[cia-drugs] Putin, Bush Confirm Russia-U.S. WTO Deal
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/11/16/bushwto.shtml Putin, Bush Confirm Russia-U.S. WTO Deal Created: 16.11.2006 11:42 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:43 MSK , 3 hours 7 minutes ago MosNews At an airport meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 15, U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that next week they plan to sign a bilateral deal that will pave the way for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the presidents confirmed that they would sign a protocol paving the way for Russia to join the WTO on the sidelines of an Asian economic summit in Hanoi on Sunday, Nov. 19. Despite confirmation of U.S. agreement to approve Russia's WTO bid, Russia still needs to re-negotiate its bilateral deals with Georgia, Moldova and the European Union. The first two are upset over Russian ban of their agricultural produce, while the European Union demands that Russia makes a firm obligation to reducing and then cancelling fees for trans-Siberian flights, which it currently charges all European airlines.
[cia-drugs] Iran declaring 'economic warfare'
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52977 Iran declaring 'economic warfare' Announces intent to move away from U.S. dollar Posted: November 16, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Iran may have signed a virtual death warrant by openly declaring a governmental decision to move away from the dollar in the country's foreign-exchange transactions, says WND columnist Jerome Corsi. The Bush administration will see Iran's decision as economic warfare, a move calculated to weaken the dollar in retaliation for the U.S. seeking U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran's continued uranium enrichment, Corsi told WND. Speaking to reporters at an e-commerce conference in Tehran Tuesday, Iran's Minister of Economy and Finance Davood Danesh Jaafari presented the policy as a defensive move aimed at blocking Washington's ability to monitor and interfere with Iran's conduct of international business. Some U.S. banks have been disrupting our dollar transactions for a long time and Iran, in return, has been decreasing its dependence on the dollar, Jaafari explained. The U.S. Treasury in September barred Iran's state-run Bank Saderat from having any links with U.S.-owned banks because of Iran's support of terrorism. As a result of the increasing pressure from the Bush administration, Iranian banking authorities have complained European banks are increasingly reluctant to transact Iranian import and export sales in dollars and to extend open lines of credit for Iranians in dollars, fearing U.S. penalties. Iran also is concerned the U.S. government might soon be forced to devaluate the dollar. Corsi previously has argued Saddam Hussein signed his death warrant by getting the U.N. to agree Iraq could hold foreign exchange currency in Euros resulting from oil for food transactions. Iran's announcement this week will be seen by Washington as a follow-up to its intention to create an oil bourse pricing oil in Euros, Corsi believes. With our continuing budget and trade deficits, the Bush administration has to react strongly to any suggestion that world international markets might move away from dollar transactions or dollar holdings of foreign exchange currency, he said. The risk also includes China, Corsi noted. With China now holding $1 trillion in their foreign exchange currency, the recent decision that China intends to diversify their holdings more into Euros threatens the ability of the U.S. Treasury to float our budget deficits by selling U.S. government debt into the foreign exchange currency holdings market, Corsi explained. Corsi is concerned the Bush administration has been de-industrializing the United States by pursuing a free trade policy that allows China to replace U.S. manufacturers with what Corsi describes as under-market slave labor or near slave labor. Now with Iran on the verge of announcing the capacity to produce highly enriched and possibly weapons-grade uranium, Corsi comments, we are increasingly vulnerable to Iran spearheading an anti-American attack on the dollar. Corsi points out China recently signed a multi-billion dollar deal guaranteed to make Iran one of the major suppliers of oil and natural gas to China for decades to come. If China joins Iran in pressuring the dollar, we face dollar devaluation much faster that the Bush administration has allowed the U.S. public to know, Corsi said.
[cia-drugs] A U.S. Security Agenda in Africa - Part II
http://worlddefensereview.com/pham111606.shtml Strategic Interests by J. Peter Pham, Ph.D. World Defense Review columnist A U.S. Security Agenda in Africa - Part II to Part I Since its inception, this column has been dedicated to the proposition that that Sub-Saharan Africa which, even in the best of times, has historically been treated as something of a stepchild by inside-the-Beltway policymakers, is actually more now more vital to U.S. strategic interests than almost any region of the world other than the Middle East. And, Africa will only become even more significant in the coming years as no less a source than the National Intelligence Council predicts that, within less than a decade, we will be importing more of our hydrocarbons from the Gulf of Guinea than from the entire Middle East. Yet, despite this important datum, we have yet to begin developing the type of comprehensive strategic approach to the continent that its pivotal position vis-à-vis our national security and power demand. As a modest contribution to this end and in the hope of stimulating some discussion as the 110th Congress transitions into office, with last week's column, I began briefly surveying what I regard as the Top 10 priorities for a U.S. security agenda in Africa. As I noted, any number of other issues, security and otherwise, affecting Africa could have been included in an agenda, but I purposely decided to limit my list to the ten security-related issues that are most likely to require the immediate attention of the U.S. government over the course of the next year. In addition to the five issues covered last week - the Islamist radicals in Somalia, the future of Nigeria, the genocide in Darfur, the restoration of normality to Côte d'Ivoire, and Chinese expansion throughout Africa - other pressing concerns include: Preparing for the Transition in Guinea (and Elsewhere). As I have previously reported, Guinea, which supplies North America with nearly 50 percent of its bauxite (the ore which contributes the primary ingredient for the production of aluminum), faces a grave crisis, possibly even civil war, with the impending death of its ailing longtime strongman, General Lansana Conté, who has been in power since 1984. Similar situations prevail in other resource-rich African states with long-tenured rulers, including the Gabon's Omar Bongo (38 years), Equatorial Guinea's Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (27 years), Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe (26 years), and Cameroon's Paul Biya (24 years). As Africa becomes increasingly more important to American interests even as our hard power resources are increasingly stretched, U.S. policy needs to shift to privileging a modest amount of preventative engagement over far costlier operations to pick up the pieces after regime collapse. Developing Maritime Capacity. As I have argued in this column, when one looks at risk - that is, threat, vulnerability, and cost - nowhere is the risk, both to U.S. economic and security interests and those of African states, greater than in the waters of the Gulf of Guinea from whence flow an ever-growing proportion of America's hydrocarbons. Congress and the President need to make adequate budgetary provision for increased naval engagement with and capacity-building - both blue-water and brown-water - of our partners on the continent, on its eastern littoral as well as the western coast. Preventing Terrorist Flows from the Middle East and Checking the Rise of Militant Islamism across the Continent. The rise of militant Islamism is not a challenge that will be met in one year or even ten; it is a concern that requires constant attention as well as constant support for the long term initiatives that alone check the rise of radicalism - and this means that Congress must maintain the funding commitment year in and year out. As this column has noted, while Islam is, in many respects, an African religion that has interwoven itself into the continent's social fabric, the generally pacific, syncretistic variety of the faith is being swept aside by a militant Islamism imported from the Middle East that is not only transforming local societies, but also threatening to turn an increasingly significant region into an environment hospitable to extremist violence (as the bizarre Maitatsine episode in Nigeria demonstrated), with consequences reverberate far beyond the continent. Closely connected to concerns about the rise of militant Islamist ideologies in Africa are the flows of actual terrorists. This column previously documented the Middle East links to Africa's conflicts, al-Qaeda's strategy of shifting operations to Africa, and Hezbollah's network on the continent, among other connections. These facts notwithstanding, for a variety of reasons, many U.S. diplomatic and intelligence officials persist in minimizing links between challenges faced in Africa and America's war on terror, largely
[cia-drugs] Another Coup In The Making in Venezuela?
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1878 Another Coup In The Making in Venezuela? Thursday, Nov 16, 2006 By: Chris Carlsson - Gringo in Venezuela On April 11th, 2002, a group of businessman, politicians, and military officers, in conjunction with the cooperation of the major national media, kidnapped the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and took over the national government. Two days and 19 deaths later, the coup d'etat ultimately failed and the president was returned to power. The wealthy businessmen and oligarchs were unable to get rid of the popular president of the masses. However, recent events give the impression that they will soon make another attempt. With most of the polls and surveys showing that Chavez has a huge advantage in the upcoming December elections, there remains little doubt about who will win the presidential elections on December 3rd. However, the opposition candidates and opposition media in Venezuela have a habit of claiming fraud every time Chavez or his party win an election. The stage is already being set for the upcoming elections, as mainstream media in Venezuela constantly mention the possibility of fraud, and claims the elections are not transparent. The question remains; how can they claim fraud when dozens of surveys taken over the last few months show that the election won't even be a close contest? And secondly, why would the Chavez government commit fraud when it is obvious that they will easily win? The answer: it is all part of a plan to overthrow the government in the days following the December 3rd election. The opposition parties in Venezuela have been making claims of fraudulent elections over the last few years. Often times they focus on the captahuella machines, which take the voters fingerprint to prevent them from voting more than once. Other times the claims center on the CNE, the national electoral body which oversees the elections. The opposition claims that this body is totally under the control of the Chavez government. All of these claims by the opposition are, of course, widely covered in the private media, and have created the feeling that Venezuela has unfair elections. So, for the December presidential elections, whether people believe it or not, this is all more of the same old story. Last week, however, leaders of the opposition stepped up their rhetoric and discussed a plan for the days surrounding the elections. Prominent journalistic businessman Rafael Poleo, who was also involved in the 2002 coup attempt, announced on the cable network Globovision the opposition plan for December 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The plan calls for all voters aligned with the opposition to come out and vote on December 3rd. Then, on December 4th, claiming that the elections were fraudulent, the opposition voters must take to the streets to protest the Chavez victory. Referring to the Orange Revolution, when popular protests in Ukraine overturned fraudulent elections in 2004, Poleo claims that the electoral fraud is already in place, and makes a call for all Venezuelans who are opposed to Chavez to come out into the streets and protest on December 4th. He emphasizes that Manuel Rosales, the opposition candidate, must join this movement on December 4th and claim that the elections were fraudulent. If he does, says Poleo, Rosales could become the most important person in 21st century Venezuelan history. With all of this in place, the plan continues with a call to the high military command, in the words of Poleo, to decide if it is going to continue forcing the Venezuelan opposition to put up with an embarrassing regime. These words, directed to the high military command, basically amount to a call to overthrow the government. He continues by referring to the plan as a sequence of events that all Venezuelans are going to see this December, and in which their destiny as dignified human beings, and the destiny of their respectable nation, is at play. Obviously, Poleo is implying that if Chavez continues in power, Venezuela will cease to be a dignified and respectable nation, and that Venezuelans should not have to continue putting up with him. He forgets to mention, however, that surveys show Chavez has the support of the majority of Venezuelans. This message to the high military command coincides with a similar call made by candidate Manuel Rosales one day before. At a political rally, Rosales made a call for a meeting with the high military command, because we have to be preparing for a transition and change of government that will come to Venezuela in the near future, he said. Rosales has yet to make the claim that the elections are fraudulent, but he did call on the government to get rid of the captahuella machines, which he had previously accepted as a condition of the election. Rosales maintains that he will win at the ballot box, although nearly all the
[cia-drugs] Sherman Oaks?
http://tomflocco.com/fsimage/Jfk/TimOsmanObl.gif Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[cia-drugs] BUSH ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF STRATEGIC MALPRACTICE ON IRAN - EXPERT
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav111606a.shtml BUSH ADMINISTRATION GUILTY OF STRATEGIC MALPRACTICE ON IRAN - EXPERT Kamal Nazer Yasin 11/16/06 A EurasiaNet QA with Flynt Leverett Print this articleEmail this article In trying to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the Bush administration has suffered from internal divisions that have left it dysfunctional in some unique ways, according to Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC. Leverett is in position to offer unique insight on the Bush administration's dealings with Iran. From March 2002 to March 2003, he served as the senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council. Prior to serving on the NSC, he was a counterterrorism expert on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, and before that he served as a CIA senior analyst for eight years. Since leaving government service, Leverett served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy before becoming the director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The text of Leverett's comments on US policy toward Iran and Afghanistan, as well as on Washington's anti-terror policies, follows: EurasiaNet: What is your assessment of the last six years of US foreign policy? What is the Bush administration's balance sheet? Leverett: Let's start with the Middle East after the September 11 attacks. I think America's standing in that part of the world has been seriously damaged. By standing I don't just mean popularity -- although popularity is not unimportant -- but rather that the United States' ability to achieve its goals in that region, to protect what it says are its most important interests there has been seriously damaged in the five years since September 11. We see that on virtually every front. In Afghanistan, for example, yes, the Taliban have been overthrown, al Qaeda has lost its sanctuaries in Afghanistan, but we didn't finish the job there. Afghanistan is falling back into a period of dangerous instability. The threat of al Qaeda and violent Sunni extremism coming back there is getting worse. I think the argument that, 'well, we haven't been hit and somehow US policy should be credited for that' is superficial. We haven't been hit because the Jihadists themselves have decided that, at this point in their strategy, they don't think it is advantageous for them to strike at the United States. They would rather focus on going after our allies in the region and in Europe, and then they would come back at us. I think we are not really doing well in the war on terror. EurasiaNet: What you just said about Jihadist strategy, is it speculation, or is your opinion based on hard intelligence? Leverett: No, this is the internet age. All kinds of documents. are available on the internet and other places. This is a major theme of the Jihadist discourse -- that they don't want to go after the United States right now. Let's continue looking at the region. The Iraq war has been a disaster for America's standing. This administration has bungled post-conflict stabilization there. We have pursued the occupation in a way that has empowered radical forces in the region and made the situation of moderate forces harder. America's most important strategic partnerships in the Arab world, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been increasingly strained. In the Arab-Israeli arena, the way that American policy has handled the Palestinian issue -- or not handled it -- has cost us tremendously. And one would be hard put to say that Israel's security and standing in the region is better [today] than it was five years ago. EurasiaNet: In 2003, Iran sent a letter to the White House via the Swiss ambassador in Tehran. [Click here for the text]. It seems like it was a strategic opening by the Iranians for comprehensive dialogue. The Bush administration rejected it. Were you in the White House then? Leverett: When the message came I was within days of leaving the government. I did see the document. It was substantively a very promising start; a serious effort to lay out an agenda for resolving our outstanding issues. It addressed our concerns about their WMD program, their support for organizations we consider terrorist, and their attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. They also wanted re-examination of our attitude to their regime, for ending efforts to change their government and other issues. I think what was so foolish about our response was that we didn't even try to find out if it was serious. EurasiaNet: At that time, there was an extraordinary amount of cooperation on Afghanistan. The Axis-of-Evil reference, made in President George W. Bush's State-of-the-Union address in January 2002, must have come as a shock to the Iranians. Leverett: Yes. The level of
[cia-drugs] Signs of Bush 41-Cheney clashes arise in contradictory administration policy decisions.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ November 16, 2006 -- Signs of Bush 41-Cheney clashes arise in contradictory administration policy decisions. One of the signs that there is an intensive clash between the increasingly influential James Baker, Robert Gates, Brent Scowcroft group affiliated with George H. W. Bush and the remaining administration neo-cons centered around Vice President Dick Cheney is the battle to keep John Bolton at the US Mission to the UN. The neo-cons in the administration are trying to come up with ways to keep Bolton in his position even though the current Republican-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee (with the support of defeated Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee) does not look likely to approve Bolton's nomination. Incoming chairman Joe Biden said as far as he is concerned the Bolton nomination is dead. Bolton: Cheney is fighting to keep another one of his allies from being tossed by the Bush administration. However, neo-cons, including Cheney, are toying with the idea of appointing Bolton to the third ranking position at the UN mission, which does not require Senate confirmation. By not filling the vacant ambassador position, Bolton would serve as an unconfirmed acting ambassador. It is well known that following Donald Rumsfeld's ouster at the Pentagon, Bolton is one of Cheney's sole remaining allies. Bolton is also vehemently anti-Iranian and opposed to the Baker-Hamilton committee's outreach to Tehran. Therefore, it is important for Cheney to keep Bolton at the UN to rattler sabers at Iran. Bolton is also supported by the Israeli lobby in Washington that does not want to see any Washington-Tehran talks dedicated to working together on Iraq. There is also another wild card working in Bolton's favor. While he was at the State Department Bolton gathered a number of NSA intercepts on US persons and may be using their content to blackmail members of the administration and Congress to support his continued tenure at the UN. WMR reported on Bolton's involvement in the NSA surveillance on May 15, 2005: According to National Security Agency insiders, outgoing NSA Director General Michael Hayden approved special communications intercepts of phone conversations made by past and present U.S. government officials. The intercepts are at the height of the current controversy surrounding the nomination of Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. It was revealed by Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd during Bolton's Senate Foreign Relations Committee nomination hearing that Bolton requested transcripts of 10 NSA intercepts of conversations between named U.S. government officials and foreign persons. Later, it was revealed that U.S. companies [also treated as U.S. persons by NSA] were also identified in an additional nine intercepts requested by Bolton. However, NSA insiders report that Hayden approved special intercept operations on behalf of Bolton and had them masked as training missions in order to get around internal NSA regulations that normally prohibit such eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. attachment: bolton2.jpg
[cia-drugs] Claim al Qaida 'planted evidence'
- Original Message - From: Mario Profaca [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:09 PM Subject: [SPY NEWS] Claim al Qaida 'planted evidence' http://icealing.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_headline=claim-al-qaida--planted-evidence-method=fullobjectid=18108692siteid=106484-name_page.html Claim al Qaida 'planted evidence' Nov 16 2006 A senior al Qaida operative deliberately planted evidence to encourage the United States into war against Iraq, it has been claimed. The extraordinary allegation is made by a man who reportedly spent seven years inside the al Qaida terror network working as a spy for European intelligence agencies. Omar Nasiri - not his real name - makes the claim, which is bound to re-ignite the controversy over the war, in an interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme. He alleges that a senior al Qaida operative, Ibn Sheikh Al-Libi, deliberately planted information to get America to fight Iraq. Al-Libi was captured by US forces in late 2001, handed over to the Egyptians and allegedly tortured, according to Newsnight. During interrogation he claimed that al Qaida had been training Iraqis. In the run up to the war US officials claimed there was a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the terror network - and the alleged link was one of the justifications for the hugely controversial military action in March 2003. When asked on the programme if al-Libi or any others would have told the truth if they were tortured, Nasiri answers Never. Questioned further on whether he thought al-Libi had deliberately planted information to get the US to fight Iraq, he replies: Exactly. In his interview, Nasiri provides an insight into how al Qaida was far more organised, coherent and determined in the 1990s than was appreciated at the time and how its reach spread to London. Nasiri also claims that MI5 were watching the now jailed Islamic cleric Abu Hamza as far back as nine years ago.
