http://lnk.nu/infowars.net/6z7.htm

(NUMEROUS Supporting Links at Source URL Above)

-



-

It’s About A Lot More Than A "Goddamned Piece of Paper"

Bush Remark Reiterates Arrogant Globalist/Neocon "Crazies" Insane Lust For New World Order Prevalence And Power

-

Steve Watson | December 12 2005

-

“Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act,” writes Doug Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue. “GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.” Thompson reports the following exchange:

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

“I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ‘a goddamned piece of paper.’” Thompson comments

This is just the latest remark in a long history of arrogant Neocon speak to highlight the fact that they have no respect for America or its population. The fact that Bush's remarks were so off the cuff yet viciously delivered reminds us of how and why the Neoconservative clan, who were just getting a foothold during the first year of the Regan administration, through their actions and incessant saber-rattling garnered the nickname 'the crazies' by more moderate policy makers under the first Bush presidency. Colin Powell, an establishment underling through and through, would go one further, calling them "fucking crazies" during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

For the President of the United States to verbally wipe the floor with the Constitution and curse it in the way Bush has and it go virtually unreported serves as an indication of the threat America is facing today from an Elite power structure that cares nothing for the country it has usurped and is hell bent on centralizing power globally and undermining the principles America was founded on.

The US is a Constitutional Republic, yet to Bush's handlers, the globalist Neocons, that is not part of the agenda. In an entirely Orwellian fashion they have attempted to change the meaning of "Democracy" and adopt it as a form of governance to fit their agenda. The word democracy originates from three Greek words meaning "the people", "to rule," and the suffix ía; the term therefore means "rule by the people" by which is meant rule by the majority.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual or "Tyranny of the majority". For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.

So the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is a Republic.

The Neocons have adopted the word Democracy and attached their world view to it. This as we have previously exposed is a Straussian world view - after Leo Strauss, who arrived in the US in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973.



Strauss was a German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to representative democratic government. Strauss, as revealed in a major New Yorker article by legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, believed the world to be a place where "isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad", and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to "protect" their countries.

Shadia Drury, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, commented that Hersh was correct on the second point but wrong on the first, insisting that "Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat." She goes on to comment that "Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them."

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, "some are fit to lead, and others to be led", according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

We have previously exposed how many major players in the Bush Administration and leading Neoconservative think tanks are followers of Strauss. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Weekly Standard chief editor William Kristol, His father Irving, and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Also on the books of PNAC, prior to the 2000 election were Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as well as former defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Other luminaries included Jon Bolton, now Ambassador to the UN and Scooter Libby, soon to be in prison.



Also present was the darling of many Western academic institutions Francis Fukuyama who's "End of History" antics had gained him loving praise from the Straussian Neocons and got him into the State Department. Fukuyama says that we have reached “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution" and believes in "the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." This is perfect for the Neocon Globalists because it means they can justify "protecting" this "perfect" end point of mankind's evolution and it's global spread at ANY cost. Fukuyama was a staple of my International Relations MA 2 years ago and is so now in institutions all over the Western world.

The PNAC way of thinking has been implemented almost to the book since 9/11. Their flagship document, Rebuilding America's Defenses noted that in order to go ahead with their strategy their would have to be some kind of pivotal event that would unite the American people behind the Government. This was referred to as "a new Pearl Harbor" and came to pass on September 11 2001.

Leo Strauss was also a strong believer in the "Realism" form of International Relations made prominent by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought that human nature was intrinsically aggressive and could be restrained only through a State formed via a powerful military industrial complex . "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people."

"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured. This is what Henry Kissinger was referring to in that often quoted statement he made about creating external future threats in order to guard the world order he wishes to see become more prevalent and powerful, the system we often refer to as the "New World Order". Thus for the Neocons, when the Soviet Empire weakened and a Unipolar world order was emerging, a new threat had to be there lurking to allow them to further their Straussian vision.

"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time [to survive]," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy", she added.

The BBC earlier this year aired a series of documentaries that went some way to explaining the rise of the Neocon movement out of Straussian Philosophy. It was entitled the Power of Nightmares and concluded that the War On Terror is a complete fraud and Al Qaeda is a largely manufactured threat as part of the agenda to scare people into accepting the Neocon vision of the New World Order. You can watch all three parts by clicking here

This is how "crazy" the Neoconservative view is. It is a deeply pessimistic world view and they are constantly trying to make it a reality. They actually really believe that life on this planet is simply about death, destruction and gaining total Global Power over any other way of existence. In the early years of the Reagan Administration, before the term Neocon was even coined these people were emerging. Witness Reagan Pentagon adviser and former State Department and National Security Council man Michael Ledeen, who is quoted as saying : "Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal."



In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

All you have to do to predict where things are headed next is read the documents and policy reports that they put out. You don't even have to read into them if you don't want to. For example Michael Ledeen's last book was entitled Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism.

These people are indeed "fucking crazy". They can see no other future for this planet than continual total complete and unequivocal war and destruction in the name of "security" for their own twisted beliefs and way of existence. The remarkable thing is that they think they are the good guys and everyone else is evil.

"We're going to get criticized for being an imperial power anyway, so you might as well make sure that the good guys win." - Bill Kristol.



Now whether there are two warring factions of the New World Order in the 21st Century is something to be considered. Many believe that the Anglo-American Neocon Globalist vision differs from the older European vision for a new world order which is one of more incremental steps and an evolving globe of Nations under the control of a world government. This is sometimes referred to rather loosely in many cases as Neo-Liberalism.

In any case both visions are thinking beyond America or even sovereign state systems. They simply have to work within state systems to begin with because that is the way the world has evolved. Both visions overlap in various places and yes they do have their spats, but the overlords, the higher uppers, the Global Mafia as it were, the elite bankers and the policy foundations, those who finance the power structures, do so with ultimately the same goal in mind, they simply sometimes argue over how to get it done.

This becomes even more evident when you research deeper into the roots of Neoconservatives like Irving Kristol and James Burnham who were both strong admirers of Leon Trotsky. The Internationalist movement under Trotsky is often thought to be at the opposite end of the political scale to Neoconservativism, but when you expose the left/right political scale as a falsity, a cover for a higher elite level of globalism, the walls come crumbling down.

The Trotsky / Neocon links are further exposed in a 2003 National Post article entitled Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House. There is no doubt that the links exist, and furthermore they highlight the false left right paradigm by showing that so called Trotskyites can just as easily switch to Neoconservativism should the moment in world politics be right. They will use whichever end of the scale they believe is more likely to help them advance their quest for power.

As quoted in the afore mentioned article, Researcher Christopher Phelps rightly points out, that the circuitous route from Trotsky to Bush is "more a matter of rupture and abandonment of the left than continuity."

Of course, the rise of the Neocon cabal and the trashing of the constitution has not come without overarching help along the way from a gigantic propaganda machine. There has arisen a faction of media Neocons who are now also knowingly or unknowingly following the Straussian philosophical vision.



The Murdoch empire is a nice little Goebbels factory that attempts to churn out the same rhetoric as the Neocons until the general public actually believe it to be reality. Fox "News" is not actually news, it is Opinion on the world. This New York Times Article hits the nail on the head when writer Ron Suskind relates an encounter he had with a senior Bush aide in 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Creating false realities that fit the power structure's preconceived agenda is completely Straussian. The bad news for us is it's also completely Orwellian. In Nineteen Eighty Four George Orwell warned us of where this would lead if we allowed it to happen - and we know it's not pretty.

As Bush has been told (and has repeated) "You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda" In other words, if you throw enough BS, some of it is going to stick, and that's what Mr Murdooch's job is.

Of course there are also the Murdoch underlings and wannabe's who are the useful Neocon mouthpieces. Limbaugh, Hannity and O'reilly like to tell people to shut up and accept that torture is no big deal and war based on lies is acceptable if it is for the good of America.

Bill Kristol gets to go on Fox and tell us what's really going on everyday, whilst Ann Coulter likes to call for North Korea to be "nuked for fun".

And then you have Clear Channel who own the voting machines and put up giant Billboards telling us that George W Bush is "OUR LEADER".



But after all, what's the big deal about Bush trashing the Constitution? Fox News didn't report it, that means it didn't happen, doesn't it?

Besides, I thought that if you defend the Constitution, you were now considered a terrorist? That's what this FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force brochure says anyway. Defenders of the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being classified on the same level as Nazis and the KKK.

Therefore George Bush was right to say “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”, otherwise he's a terrorist.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11293.htm

-

Sell Off Your Oil Wealth and Ye Shall be Free
 
America’s Lust For Oil in Iraq 
 
By James Houle 

-

12/12/05 "ICH" -- -- The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) plan for the Middle East was fleshed-out in a policy paper issued in early 2002 entitled “Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth” and produced at the American Heritage Foundation by Aaron Cohen and Gerald O’Driscoll. Reissued by the State Department in February 2003, it provided the rationale for the Bush oil policy for Iraq in those heady days after the thunderous advance up the road to Baghdad. They proposed to sell off all of the oil resources of Iraq, currently held in trust by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC), to major US oil firms. Privatization of Iraqi oil, literally the sale of rights to own and exploit the country’s oil and gas resources, was trumpeted as the cure for all ailments. The nationalization of the country’s oil by the socialist government in the 1960s, they explained, has resulted in corruption, mismanagement and a failure to expand production. Nationalization has been used to “keep a precious and profitable resource in the hands of the ruling elite”. Privatization, by contrast, would sell these resources to private oil, increase production rapidly, reduce prices, and allow Iraq to leave OPEC (the Saudi-dominated cartel that controls oil supply and keeps prices high). Getting Iraq out of OPEC would increase oil revenues, the Neo Cons explained and thus “dampen oil price fluctuations, ensuring stable oil prices in the world market on a price range lower than the current $25 to $30 a barrel”. (In actual fact, Saudi Arabia, the swing producer in the Middle East with considerable flexibility in its production rates, has more often acted to hold oil prices in line, preventing price spikes that could lead the US to seriously conserve energy.)  

The Department of Energy predicted that Iraqi oil production would soon double if privatized and oil revenues would bring in $50-100 billion during the next 2 to 3 years. With these glowing predictions in mind, seizing and securing the oil fields was given highest priority during the invasion. The White House had predicted during the buildup to the invasion that oil revenues would pay the entire cost of the invasion and occupation as well any necessary rebuilding effort. Paul Wolfowitz happily explained that while “Iraq was going to soon become a democratic country, what we’re going to do with respect to the oil resources is something 99 percent of the Iraqis would not vote for”. Thus the grab for the country’s assets has got to be accomplished quickly before an elected government is in place that might not take kindly to this loss of the country’s most important asset. (So much for spreading democracy). 

Mixed Signals Out of Baghdad

General Jay Garner, appointed by President Bush to be Pro-Consul of the new Iraq, made his big career mistake in March 2003 on his way to Baghdad by announcing that Iraq would have free and fair elections just as soon as Saddam was toppled, preferably within 90 days. This could certainly derail Wolfowitz’ plan to sell off the oil wealth before the people got the vote. However not to worry, for Garner’s “90-days-to-democracy” ideal immediately ran into a practical problem: The entire oil sector couldn’t possibly be wrapped up and sold off in 90 days, even with the help of  “e-Bay”. In fact, the State Department’s Economic Plan optimistically called for a 360-day schedule for a free-market face-lift for the entire country. (None of this has been achieved although some 900 days have now passed). Garner had an additional problem: he didn’t really agree with the planned sell off of oil. “That’s one fight you don’t want to take on,” he explained later in Washington. He was summarily deposed by Don Rumsfeld in a telephone call on his very first day in Baghdad. Paul Bremer, an employee of Kissinger Associates, was his replacement. Bremer proved to be a gung-ho advocate of free markets and the privatization of practically everything on Iraq that did not move.

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, moved to Baghdad and took control of Iraq's oil production on behalf of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority and immediately stalled the whole sell-off scheme. He made it clear to Bremer that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved.” In response to later criticism by Aaron Cohen at the Heritage Foundation, Carroll dismissed him as follows: “To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain". Later, he explained that: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology." This remark could be translated as: Big Oil lets the geology tell them where the oil is, and employs the common sense gained over many years to then guide them in how best to get it produced.

Privatization Blocked by Industry

In contrast to the views heard in Washington and initially from Bremer’s office, advisors from big US oil firms summarily dismissed the notion of undermining OPEC by over producing and flooding the market.  A new oil policy was ordered up and a team assembled in Washington that included both well-experienced Iraqi oil experts and US oil company executives working under the cover of the State Dept. Their late 2003 report entitled “Options for Developing a Long Term Sustainable Iraq Oil Industry” compared six alternatives ranging from total state control and financing of oil development (the Saudi model) to full privatization as advocated by the Neo Cons, and included the scheme advanced by the international oil companies called the Production Sharing Agreement. Recent analysis has suggested that the privatization scheme advocated by some of the neo-conservatives was actually a misconception of what the term meant in the petroleum sector. Iraqis have little such confusion since under the British Mandate in 1925 their King Faisal (a British import) had signed away for 75 years all rights to the country’s oil resources under a privatization policy. It was not until 1961 that a more equitable split of revenues between the state and the international oil companies was negotiated.  

Production Sharing Agreements or PSAs are widely used in smaller producing countries without the financial clout to self-finance oil field development and are particularly useful for high risk oil where the volume of recoverable oil is not well assured. Under a PSA, the state nominally owns the oil resources but hands over their development and exploitation to the international oil companies.  Ms Amy Jaffe, who coordinated the State Department report, has explained that Big Oil prefers state control of Iraq's oil over an outright sell-off of the oil resources as would occur under privatization. Furthermore, US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine OPEC and the current high oil prices. Ms. Jaffe said: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American oil company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I could say high oil prices are bad for me for my company."  

Given the heat coming from the wiser heads in the US oil industry and the opposition of the Iraqis, Bremer quickly removed oil from his hit list of national assets to be privatized in a hurry. In September of 2003 the newly installed Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, earlier an advisor at the State Department, said privatization of production was not an option. While he favored some type of PSA, he thought it unlikely that Big Oil would come back to Iraq until there was better security in the country.

The Oil Patch Goes Up In Smoke 

Within weeks of the collapse of the Saddam Hussein government, insurgents thought to be agents of Saddam Hussein were blowing up the major pipelines that transport oil southward to the oil terminal on the Gulf, and northward through Turkey. With the capture of Saddam, the attacks only accelerated, and from January 2004 through early September of 2005, 230 major attacks were successfully carried off on the oil infrastructure. While a total of 12,000 guards have been positioned along these pipelines, sabotage continues. If it remains the perception of Iraqis that their oil wealth is being ripped off by the West, then oil facilities will remain a key target for insurgents. The blowing up of an oil pipeline is seen as a good means of preventing oil from becoming too attractive a prize. Any means to shut off this revenue stream will make the war more costly to the US taxpayer. Most of these attacks have been on pipelines and pumping stations, rather than on the oil wells or the downstream oil processing and refining facilities. Thus the sabotage slows down temporarily the flow of oil to markets but does not cause major damage to installations that would require a years to replace. As a consequence, oil production has declined ever since the first day of the invasion. It is now under 2.0 million barrels per day on average compared with 2.6 million just before the invasion. The Saddam Hussein regime had boosted production to 3.4 million barrels per day prior to the first Gulf War. Oil has been lost to corruption within the Oil Ministry, to black marketeering, and to downright theft. The failure to operate water injection plants for pressure maintenance in the giant Rumailia oil field has led to irreversible damage to the reservoir. Commenting upon these setbacks in December 2005, Rumsfeld carefully counted his blessings and acknowledged that while the war has not gone according to plan, many things that were feared, including lighting off of oil wells, have not happened.

Insurgents responsible for the sabotage are quoted as saying, "Look, you're losing your country and you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable.” The increasing attacks upon the oil infrastructure suggest that it is downright delusional to believe, as senior US policy makers seem to, that military force is a reasonable tool for securing access to petroleum resources. Our major oil companies, who have been exploiting foreign oil by less drastic means since 1943 in Arabia, find the Bush approach to be utterly blind to the realities of the world.
The Iraqi Interim Government Takes a Role

In September 2004, when Allawi became Prime Minister, he modified petroleum policy once again in the face of strong domestic opposition even to PSAs as a replacement for INOC control. He stated that INOC would continue to control the 17 oil fields that are now in production while PSAs would be considered for the other 63 fields that have been discovered but yet exploited. This works out to 64% of the country’s current oil reserves being turned over to international oil companies for exploitation. If an additional 100 billion barrels of reserves is discovered, as most oil experts think likely, then at least 81% of the country’s total oil wealth would be placed in the hands of foreigners. Allawi’s new oil minister said that these PSAs would be signed quickly in 2006 without extended negotiation, taking the best terms Big Oil were currently willing to accept. We can renegotiate at some future date, he suggested.

A new National Assembly was finally installed in early 2005 and in June a Petroleum Law was drafted and ready for enactment after the December 2005 elections. This draft confirms Allawi’s plan for the establishment of PSAs in the new oil fields and continued control by INOC of the existing fields. However the new Constitution approved in an October 2005 vote adds more confusion than light by waffling on the question of control over oil resources. It calls rather obscurely for the government to “rely on the most modern techniques of market principles and encourage investment”. To further confound, it does not list the exploitation of new oil fields as the exclusive power of the federal government, leaving it an open question as to whether regional governments such as Kurdistan can cut their own deals. This has already advanced a few steps with the award of an exploration and development contract to a Norwegian firm by the Kurdistan Regional Government. A big battle between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shi’ites over regional oil exploitation could be part of the 2006 scenario.

So How Will the Pie Be Sliced?

A serious question has been posed concerning the suitability of Production Service Agreements for Iraq. A British study by the Platform Group recently concluded in their Crude Designs – The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth that PSAs are really not much different than the old concession agreements such as were signed by King Faisal way back in the 1920s. While the country appears to retain ownership of the oil resources symbolically, the international oil companies effectively run the operation, decide the production levels, which fields to exploit and how quickly. Only 12% of the world’s oil reserves are still under PSAs and this does not include any of the major producers in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. Russia signed some PSAs in the 1990s, had a bad experience and is unlikely to repeat it. The Arab Emirates and Venezuela, the two other big producers, do not use the PSA type contract either, though they have allowed some foreign investment in their oil by other means. These 7 countries, counting Iraq, hold 72% of the world’s oil reserves. “Countries with reserves the size of Iraq’s’ do not use PSAs because they do not need them. They are able to finance their oil industry themselves on far better terms,” the Platform Study concludes. (The United States, the world’s only fully privatized oil producer, gave away its oil wealth to “wild-catters”, to the Standard Oil Trust, and to Mr. John D. Rockefeller long ago.)

The current government in Baghdad is most anxious to negotiate PSAs quickly and without public participation or debate and without a legal framework being in place. The Kurds and the Southern Provinces may wish to sign agreements as well, before the very equivocal language of the draft Petroleum Law is more carefully written. The Platform Study estimates that PSAs for new oil fields could cost the Iraqi people between $74 and $194 billion, the equivalent of $2800 to $7400 per capita at a long-term world oil price conservatively assumed to average $40 per barrel (current prices are just under $60). For comparison’s sake, the current GDP per capita in Iraq is only $2100.  

The alternative to PSAs is for INOC to maintain full ownership over both currently producing and newly developed oil fields and to finance rehabilitation and future exploitation through international loans. The financial advantages of this approach are considerable. The extent of many of Iraq’s still-undeveloped oil fields is well established, making it relatively easy to get international loans for their development, should Iraq find it difficult to pay the capital costs of oil sector expansion directly from their operating budget.  

A major fear of many observers is that the Iraqi government will quickly negotiate PSAs at terms that are decidedly unfavorable for Iraq over the long term. In such negotiations, Big Oil will understandably demand contractual conditions that reflect current risks and insecurities and the high costs protecting their employees. However, this may not give adequate weight to the fact that over the 25-year life of these PSAs, such instability would not be expected to persist. Should this fast sell-off take place, we can expect a continued insurgency, this time targeting the foreign oil companies. Will the big and well-experienced international oil companies rush into such ventures with a weak and unrepresentative government, knowing they will be highly unpopular with most Iraqis? Will instability and greed hold back development of Iraq’s oil wealth or will Big Oil recognize their long-term interests are better served in ways that show fairer and equitable benefits to all involved?  

After all, Big Oil has come to terms with strong national oil companies before, in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, and in Venezuela, and seems to be making a comfortable profit. Meanwhile, they have quietly sent a few of their experts to work with the Iraqis on rehabilitation projects and reservoir studies in places where it is relatively safe while they await a more stable political environment. Perhaps the intelligence and far-sightedness of Big Oil will save both the US and the Iraqis from the simple-minded ideologues and the plain-ass stupidity of our current Administration.

-

James Houle, has spent his career as an engineer and economist working in third world countries on development projects. He has lived and worked in the Middle East and knows the oil industry well.

---

"...Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas, reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to..." - Kenneth Derr, Halliburton Director and retired CEO of Chevron, November 5, 1998 http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

http://lnk.nu/rawstory.com/6zb.html

(Supporting Links at Source URL)

-

Diebold CEO resigns after reports of fraud litigation, internal woes

12/12/2005 @ 5:26 pm

Filed by John Byrne

-



-

The chief executive officer of electronic voting company Diebold who once famously declared that he would "deliver" Ohio for President Bush has resigned effective immediately, RAW STORY has learned.

"The board of directors and Wally mutually agreed that his decision to resign at this time for personal reasons was in the best interest of all parties," the company's new chairman said in a statement.

O'Dell's resignation comes just days after reports from BradBlog.com that the company was facing imminent securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading. It also comes on the heels of a RAW STORY interview with a Diebold insider, who raised new allegations of technical woes inside the company, as well as concerns that Diebold may have mishandled elections in Georgia and Ohio.

Diebold's chief operating officer Thomas Swidarski will take O'Dell's place.

"This has been a very challenging year for the company," Swidarski said. "We are beginning to make progress to improve some of our performance issues, reduce our cost structure by addressing inefficiencies in our manufacturing supply chain and software development processes, and instill price discipline throughout the company."

In a story last week, RAW STORY recounted allegations made by a Diebold insider who said he/she had become disillusioned after witnessing repeated efforts by the firm to evade meeting legal requirements or implementing appropriate security measures, and who alleged that Diebold had put corporate interests ahead of the interests of voters.

“I’ve absolutely had it with the dishonesty,” the insider said. Blasting Wally O’Dell, the current president of Diebold, the whistleblower went on to explain behind-the-scenes tactics of the company and its officers.

“There’s a lot of pressure in the corporation to make the numbers: `We don’t tell you how to do it, but do it.’ [O’Dell is] probably the number one culprit putting pressure on people,” the source said.

The whistleblower also questioned whether the company or its subsidiaries had mishandled a 2002 Georgia gubernatorial election and voting in Ohio this year.

Diebold spokesman David Bear rebutted the charges. “Diebold has a sterling reputation in the industry," Bear said. "It’s a 144-year-old company and is considered one of the best companies in the industry."

---

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002149.htm

(Supporting Links at Source URL)

-

Blogged by Brad on 12/12/2005 @ 1:47pm PT...

DIEBOLD CEO WALDEN O'DELL RESIGNS! FRAUD LITIGATION IMMINENT!

Controversial, Partisan Head of Voting Machine Company Steps Down Citing 'Personal Reasons'

Fraud Securities Litigation -- as previously reported in a BRAD BLOG Exclusive -- is Imminent! Most likely to be filed on Tuesday!

-

Diebold, Inc. (stock symbol: DBD ) CEO Walden O'Dell has resigned due to what company officials describe in a press release as "personal reasons". Reuters is reporting that O'Dell will...

Diebold, Inc. (stock symbol: DBD) CEO Walden O'Dell has resigned due to what company officials describe in a press release as "personal reasons". Reuters is reporting that O'Dell will be replaced by the company's president and chief operating officer, Thomas Swidarski.

As The BRAD BLOG reported exclusively late last week, the filing of a securities fraud class action litigation against the company, O'Dell and other current and former members of their Board of Directors is now imminent. The BRAD BLOG has learned that the case may be filed in Ohio Federal District court as early as today or tomorrow. We will, of course, have more details when that occurs.

O'Dell has faced a great deal of criticism for his statement to Republican fundraisers, prior to the 2004 Presidential Election, that Diebold he (see correction explanation below) was committed to delivering the electoral vote of the state of Ohio to George W. Bush. O'Dell was part of Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers," a group of individuals who had raised at least $100,000 each for Bush/Cheney's 2004 re-election campaign.

In the wake of the controversy concerning O'Dell's involvement with the Bush/Cheney campaign, a corporate policy was instituted to disallow involvement in political campaign by senior executives at the company. A report in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer late last week, however, revealed that several Diebold executives had continued to donate to GOP campaigns even after the policy was enacted. The new CEO, Swidarski appears to have given the maximum allowable $2000 contribution himself to George W. Bush's campign in 2004.

Diebold, along with Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) are the two largest Voting Machine Companies in America. Between them, they account for equipment which tallies more than 80% of America's votes.

The North Canton, Ohio-based company has faced several recent financial and upper-level management problems. A recent plummet of 15.5% in the once-venerable company's stock price occurred just days after another BRAD BLOG exclusive in which we reported on a company insider, dubbed "DIEB-THROAT", who had drawn comparisons in the companies management to the now-bankrupt Enron.

A source (not DIEB-THROAT) familiar with the company is intrigued by the news and expressed amazement that O'Dell is stepping down as both CEO and Chairman of the Board. "This was his baby," commented the source to BRAD BLOG. The source suggests this move "has the earmarks of an internal coup d'etat" given the dearth of other explanations beyond "personal reasons" as given by the company for O'Dell's departure.

As we reported last Thursday in our exclusive concerning Diebold's mounting legal problems, the company has been plagued by such issues for some time.

A "Privileged and Confidential" document [PDF] from Diebold's law firm Jones Day was leaked to the Oakland Tribune last year revealing the companies legal fees for just one two month period in the state of California were estimated at $535,000 - $925,000. The document discussed costs related to a $2.6 million dollar settlment the company eventually reached with the state, and outlined fees for "legal analysis of potential criminal violations," "White collar criminal law attorney pre-grand jury investigative advice" and even costs to "Monitor selected Web sites to gain key intelligence."

Our source, DIEB-THROAT was not surprised to hear of the pending litigation. "I am not surprised that such a lawsuit has developed [as] the company consistently offered Wall Street deceptive information."

The BRAD BLOG has been told there will be details on the litigation within the next 24 hours. We will, of course, report all such developments once they are confirmed.

---

http://lnk.nu/rawstory.com/6rx.html

(Supporting Links at Source URL)

-



-

Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record

12/06/2005 @ 1:44 pm

Filed by Miriam Raftery

-

In an exclusive interview with RAW STORY, a whistleblower from electronic voting heavyweight Diebold Election Systems Inc. raised grave concerns about the company’s electronic voting technology and of electronic voting in general, bemoaning an electoral system the insider feels has been compromised by corporate privatization.Advertisement


The Diebold insider, who took on the appellation “Dieb-Throat” in an interview with voting rights advocate Brad Friedman (BradBlog.com), was once a staunch supporter of electronic voting’s potential to produce more accurate results than punch cards.

But the company insider became disillusioned after witnessing repeated efforts by Diebold to evade meeting legal requirements or implementing appropriate security measures, putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of voters.

“I’ve absolutely had it with the dishonesty,” the insider told RAW STORY. Blasting Wally O’Dell, the current president of Diebold, the whistleblower went on to explain behind-the-scenes tactics of the company and its officers.

“There’s a lot of pressure in the corporation to make the numbers: `We don’t tell you how to do it, but do it.’ [O’Dell is] probably the number one culprit putting pressure on people,” the source said.

Diebold spokesman David Bear rebuts the charges. “Diebold has a sterling reputation in the industry," Bear said. "It’s a 144-year-old company and is considered one of the best companies in the industry."

Previous revelations from the whistleblower have included evidence that Diebold’s upper management and top government officials knew of backdoor software in Diebold’s central tabulator before the 2004 election, but ignored urgent warnings—such as a Homeland Security alert posted on the Internet.

“This is a very dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped—that’s the corporate takeover of elections,” the source warned. “The majority of election directors don’t understand the gravity of what they’re dealing with. The bottom line is who is going to tamper with an election? A lot of people could, but they assume that no one will.”

Concerns about Georgia, Ohio elections

The insider harbors suspicions that Diebold may be involved in tampering with elections through its army of employees and independent contractors. The 2002 gubernatorial election in Georgia raised serious red flags, the source said.

“Shortly before the election, ten days to two weeks, we were told that the date in the machine was malfunctioning,” the source recalled. “So we were told 'Apply this patch in a big rush.’” Later, the Diebold insider learned that the patches were never certified by the state of Georgia, as required by law.

“Also, the clock inside the system was not fixed,” said the insider. “It’s legendary how strange the outcome was; they ended up having the first Republican governor in who knows when and also strange outcomes in other races. I can say that the counties I worked in were heavily Democratic and elected a Republican.”

In Georgia’s 2002 Senate race, for example, nearly 60 percent of the state’s electorate by county switched party allegiances between the primaries and the general election.

The insider’s account corroborates a similar story told by Diebold contractor Rob Behler in an interview with Bev Harris of Black Box Voting.

Harris revealed that a program patch titled “rob-georgia.zip” was left on an unsecured server and downloaded over the Internet by Diebold technicians before loading the unauthorized software onto Georgia voting machines. “They didn’t even TEST the fixes before they told us to install them,” Behler stated, adding that machines still malfunctioned after patches were installed.

California decertified Diebold TSX touch screen machines after state officials learned that the vendor had broken state election law.

“In California, they got in trouble and tried to doubletalk. They used a patch that was not certified,” the Diebold insider said. “They’ve done this many times. They just got caught in Georgia and California.”

The whistleblower is also skeptical of results from the November 2005 Ohio election, in which 88 percent of voters used touch screens and the outcome on some propositions changed as much as 40 percent from pre-election exit polls.

“Amazing,” the Diebold insider said.

Diebold is headquartered in Ohio. Its chairman Wally O’Dell, a key fundraiser for President Bush, once promised in an invitation to a Republican fundraising dinner to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes for Bush. The staffer said the company has a deep conservative culture.

“My feeling having been really deep inside the company is that initially Diebold, being a very conservative and Republican company, felt that if they controlled an election company, they could have great influence over the outcome,” the source, a registered independent, said.

“Does that mean fixing elections? Not necessarily, but if your people are in election departments and they are biased toward Republicans, you will have an influence…I think this is what they were buying, the positioning. Obviously screwing with the software would be a homerun—and I do think that was part of their recipe for getting into the election business. But the public got involved and said 'Hey, what’s going on?' That pulled the sheet off what their plan was with these paperless voting machines.”

The difficulties of installing paper trails

Responding to public demand for paper trails, Diebold has devised a means of retrofitting its paperless TSX system with printers and paper rolls. But in Ohio’s November 2005 election, some machines produced blank paper.

The whistleblower is not surprised. “The software is again the culprit here. It’s not completely developed. I saw the exact same thing in Chicago during a demonstration held in Cook County for a committee of people who were looking at various election machines… They rejected it for other reasons.”

Asked if Ohio officials were made aware of that failure prior to the recent election, the source said, “No way. Anything goes wrong inside Diebold, it’s hush-hush.”

Most officials are not notified of failed demonstrations like the one in Cook County, the insider said, adding that most system tests, particularly those exhibited for sale are not conducted with a typical model.

California, which recently conducted a test of the system without public scrutiny that found only a three percent failure rate—far lower than earlier tests that found a 30 percent combined failure due to software crashes and printer jams.

Asked if the outcomes of the newest test should be trusted, the whistleblower, who does not know the protocols used in the California test, warned, “There’s a practice in testing where you get a pumped-up machine and pumped-up servers, and that’s what you allow them to test. Diebold does it and so do other manufacturers. It’s extremely common.”

Neither the TSX nor the older TS6 election equipment systems used by Diebold were designed to be retrofitted with paper trails. “The TSX was designed and brought to market after the paper trail issue erupted, yet it was introduced as a paperless system. But the uproar became so great… The public forced Diebold to put printers on their machines.” Adding printers to existing computer hardware together poses challenges.

The TS6 machines can’t be retrofitted with paper at all, leaving 35,000 voters in Maryland and Georgia to rely on paperless, faith-based voting.

Even if the blank paper problem could be solved, there are other serious problems with some TSX equipment. “The system that was offered to San Diego was purely experimental—the TSX and the electronic poll book, the check-in device,” the Diebold insider stated. “Voters couldn’t access the system to vote with the electronic poll book if the batteries died.” The high rate of breakdowns involving access cards for the poll book caused major problems, the source added. “The interesting part about this device is that it had never been used before. That was probably not certified.”

San Diego has since warehoused its TSX system, pending a decision by the state on whether to recertify. San Diego County now uses Diebold optical scanners—but those pose security problems as well.

Although Black Box Voting demonstrated during a demonstration in Leon County, Florida that computer experts could hack into a similar system in less than a minute and alter a memory card to switch votes, election officials still brush off concerns for additional security precautions.

San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Mikel Haas, for example, was questioned by this reporter for the city’s local paper, Citybeat. He insisted that no additional security measures were needed.

Asked if Diebold had implemented any changes to close security holes revealed by the Leon County hack, the source replied, “None that I know of.”

Informed that Haas allowed over 700 voting machines with memory cards inside to be sent home overnight with poll-workers, the insider raised alarm. “These memory cards need to be protected every single step of the way, like money. If they have people taking these machine home with memory cards, that’s out the window.”

The Diebold whistleblower also criticized election officials in San Diego and elsewhere for allowing Diebold personnel to be present when votes reach the server. “The election office’s employees—people who are paid with our tax dollars to conduct elections and have proper security elections and background check should do this – and no one else.” Manufacturers should be a mile away on election night, the source added.

The best way for concerned citizens to detect fraud is to “be there on election night” to observe vote tabulations, the insider said. But in some cities, citizens have been barred from watching votes being counted on Diebold tabulators – and in San Diego, Black Box Voting activist Jim March was arrested in July 2005 and charged with felony trespassing after entered a secured room to watch votes being counted. The charges were later dismissed.

But no amount of observation can totally protect the public from the dangers inherent in electronic voting, the whistleblower says. “People are going to end up losing their rights in many ways that they will never, never understand. For example, the new electronic databases for voter registration is a great idea, but it passes control away from local boards of elections and puts it in the hands of the states…The final database is manipulated by states instead of counties. Every state must have it. It’s mandated by [the Help America Vote Act]. It’s a sleeper issue.”

The source, who once supported the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), now concedes “it’s terrible…Most of this is a big money grab.”

The Diebold hand believes many election officials are na?ve, while others are “downright arrogant. They are serving politicians and in many cases, vendors.”

How Diebold woos state officials

The insider described a systematic process Diebold uses to woo election officials via cash doled out by lobbyists or attorneys and favors to assist budget-strapped public officials. “They promise the election directors the moon and deliver things to them that really aren’t legitimate parts of the contract.” Those promises range from providing personnel to equipping warehouses with electrical systems to recharge batteries in voting machines.

“The corporation pretty much takes over. That’s how they capture so many of these people. Diebold is making them look good and they’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them.”

Diebold creates a “monetary incentive” to stay involved via future servicing contracts after selling election equipment, the whistleblower noted, adding, “The machines are purposely complex and poorly designed.”

Noting that the GEMS software runs on Microsoft Access, Dieb-Throat observed, “There are problems that can’t be fixed. I understand they are going to redesign it around Oracle.”

Diebold spokesman David Bear denied that the company is redesigning software around an Oracle platform. “No, that’s not true to my knowledge,” he said.

Asked whether any TSX machine produced blank paper during a demonstration in Cook County, he replied, “I’m not aware of that.”

Bear initially denied that any Diebold machines in Ohio produced blank paper rolls.

“That’s not true,” he said. “They just ran an election November 8th with over 15,000 of the units and the Secretary of State was overwhelmingly pleased.” After being told of news reports describing blank paper rolls produced in Ohio, however, he replied, “It would not surprise me if a paper roll was installed upside down.”

Diebold consultant convicted for embezzlement

The Diebold insider noted that the initial GEMS system used to tabulate votes for the Diebold Opti-scan systems was designed by Jeffrey Dean, who was convicted in the early 1990s of computer-aided embezzlement. Dean was hired by Global Election Systems, which Diebold acquired in 2000. Global also had John Elder, a convicted cocaine trafficker, on its payroll. Diebold spokesman David Bear told Citybeat that Dean left shortly after the acquisition and that Elder also left “long ago.”

Black Box Voting reported that Diebold gave Elder a “golden parachute” in 2004 and that he was let go only after his criminal past was revealed by BBV and mainstream publications.

But the Diebold whistleblower told RAW STORY that Elder remained working for Diebold “as recently as the summer of this year… [Elder creates ] the paper ballots for absentee voting…They were making the ballots for the November election for sure, for all over the country.”

Bear denied that Elder is still on Diebold’s payroll as either an employee or independent contractor.

“He was with the company two companies ago, never was an employee of Diebold, and worked for a company that was acquired by Diebold,” he said.

Asked if Elder works for a company producing ballots for any of California’s Diebold systems, Bear responded, “The counties contract for that. I don’t have the slightest idea… There are probably several different companies that produce ballots for California.”

Bear denied allegations that Diebold has installed uncertified patches. “Nothing is done in any state except under guidance and authority of election officials in the state.”

He also stated that the California Secretary of State’s staff has recommended recertifying the Diebold TSX system retrofitted with paper rolls.

Bear defends Diebold's record.

“In the last presidential election, over 150,000 touch screens were run. They were recognized by CalTech and MIT for having accurately captured the vote. From the presidential election 2004, they believe over 1 million more votes were captured. They singled out touch-screens; the state with the most improvement was Georgia.” (Full text of the Caltech/MIT report)

The Diebold insider says Americans who care about their vote must remain vigilant. “I don’t look for the paperless people, the corporations, to back off at all. They will continue to try to keep the public in the dark.”

WAYNE MADSEN REPORT

http://waynemadsenreport.com/

-

December 12, 2005 -- The Washington Post is reporting that the Director of National Intelligence's Open Source Center   (OSC) (which replaced the Foreign Broadcast Information Service) is surfing blogs and web sites looking for open source intelligence to help it do its job. The center's director, CIA veteran Douglas Naquin, said, "managing the world's unclassified knowledge ... [is] much bigger than any one organization can do."

With all the recent complaints about Internet censorship and e-mail blocking, one has to wonder -- what does "managing the world's unclassified knowledge" entail? Secret deals with Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and Google to control the flow of information. What does this have to do with John Poindexter's re-engineered and re-packaged Total Information Awareness system and its Genoa I, Genoa II, and Genesys incarnations? What does OSC's Advanced Internet Exploitation training have to do with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA's) Information Exploitation Office (IXO)?



Note to OSC analysts: since the various whistleblowers from a dozen intelligence agencies cannot seem to get the attention of their management, would you be so kind as to incorporate their stories and travails found on this web site in your intelligence reports so people like John Negroponte will realize that the major problem with our intelligence agencies is their senior management? Names provided upon request.

“You can't get on the ground with a fanny pack,” he said. “You have to move it to the side.”

-

http://lnk.nu/capitolhillblue.com/6z6.shtml

-

From Capitol Hill Blue

-

CHB Investigates. . .

DHS Report ADMITS Air Marshalls 'Overreacted' In Airport Shooting

By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue

Dec 12, 2005, 08:50

-

Although the department claims otherwise publicly, a confidential internal report within the Department of Homeland Security admits air marshalls “overreacted” when they gunned down a Florida man at Miami International Airport last week.

The report, which may never be released publicly, confirms that preliminary interviews with witnesses conflict the statements of air marshalls who claim Rigoberto Alpizar shouted he had a bomb as he stormed off a plane and up a jetway at the airport.

“Although witness statements contain conflicting information, none of those interrogated following the incident collaborate any utterance by the suspect that he either possessed, or intended to detonate, an explosive device,” the report says.

A Department of Homeland Security source, unhappy with what he calls the agency’s “blatant attempt to whitewash this incident,” disclosed the contents of the report to Capitol Hill Blue.

Publicly, DHS and the Air Marshall Service claim the two agents who brought down Alpizar in a hail of bullets from their 357 Sig Sauer handguns acted “within guidelines” for handling potential terrorist activities.

"He was belligerent. He threatened that he had a bomb in his backpack,” claimed Brian Doyle, DHS spokesman. “The officers clearly identified themselves and yelled at him to 'get down, get down.' Instead, he made a move toward the backpack.”

But Alpizar, a 44-year-old naturalized American citizen from Costa Rica, suffered from bipolar disorder and had not taken his prescription medication to control the condition. The Home Depot employee who lived in Maitland, Florida, did not have a bomb and witnesses on the scene dispute the marshalls’ claim that he shouted he did.

“I can tell you, he never said a thing in that airplane; he never called out he had a bomb,” says fellow passenger Jorge Borelli, an Orlando architect.

“He just wanted to get off the plane,” says passenger John McAlhany, He adds that Alpizar was “clearly agitated” but said nothing about a bomb. “I never heard the word 'bomb' until the FBI asked me: 'Did you hear the word bomb?'”

McAlhany says other federal officers stormed onto plane, pointing guns at passangers and demanding they put their hands in front of them.

“I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said, 'Put your hands on the seat in front of you,” McAlhany says. “I got my cell phone karate-chopped out of my hand.”

The air marshalls claimed Alpizar failed to get on the ground when they demanded it and instead reached into a bag he was carrying.  McAlhany says the bag was a fanny pack.

“You can't get on the ground with a fanny pack,” he said. “You have to move it to the side.”

Another passenger says Alpizar appeared agitated but not threatening.

“The wife was telling him, 'Calm down. Let other people get on the plane. It will be all right,'” said Alan Tirpak. “I thought maybe he's afraid of flying.”

Jim Bauer, special agent in charge of the air marshalls' office in Miami, claims the killing was justified.

“This threat presented itself, and we believe it was necessary to use deadly force,” Bauer said.

But doubts continue with those who witnessed the incident and those doubts are expressed in an internal DHS memo that may never see the light of day.

The government of Costa Rica has officially demanded an investigation and explanation of the killing of Alpizar. President Abel Pacheco said the shooting resulted from “American paranoia about terrorism.”

-

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue