campaign.

The Tal Afar strategy was developed by Col. H. R. McMaster,
commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment at the time.
Colonel McMaster, who is widely regarded within the Army as one
of its most creative counterinsurgency thinker, as well as something
of a maverick, has been involved in Pentagon planning for the new
Baghdad operation. But unlike Tal Afar, Baghdad is at the heart
of the country, with nearly a quarter of Iraq’s population, and
American officers say that success here will be far more complex
than in the operation masterminded by Colonel McMaster.

Another senior officer involved in developing the new plan said that
the new crackdown would have been much easier to implement
if it had been adopted earlier. He said that when he returned to
Iraq for a second tour in the fall, he was shocked to see how far
the American war effort had regressed, something he attributed
to muddled strategy. “When I got back three months ago, the
hodge-podge called Baghdad was like a Rubik’s cube gone
awry,” he said.

In embattled West Baghdad, the plan is to place the new security
centers squarely where the sectarian fighting has been fiercest.
One of the first centers expected to begin operating is in Ghazaliya,
a Sunni enclave that has repeatedly come under assault from
Shiite militias.

That seems certain to pose early on the central question that
confronts American commanders as they start the plan: will
the Maliki government agree to operations aimed at Shiite
extremists, or resist them and push for the focus to be laid
on Sunni extremists attacking Shiite areas?

American officers say that only time will tell, but that they will
be surprised if Mr. Maliki and his top aides change colors,
despite the assurances the Iraqi leader is said to have offered
President Bush. As described by American commanders, the
pattern in the eight months since Mr. Maliki took office has
been for the Shiite leaders who dominate the new government
to press the Americans to concentrate on Sunni extremists.

The argument is that Shiite death squads, which have accounted
for an almost equal number of deaths, are engaged in retaliatory
attacks, and that those will cease when the Sunni groups
are rooted out.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

8) Opening a New Front in the War, Against Iranians in Iraq
News Analysis
By DAVID E. SANGER
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/washington/politicsspecial/15strategy.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — For more than two years after Saddam
Hussein’s fall, the war in Iraq was about chasing down insurgents
and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Last year it expanded to tamping down
sectarian warfare.

Over the past three weeks, in two sets of raids and newly disclosed
orders issued by President Bush, a third front has opened —
against Iran.

Administration officials say the goal is limited to preventing
Iranians from aiding in attacks on American and Iraqi forces inside
Iraq. But in recent interviews and public statements, senior members
of the Bush administration have made it clear that their agenda
goes significantly further, toward foiling Iran’s dream of emerging
as the greatest power in the Middle East.

In an interview on Friday, before she left on her latest Middle East
trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described what she called
an “evolving” strategy to confront “destabilizing behavior” by Iran
across the region. Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen
J. Hadley, said Sunday on the NBC News program “Meet the Press”
that the United States was resisting an Iranian effort “to basically
establish hegemony” throughout the region.

Even some of Mr. Bush’s fiercest critics do not question that the
administration’s conviction that Iran’s ambitions are large is correct.
A few midlevel administration officials wondered even in 2003 whether
Iran was a far more potent threat than Mr. Hussein.

Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, administration officials argued
that deposing Mr. Hussein would send a powerful signal to Iran
and North Korea, the two countries that Mr. Bush identified along
with Iraq in his 2002 State of the Union address as part
of an “axis of evil.”

“You heard this argument in meetings all the time,” a senior
official on the National Security Council, who has since left the
administration, recalled recently. “Iraq would make the harder
problems of Iran and North Korea easier.”

But the opposite happened. North Korea tested a nuclear device
in October. And Iran has sped ahead with a uranium enrichment
program.


Now, despite the urging of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group
to engage with Iran, Washington is moving in a more
confrontational direction. It is stationing more naval, air and
antimissile batteries off Iran’s coast; has persuaded many
international businesses to cut off dealings with Iran; and
it has interfered with Iranians inside Iraqi territory.

“The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they
are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq,” Kenneth
M. Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the
Brookings Institution, said Sunday. “There’s a good chance that
this is going to be counterproductive — that this is a way to get
into a spiral with Iran that leads you into conflict. The likely
response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to
demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around.”

Administration officials say ignoring Iran’s activities will only lead
to escalation with the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“There’s no question that everything that has gone wrong in Iraq has
made life easier for the Iranians,” one senior White House official
said recently. “The question is what you do about that.”

The answer, shaped in the National Security Council, is for the
American military to make targets of Iranians whom they believe
are fueling attacks, a decision that Mr. Bush made months ago
that was disclosed only last week.

At least twice in the last month, in raids in Iraq that have infuriated
officials there, American soldiers have detained Iranians. On Sunday,
Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called for the release
of five Iranians taken in the most recent raid, which occurred
early on Thursday in Erbil. On CNN’s “Late Edition,” he said that
while the five were members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards,
the group “in fact is part of the Iranian political system.”

The potential strategic split with the Iraqi government over how
to handle the Iranians is only one of the questions raised by
Washington’s new approach. First among them is whether the
effort will stop at Iran’s borders. In Congressional testimony,
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has said that he sees
no need to enter Iranian territory.

Yet American officials have been careful not to rule out the
possibility of American actions inside Iran. Pressed on the
ABC News program “This Week” on Sunday about excluding
the option of going after Iranians inside Iran, Mr. Hadley said
that for now, Iraq was “the best place” for the United States
to take on the Iranians.

“So, you don’t believe you have the authority to go into Iran?”
the host, George Stephanopoulos, asked.

“I didn’t say that,” Mr. Hadley responded. “This is another issue.
Any time you have questions about crossing international borders,
there are legal issues.”

A second question is whether Mr. Bush will step up covert as
well as overt efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program. So far, the
evidence collected by the International Atomic Energy Agency
suggests that Iran’s nuclear efforts have run into technical
obstacles, but concerns remain that inspectors are missing
secret facilities. A third question is what Washington would
do if the Iranians looked for ways to strike back.

Escalating tensions are the fear of American allies in the region,
who worry about Iran, but worry more about provoking it.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney argued that America’s
actions were intended to protect allies in the Persian Gulf —
though it is far from clear that Iran’s Sunni Arab neighbors have
signed on to the strategy. “If you go and talk with the gulf states
or if you talk with the Saudis or if you talk about the Israelis
or the Jordanians, the entire region is worried,” Mr. Cheney
said on “Fox News Sunday.” He described how the Iranians
“sit astride the Straits of Hormuz” and its oil-shipping channels,
and how they support Hamas and Hezbollah.

“So the threat that Iran represents is growing,” he said, in words
reminiscent of how he once built a case against Mr. Hussein.
“It’s multidimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody
in the region.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

9) New York Rabbi Finds Friends in Iran and Enemies at Home
By FERNANDA SANTOS
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/nyregion/15rabbi.html?ref=nyregion

MONSEY, N.Y. — It was a bizarre sight: a cadre of Orthodox Jews,
with their distinctive hats, beards and sidelocks, standing alongside
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran last month at a conference
in Tehran debating the Holocaust.

Among them was Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, spokesman and assistant
director of a small anti-Zionist group with a foothold in this town
in Rockland County, home to one of the nation’s largest communities
of Hasidic Jews.

Unlike Mr. Ahmadinejad and most of the others present, including
the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Rabbi Weiss does not
deny or question the Holocaust; his grandparents died at Auschwitz,
as did several of his aunts and uncles, he said. What he and the Iranian
president have in common, he explained, is their belief that the Holocaust
has been exploited to justify the existence of Israel.

“We went to Iran because we had to let the world know, especially the
Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are not their enemies,” he said
in an interview, a Palestinian flag with the phrase “A Jew Not a Zionist,”
written in Hebrew, English and Arabic pinned to the lapel of his coat.
Below the Palestinian flag was an Israeli flag with a red line across it.

Rabbi Weiss and four other members of his group, Neturei Karta, received
a warm reception in Iran, he said, dining with state officials and posing
for photographs with Mr. Ahmadinejad, whom Rabbi Weiss had met
at least twice before.

Back home, Rabbi Weiss and the others were met with anger and scorn.
Since their return, they have been ostracized by synagogues, denied
service at kosher stores and vilified in Jewish discussion boards
on the Web. Posters have surfaced in the Satmar Hasidic enclaves
of Brooklyn, calling the members of Neturei Karta “rebels” and
“outcasts” and asking Orthodox Jews to “totally cut off ties with
this gang.”

On Jan. 7, about 300 people, most of them Orthodox Jews, including
several Holocaust survivors, protested outside Neturei Karta’s base
on Saddle River Road here, chanting and holding signs that read,
“Neturei Crackpots, Leave Monsey.” A much smaller contingent of
Rabbi Weiss’s supporters held a counterprotest nearby.

“In some ways, I feel odd; this is about Jew against Jew, after all,” said
one of the protesters, Rabbi Herbert W. Bomzer, a professor of Talmudic
law at Yeshiva University and the president of the rabbinical board
of Flatbush, which represents about 200,000 Orthodox Jews who
live in Brooklyn. “But to join together and shake hands with the
mad leader of Iran is unacceptable.”

He added, “If you shake hands with a Holocaust denier, you’re
on his team.”

Mordechai Levy, the national director of the Jewish Defense
Organization, a militant group that helped organize the protest,
said other demonstrations were being planned, with the goal
of “running Neturei Karta out of town and out of America.”

Founded in the 1930s to counter the Zionist movement in what
was then Palestine, Neturei Karta, which translates to “guardians
of the city” in the ancient language Aramaic, has a few thousand
members — in New York, the United Kingdom, Canada and in Jewish
settlements in the West Bank, among other places. They believe that
according to the Torah, Jews were exiled from Israel because they
sinned and that God has forbidden the formation of a Jewish state
until the Messiah arrives.

Many Jews who back the state of Israel abhor the group, and even
ultra-Orthodox Jews who share its theological views have distanced
themselves from Neturei Karta because of its vocal support
of Middle Eastern leaders like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has
expressed in numerous pronouncements his disdain for Jews.

“I think they’re crazy,” said Ed Devir, founder of the online newsletter
MonseyNY.com and chief executive of HireIsrael.com, a nonprofit
group that finds technical jobs for United States citizens living in Israel.
Mr. Devir said he supports the state of Israel. “For too long, we tried
to ignore them, but that was a big mistake.

“Everyone knows that they’re a joke,” Mr. Devir added. “But the bottom
line is, they support groups that want to kill Jews.”

Rabbi Weiss, 54, grew up in the Orthodox neighborhood of Borough
Park, Brooklyn, the son of Hungarians who fled Eastern Europe before
Hitler’s troops closed its borders to Jews. He married 18 years ago
and has six children. The family moved to Monsey seven years ago,
solidifying Neturei Karta’s presence in the town.

During the group’s first trip to Tehran, last March, Rabbi Weiss released
a statement to Iran’s official IRIB radio in defense of Mr. Ahmadinejad,
saying that “it is dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president
is anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic.” Rabbi Weiss also met with Mr. Ahmadinejad
when he visited New York last year to speak to the United Nations
General Assembly.

“He is extremely friendly and he understands the difference between
the Zionists and the Jews who do not embrace the state of Israel,”
Rabbi Weiss said in an interview last week.

“We don’t look at him as an enemy,” he said. “But is he a potential
enemy? Well, every person who continues to be incited is one, but even
when we’re dealing with an enemy, we’re supposed to approach
them with dialogue and try to placate them. Aggression is not
going to be successful.”

Rabbi Weiss and his group are no stranger to controversy. He traveled
to France in October 2004 to take flowers to the ailing Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat, who died the next month. In the past, Neturei
Karta members have attended the annual Salute to Israel parade
in Manhattan, burning the Israeli flag and holding signs with messages
like “Authentic Jews will never recognize the state of Israel”
and “Israel is a cancer for Jews.”

About 200 people protested outside the Park House Hotel in
Borough Park late Saturday, demanding the departure of one
of its guests, Moshe Ayre Friedman, Neturei Karta’s leader in
Austria and one of the participants at the conference in Iran.
Mr. Friedman, who at the conference questioned the number
of deaths during the Holocaust, left the hotel under police escort.

“We’re constantly disparaged, belittled, but we’re the ones trying
to make peace with the Arabs,” Rabbi Weiss said. “But we don’t
look at the Zionists with animosity. We just wished they would
give us a chance.”

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
LINKS AND VERY SHORT STORIES
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Anywhere the Eye Can See, It’s Likely to See an Ad
By LOUISE STORY
Add this to the endangered list: blank spaces.
January 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/business/media/15everywhere.html?ref=business

Bush gets cool response from troops set for Iraq
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 12, 2007
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120719-1724r.htm

Brazil Gambles on Monitoring of Amazon Loggers
By LARRY ROHTER
January 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/world/americas/14amazon.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

Pentagon Intensifies Pressure on Iran
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011307A.shtml

Israeli forces confiscating hundreds of dunams of Hebron
land for settlement industry
"Official sources at the Hebron offices of the Land Defense Committee
in the West Bank are reporting that Israeli forces intend to confiscate
much of the town of Dahariya for settlement industry. More than
300 fertile dunams of Palestinian land is slated to be taken from
the southwestern area of the town."
http://english. pnn.ps/index. php?option= com_content&task=view&id=1414

Hackensack: Lawsuit in Police Shooting
By KAREEM FAHIM
The family of a 45-year-old man who was fatally shot last year by
a New Jersey Park Police officer filed a wrongful-death suit yesterday
in State Superior Court. The suit names the officer and several
colleagues, the State of New Jersey and the Park Police. The man,
Emil Mann, a member of the Ramapough Mountain Indians, had
been at a barbecue in the woods of Mahwah on April 1 when the
officer, Chad Walder, shot him twice without justification, the
suit alleges. Officer Walder, who has said he fired in self-defense,
and two other officers also delayed getting medical help to Mr. Mann,
the suit says. A lawyer for Officer Walder, Robert Galantucci, said
the shooting was justified. No criminal charges have been filed
in the case, and the Bergen County prosecutor’s office has said
the investigation is still open. Mr. Mann, who grew up on the
mountain where he was shot, lived in Monroe, N.Y., and had
three children.
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/nyregion/12mbrfs-emil.html

Texas: Judge Blocks Ordinance on Immigrants
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A judge blocked an ordinance requiring landlords to verify the
citizenship of potential tenants, a day before it was to go into
effect in a Dallas suburb. The judge granted a temporary
restraining order after a claim that state open-meetings laws
had been violated when the ordinance was approved and
adopted by the City Council of Farmers Branch in November.
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/us/12brfs-LANDLORDS.html

U.S. Preparing for Trials of Top Qaeda Detainees
By DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — The Bush administration has set up a secret
war room in a Virginia suburb where it is assembling evidence
to prosecute high-ranking detainees from Al Qaeda including
the man accused of being the mastermind of the September 2001
attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, government officials said this week.
January 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12terror.html?ref=us

Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war' on Iran
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 12 January 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2145136.ece

Democrats Risk Antiwar Wrath if They Waver on Iraq Exit
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0110-08.htm

Soldiers Doubt an Influx of American Troops Will Benefit Iraqi Army
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0110-04.htm

Bush to Face Street Protests over Iraq Escalation Plan
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0110-07.htm

YouTube User Spurs Iraq War Dialogue
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0110-01.htm

Robert Fisk: Bush's new strategy - the march of folly
So into the graveyard of Iraq, George Bush, commander-in-chief,
is to send another 21,000 of his soldiers. The march of folly
is to continue...
Published: 11 January 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2144057.ece

Rights of Unions and Nonmembers Vie at Court
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
January 11, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/washington/11scotus.html?ref=us

If you can stomach it:
Transcript of President Bush’s Address to Nation on U.S. Policy in Iraq
as recorded by The New York Times:
January 11, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11ptext.html

Israel’s Purging of Palestinian Christians
by Jonathan Cook in Nazareth
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 9, 2007
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Cook09.htm

Democrats Beef Police State With 9/11 Commission Bill
Political "opposition" also helping Bush gain traction for Iran military strike
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/100107democratsbeef.htm

Wage Increase Could Hinge on Tax Cuts
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
January 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10wage.html?hp&ex=1168491600&en=91d9820f1ef98a84&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Britain: An Increase in Profit at the London Stock Exchange
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
The London Stock Exchange, seeking to fend off a hostile takeover
by the Nasdaq Stock Market, reported a 9.9 percent increase in
third-quarter profit and forecast a “strong performance” in fiscal
2008. Net income rose to £31 million ($59.8 million) in the three
months ended Dec. 31, up from £28.2 million a year earlier, the
exchange said. Revenue increased 11 percent, to £89.9 million
($173.5 million). The third-quarter results “support the board’s
rejection of Nasdaq’s offer, which significantly undervalues the
business and the exchange’s unique strategic position,” the
exchange’s chief executive, Clara Furse, said. “Our strong growth
prospects will continue to enhance the quality of our markets.”
The exchange, Europe’s biggest equity market, released its
earnings about three weeks ahead of schedule and two days
before Nasdaq’s offer to pay £12.43 a share expires.
January 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/business/worldbusiness/10fobriefs-ANINCREASEIN_BRF.html

Venezuelan Plan Shakes Investors
By SIMON ROMERO and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
January 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/business/worldbusiness/10venezuela.html?ref=business

Mayor Finds Friendly Ears on Senate Homeland Security Panel
By SEWELL CHAN and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took his perennial
pitch for more security money to Congress on Tuesday, but this year,
for a change, lawmakers seemed poised to listen.
January 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/nyregion/10bloomberg.html?ref=nyregion

3 Relatives of Plotter Are Held by Officials
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
January 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/nyregion/10plot.html?ref=nyregion

Gas-Like Odor Permeates Parts of New York City
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and SEWELL CHAN
January 8, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/nyregion/08cnd-odor.html?hp&ex=1168318800&en=b688635a7be2e78d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Second Declaration of Havana
Walter Lippmann, CubaNews Los Angeles, California
This is one of the great political documents of all time. It was
presented to the Cuban people on February 4, 1962, following Cuba's
expulsion from the Organization of American States. It is printed
here in its entirety. [editorial note from Fidel Castro Speaks,
edited by James Petras and Martin Kenner, Grove Press, 1969.]
It is now web-posted in English here:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/fc-02-04-1962.html
Original Spanish:
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1962/esp/f040262e.html


The universe gives up its deepest secret
It is the invisible material that makes up most of the cosmos.
Now, scientists have created the first image of dark matter
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 08 January 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2134891.ece

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's
most precious commodity
The Independent (UK)
January 7, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

SCROLL DOWN TO READ:
EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (IN FULL DETAIL)
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

BARRIO UNIDO FOR GENERAL AND UNCONDITIONAL
AMNESTY FOR ALL!
EMERGENCY PICKET LINE
FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2007, 4:00 - 7:00 P.M.
FEDERAL BUILDING
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE.
BETWEEN POLK AND LARKIN STREETS, S.F.

STOP THE ICE RAIDS! FREE THE WORKERS!
STOP THE DEPORTATIONS!
THE WORKERS SHOULD GET THEIR JOBS BACK!
WE DEMAND IMMEDIATE, GENERAL AND UNCONDITIONAL
AMNESTY FOR ALL! DEFEND THE RIGHT OF
ALL WORKERS TO ORGANIZE UNIONS IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE!

All human beings have basic, inalienable human rights to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. If your family is starving and you
can not find work, you have the right to find someplace where you can
feed, clothe and house your family.

If capital can go all over the world exploiting workers, then workers
have the right to move to find work for their family's basic survival.

IMMIGRANT WORKERS ARE GUILTY OF NOTHING
BUT WORKING HARD TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES
AND THEIR FAMILIES.

From South America, Latin America, China, Africa, India--in countries
all over the world, not to speak of the war in Iraq--a war of blood
for oil--U.S. businesses are raking in huge profits off the backs of workers
who earn slave wages and work under the most dangerous working conditions
at best, and under a state of war at worse.

Meanwhile, here at home, they are laying off workers, closing factories,
doing
away with benefits and working conditions won by worker's struggles
in the past--installing two, three, many-tiered pay scales--driving down
wages to below the scale parents are earning--leaving our children
with the heritage of a guaranteed life of poverty without union
representation.

WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE UNIONS!

And now they launch an all-out war against the most vulnerable workers
--who are driven to work in these meatpacking plants. Whether
documented or not, this is brutal, dangerous and difficult work.

And not so coincidentally, these same workers just happen
to be in the midst of a fight to win union recognition!

THESE ARRESTS ARE A THREAT TO ALL WORKERS
AND ALL UNIONS!

These mass arrests are terrorist tactics designed as a warning
to all workers that if they struggle for a better life and better
working conditions, they will be persecuted in every way
imaginable.

This is an all-out assault on every worker and it is being
executed by a terrorist government--the U.S. Government--
who uses pre-emptive war based upon outright lies to further
their oil profits; who will stop at nothing to increase their
rate of profit.

The ultimate goal of the U.S. Government is for American big
business to continue to accumulate unimaginable wealth
at the expense of the hardworking majority all over the
world--nothing is off-limits to them in this, their fundamental
pursuit!

STOP THE ICE RAIDS! FREE THE WORKERS!
STOP THE DEPORTATIONS!
THE WORKERS SHOULD GET THEIR JOBS BACK!
WE DEMAND IMMEDIATE, GENERAL AND UNCONDITIONAL
AMNESTY FOR ALL! DEFEND THE RIGHT OF
ALL WORKERS TO ORGANIZE UNIONS IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE!

An injury to one is an injury to all! We are only as strong as our
weakest link. If we allow these terrorists from ICE to continue
to carry out these assaults against the basic human rights
of any of us--no matter what our immigration status--they
will not hesitate one second to use these same tactics of mass
firings, arrest, etc. against all of us who dare to struggle
in our own defense and in our own, basic human interests and
for our own basic rights as workers and human beings!

It's up to us to organize and fight back! If we are united, we cannot loose!

WE ENCOURAGE ALL WORKERS AND ALL LABOR AND COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS TO ENDORSE THIS ACTION AND COME OUT TO
PICKET THE FEDERAL BUILDING TO PROTEST THESE RAIDS!
BRING YOUR OWN BANNERS AND SIGNS!

For more information contact:

Barrio Unido por una Amnistia
General e Incondicional
Cristina Gutierrez,
415-431-9925
companeros98@hotmail.com

Bonnie Weinstein, www.bauaw.org
415-824-8730
bonnieweinstein@yahoo.com

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

REPORT BACK ON VENEZUELA
7:00 PM Saturday, January 13
522 Valencia Street , 3rd Floor Auditorium
Hear about:
-Factories run by workers
-The election turnout for Hugo Chavez
-Occupied factories
-Socialism of the 21st Century
See: A short film on current developments
in Venezuela .
Speakers:
-John Peterson, National Secretary
of US Hands Off Venezuela (recently
returned from Venezuela )
-A speaker from Global Exchange
-A speaker from Global Women’s
Strike, San Francisco Bay Area
-An opportunity for discussion will follow
the presentations.
Sponsored by Hands Off Venezuela
Hands Off Venezuela is an international
organization dedicated to the principle
that the people of Venezuela have the
right to determine their own destiny
without interference from foreign
countries.
Contact info:
phone (415) 786-1680
email sfbay@ushov.org
web www.ushov.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

ACT NOW TO END THE WAR!
SATURDAY JANUARY 27, 2007
Washington, D.C.
VOLUNTEER Live in NYC or DC? We need your help
before and during the protest. Call 212-868-5545
STAYINFORMED Visit www.unitedforpeace.org for
updated information and to sign up for our action alerts
DONATE Whether you can contribute $10, $100, or
$1000, we need your support to help end the war!
Call 212-866-5545 or visit www.unitedforpeace.org/donate
Join us for a massive
march on Washington
to tell the new Congress:
unitedforpeace&justice
www.unitedforpeace.org (212)868-5545
On Election Day the voters delivered a dramatic,
unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action.
On Jan. 27, 2007, help send a strong, clear message to
Congress and the Bush Administration:
Bring the troops home now!

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

MARCH ON THE PENTAGON
SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 2007
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ NOW
From Iraq to New Orleans, Fund the People's Needs NOT THE
WAR MACHINE! End Colonial Occupation: Iraq, Palestine, Haiti and
everywhere! Shut Down Guantanamo
AnswerCoalition.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

LYNNE STEWART AND MICHAEL RATNER IN BAY AREA
FEBRUARY 23-25 (Lynne and her husband Ralph will
stay on several more days. Stay tuned for complete
schedule of events.)
Dear Friends of Lynne Stewart,
I am pleased to announce that Lynne Stewart and Michael Ratner have
just accepted our invitation to tour the Bay Area. The confirmed
dates are February 23-25, 2007. Lynne, accompanied by her husband
Ralph Poynter, will stay on several more days for additional meetings.
In solidarity,
Jeff Mackler,
West Coast Coordinator, Lynne Stewart Defense Committee
Co-Coordinator, Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
O: 415-255-1080
Cell: 510-387-7714
H: 510-268-9429

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

May Day 2007
National Mobilization to Support Immigrant Workers!
Web: http://www.MayDay2007.net
National Immigrant Solidarity Network
No Immigrant Bashing! Support Immigrant Rights!
webpage: http://www.ImmigrantSolidarity.org
e-mail: info@ImmigrantSolidarity.org
New York: (212)330-8172
Los Angeles: (213)403-0131
Washington D.C.: (202)595-8990

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

A NEW LOOK AT U.S. RADIOACTIVE WEAPONS
Join us in a campaign to expose and stop the use of these illegal weapons
http://poisondust.org/

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

You may enjoy watching these.
In struggle
Che:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqcezl9dD2c
Leon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukkFVV5X0p4

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

FIGHTBACK! A Collection of Socialist Essays
By Sylvia Weinstein
http://www.walterlippmann.com/sylvia-weinstein-fightback-intro.html

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

URGENT APPEAL TO SAVE IRAQ'S ACADEMICS.
Call for action to save Iraq's Academics
A little known aspect of the tragedy engulfing Iraq is the systematic
liquidation of the country's academics. Even according to conservative
estimates, over 250 educators have been assassinated, and many
hundreds more have disappeared. With thousands fleeing the country
in fear for their lives, not only is Iraq undergoing a major brain drain,
the secular middle class - which has refused to be co-opted by the
US occupation - is being decimated, with far-reaching consequences
for the future of Iraq.
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

END ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL!
Stop funding Israel's war against Palestine
Complete the form at the website listed below with your information.
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Advocacy?
JServSessionIdr003=cga2p2o6x1.app2a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=177

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

ENDORSE THE A.N.S.W.E.R. CALL TO ACTION
March 17-18, 2007
GLOBAL DAYS OF ACTION ON THE
4TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WAR!
http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?
SURVEY_ID=3400&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&JServSessionIdr011=
k7a3443r73.app8a

http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage

Please circulate widely
www.answercoalition.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Sand Creek Massacre
Hello, Everyone,
On November 29, 1864, 700 Colorado troops savagely slaughtered
over 450 Cheyenne children, disabled, elders, and women in the
southeastern Colorado Territory under its protection. This act
became known as the Sand Creek Massacre. This film project
("The Sand Creek Massacre" documentary film project) is an
examination of an open wound in the souls of the Cheyenne
people as told from their perspective. This project chronicles
that horrific 19th century event and its affect on the 21st century
struggle for respectful coexistence between white and native
plains cultures in the United States of America.

Listed below are links on which you can click to get the latest news,
products, and view, free, "THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" award-
winning documentary short. In order to create more native
awareness, particularly to save the roots of America's history,
please read the following:

Some people in America are trying to save the world. Bless
them. In the meantime, the roots of America are dying.
What happens to a plant when the roots die? The plant dies
according to my biology teacher in high school. American's
roots are its native people. Many of America's native people
are dying from drug and alcohol abuse, poverty, hunger,
and disease, which was introduced to them by the Caucasian
male. Tribal elders are dying. When they die, their oral
histories go with them. Our native's oral histories are the
essence of the roots of America, what took place before
our ancestors came over to America, what is taking place,
and what will be taking place. It is time we replenish
America's roots with native awareness, else America
continues its decaying, and ultimately, its death.

You can help. The 22-MINUTE SAND CREEK MASSACRE
DOCUMENTARY PRESENTATION/EDUCATIONAL DVD IS
READY FOR PURCHASE! (pass the word about this powerful
educational tool to friends, family, schools, parents, teachers,
and other related people and organizations to contact
me (dvasicek@earthlink.net, 303-903-2103) for information
about how they can purchase the DVD and have me come
to their children's school to show the film and to interact
in a questions and answers discussion about the Sand
Creek Massacre.

Happy Holidays!

Donald L. Vasicek
Olympus Films+, LLC
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Vasicek,+Don
http://www.donvasicek.com
dvasicek@earthlink.net
303-903-2103

"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FEATURED AT NATIVE AMERICAN FILM FESTIVAL:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/local/16035305.htm
(scroll down when you get there])
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING
WRITER/FILMMAKER DONALD L. VASICEK REPORT:
http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/sandcreekmassacre.html
"THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FINALIST IN DOCUMENTARY CHANNEL COMPETITION (VIEW HERE):
http://www.docupyx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=4
1
VIEW "THE SAND CREEK MASSACRE" AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY
SHORT FILM MOVIE OF THE WEEK FOR FREE HERE:
http://twymancreative.com/twymanc.html

SHOP:
http://www.manataka.org/page633.html
BuyIndies.com
donvasicek.com.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*


MUST SEE: PBS VIDEO NOTEBOOK: A DAY AT THE PLANT
NOW's Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa takes us inside the
world's largest pork processing plant, located in Tar Heel, North
Carolina. As the first TV journalist ever allowed to film inside the
plant, owned by The Smithfield Packing Company, Hinojosa gives
us an insider's view of what conditions are like in a plant that
slaughters over 33,000 hogs per day.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/smithfield.html

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Rights activist held in Oaxaca prison
Three students arrested and held incommunicado in Oaxaca
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/11/80142.html

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

TAX THE RICH! FEED THE POOR! MONEY FOR HUMAN NEEDS, NOT WAR!
www.bauaw.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

The following quote is from the 1918 anti-war speech delivered
in Canton, Ohio, by Eugene Debs. The address, protesting World War I,
resulted in Debs being arrested and imprisoned on charges of espionage.
The speech remains one of the great expressions of the militancy and
internationalism of the US working class.

His appeal, before sentencing, included one of his best-known quotes:
"...while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal
element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

Read the complete speech at:
http://douglassarchives.org/debs_a78.htm

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
!VIVA FIDEL! LONG LIVE FIDEL! LONG LIVE THE CUBAN REVOLUTION!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

My Name is Roland Sheppard
This Is My `Blog'
I am is a retired Business Representative of Painters District
Council #8 in San Francisco. I have been a life long social activist
and socialist. Roland Sheppard is a retired Business Representative
of Painters District Council #8 in San Francisco. I have been
a life long social activist and socialist.
Prior to my being elected as a union official, I had worked
for 31 years as a house painter and have been a lifelong socialist.
I have led a unique life. In my retire age, I am interested in writing
about my experiences as a socialist, as a participant in the Black
Liberation Movement, the Union Movement, and almost all social
movements.
I became especially interested in the environment when I was
diagnosed with cancer due to my work environment. I learned
how to write essays, when I first got a computer in order to put
together all the medical legal arguments on my breakthrough
workers' compensation case in California, proving that my work
environment as a painter had caused my cancer. After a five-year
struggle, I won a $300,000 settlement on his case.
The following essays are based upon my involvement in the
struggle for freedom for all humanity. I hope the history
of my life's experiences will help future generations
of Freedom Fighters.
For this purpose, this website is dedicated.
web.mac.com/rolandgarret/iWeb/Site/RolandSheppardsBlog.html

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

The Corporate Looting of the Gulf Coast
Robin Hood in Reverse
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley11132006.html
More Info:
www.justiceforneworleans.org
For a detailed report:
Big, Easy Money: Disaster Profiteering on the American Gulf Coast
by Rita J. King, Special to CorpWatch
August 15th, 2006
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14004

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

TAX FACT SHEET
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901006_taxpolicy.pdf

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Communist Manifesto illustrated by Disney [and other cartoons) with
words by K. Marx and F. Engels--absolutely wonderful!...bw]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1oGIffyVVk&NR

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Asylum Street Spankers-Magnetic Yellow Ribbon
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=bfMgRHRJ- tc

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Homer Simpson Joins the Army
Another morale-booster from Groening and company. [If you get
a chance to see the whole thing, it's worth it...bw]
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/12/video-the-simpsons-salute-the-lazy-and
-uneducated/

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer
Clara Jeffery (May/June 2006 Issue
IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined.
Today, they re worth $1.13 trillion more than the GDP of Canada.
THERE'VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400.
The median household income
has also stagnated at around $44,000.
AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential
campaign, 72% gave to Bush.
IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires,
a 62% increase since 2002.
IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps,
a 49% increase since 2000.
ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed.
That's less than 1% of all estates
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjon
es.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Do You Want to Stop PREVENT War with Iran?

Dear Friend,

Every day, pundits and military experts debate on TV when, how and where
war with Iran will occur. Can the nuclear program be destroyed? Will the
Iranian government retaliate in Iraq or use the oil weapon? Will it take
three or five days of bombing? Will the US bomb Iran with "tactical"
nuclear weapons?

Few discuss the human suffering that yet another war in the Middle East
will bring about. Few discuss the thousands and thousands of innocent
Iranian and American lives that will be lost. Few think ahead and ask
themselves what war will do to the cause of democracy in Iran or to
America's global standing.

Some dismiss the entire discussion and choose to believe that war simply
cannot happen. The US is overstretched, the task is too difficult, and
the world is against it, they say.

They are probably right, but these factors don't make war unlikely. They
just make a successful war unlikely.

At the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), we are not going to
wait and see what happens.

We are actively working to stop the war and we need your help!

Working with a coalition of peace and security organizations in
Washington DC, NIAC is adding a crucial dimension to this debate - the
voice of the Iranian-American community.

Through our US-Iran Media Resource Program
http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabumkFbIfQs8eafpLV5/
http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabumkFbIfQs8eafpLV5/ , we help
the media ask the right questions and bring attention to the human side
of this issue.

Through the LegWatch program

http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabummRbIfQs8eafpLV5/
http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabummRbIfQs8eafpLV5/ ,

we are building opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. We spell out the
likely
consequences of war and the concerns of the Iranian-American community
on Hill panels

http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabumkGbIfQs8eafpLV5/
http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabumkGbIfQs8eafpLV5/

and in direct meetings with lawmakers. We recently helped more than a dozen
Members of Congress - both Republican and Democrats - send a strong
message against war to the White House

http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabumkHbIfQs8eafpLV5/
http://niacouncil.c.topica.com/maafjioabumkHbIfQs8eafpLV5/

But more is needed, and we need your help!

If you don't wish to see Iran turn into yet another Iraq, please make a
contribution online or send in a check to:

NIAC
2801 M St NW
Washington DC 20007

Make the check out to NIAC and mark it "NO WAR."

ALL donations are welcome, both big and small. And just so you know,
your donations make a huge difference. Before you leave the office
today, please make a contribution to stop the war.

Sincerely,
Trita Parsi
President of NIAC

U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)

www.uslaboragainstwar.org
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/
Email: info@uslaboragainstwar.org

PMB 153
1718 "M" Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Voicemail: 202/521-5265

Co-convenors: Gene Bruskin, Maria Guillen, Fred Mason,
Bob Muehlenkamp, and Nancy Wohlforth
Michael Eisenscher, National Organizer & Website Coordinator
Virginia Rodino, Organizer
Adrienne Nicosia, Administrative Staff

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Immigration video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacK8MAfuAs

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Enforce the Roadless Rule for National Forests
Target: Michael Johanns, Secretary, USDA
Sponsor: Earthjustice
We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition:
This past September, Earthjustice scored a huge victory for our roadless
national forests when a federal district court ordered the reinstatement
of the Roadless Rule.
The Roadless Rule protects roadless forest areas from road-building
and most logging. This is bad news for the timber, mining, and oil
& gas industries ... And so they're putting pressure on their friends
in the Bush Administration to challenge the victory.
Roadless area logging tends to target irreplaceable old growth forests.
Many of these majestic trees have stood for hundreds of years.
By targeting old-growth, the timber companies are destroying
natural treasures that cannot be replaced in our lifetime.
The future of nearly 50 million acres of wild, national forests
and grasslands hangs in the balance. Tell the secretary of the
USDA, Michael Johanns, to protect our roadless areas by enforcing
the Roadless Rule. The minute a road is cut through a forest, that
forest is precluded from being considered a "wilderness area," and
thus will not be covered by any of the Wilderness Area protections
afforded by Congress.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/112283692?z00m=6687205&z00m=668720
5<l=1162406255

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Mumia Abu-Jamal - Reply brief, U.S. Court of Appeals (Please Circulate)

Dear Friends:

On October 23, 2006, the Fourth-Step Reply Brief of Appellee and
Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal was submitted to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. (Abu-Jamal v. Horn,
U.S. Ct. of Appeals Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001.)

Oral argument will likely be scheduled during the coming months.
I will advise when a hearing date is set.

The attached brief is of enormous consequence since it goes
to the essence of our client's right to a fair trial, due process
of law, and equal protection of the law, guaranteed by the Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The issues include:

Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process
of law and a fair trial because of the prosecutor's "appeal-after
-appeal" argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the
presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err
on the side of guilt.

Whether the prosecution's exclusion of African Americans
from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's right
to due process and equal protection of the law,
in contravention of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal
protection of the law during a post-conviction hearing
because of the bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo,
who was overheard during the trial commenting that
he was "going to help'em fry the nigger."

That the federal court is hearing issues which concern
Mr. Abu-Jamal's right to a fair trial is a great milestone
in this struggle for human rights. This is the first time
that any court has made a ruling in nearly a quarter
of a century that could lead to a new trial and freedom.
Nevertheless, our client remains on Pennsylvania's death
row and in great danger.

Mr. Abu-Jamal, the "voice of the voiceless," is a powerful
symbol in the international campaign against the death
penalty and for political prisoners everywhere. The goal
of Professor Judith L. Ritter, associate counsel, and
I is to see that the many wrongs which have occurred
in this case are righted, and that at the conclusion
of a new trial our client is freed.

Your concern is appreciated

With best wishes,

Robert R. Bryan

Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123

Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

---------*-- -------*- --------* --------- *---------*---------*

Antiwar Web Site Created by Troops
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A small group of active-duty military members opposed to the war
have created a Web site intended to collect thousands of signatures
of other service members. People can submit their name, rank and
duty station if they support statements denouncing the American
invasion. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price,"
the Web site, appealforredress.org, says. "It is time for U.S. troops
to come home." The electronic grievances will be passed along
to members of Congress, according to the Web site. Jonathan
Hutto, a Navy seaman based in Norfolk, Va., who set up the Web
site a month ago, said the group had collected 118 names and
was trying to verify that they were legitimate service members.
October 25, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/washington/25brfs-005.html

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Child Rape Photos
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-10-23 20:54. Evidence
By Greg Mitchell, http://www.editorandpublisher.com
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14864

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Profound new assault on freedom of speech and assembly:
Manhattan: New Rules for Parade Permits
By AL BAKER
After recent court rulings found the Police Department's
parade regulations too vague, the department is moving
to require parade permits for groups of 10 or more
bicyclists or pedestrians who plan to travel more than
two city blocks without complying with traffic laws.
It is also pushing to require permits for groups of 30
or more bicyclists or pedestrians who obey traffic laws.
The new rules are expected to be unveiled in a public
notice today. The department will discuss them at
a hearing on Nov. 27. Norman Siegel, a lawyer whose
clients include bicyclists, said the new rules
"raise serious civil liberties issues."
Oc