What is wrong with the News?

Editorial

27 October 2007
by HRM Deborah

Especially in our modern time’s the media can sway a person in many different ways by just the opinion or idea within an article; so journalist must be so very conscientious about what they produce.

Here is where the problem begins and it is not just propaganda, but people writing article’s that I would not even put in my birdcage for my two bird’s to read, let alone do their business on. It has gotten so bad that I have found alternate means for my bird’s paper that is completely blank; this goes with many of the trivial media that is hitting the press, television news as well as the net.

I will even admit time again on this page you will find what I call filler, like the recent article on chocolate, but at least I tried to make it look more informative and not give people a yawn.

Then you have the hawker’s out their that think they know exactly what is going on and often time's are bias in their view’s especially with the current global condition. Without full knowledge of what it really curtails and so here they go, blah, blah, blah.

Did we learn anything, are we more informed, no, just maybe a little agitated, confused or went on to the next article filled with what did they say when you got to the end.

I realize for our time’s, we are in the worse sort of censorship propaganda dilemma that is far worse then any news black out in the past, but could we at least think better before we write or at least be concerned; the majority of the world is going to need a nap after reading what you wrote.

Year’s ago when I first started writing, one thing I was told is make it interesting, write hard facts and most of all do your homework on all aspects of the article before laying it down on the page, because at one time newspaper’s could go out of business with this type of journalism.

I am sure it is still true today and it would be sad if this happened to one or more of the major news agencies out there striving to get the world to wake up and smell the fresh brewed coffee in the morning over the relaxing glance at the front headlines.

If you wish to criticize and think this editorial is poor, wait until the next time you take a gander at the other news sources out there will their news on gardening, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Better yet, the conflicting reports on the same page about the Middle East; to that armed robbery that happened just two doors from your house.

Lastly, the growing numbers of people that have decided to stop reading or watching the news all together, because it seemed to have became worthless to them. Instead, they would rather tune in and watch, “Desperate Housewives.’”

War Criminals

FEMA Workers Masquerade as Reporters

Employees asked questions at last-minute California wildfire briefing

26 October 2007

Video

WASHINGTON - The White House scolded the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Friday for staging a phony news conference about assistance to victims of wildfires in southern California.

The agency — much maligned for its sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina over two years ago — arranged to have FEMA employees play the part of independent reporters Tuesday and ask questions of Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the agency’s deputy director.

The questions were predictably soft and gratuitous.

“I’m very happy with FEMA’s response,” Johnson said in reply to one query from an agency employee.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it was not appropriate that the questions were posed by agency staffers instead of reporters. FEMA was responsible for the “error in judgment,” she said, adding that the White House did not know about it beforehand and did not condone it.

“FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regard to the wildfires in California,” Perino said. “It’s not something I would have condoned. And they — I’m sure — will not do it again.”

She said the agency was just trying to provide information to the public, through the press, because there were so many questions.

“I don’t think that there was any mal-intent,” Perino said “It was just a bad way to handle it, and they know that.”

FEMA gave real reporters only 15 minutes notice about Tuesday’s news conference . But because there was so little advance notice, the agency made available an 800 number so reporters could call in. And many did, although it was a listen-only arrangement.

On Tuesday, FEMA employees had played the part of reporters. Johnson issued a statement Friday, saying that FEMA’s goal was “to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment.”

“Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received,” he said. “We can and must do better.”

Officials at the Homeland Security Department, which includes FEMA, expressed their concern.

“This is simply inexcusable and offensive to the secretary that such a mistake could be made,” Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said Friday, referring to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. “Stunts such as this will not be tolerated or repeated.”

Keehner said senior leadership is considering whether a punishment is necessary.

Border Tensions

26 October 2007

The drums of war in Turkey are banging louder. The killing of at least 12 Turkish soldiers by Kurdish fighters last week has increased the pressure on Ankara to send troops into the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

The latest attack on Turkish troops, believed to have been carried out the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), came in the wake of the Turkish parliament's approval for cross-border attacks into northern Iraq aimed at the PKK.

Any military strike by Turkey in northern Iraq is likely to have dire consequences on the future security and stability of Iraq.

Analysts say a Turkish invasion will force the Kurds to choose between Kurdistan and Iraq. And in this choice, Iraq will lose out.

Inside Iraq this week looks at the grave implications of the tension between Turkey and Iraq.

Part 1

Part 2

Bush’s False Promises to California Fire Victim’s

California fire Malibu, California

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 27, 2007

Audio

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Thursday, I traveled to California to visit communities ravaged by wildfires. I walked with a married couple through the charred remains of their home. I met with emergency responders. I talked with displaced families at a disaster assistance center. And I made a pledge to the people of California on behalf of all Americans: We will help you put out the fires, get through the crisis, and rebuild your lives.

State and local authorities in California were well prepared for this crisis, and they responded quickly and effectively. Officials warned those in danger, moved residents out of the path of the flames, and set up dozens of shelters for thousands of people.

State officials also reached out to the Federal government for help. And we responded. Shortly after the fires broke out, we started mobilizing and providing assistance, including the deployment of Federal firefighters and aircraft to drop fire retardant on the fires. As high winds spread the fires, Governor Schwarzenegger requested more Federal help. Within one hour of that request, we approved an emergency declaration that authorized Federal agencies across the government to help state and local responders save lives, protect property, and maintain public health and safety.

On Wednesday, I issued a second declaration. This action made additional Federal funding available to the residents of the counties affected by the wildfires, so they can recover and rebuild. This Federal assistance includes grants for temporary housing and home repair, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, loans for small business owners, and funding to help clean up debris.

I was impressed by the performance of the first responders I met in California. Despite the challenges of high winds and dry weather, firefighters are gaining the upper hand and earning the gratitude of their fellow citizens. Many of these brave men and women have battled the blaze in triple-digit heat. Some have worked around the clock. And more than once, firefighting teams were forced to take emergency shelter in their fire tents when threatened by approaching walls of flame. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet them, and I thank them for their courage.

I was also encouraged by the spirit of the families I met. At one recovery center, I met an amazing young girl named Alyssa Lamborn. Alyssa told me, "I lost my house, but I didn't lose my home -- because my family and my pets are safe." I saw this same spirit in many others who are grateful for their safety and determined to rebuild.

People like Alyssa and her family are receiving help from their fellow Americans. Some have opened their homes to strangers who were evacuated and could not find a hotel room. Doctors and nurses have answered the call to help seniors who were forced from their nursing homes. And volunteers from every walk of life have come forward to provide food, clothing, and blankets -- and a shoulder to lean on.

I went to Southern California with a message: We want you to know the country cares for you. We're concerned about you, your neighborhoods, and your homes. Things may look dismal now, but there is a better day ahead. And we will not forget you in Washington, D.C.

Thank you for listening.

END

US Forces Diplomats to take Iraq Posts

A girl stands by as a US soldier on patrol in the Sunni neighbourhood of Arab Jabour in south Baghdad.

27 October 2007

Washington: US diplomats will have to accept a year-long posting in Iraq or face losing their jobs, the US State Department has declared.

At least 250 "prime candidates" for vacant posts in Iraq would be notified on Monday, said State Department human resources director Harry Thomas on Friday.

He said they would have 10 working days to respond to the demand that they go to Iraq in 2008, and only those with valid reasons such as a medical problem, would be exempt.

Until now postings to Iraq have been on a voluntary basis and often hard to fill. Many diplomats say they fear being posted to Iraq because of the risks to their life.

"We have all taken an oath to serve our country and so if someone decides they do not want to go, then we would then consider appropriate actions," said Thomas.

"We have many options, including dismissal from the foreign service," he added. Currently there are about 200 US diplomats in Iraq who serve on a one-year basis.

Iraq assignments will be handed out from November 12 to 22, but Thomas said he hoped that enough diplomats would step forward voluntarily.

Israeli Forces Threaten to Demolish Palestinian Shops in Salfit

Salfit, Northern West Bank; Palestine

27 October 2007

Salfit – Ma'an – The Israeli forces have threatened to demolish Palestinian shops in the northern West Bank town of Salfit, alleging that they are unlicensed and were illegally constructed.

Local resident Abed Dawod said that the Israeli forces ordered him to empty his shop within days as it is to be demolished on the grounds that it is 'illegal'. Dawod said the shop has been open for over two years.

Dawod described the Israeli measures as racist and said they are aimed at destroying Palestinian livelihoods and forcing Palestinians out of their homeland.

Cheney After Seizure of Middle East Oil Wealth

26 October 2007

Tehran-People lobbying for US unilateral approach including Vice-President Dick Cheney, are after seizure of the Middle East oil wealth adding that another escalation will skyrocket oil to dlrs 200 per barrel.

According to IRNA Political Desk, the former commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi made the comment at a press conference after his speech at Jamaran Hosseinieh -- late Imam Khomeini's public audience site -- for a group of university students.

Rahim-Safavi added, "Over 65% of the world's oil reserves are concentrated in the Middle East and one of the major objectives of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was to seize this region's oil wealth which will skyrocket to dlrs 200 a barrel by another escalation."

Giving an analysis about the current status of the United States, Rahim Safavi said that the US lacks the potentials to attack Iran.

He said that US has militarized the region to prepare the ground for huge arms sales, adding, "As it was made public in recent news editions, the US has signed arms deals with regional countries, including Saudi Arabian Kuwait, and the UAE worth sixty billion dollars."

"In addition to the political objectives that the Americans are pursuing -- among which their defeated Greater Middle East Plan -- arms sales that provide the greatest income for US industries, is a strategic objective for the United States."

A reporter asked Ramin-Safavi about the fate of Ali Hassan Majid, Saddam's Ali Chemical. He replied, "More important than that is surveying who provided the former Iraqi regime with those fatal weapons."

Safavi reiterated, "The Europeans, including the German and French companies along with Britain provided the Iraqi dictator with technology and the raw materials, such as mustard gas.

The former chief of IRGC added, "Only one of the destructive aftermaths of the Western powers action was 5,000 civilian victims of chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan's Halabja on March 14-17, 1988." Referring to Iran's 300,000 war veterans, he said that part of he war veterans are chemical weapons' victims, one of whom dies each week after having suffered tremendously for many years."

Rahim-Safavi reiterated, "The Europeans provided Saddam with those weapons, and the Americans, too, never condemned Iraq's numerous chemical attacks against Iran."

Referring to the humiliating fate of Saddam, his sons, other members of his Baath Party and his Chemical Ali, he said, "Today the world is witness to the grandeur and prosperity of Iranian nation, emerging as an effective and strong regional power, and an influential country in international community."

Note:
In Iraq for example, the Iraqi resistance was accused during this war to have blown up certain oilfields; when in truth it was actually the American’s that did the explosions.

Many have felt it was to cause the cost of oil to rise and the consumer to pay the heavy cost at the pumps.

Palestinian Killed in Israel Prison Riot Buried

A prison guard directs Palestinian prisoners before their identifications are checked prior to leaving Ketziot Prison [archive - illustrative].Photo: AP

25 October 2007

WARNING: This report contains some graphic images.

The funeral has been held for a Palestinian man killed during a riot inside an Israeli prison.

Mohammed Ashqar died in hosptial from the injuries he suffered when inmates clashed with prison guards on Monday.

Now his relatives are demanding to know exactly what happened.

David Chater visited the family.

Jumping ship?

On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

18 - 24 Oct. 2007

The result of the storm by Israeli Occupation Forces against the Neger Prison on 22 October.


Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Continue Systematic Attacks on Palestinian Civilians and Property in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)

7 Palestinians, including 2 children, were killed by IOF.
3 of the victims, including a civilian, were extra-judicially executed by IOF.
A Palestinian worker was run down to death by an Israeli settler.
16 Palestinians, including 3 children, a woman and a journalist, were wounded by IOF.
IOF conducted 27 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 3 ones into the Gaza Strip.
IOF arrested 37 Palestinian civilians, including 4 children, in the West Bank and 4 others in the Gaza Strip.
IOF razed at least 150 donums[1] of agricultural land Beit Hanoun town in the northern Gaza Strip.
IOF have continued to impose a total siege on the OPT.
IOF have isolated the Gaza Strip from the outside world and a humanitarian crisis has emerged.
A patient died due to the obstruction by IOF troops at Erez crossing of his access to an Israeli hospital.


Summary

Bush Burns Over New SCHIP Bill

President George W. Bush welcomes President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo to the Oval Office Friday, Oct. 26, 2007. Story

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 26, 2007

Video
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I went out to California yesterday to meet with families affected by the wildfires, and to thank the state and local officials for their outstanding work in this difficult time. While I was there I saw the terrible destruction and heartbreaking loss. Yet I was also encouraged by the spirit I found -- the families determined to rebuild, the volunteers who stepped forward to help neighbors in need, and the first responders who have shown such courage in battling the flames and caring for those who were displaced.

I returned to Washington late last night. And when I got back to the White House, I was disappointed by what Congress had been doing -- and even more disappointed by what they had not been doing. This week, the majority in the House passed a new SCHIP bill that costs more over the next five years than the one I vetoed three weeks ago. It still moves millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. It raises taxes to pay for it. And it fails to do what needs to be done: to put poor children first.

After I vetoed their last SCHIP bill, I designated members of my administration to work with Congress to find common ground. Congressional leaders never met with them. Instead, the House once again passed a bill that they knew would not become law. And incredibly enough, the Senate will take up the same bill next week, which wastes valuable time.

As the House was debating SCHIP, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee unveiled a massive tax package that raises taxes on more than a million small business owners, among others. Earlier this week, Congress sent me a fiscally irresponsible water resources bill. The House version came in at $15 billion. The Senate version came in at $14 billion. So the House and Senate compromised -- and sent me a bill that costs $23 billion. In Washington, they call that "splitting the difference."

And today Congress set a record they should not be proud of: October the 26th is the latest date in 20 years that Congress has failed to get a single annual appropriations bill to the President's desk. And that's not the only thing congressional leaders have failed to get done.

They have yet to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent, or even extend it -- even though this moratorium is set to expire in just a few days. The House and Senate have both passed temporary extensions but have not agreed on a final bill. I urge Congress to keep the Internet tax-free -- and to get a bill to my desk that I can sign.

They have yet to move Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination to be Attorney General out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- even as members complain about the lack of leadership at the Department of Justice.

They have yet to act on our emergency war funding supplemental -- even though our troops on the front lines depend on these vital funds to fight our enemies and to keep us safe at home.

This is not what congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year. In January, one congressional leader declared, and I quote: "No longer can we waste time here in the Capitol, while families in America struggle to get ahead." He was right. Only a few weeks left on the legislative calendar -- Congress needs to keep their promise, to stop wasting time, and get essential work done on behalf of the American people.

Thank you.

Palestinians Hail Infant As Miracle Baby

(Photo by David Silverman/Getty Images)

A birthmark is considered a kiss from Allah.

7 December 2003

BETHLEHEM, WEST BANK - With his unique birthmark showing, 16-day-old Palestinian infant Alaa Ayad is tended to by his grandparents Aysha Ayad (L) and Abu Youssuf Ayad as they hold portraits of their slain son Alaa Ayad in their family home in Aida refugee camp in the West Bank town of Bethlehem.

Palestinian’s are hailing Alaa as a miracle baby saying the birthmark across his cheek roughly forms in Arabic letters that is the name of his uncle, Alaa, a Hamas resistance fighter killed by Israeli troops eight months earlier.

Baby Alaa was born on November 21, 2003 and his uncle was killed on March 25, 2003.

Iyad Ala Edin Ayad cradles his 16-day-old Palestinian infant son Alaa.
With his unique birthmark showing, 16-day-old Palestinian infant Alaa Ayad is tended to by his grandmother Aysha Ayad in their family home.

Allah Possessor of Power

And Allah is the unseen of the heaven’s and the earth. And the matter of the Hour is but a twinkling of the eye or it is nigher still. Surely Allah is Possessor of power over all things.

[Al-Nahl 16: 77]

Putin Denounces US Missile Shield

Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, President of the EU Commission, Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, from left to right, arrive for a news conference at the end of the EU/Russia summit in the library of the 18th century Mafra Palace Friday, Oct. 26, 2007, in Mafra, north of Lisbon. (AP Photo/Armando Franca)

26 October 2007

By MIKE ECKEL

MAFRA, Portugal -Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday compared the U.S. proposal to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe to the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s.

"Analogous actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, prompted the 'Caribbean crisis,'" Putin said at a news conference at the end of a European Union-Russian summit in Portugal, using the Russian term for the Cuban missile crisis.

"Such a threat is being set up on our borders," he said.

At the same time, Putin suggested the tension was much lower that during the Cuban missile crisis because Russian-U.S. relations have moved on since the Cold War.

He also said he believes the United States is listening to Moscow's concerns about its missile plans. Putin said his relationship with President Bush helps iron out problems in relations with the U.S., calling him a friend.

Turning to his future in Russian politics, Putin said he would not assume presidential powers if he became prime minister after finishing his term in the spring.

"If someone thinks that I intend to move, let's say, into the government of the Russian Federation and transfer the fundamental powers there, that's not the case," he said at a news conference. "There will be no infringement on the powers of the president of the Russian Federation, at least while it depends on me."

The popular Putin is barred from seeking a third consecutive term in the March presidential election, but has strongly indicated he would seek to keep a hand on Russia's reins after he steps down. He has left the door open to becoming prime minister, recently announcing that he will head United Russia's election list in the December parliamentary elections.

Israeli and Palestinian Leaders Meet Amid Clashes in Gaza

26 October 2007

Guardian Unlimited

Israeli and Palestinian leaders renewed efforts today to narrow their differences ahead of a US-sponsored conference despite fierce clashes in Gaza.

As the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, met the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, Israeli troops killed at least three Palestinian gunmen in separate clashes in Gaza, which has been under the control of Hamas since June.

Before the meeting, aides to Mr Abbas criticised Israel over its plan to counter the almost daily rocket attacks from Gaza.

Israel's plan to start cutting energy supplies to Gaza represented a "provocation" that would "double the suffering" of those living in the coastal enclave, Palestinian officials said.

Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Mr Abbas, called on the international community to "intervene immediately to protect the Palestinian people and compel Israel to comply with international humanitarian law".

Exasperated by rocket attacks on southern Israel, the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, approved the new plan to cut off electricity to the territory for longer periods each time a rocket falls. The plan hopes to pressure the militants into halting the attacks.

Mr Abbas and Mr Olmert were meeting over lunch, seeking common ground before next month's planned conference in Annapolis, Maryland.

Yesterday, Mr Olmert again sought to lower expectations for the conference, saying it would not result in a final peace deal.

Addressing Jewish fundraisers from Europe and north America in Jerusalem, Mr Olmert sounded less than sure that the conference would even go ahead.

"If all goes well, hopefully, we will meet in Annapolis," he said. "(But) Annapolis is not made to be the event for the declaration of peace."

The Palestinians, meanwhile, are pushing for a pre-conference statement that addresses the issues at the heart of the conflict: final borders, the status of disputed Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

They also want a timeline for the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel wants a more general document, saying it is premature to address many of these issues.

The US wants both sides to present the joint statement at the conference to pave the way for peace talks.

"Today we expect the Israelis to stop putting obstacles preventing us from reaching a joint statement for the fall summit," Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an Abbas spokesman, said.

"Today they will evaluate what the negotiation teams have achieved and they will try to narrow the gaps."

In Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas government, said the meetings between Mr Abbas and Mr Olmert were aimed at diverting attention from Israeli attacks and sanctions against Gaza.

He said the conference would offer nothing to the Palestinians.

"These meetings have become a cover for the continued aggression against the Palestinian people," Mr Haniyeh said after Friday prayers in Gaza City. "We warn against the dangers of falling into the traps of American-Israeli policies."

Iraq Torture Case goes to UK High Court

26 October 2007

London-Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) Friday were facing demands of aggravated and exemplary damages over treatment of Iraqis by UK troops in an incident in which a detainee died.

Lawyers, acting for 10 Iraqis seized in a Basra hotel in September 2003, claim that they were tortured and that the soldiers actions were in breach of the Geneva convention and the Human Rights Act.

The start of the case at London's High Court, in which the receptionist at the al-Haitham hotel, Baha Mousa, also died in British custody after suffering 93 injuries, comes after the MoD admitted the Iraqis were violently treated at a court martial.

One soldier, Corporal Donald Payne, pleaded guilty to inhumane treatment, while six others, including a commander, were acquitted of negligence and abuse at the court martial that ended in March.

According to the Guardian newspaper, harrowing accounts of the treatment of Iraqis, including statements from witnesses who say they heard Mousa's "dying screams" were submitted to the court Friday.

"The sheer scale of the incessant barbarity to which these detainees were subjected, with apparent impunity, is astonishing," said solicitor Sapna Malik.

"The court martial miserably failed to deliver justice and accountability in this case," said Malik who is seeking damages that run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Earlier this week, Defence Secretary Des Browne denied that there had by a "systematic" abuse of prisoners by British troops occupying southern Iraq.

"Where service personnel are accused of wrongdoing, the allegations are fully investigated and, where appropriate, prosecutions are brought," Browne said in a letter to the Guardian on Tuesday.

The defence secretary referred to specifically to separate legal action currently being taken over allegations that 22 Iraqi soldiers were tortured and killed by British troops after an insurgent ambush incident on the road between Amarrah and Basra in May 2004.

Israeli Settler Attempts Vehicular Homicide

Palestinian man injured by Israeli settler's car

26 October 2007

Salfit – Ma'an – An Israeli settler ran over a sixty-eight-year-old Palestinian man on an Israeli bypass road in the northern West Bank village of Kafr Ad-Dik, near the Pedu'el settlement, witnesses said.

The man, Osama Deik, was badly bruised on his back and legs. Deik was taken to a hospital by a Palestinian on a passing tractor, Deik's son said. The settler reportedly "sped away."

The Single President

Newly single Nikolas Sarkozy has had to endure the agony of his breakup under the public gaze. (Philippe Wojazer / REUTERS)

26 October 2007

By Bruce Crumley

Having marketed his marriage as an integral part of his presidential appeal, President Nicolas Sarkozy has had to endure the agony of its breakup in the full glare of the publicity he courted for his private life. But what happens now that Cécilia, once the object of his unwavering adoration, is gone? How does a newly divorced president go about seeking romantic companionship? And what will a politician proud of his considerable seductive powers do when he simply seeks a no-strings extramarital liaison — in the manner that French voters have long come to expect from their married presidents? Sarkozy will have to find answers to these questions as a nation alerted watches his every bachelor's move: Stay tuned for the Elysée Palace Dating Game!

So rare is the incidence of an unmarried head of state that it may be up to Sarkozy to invent the rules and rituals of presidential mating. Don't expect speed-dating or Internet flirting, as in:
"What are you wearing?"

"My tri-color sash and blue suit with the key to the nuclear launching room sewed into the lining."

But what exactly are "The Rules" of the more classic dating game for a combative new president under relentless public scrutiny as he moves to impose painful economic reforms on a reticent population?

"Even if Sarkozy can avoid the media, today it only takes a fellow diner spotting him with a woman in a Paris restaurant before a cell phone photo of the scene is uploaded to the Internet and becomes real-time front page news," comments Christophe Deloire, a journalist and co-author of last year's best-selling Sexus Politicus, which examines how past French presidents manifested their power through sexual conquest. "Sarkozy can limit the attention he gets from the media by being discreet. But as we saw when Cécilia left him for several months in 2005, being discreet, staying in, and assuming the role of the abandoned husband isn't something he likes."

During that period of separation, the initially sympathetic media treatment of Sarkozy as the saddened, bilked hubby quickly gave way to reports that he'd hooked up with a French journalist — reports, Deloire suggests, for which Sarkozy himself was the source. In this, he displayed a smart sense of the French public's traditional tolerance of extramarital dalliances by its leaders, and its attitude that "seductive power is attendant to the charisma requisite of succeeding in politics," Deloire explains. So long as the politicians made a decent effort to keep their philandering out of public view, French media tended to respect their privacy. Even the French public treated rumors of presidential trysts with a shrug: Discreet bed-hopping had been one of the perks of power even when France was ruled by kings.

Sarkozy appears to have broken the mold of the traditional don't-ask-don't-tell arrangement. "He pushed his wife and family to the center stage so many times that there's no credible way he can ask the media to stay out of his life now that he's alone," Deloire says. The ironic result for Sarkozy may be that his romantic pursuits will be the subject of even more coverage now that he is a bachelor than they had been when he cut the figure of the pained, adoring husband. It's the kind of coverage the usually attention-hungry Sarkozy could have happily done without.

The reason for the media respecting the privacy of the the sexual exploits of married pols is that such pursuits are by nature the stuff of marriage-wrecking scandal. But Sarkozy's search for a new mate will, by definition, be above board — he's not cheating on anyone. And that will make his adventures in the dating jungle fair game for the media. That could bring unexpected changes in French public attitudes. How many women may Sarkozy uneventfully date, for example, before prudish allegations of presidential promiscuity resound? And how many times will Sarkozy be permitted to see the same woman before the media begins running the rule over her as a candidate for First Lady? Even more perilous is the question of whether Sarkozy can seek romantic company in his natural power milieu of politicians, business leaders, and diplomats, without such liaisons potentially conflicting with his official responsibilities. Managing his private life may look much easier, in hindsight, when all it involved was keeping Cécilia from moving out.

Perhaps if he were a U.S. President, Sarkozy would also run the risk of opening himself up to allegations of sexual harassment. That's less likely, somehow, in France, Deloire explains. He cites a remark made by former president and prolific seducer Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in anticipation of Deloire's book: "The very power and allure of the office meant any president could find what they wanted without pressure or coercion," Deloire recalls. Then, he adds: "Sarkozy won't have to force anyone to submit to his presidential charms." At least not in the bedroom — in the field of governance, of course, France may continue to play hard to get.

Battling Bush on the Cost of War

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) speaks during a news conference.
(Win McNamee / Getty)

25 October 2007

By Jay Newton-Small

David Obey has never been mistaken for having a soft touch, and his corner U.S. Capitol office is a testament to that. There, across from the dozen or so sharpened pencils piled on his desk, are two dog-eared signs taped to the gilt mirror over the marble fireplace, each bearing multiple pencil and highlighter stabs and dashes.

"I ask everyone who comes into this office seeking money two questions," Obey, Congress's top money man, said from behind his desk across the room. Each wrinkled sign bears one of those questions, and Obey asks them so often that he can recite them by heart. "The first is: If what you want costs money, are you willing to go home and tell your friends that we need to cut back on the size of the President's tax cuts so there is room for it in the budget?" The second, and related question, goes as follows: "Is there anything you want me to do for somebody else that is more important than whatever it is you want me to do for you?"

Both questions are typical of the Wisconsin Democrat, who prides himself on his "sharp-penciled" budgets. It also reflects his frustration with what he considers President George W. Bush's "rampant hypocrisy" when it comes to spending and the war in Iraq, the two intertwined issues that Obey is currently battling over with the White House.

In the coming weeks Bush and Obey will go nine rounds — literally. Bush has threatened to veto nine of the 12 spending bills for fiscal 2008 — which are expected to reach his desk in November — because Democrats added more than $20 billion for education, health care and science programs that they say are vital. The Constitution may have granted Congress the power of the purse but Democrats don't have the votes to override Bush's veto. Ahead of this fight, Obey chose last month to announce his intention to shelve the President's annual supplemental request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — $200 billion for 2008 — until Bush consents to a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. Bush may have the veto, but he can't force Obey to move that bill out of committee.

"I was trying to demonstrate that it was rampant hypocrisy for Bush to say: 'Ooh that $20 billion in education, health care and sciences is going to unbalance the budget,'" Obey said in a ghoulish tone, shaking his hands for effect. "'But, ooh it's a national necessity to borrow $200 billion for this misbegotten war in Iraq.' Ten times as much money."

Obey's bold move has drawn an immediate indignant reaction from the right, which is fuming that soldiers in the field could be left in the lurch when the current funding runs out. Obey welcomed the furor. "To me that means the message got out just a little bit," Obey said. "The main point is that this war has been the worst foreign policy disaster going back to the war of 1812 and I say the war of 1812 because that's the last war where we actually lost territory. We have ruined our influence in the Middle East. We have damn near broken the army."

After more than 30 years on the Appropriations Committee and now in his second stint at its helm, Obey, 69, has been asked by a lot of people for money: fellow members requesting earmarks for projects in their districts, the Administration looking to fund everything from the war in Iraq to the White House operating budget and constituents from his home district in Wisconsin. In that time, he's had no problem speaking his mind and saying no to those requests he deemed undeserving.

But his withholding the war funding to force change in Iraq policy takes his penchant for confrontation to another level. It's a strategy that this week has been picked up by the Democratic leadership in press conferences and media releases after Bush formally submitted his supplemental request. And the House Budget Committee Wednesday held a hearing on new estimates that the cost of the war in Iraq will reach $2.4 trillion by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "I think Obey rightfully makes the point that the priorities of this Administration are out of whack,"said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Given Bush's office, "it's not a fair fight, but in terms of ability and knowledge — of process and priorities — Obey's clearly certainly a match for not only the President, but just about anybody."

As the title of his recently published autobiography, Raising Hell for Justice: The Washington Battles of a Heartland Progressive, implies, Obey is one of the most liberal members of Congress. Elected at the tender age of 30, it's no surprise that he spends only 100 pages talking about his life before Congress and 300 pages on his time in office. Obey won his seat on April Fool's Day, 1969, with just 51.5% of the vote, in a special election to replace Republican Melvin Laird, who resigned to become Nixon's Secretary of Defense. He has since built a solid majority, winning reelection in 2006 with 62% of the vote.

Despite his wealth of knowledge about managing dollars and cents, Obey happens to be one of the poorer members of the House. With net assets estimated between $35,007 and $175,000, he is ranked number 358 out of 435, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It is because of Obey's humble roots that he has endorsed John Edwards for President in 2008. Edwards' message about the Two Americas — one poor and one rich — so appealed to Obey that he called up the former North Carolina Senator and offered to endorse him just days after the 2004 election.

Occasionally, Obey's independent streak is even too much for his own party. One example of that is a war surtax that Obey proposed last month to help offset the cost of the ongoing presence in Iraq. He offered it fully aware that it had absolutely no chance of passing, but simply to highlight his frustration that only military families are bearing the brunt of the war's burden. Obey wryly noted that he approached Pelosi with the surtax and the supplemental at the same time. "I told her: 'Nancy, I've got two things here, one you'll like and the other you won't.' And she heard me out and said, David you're right. I don't like that.'" "I didn't expect any support," Obey continued. "Around here sometimes, believe it or not, it's permissible to say things just because you believe it. Just for the hell of it."

Obey is also known on Capitol Hill for his mercurial temper. He once famously got into a shoving match with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on the floor of the House and this spring was dubbed "Mount Obey" by Politico, a daily Hill newspaper and political website, because of an eruption at anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich for asking what Obey deemed a dumb question.

"He's flamboyant, yells and screams when things don't suit him, but then so do I,"said Bob Livingston, a former Republican Speaker of the House who chaired the committee from 1995-1998. When the G.O.P. took control of Congress in 1994, Obey — as outgoing chairman — left Livingston a big bottle of Scotch in the desk drawer and a note that read "Best Wishes on an Outstanding Chairmanship." The gesture was indicative of how bipartisan the committee has been and remains to this day.

"When I go over and talk to him about an issue in my district, it's not like a Republican talking to a Democrat, it's like a fellow legislator talking to a fellow legislator,"said Congressman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican who serves on the committee. "And he listens and tries to help you out and there's probably nobody that understands the federal budget better than he does."

His colleagues, knowing his "unique mercury reading," have developed a system on how best to approach Obey, according to Rahm Emanuel, the No. 4 House Democrat. "If there are three or more pencils in his suit pocket, my recommendation is to stay away,"Emanuel said. "And if those pencils are pointing up, my recommendation is definitely stay away — approach at your own risk!"

It was Obey's temper that got him into trouble last year when he was approached in the hallway by a member of an antiwar group called Code Pink. Calling them "idiot Democrats" who couldn't grasp why it was impossible to cut funding to the troops at that time, Obey became a YouTube star for that, and he later apologized.

"I wouldn't have had a prayer in those circumstances of taking that action last year. I mean, pardon me for taking into consideration the situation at that time," Obey said, a pencil flipping through his fingers. "I mean, that's what people do unless they're lemmings. I have no apology for trying to be pragmatic. What we were trying to do at the time is to build enough pressure on Republican Senators so that enough Republicans would switch in order to make possible some change."

Obey insists Democrats haven't abandoned that strategy — one way or another a change will be forced by next spring, he says, when the money starts dwindling for the troops. Republican Senators, he argues, "won't buy into exactly what we're pushing but they will insist that the President will adjust his policy."

Denial

Bush the Liar Escalates War Threats Against Iran

24 October 2007

by Larry Everest

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush clashed over Iran, highlighting just how extreme tensions are and the danger of a U.S. attack (as well as the sharpening imperialist rivalry between the U.S. and Russia overall).

Putin, on the first visit to Iran by a Russian head of state in over 60 years, denounced U.S. threats, declaring, “We should not even think of making use of force in this region…. Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of force as a possibility.” Putin, who has so far resisted U.S. demands for more punitive sanctions against Iran, also stated there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Two days later, President Bush hit back and took the war threats to a new level: “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War 3, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” The White House tried to downplay Bush’s remark, claiming it was just “a rhetorical point.” But the threat of world war was out there (implicitly directed at Russia as well!). And Bush was clearly demanding that Russia go along with his insistence that Iran be prevented from having even a nuclear energy program (which is legal under current treaties), because the technology needed could be used for weapons.

The Bush-Putin clash comes as the Bush regime, with support of most of the U.S. ruling class, has increasingly targeted Iran as the main obstacle to its Middle East agenda, and may be preparing for war. The administration has orchestrated a propaganda campaign centered on accusations that Iran is building nuclear weapons and directing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. The House and Senate have both passed resolutions labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist organization”—potentially a war trigger. The Bush regime is waging a “financial war” on Iran and trying to get other big powers to tighten economic sanctions. Nearly half the U.S.’s warships have recently been stationed near Iran. The Pentagon has been drawing up military plans for striking Iran for over a year. Earlier this month, the New Yorker magazine’s Seymour Hersh reported that “There has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning.”

U.S. Allegations Against Iran: Lies, Hypocrisy, and a Cover For An Imperial Agenda

What of U.S. charges that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and attacking U.S. forces in Iraq?

First, there’s the enormity of U.S. hypocrisy. The U.S. already has thousands of nuclear warheads, and while the Bush regime condemns Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, it refuses (in its negotiations with Russia) to accept any limits on the number of nukes the U.S. can build.

The U.S.—not Iran—illegally invaded and occupied Iraq. Yet Bush and company denounce Iran for “interference” in Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. is funding and organizing covert military and political operations inside Iran!

So the imperialist logic at work here is that only the U.S. has the right to threaten the world with nuclear weapons (and have more than anyone else), and to intervene and wage war against other countries.

Second, the U.S. has produced no conclusive evidence for its charges. Secretary of State Rice recently declared that Iran was “lying” about its nuclear program, but she offered no proof. People should remember that these are the same proven liars in the Bush regime who knowingly spread the lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD before the Iraq war.

After many inspections, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If, however, it is the case that Iran’s reactionary Islamic Republic wants to build nuclear weapons, and they are concealing such a program, who is the U.S. to declare itself the global enforcer of nuclear restraint? The United States is the only country in the world to have used the atomic bomb—twice, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—to massacre civilians. And why does the U.S.’ massive current arsenal of nuclear weapons give it the right to threaten or carry out military aggression against Iran?

And what about Iran’s involvement in attacks on U.S. forces?

The U.S. military has held press conference after press conference displaying Iranian weapons allegedly found in Iraq. But none have provided any firm evidence that these weapons came from Iran, that they were used to attack U.S. forces, or that the Iranian government was directly involved. The captured weapons could have come from old Iraqi stockpiles or the region’s extensive arms black market. Former chief U.S. arms inspector David Kay told Hersh that his team had been astounded at “the huge amounts of arms” it found in Iraq right after the 2003 invasion, including “stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators” or “EFPs.” These are the weapons the U.S. has been claiming could only have come from Iran.

On the other hand, if it is the case that Iran is providing weapons to forces in Iraq, who is the United States, the country that has illegally occupied the whole country, to use Iranian interference in Iraq as a cause for war on Iran? It is as if someone carried out a home invasion robbery, ransacked a home, raped and brutalized the inhabitants, and continued to terrorize the people there. And then, because they suspected that someone else, in the house next door, was trying to steal from the house they were terrorizing, they threatened to go on and attack and carry out another home invasion of the house next door.

Nor is the U.S. being driven by its feigned concern for the very real suffering of the region’s people at the hands of Islamic fundamentalism, Iran’s Islamic Republic in particular. The U.S. sees Islamic fundamentalism as a major obstacle to their ambitions not because the U.S. imperialists have a problem with the repressive and obscurantist program of the Islamic fundamentalists. They work with and through such forces where they can do so in a way that fits their needs. But the problem the U.S. has with the Islamic fundamentalists is that they present a widespread counter-force and threat to what the U.S. is trying to impose on the world, and—to the U.S. imperialists—an intolerable threat to their interests.

Any U.S. Aggression Against Iran Is…
Aggression

Even if the Iranian regime is attempting to build nuclear weapons, or is behind some of the attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, or further intensifies its oppression of the Iranian people—none of this would justify any U.S. war on Iran. Such a war would make things much worse for the people in the region (and the world), including because it would further fuel Islamic fundamentalism and strengthen the current nightmarish framework in which imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism are held forth as humanity’s only choices. Any U.S. war would not be aimed at ending oppression or freeing the people; it would be aimed at perpetuating their enslavement—under a strengthened U.S. domination over the whole region.

This is not to say that the U.S. doesn’t have real—imperialist—concerns about Iran. Far too many people are downplaying the danger of a U.S. attack on Iran because they think Bush is too unpopular to launch another war, or too bogged down in Iraq, or not “crazy” enough to risk a regional conflagration. Or, that the stresses and strains on the U.S. “alliance” (including the withdrawal of British troops from Basra, and the increasing tension between the U.S. on the one hand, and Russia on the other) will deter the U.S. from launching an attack on Iran. Or they think the U.S. is simply making things up about Iran out of sheer arrogance or irrational belligerence.

Bush is certainly unpopular and a proven liar, and the U.S. is definitely bogged down in Iraq. Even many in the ruling class worry that attacking Iran could end up greatly weakening the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world (and these divisions may be one reason war hasn’t yet taken place). And there are both strains in the U.S. “alliance,” and increasing contention with other powers in the region.

But there are actual imperialist necessities and concerns driving the U.S. rulers. And some of the reasons that people don’t believe there will be a war on Iran are actually reasons why the U.S. rulers do see a need to attack Iran. They cannot, for example, just let other powers perceive their alliance as crumbling, and let their rivals of any kind make a move on “their” global domination. They cannot be perceived as having their asses kicked by the Islamic fundamentalists, any more than a big time mobster can let people see a small time gangster get away with defying his authority.

The US “war on terror” is not about ending “terror” as they claim, or “bringing democracy to Iraq” or anywhere else. It is essentially a war for greater empire. This war is focused on defeating Islamic fundamentalism and those who support or fuel it. It’s a war with many targets, employing many means. The Bush regime feels that victory would enable the U.S. to transform the Middle East-Central Asian regions, cut the ground from under anti-U.S. jihadism, and solidify and deepen U.S. control.

For decades, control of the Middle East—for its strategic location at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe and its vast oil reserves—has been a key component of America’s imperialist superpower status. Today, the U.S. rulers view the control of these regions as even more critical to perpetuating their status as global overlords, and to the future of their empire and rule at home. So for them, the stakes really are enormous.

It is this agenda, not “stopping terrorism,” that was behind the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, as a springboard to further asserting U.S. domination of the Middle East and crushing, or subordinating, Islamic fundamentalist forces that they perceive to be in their way. But things aren’t going as the Bush regime planned. Iraq has become a potential debacle that is tying down thousands of U.S. troops. Pro-Iranian forces have considerable influence in the Iraqi government. Iranian influence in Iraq is growing (last week Iraq signed a contract with Iran and China to build power plants, much to the Bush administration’s dismay). Islamic fundamentalism has been fueled across the region. As a sharp expression of the point that U.S. imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism both oppose and reinforce each other, one product of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has been the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pro-Iranian forces could become dominant in Lebanon. In sum, the geopolitical “playing field” in the Middle East seems to be tilting against the U.S., and Iran stands to be the beneficiary—whether it is directly behind any particular development or not. And a nuclear-armed Iran would be an even bigger obstacle to U.S. regional hegemony and military dominance.

So the U.S. establishment—including both the hardcore around Bush and Cheney as well as the Democrats and others—is largely united on the need to confront Iran and roll back its influence, one way or another. (In a forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton writes, “If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”)

For now, the U.S. is at the very least pursuing a full-court press of diplomatic, economic, political and military pressure against Iran designed to force the Islamic Republic to cave in to U.S. demands, and/or to trigger internal upheaval and the regime’s collapse. Britain’s Telegraph reported on September 16, “Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.” And many in and out of the Bush administration—particularly Vice President Dick Cheney and his allies—are aggressively pushing for strikes on Iran, which, according to Hersh, Bush is actively considering even as he claims to be striving for a diplomatic solution.

In any event, should the U.S. full-court press fail—and Putin’s visit to Iran apparently represented a blow to U.S. plans—the rulers may be forced to confront the choice “between the devil and the deep blue sea,” as the saying goes; a choice between seeing Iran emerge strengthened, seriously undercutting their entire “war on terror” and all its objectives, or “escaping forward” by rolling the dice of escalation.

A U.S. war on Iran might not even be a fully conscious, much less unanimous, decision of ruling class strategists. The huge U.S. buildup of warships in the Gulf, along with the presence of U.S. operatives inside Iran, has created a situation where war could break out by accident.

In early September, Israeli aircraft reportedly carried out an attack on Syria, which has a defense treaty with Iran. Commentators speculated on whether, and how, this attack might be connected to an Israeli attack on Iran, including whether Israel was testing new Russian anti-aircraft weapons recently acquired by Syria as part of assessing a possible air route for an Israeli strike on Iran. While Israel has its own distinct agenda, the larger framework for Israeli military aggression (and for the very existence of Israel) is the furtherance of U.S. interests. Israel is financially, politically, and militarily sponsored by the U.S. as its “trigger-happy cop” in the region, and it is highly unlikely that this raid on Syria took place outside overall U.S. strategic planning for a war on Iran. Shortly after the raid, Newsweek magazine reported that former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. And Newsweek added that a military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then launch airstrikes of its own.

But regardless of the “trigger,” regardless of the particular role of Israel, and regardless of whether such a war was the result of an unplanned accident, or a conscious decision, a U.S. war on Iran would be an outgrowth of U.S. aggressive actions. It would still be an expression of U.S. imperial interests. And in the event of such an “accidental” war, even bitter opponents of the Bush regime within the ruling class like Zbigniew Brzezinski—who has said that he thinks such a war would be a disaster—have said that they would feel compelled to support it once begun.

The U.S. rulers have shown in Iraq that they are willing to destroy the lives of millions in pursuit of their reactionary ambitions. Those ambitious are unjust, oppressive, and in the service of a world of exploitation and oppression. They are not the interests of the people of the world, including people in this country, and it is the special responsibility of people in the United States to build a movement to oppose any attempt by the U.S. to attack Iran, under any pretense. The development of such a movement will inspire people all over the world, including in the Middle East, to see beyond the so-called “alternatives” of Islamic fundamentalism and U.S. imperialism.

Checking His Phone

Really makes one think, of how many people in the world; have cell phones.

U.S. War Strategy?

In contractors' shootings, Iraqis search for justice

Brothers Ameer (l.) and Ahmed Raed lost their best friend, cousin, and band mate, Ahmed Haythem al-Rubaie, in a Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad involving Blackwater USA.
Sam Dagher

The US Embassy in Iraq is now offering to pay relatives of those killed in a shooting involving Blackwater USA.

25 October 2007

By Sam Dagher

Baghdad- Mohammed Hafidh says he refused to accept an envelope filled with $12,500 in cash from Patricia Butenis, deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Baghdad, as compensation for the death of his 10-year-old son, Ali.

"I told her that I want the courts to have their say," says Mr. Hafidh, whose son was among 17 Iraqi civilians killed in a Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater USA security guards – private contractors who were escorting a US diplomat at the time.

Haythem al-Rubaie, who lost his son and wife in the same shooting, says he won't even meet with Ms. Butenis, who offered cash compensation on Wednesday to seven of the victims' families, including Hafidh.

Pastor Jules Vivian from an Assemblies of God Christian church in Baghdad says the Iraqi government must put an end to the "law of the jungle" when it comes to security contractors like Blackwater.

He lost Jenevia Jalal, a close friend and minister at his church, who was killed along with a female friend a few weeks after the Blackwater incident by security guards working for another private company, Unity Resources Group (URG).

In a country that has grown almost numb to daily bloodshed, those two incidents triggered widespread outrage at the hired foreign gunmen, who many Iraqis say are mercenaries with licenses to kill. The incidents were a tipping point for Baghdadis, who regularly complain they are bullied by bands of heavily armed contractors bulldozing through traffic in SUVs or armored pickup trucks.

Anywhere from 125,000 to 180,000 foreign contractors operate at any given time in Iraq. Blackwater alone has been involved in at least 195 escalation-of-force incidents since 2005.

Tension over the case continues to rise between the US Embassy and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, seemingly eager to show he is standing up to Blackwater and other security firms. On Wednesday, his government issued an executive order that "cancels" legal immunity for private security groups, a move that still needs approval from Iraq's parliament.

Many Iraqis, especially the victims' families, say that the contractors should face charges in an Iraqi court. They say they are not willing to let the contractors go unpunished, despite the fact that the US government has already started the process of offering many victims' relatives compensation.

Mirembe Natongo, an Embassy spokesperson specially designated to comment on the Blackwater case, says offering to compensate families before the investigation is completed, is "standard procedure … and is not an admission of culpability."

Mr. Rubaie wrote to Mr. Maliki asking the prime minister to take up the case. "I asked the Iraqi government for justice. I said we will only be respected by others if our own government protects and values us," he says. "Justice must be served. Just the way human life is dear in their countries, we want it to be the same here."

Oversight of security firms

The pressure that is being brought by the victims' families and the Iraqi government appears to be pushing the US State Department to reconsider oversight of firms that it contracts to protect its employees. Currently they have immunity from prosecution in Iraq, a policy instituted by L. Paul Bremer, head of the former US-led occupation authority until June 2004.

The State Department director of management policy, Patrick Kennedy, who is tasked with reviewing the department's own security practices in Iraq and who was recently in Baghdad, presented Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday with a final report containing some 19 recommendations.

Mr. Kennedy told reporters Wednesday that these include formalizing the requirement, which was already put in place after the Sept. 16 shooting, of having agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security accompany each convoy and installing video recording, audio, and tracking equipment inside the vehicles.

The report also calls for tightening the rules for the use of deadly force and requiring private contractors, such as Blackwater, to undergo training to enhance their "cultural awareness" and to hire Arabic language-speaking staff.

The main point of contention between the Iraqis and the Americans is the immunity enjoyed by private contractors, a policy commonly referred to by Iraqis as Mr. Bremer's "Order 17," as it was the 17th order of his administration here.

US officials are asking Maliki to delay any action against Blackwater until the FBI completes its investigation and a recently created Iraqi-US joint commission, which met for the first time Oct. 7, reviews the results and makes recommendations on the overall status of private security companies in Iraq.

"Blackwater guards committed an unjustified crime in cold blood intended to kill as many Iraqis as possible," says Sami al-Askari, a senior adviser to Maliki. "The American side says it needs much more time … but the prime minister wants them [Blackwater] to leave now. They must leave."

The drive for justice in Iraq

Rubaie says he was urged by a State Department official he met on Saturday to put a dollar figure on his loss.

"I asked him if the price would differ if those killed were Americans," he says. "I gave him an astronomical number and insisted that I write on the form that I retain the right to file a lawsuit. My life has been shattered."

Rubaie's son, Ahmed, was reportedly the first to be shot in the Blackwater incident. He probably encountered the guards as they entered a roundabout going against traffic. They were attempting to evacuate a US diplomat caught in a nearby bombing.

Ahmed was driving his mother, a dermatologist, for errands in western Baghdad after dropping off his father, a physician specializing in blood diseases, at work. His friends remember the third-year medical student as popular and energetic, who loved soccer and singing in Spanish with his guitar band. Rubaie still aches with sorrow for his wife, Mahasen. The two were college sweethearts who met in Baghdad while in medical school. They were married soon after graduation.

Lost: Ali Mohammed Hafidh, seated, died in a shooting involving Blackwater. His family was offered $12,500 in compensation.Courtesy of the Hafidh family

For Hafidh, who lost his young son, the shooting "was a nightmare. I saw them shoot at people who were already dead over and over again."

He says the FBI paid him $3,500 a week ago in compensation for his damaged car that was being withheld for the investigation. In a previous interview with a State Department official last week, Hafidh wrote on a claims form that he wanted $15 million in total compensation, an apology from Blackwater, and assistance to leave the country with his wife and three other children.

Blackwater declined comment for this article. In an interview with CNN on Oct. 14, Blackwater's founder, Erik Prince, said he could not be subjected to Iraqi justice because there is no such thing. "In the ideal sense, we would be subject to the Iraqi law, but that would mean … there was a functioning Iraqi court system where Westerners would actually get a fair trial…. That's not the case right now."

He said Blackwater was accountable under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The US military, which conducted its own investigation, also refused comment for the article, despite having said in the past that there was no evidence that Blackwater was shot at by insurgents that day as it claims.

Susan Burke, the lead counsel in a civil suit against Blackwater filed in Washington earlier this month, says this makes it possible for the Department of Defense to file a criminal suit against the shooters and the company in America.

Ms. Burke says more plaintiffs will be joining the civil suit that was filed on behalf of families of three of the dead and a wounded person in conjunction with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. It seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

"We want the punitive damage to be high enough so they take it seriously and change their corporate culture and behavior," she said in a telephone interview from Philadelphia.

The end of a dream

Mr. Askari, Maliki's adviser, says in contrast to Blackwater's widely perceived defiance in the face of Iraqi charges of wrongdoing, the Australian-owned URG was quick to apologize for the shooting this month and offer to compensate the victims' families.

Still, the pastor at the church where Ms. Jalal served also says compensation alone is not enough.

"The main thing I want is justice," says Mr. Vivian from the backyard of the Church of New Life.

The sound of electric organs could be heard from inside the church as members of the congregation gathered for a service last week.

Friend and taxi driver Marany Awaness was driving Jalal and two of Jalal's relatives back home when they encountered URG guards who were protecting a client working on a US government-funded contract. The Australian-owned company, which is based in Dubai and registered in Singapore, said Ms. Awaness, who was killed with Jalal, failed to heed several warning signals to stop.

Vivian had known Jalal, who was in her early 30s, for 12 years when she and her two sisters joined the church. They hail from an Armenian Orthodox family. Jalal worked at the church as an accountant and was an active minister and counselor. Vivian says Jalal was like a mother to her sisters after their mother passed away a few years ago. The sisters refused to immigrate to America last year with their father.

"The dream that Jenevia had in her life was to help Iraq and its people," he says. "Her laughs and fresh spirit made you feel you were in the presence of someone who loved life and wanted to do something good for people."

Moon Dim Night's

On a moon dim night such as this
One ponders
Looking towards the mist.

Eyes of hollowness
Gown all racked and torn
As its skirts across the cobblestones.

The house lays empty to the mortal heart
But creeping from a distant realm
Is a young woman who does not rest,
In tombs of marble and of wood.

She searches for a child you see
That was lost a fateful night
As she lay in sweat and pain.

For it has been hundred years or more-
For her son grew up without her,
Only to be lost from a shipmates voyage
In the distant land of Spain.

- Deborah