A-Changin' Times (ACT)
Born in the aftermath of 9/11, ACT has become as political as the times.
Now a blog for alternative news, views and rants offered with a twist, a song and a smile. Fair and balanced.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize [sic] with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
 — Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan Copyright 1963
(1991 Special Rider)

"A-Changin' Times: taking the best from the past to make the most of the present and to create a better future."

"What marching through the streets was to the Sixties, walking through the halls of Congress is now."

 — Marianne Williamson

You're visiting a website that incorporates a blogging feature, not "just" a blog.

Blog entries follow, most recent entries at the top

Saturday, April 03, 2004

	:: Nora		4/03/2004 07:18:00 PM

Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war

· Decision came nine days after 9/11
· Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

David Rose
Sunday April 4, The Observer

"President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

"According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal -- dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

"It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

"Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

"Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.

"But the implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought.

"The Vanity Fair article will provide further ammunition in the shape of extracts from the private, contemporaneous diary kept by the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short, throughout the months leading up to the war. This reveals how, during the summer of 2002, when Blair and his closest advisers were mounting an intense diplomatic campaign to persuade Bush to agree to seek United Nations support over Iraq, and promising British support for military action in return, Blair apparently concealed his actions from his Cabinet" ...

CONTINUE HERE

[]

Link to This Post

Friday, April 02, 2004

	:: DUG853		4/02/2004 07:26:00 PM

[How did 'we' miss this one ? Oh yeah, "corporate media" ! -- DUG]

Army sent mentally ill troops to Iraq
By Mark Benjamin
United Press International
Published 3/12/2004 5:53 PM

WASHINGTON, March 12 (UPI) -- The Army appears to have "inappropriately" deployed soldiers to Iraq who already were diagnosed with mental problems, according to documents obtained by United Press International.

More than two dozen suicides by U.S. troops in Iraq, and hundreds of medical evacuations for psychiatric problems, have raised concerns about the mental health of soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom. An Army Medical Department after-action report obtained by UPI suggests that the Army sent some soldiers to war who were mentally unfit in the first place.

"Variability in predeployment screening guidelines for mental health issues may have resulted in some soldiers with mental health diagnoses being inappropriately deployed," the report said. That could "create the impression that some soldiers develop problems in theater, when, in some cases, they actually have pre-existing conditions."

The October 2003 report said the Army should consider quickly changing course to prevent deploying more soldiers with mental problems. In a massive troop rotation now under way, more than 100,000 troops are heading to the region.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: Nora		4/02/2004 02:33:00 PM

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
2 April

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

The issue ­ what the administration knew and when ­ is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.

Source: Independent.co.uk

[]

Link to This Post

Thursday, April 01, 2004

	:: DUG853		4/01/2004 09:18:00 PM

The Dogs That Didn't Bark
Why Colin Powell and George Tenet aren't bashing Richard Clarke
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:39 PM PT

In the short story "Silver Blaze," Sherlock Holmes solves the mystery of a stolen racehorse by observing that the stable's guard dog didn't bark--hence, the intruder was not a stranger.

The mystery of whether Richard Clarke is telling the truth about President Bush's counterterrorism policies might be solved the same way:

Which dogs aren't barking?

Amid all the administration officials bombarding the airwaves with denunciations, who has stayed mum?

The answer: Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet, and their silence speaks loudly.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: DUG853		4/01/2004 11:01:00 AM

Anti-American News Silenced in Iraq

Editorial

Military commanders sent the wrong message in Iraq on Sunday by shutting down an anti-U.S. newspaper that allegedly published lies that could endanger U.S. forces. The closure angered thousands of Iraqis, prompting protests in the streets and the burning of the U.S. flag. Claiming that occupiers have abridged freedom of speech and the new constitution, Iraqis are angered at the hypocrisy.

Newspapers that incite violence or propagate falsehoods about American dealings in Iraq present a clear threat and mustn't be ignored. But the occupying forces must act in accordance with the democratic principles that they hope to transmit. Iraqis will never accept our endorsement and promotion of democratic values if we ourselves fail to abide by them.

Respect process

Real democracies abide by a fair process to achieve goals rather than mandates from on high. In a democracy, the ends don't justify the means. Instead, governing processes provide clear boundaries that prevent arbitrary government. In this case, the omitted step was to combat the alleged lies with the truth through an open process.

The outcry indicates that, despite decades of dictatorship, some Iraqis can spot an example of preaching democracy without practicing it.

One taxi driver said: ''This is a contradiction to the new constitution. Where is the freedom of the press?'' This is a quintessentially American and democratic reaction: a citizen claiming his rights and citing the Constitution.

Creative solutions

Despite the intent to protect our soldiers, the closing of the newspaper creates far more angst than it quells. It shows a lack of foresight by the occupying coalition because the policy intended to protect soldiers has actually created more dangers.

Instead of U.S. troops locking down the newspaper operations with a letter from administrator L. Paul Bremer, U.S. administrators could have sent Iraqi police with a letter from the Iraqi governing council. Instead of simply shutting it down, they could have asked the governing council to quickly outline an ad hoc trial process and bring charges of libel or incitement against the paper. In these ways, Iraqis gain a sense of ownership of their new nation and processes.

Moreover, if the pen really is mightier than the sword, they could have responded by printing a response (and evidence) in competing papers to combat the lies. A persuasive account of the truth would present an alternative to the lies by responding to or exposing their flaws. In Iraq, as in America, the best way to defeat irrational opinions isn't through suppression, but by allowing the truth to speak for itself. The worst way to promote democracy is through dictatorial means.

Copyright 1996-2003 Knight Ridder

SOURCE

[]

Link to This Post

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

	:: DUG853		3/31/2004 08:09:00 AM

Conscientious Objectors
By Traci Hukill, freelance writer
Washington, D.C.
TomPaine.com

While elected leaders come and go, the job of the civil servant requires a certain steadfast patience—a willingness to subjugate personal principles to fulfill a duty to the public.

However, when the actions of the nation's leaders fly in the face of personal principles, some civil servants may decide they can no longer be seen as tacitly endorsing those actions by continuing to serve.

Such was the case of three U.S. diplomats—Ann Wright, John Brown and John Brady Kiesling—who resigned in protest of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq.

A year after they made national news by stepping down independently from once-satisfying careers in the State Department to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the stories of these three very different people bear remarkable similarities.

They all felt that defending the war abroad was unimaginable.

Received hundreds of supportive emails flooded in from privately distressed State Department colleagues.

Miss the diplomatic life.

But insist they have no regrets.

For each there came a moment when the rush to war became too noxious to tolerate.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

Monday, March 29, 2004

	:: DUG853		3/29/2004 03:36:00 AM

911 Incongruities

by Paul Craig Roberts
        
Richard Clarke scored well with the 911 families when he apologized for the government's intelligence failure. But why stop there?

As this column is written, 590 US service men and women have died in the invasion and occupation if Iraq. Their families are due an apology. Another 3,000 or so have been wounded, some permanently. These survivors and their families are also due an apology.

And what about the thousands of dead, maimed, and orphaned Iraqis? Aren't they and their families owed an apology?

There are no excuses for the invasion of Iraq. Intelligence failures notwithstanding, terrorist attacks are surprises by definition, but we knew beforehand that Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

The salient fact that emerges from Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, is that the neoconservatives who control the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon gave the neoconservatives the opportunity they wanted. All they had to do was to spin the terrorism issue and point the finger at Saddam Hussein.

Prior to the US invasion on March 19, 2003, Iraq was not a major problem for the US. One year later, it is. The occupation strains our military and budget. The US seeks to install a puppet regime, but the majority Shi’ites are having none of it. Will civil war and the breakup of the country come next?

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

Sunday, March 28, 2004

	:: DUG853		3/28/2004 03:52:00 PM

[Good diggin', DUG! This is a particularly good wrap-up of what Clark did
and why he's being persecuted by the White House. I think it's a must-read
and a must-share. -v]


The 'war president' waged a war of lies
By Eric Margolis -- Toronto
Contributing Foreign Editor

A cascade of embarrassing revelations and accusations are demolishing George W. Bush's slickly packaged, made-for-TV persona as a "war president" and the scourge of Islamic terrorists.

Former president Jimmy Carter accused Bush and British PM Tony Blair of waging a war of "lies" against Iraq.

Poland's president said he was "deceived" by Bush into sending troops to Iraq. Spain's new prime minister denounced Bush's Iraq adventure as a "fiasco" and a "war based on lies."

A group of leading American business executives ran a full-page ad in The New York Times entitled

"Have you noticed what's happened to chief executives who lie?" with a picture of an executive being led away in handcuffs.

The ad described the Iraq invasion as a "state-sponsored deception (that) already dwarfs the damage done by the worst corporate scandals," citing 566 American dead and a cost of $125 billion US (not to mention 20,000 Iraqi deaths).

The underlying message was stark: the president and his "war cabinet" ought to face criminal charges for lying to the nation and starting an unnecessary war for domestic political reasons.

The fourth bombshell exploded when Richard Clarke, the respected former counter-terrorism chief under presidents Clinton and George Bush Sr., went public with the most damning accusations yet made against the White House. His testimony before a commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. asserted the Bush administration damaged U.S. national security, did not do enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and obsessed over Iraq while largely ignoring al-Qaida's threat.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: Nora		3/28/2004 10:12:00 AM

RIGHTS AND WRONGS -- Government Takeover of American Freedom, Media and Elections

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants

NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.

Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.

The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."

Source and full text

[]

Link to This Post