From “The First Partner - Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Joyce Milton, pp 278-280:

Reclaiming America

Hillary believed that every cause needed a villain, and the pharmaceutical companies had been chosen as the designated enemy of the day. On February 12 [1993], Hillary traveled to a health care conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with Tipper Gore to deliver a speech lambasting drug manufacturers for profiteering at the expense of America’s children. Charging that the cost of immunizing a child had risen from $6.69 in 1981 to $90.43 in 1991, an increase of 1,250 percent, Hillary told the audience, “Unless you are willing to take on those who profited from that kind of increase and are continuing to do so, you cannot provide the kind of universal immunization system that this country needs to have.”

Whether drug companies actually priced their products too high was a matter of opinion. With many new drugs in development, the pharmaceutical business is becoming more competitive than it was in the past. Investors in start-up biotech companies, in particular, regularly risk — and lose — millions in the hopes of backing a breakthrough drug. High-tech drugs developed through free-market investments hold the best hope for conquering scourges like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover, they are often highly cost effective compared to alternative treatments such as surgery. On the other hand, millions of Americans who obtain health care through their employers or the government have no idea what it actually costs. Many of them do pay out of pocket for drugs, and therefore they are ripe for the argument that their prescriptions cost too much.

At any rate, the charge that drug companies were responsible for low vaccination rates was as bogus as Hillary’s statistics, which did not take into account the addition of new shots to the recommended vaccination program. Manufacturers already donated free vaccines for needy children, and public health specialists, including Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who had supervised childhood vaccination programs during the Clinton era in Arkansas, agreed that the problem was educating parents to bring their children in for shots, not the cost of the vaccines.

Nevertheless, free childhood vaccinations had long been part of the Children’s Defense Fund agenda, and the Clintons used the momentum created by Hillary’s speeches to push a bill through Congress that gave Health and Human Services the power to bypass the established distribution system by buying up stocks of vaccines at cut-rate prices and storing them in a central warehouse. Government involvement threatened to create a bottleneck in the supply of vaccines and to discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new ones.

Senator Dale Bumpers, whose wife had long been a volunteer in pediatric vaccination programs in Arkansas, denounced the administration’s actions as creating a “bureaucratic nightmare.” Public health experts agreed, and the administration, faced with overwhelming criticism, abandoned the distribution plan.

Judging from a 1995 report by the General Accounting Office, the pediatric vaccination program that existed in 1993 had been generally on target in meeting its goals. Based on Hillary Clinton’s proclamation of a nonexistent crisis, Congress had been stampeded into passing unnecessary legislation. And even though the worst features of the administration plan had been dropped, the country was still stuck with a program that was more costly, cumbersome and wasteful than the one it replaced.

What’s more, the alarming statistics Hillary had cited on the rise in prices of prescription drugs were another myth. It turned out that the Labor Department statisticians had gotten the numbers wrong.

This news came too late for investors. The threat of price controls had caused the blue chip pharmaceutical stocks to decline as much as 40 percent, wiping out over $1 billion worth of market capitalization. Some smaller biotech companies were put out of business permanently.

Only short sellers profited, among them a private hedge fund called ValuePartners I, run by Smith Capital Management of Little Rock, Arkansas. Hillary Clinton held an $87,000 stake in Value Partners I, which also owned a block of stock in United Healthcare, an HMO that stood to benefit under the Clinton reform plan. Lois Quam, a United Healthcare vice president, was a member of the task force.

Unlike the Carters, Bushes and Reagans, the Clintons failed to put their assets into a blind trust when they moved into the White House. Hillary resisted the notion that her financial affairs were anybody’s business but her own, and she reasoned that since she was not a government employee and the money was in her name, she didn’t have to resort to a trust. Vince Foster wasn’t sure this was so. After seeing the financial disclosure statement filed by the Clintons the previous December, Foster worried that Hillary’s interest in Value Partners I might pose a conflict of interest…

Just a little taste of the Hillarycare to come.

More outrageous remarks from Mrs. Bill Clinton, culled from last night’s Democrat debate, via MSNBC:

Oct. 30 Democratic debate transcript

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania presidential candidate forum at Drexel

Russert: Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Clinton: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There’s about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances and processes demand.

Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

Clinton: Well, that’s not my decision to make, and I don’t believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we’re move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.

Russert: Senator Obama, your hand is up?

Obama: Well, look, I’m glad that Hillary took the phrase “turn the page.” It’s a good one, but this is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.

And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem…

Russert: Senator Edwards had his hand up. Then I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond.

Edwards: … I think, that voters have to ask themselves is: Do you believe that the candidate who’s raised the most money from Washington lobbyists, Democrat or Republican, the candidate who’s raised the most money from the health industry, drug companies, health insurance companies, the candidate who’s raised the most money from the defense industry, Republican or Democrat — and the answer to all of those questions is: That’s Senator Clinton.

Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don’t think that’s going to happen. I really don’t…

Russert: Senator Clinton, please.

Clinton: Well, I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since.

I think it is time for us to step up and say we are going to change the way Washington works. I’ve laid out very specific plans about how to do that. I’m going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries, starting with money from the HMOs that are getting too much out of Medicare, starting with the no-bid contracts for Halliburton; starting with the defense industry that needs to be pared down and reined in.

I’ve been very clear about that. And I intend to implement that.

You know, change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to actually make it happen.

In a saner age almost any of these comments from or about Hillary would be enough to disqualify her as a serious candidate for any office, let alone the Presidency.

Think about it. Do we really want a President of the United States who believes that the Supreme Court is composed of criminals?

Or a woman who claims to have “the strength and experience” to change the nation and the world, but who can’t lift the ban her husband imposed on her records at their own library?

It is to laugh.

From the transcript of last night’s Democrat debate, via MSNBC:

Oct. 30 Democratic debate transcript

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania presidential candidate forum at Drexel

Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?

Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license?

(Unknown): Believe what?

Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license.

Dodd: This is a privilege. And, look, I’m as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we’re dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we’re going to extend this privilege here of a driver’s license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here.

But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us.

But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…

(Unknown): Wait a minute…

Clinton: And we have failed. We have failed.

Dodd: No, no, no. You said — you said yes…

Clinton: No.

Dodd: … you thought it made sense to do it.

Clinton: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving…

Dodd: That’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.

Clinton: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification?

If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker…

Dodd: There’s ways of dealing with that.

Clinton: Well…

Dodd: This is a privilege, not a right.

Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver’s license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so…

Dodd: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

Clinton: … it’s not the full privilege.

Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license?

You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays “gotcha.” It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform…

Edwards: … I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don’t want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago.

And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we’ve had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight…

Double-talk is right, but it was from Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Still, it is painfully clear that Hillary is fully behind giving licenses to illegal aliens.

From the transcript of last night’s Democrat debate, via MSNBC:

Oct. 30 Democratic debate transcript

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania presidential candidate forum at Drexel

Russert: I’d like to talk about taxes.

Senator Clinton, I’d like to start with you. Because the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, is a strong supporter of your campaign.

He wants to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. But he also wants to have a 4 percent surtax on a single $150,000 income or $200,000 married couple.

You went to Harlem with your husband, with Charlie Rangel. And the former president said, quote, “Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that’s a good idea.”

Is that also your view?

Clinton: Well, I am a great admirer of Chairman Rangel. And what he’s trying to do is deal with a very serious problem. You know, the Alternative Minimum Tax was never intended to hit people are in middle income, upper middle income. It was meant for people who are rich and evading taxes.

Now I don’t know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal. We’ve got to do something with the Alternative Minimum Tax.

There are a lot of ways of getting there. I want it to be fair and progressive. It starts in the House, it starts in the Ways and Means Committee, which he chairs. But I think my husband was expressing an opinion that a lot of people who have been very fortunate and blessed over the last six and a half years feel.

You know, we’ve not been asked to sacrifice anything. You know, young men and women wearing the uniform of our country are dying and being maimed. We have the average American family losing a thousand dollars in income, and George Bush and his cronies can’t figure out how they can give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans.

Now, I never thought Bill and I would be in that category, to be honest with you. So it’s kind of a new experience. But it’s not one that make us very comfortable, because we should be investing in new energy, we should be investing in college affordability, universal pre-K, the kind of health care plan that I’ve outlined.

That’s what we intend to do. But we’re going to have to deal with the AMT, something that the Republicans have refused to do because, very frankly, it hits people who are below their concern. They’re concerned about the real top wage earners. This hits people that are, you know, the police chief. This hits people that are, you know, two income families that are doing well.

So we’re going to have to do something about it. I think Charlie’s being very courageous in moving forward. I don’t agree with all the details, but he’s on the right track to say we’ve got to do something about the AMT.

Russert: So in principle, you would be in favor of looking at a 4 percent surtax?

Clinton: No, I didn’t say that, Tim. I said that I’m in favor of doing something about the AMT. How we do it and how we put the package together everybody knows is extremely complicated.

It’s not going to happen while George Bush is president. Everybody knows that. I want to get to a fair and progressive tax system. The AMT has to be part of what we try to change when I’m president.

And there are a lot of moving pieces here. You know, there are kinds of issues we’re going to deal with as the tax cuts expire.

I want to freeze the estate tax at the 2009 level of $7 million for a couple.

There’s a lot of moving parts. So I’m not going to get committed to a specific approach, but I applaud Chairman Rangel for beginning the conversation.

Russert: But you will not campaign on the Rangel plan?

Clinton: No, no. That’s Charlie Rangel’s plan. And, as I say, I support and admire his willingness to take this on.

It is somewhat surprising that Mrs. Clinton was even asked such a question. But it is no surprise that she refused to give any kind of meaningful answer.

In point of fact the AMT should be reversed. But instead of increasing taxes to make up for the shortfall from the government’s undeserved windfall, there should be a reduction in spending.

Funny, though, that doesn’t seem to have occurred to either Mrs. Clinton or her cats paw, Mr. Rangel.

Nor did it occur to anyone else at the Democrat “debate” to suggest it.

Why is that?

From an understanding New York Times:

Chertoff Pushed Spitzer to Bend on License Idea

By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY, Oct. 30 — The phone call from a top aide to Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, came two weeks ago, and the message was clear: The department was concerned that Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants would undermine a federal initiative to roll out a new highly secure, nationally recognized license.

The prospect of Mr. Chertoff coming out publicly against Mr. Spitzer’s plan caused deep anxiety among Spitzer administration officials, said Michael A. L. Balboni, the governor’s deputy secretary for public safety, who received the call.

The governor and his aides felt they had few options.

The license plan had already set off angry attacks from Republicans and unease among Democratic allies, and had made the governor a target of national groups rallying for tougher immigration policies.

Mr. Spitzer agreed with Mr. Chertoff to a compromise plan on Friday under which the state would offer three levels of driver’s licenses beginning next year, including a limited license that illegal immigrants could obtain but that could not be used to board airplanes or cross borders…

Mr. Spitzer and his aides told the lawmakers that they had been reluctant to send word of the new proposal before they completed negotiations with the Bush administration, which took until the end of the day Friday. And they were clearly worried about what Mr. Chertoff would do if they did not go along…

How ludicrous.

We have seen all to well just how powerful the Department Of Homeland Security is. Which is to say, not at all.

But the New York Times must do its best to serve its DNC masters and save even the least of them from any criticism.

It’s their job.

From an elated New York Times:

A policeman stands next to some of the 28 suspects accused of the 2004 Madrid train bombings during the reading of the sentence inside an annex of the High Court in Madrid.

7 Acquitted, Including Accused Mastermind, in Madrid Bombings

By VICTORIA BURNETT

MADRID, Oct. 31 — Spain’s National Court handed down sentences today stretching to tens of thousands of years to three men for killing 191 people and wounding more than 1,800 others in the March 11, 2004, bombing of Madrid commuter trains.

In practice, those three will serve 40-year terms, the maximum that Spain allows.

The court found 18 others guilty of lesser charges related to the attacks, such as belonging to a terrorist organization.

Seven remaining defendants were acquitted entirely, and not one of the three accused of organizing the attack was convicted of doing so. In all, many of the sentences were much lighter than those sought by the prosecution for the coordinated bombings that traumatized the nation.

The verdicts closed a sprawling trial that over the course of five months brought 29 defendants, 40 lawyers and 350 witnesses to a temporary courtroom on the outskirts of Madrid. The verdicts offer the first taste of justice to those wounded in the attacks as well as relatives of those killed on March 11, 2004, when 13 sports bags stuffed with explosives tore through trains carrying hundreds of people from mainly working-class suburbs to the city center. The bombings changed the course of politics in Spain which was used to decades of Basque but not Islamic terrorism.

They were carried out by a group of Islamist radicals that intersected with a band of Moroccan petty criminals whose ringleader, Jamal Ahmidan, became radicalized in a Moroccan jail. Seven of the main suspects, including Mr. Ahmidan, blew themselves up in a Madrid apartment to avoid arrest three weeks after the attacks, and another four are believed to have fled.

The verdicts underscore the difficulty of building a solid legal case against defendants suspected of playing an inspirational role in a diffuse and nonhierarchical network, rather than having direct involvement in the violence.

Javier Gómez Bermudez, head of the tribunal, sentenced Jamal Zougam, a 34-year old Moroccan who witnesses described seeing on one of the fated trains, to prison for charges that included murder, attempted murder and belonging to an “armed group.”

He handed down a similar sentence to Otman el-Gnaoui, 32, a Moroccan convicted of helping to transport the explosives used in the attacks from the northern region of Asturias, on the northern coast of Spain, to Madrid.

Judge Gómez also sentenced Emilio Suarez Trashorras, 30, to long sentences for his role as a “necessary accomplice” in the massacre. Mr. Suarez, a former miner from northern Spain, supplied the stolen dynamite used in the bombings in exchange for drugs.

The tribunal acquitted Rabei Osman, who was accused of being one of the masterminds of the attacks. Mr. Osman is already serving an eight-year sentence in Italy for belonging to a terrorist organization.

Spanish prosecutors presented tapes of conversations in which Mr. Osman was said to be boasting of his part in planning the Madrid bombings as evidence. However, the Italian translation of those conversations, originally in Arabic, was disputed in the courtroom, and two sets of Spanish translators provided a more ambiguous interpretation of his remarks.

Judge Gómez’s conclusions further discredit the suggestion that ETA, the militant Basque separatist group that has a long record of violence in Spain, played any role in the bombings. The theory of ETA’s involvement, espoused by some conservatives, often took center-stage during the five-month trial and continues to divide Spaniards and politicians.

José Maria Aznar, prime minister at the time of the attacks, pointed the finger of blame at ETA immediately after the attacks and held to that view for three days, despite mounting evidence that the bombs were the work of Islamic terrorists.

That decision, coupled with the fact that Spaniards felt they were being punished for their part in the Iraq war, tipped voters against Mr. Aznar and his Popular party lost elections on March 14, 2004, to the Socialists, the party of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who became prime minister.

Was it cowardice or incompetence or both?

Seven of the main suspects, including Mr. Ahmidan, blew themselves up in a Madrid apartment to avoid arrest three weeks after the attacks…

The joke is on them.

What a disgrace.

Well, Spain seemed to like living under the Muslims the first time around.

From the Associated Press:

Nader sues Democratic Party over ‘04 election

WASHINGTON — Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.

Nader’s lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry’s campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations, such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.

The lawsuit seeks “compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law.” …

DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined to comment on the suit.

Gee, the Democrats, a union and a bunch of Soros/DNC run 527s.

What a shock that they would be involved in such skullduggery.

From an approving Associated Press:

Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich speaks during the Arab American Institute’s National Leadership Conference at the DoubleTree Hotel in Dearborn, Mich., Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007.

Kucinich Questions Bush’s Mental Health Over World War III Comment

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

PHILADELPHIA —  Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush’s mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.

“I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health,” Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board on Tuesday. “There’s something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact.” …

Bush made the remarks at a news conference earlier this month.

He said: “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Kucinich said he doesn’t believe his comments about the president’s mental health are irresponsible, according to a story posted on the newspaper’s Web site.

“You cannot be a president of the United States who’s wanton in his expression of violence,” Kucinich said. “There’s a lot of people who need care. He might be one of them. If there isn’t something wrong with him, then there’s something wrong with us. This, to me, is a very serious question.”

From the man who puts the “kook” in Kucinich.

“The center has shifted in our politics. I’m really at the center. And all the other candidates are to the right of me.” - Mr. Kucinich, on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” ABC, August 12, 2007.

Mental illness? — You’re soaking in it, Dennis.

From those defenders of the faith at Reuters:

Marx’s erupting skin may have influenced writings

LONDON (Reuters) - Karl Marx, who complained of excruciating boils, actually suffered from a chronic skin disease with known psychological effects that may well have influenced his writings, a British expert said on Tuesday.

Sam Shuster, professor of dermatology at the University of East Anglia, believes the revolutionary thinker had hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in which the apocrine sweat glands — found mainly in the armpits and groin — become blocked and inflamed.

“In addition to reducing his ability to work, which contributed to his depressing poverty, hidradenitis greatly reduced his self-esteem,” said Shuster, who published his findings in the British Journal of Dermatology.

“This explains his self-loathing and alienation, a response reflected by the alienation Marx developed in his writing.”

While HS is linked to boil-like lumps, the painful condition also causes more widespread infection, swelling, skin thickening and scarring.

It could also explain a number of Marx’s other complaints, not previously linked, such as joint pain and a painful eye condition which often stopped him working.

Shuster based his diagnosis on an analysis of Marx’s extensive correspondence, in which he wrote to friends about his health and described his skin lesions as “curs” and “swine.”

“The bourgeoisie will remember my carbuncles until their dying day,” Marx told Friedrich Engels in a letter from 1867…

And so they have, as untold millions of the bourgeoisie and proletariat alike have suffered and died under the yoke of communism because of a skin disease.

One notes, however, that there is still no known medical explanation for Hillary.

Some comic relief from the Associated Press:

Edwards shifts focus to integrity

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 30

EXETER, N.H. - Democrat John Edwards is trying to turn the Democratic presidential race into a referendum on honesty and integrity, areas where polling has shown that voters are divided about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The argument marks a shift in a race where Edwards and Clinton’s other Democratic opponents have criticized her stance on policy but usually have avoided taking on her character directly. In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Edwards said Clinton is part of a corrupt Washington system.

“Good people are caught up in this system, and I’ve given some examples of the places that I think she’s caught up in it,” Edwards said. “And I also, secondly, think that she continues to defend it. And I don’t think you can bring up the change this country needs if you defend a corrupt system that doesn’t work.

“The closer we get to the election and the more people move past celebrity and to the issues such as honesty, integrity and who can actually bring about change, I think they are going to pay very close attention to those questions,” Edwards said while riding in a minivan between campaign stops.

Edwards is a former trial lawyer…

Oh, my sides.

I’m confused.

First we have this report from the terrorists’ allies at Reuters:

[AP caption:] Plainclothes contractors working for Blackwater USA take part in a firefight as Iraqi demonstrators loyal to Muqtada Al Sadr attempt to advance on a facility being defended by U.S. and Spanish soldiers, in this April 4, 2004 file photo in the Iraqi city of Najaf.

Blackwater guards offered immunity deals: report

Mon Oct 29

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. State Department investigators looking into the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad last month offered immunity deals to Blackwater security guards, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The investigators from the agency’s investigative arm, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, did not, however, have the authority to offer such immunity grants, the newspaper said, citing U.S. government officials.

The offers represent a potentially serious investigative misstep that could complicate efforts to prosecute Blackwater employees involved in the incident, the newspaper said.

The officials, who were not identified, said Justice Department prosecutors, who do have the authority to offer such deals, had no advance knowledge of the arrangement, the newspaper said.

Most of the Blackwater guards who took part in the September 16 incident were offered what officials described as limited-use immunity, the report said.

Limited-use immunity means the private security guards were promised they would not be prosecuted for anything they said in interviews with the authorities as long as their statements were true, the Times said…

Foreign contractors in Iraq are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law under a decree issued by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting this:

Iraq bill would lift contractor immunity

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government on Tuesday approved draft legislation lifting immunity for foreign private security companies, sending the measure to parliament, a spokesman said.

The question of immunity has been one of the most serious dispute between the U.S. and the Iraqi government since a Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater USA guards that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

The government’s decision followed reports that the State Department has promised Blackwater bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month’s shooting…

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the draft law approved Tuesday would overturn an immunity order known as Decree 17 that was issued by L. Paul Bremer, who ran the American occupation government until June 2004…

Three senior U.S. law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that all the Blackwater bodyguards involved — both in the vehicle convoy and in at least two helicopters above — were given the legal protection as investigators from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security sought to find out what happened. The bureau is an arm of the State Department.

The law enforcement and State Department officials agreed to speak only if they could remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the inquiry into the incident…

Congress also is expected to investigate the shootings, but a House watchdog committee said it has so far held off, based on a Justice Department request that lawmakers wait until the FBI concludes its inquiry.

But if the Blackwater contractors already have immunity, why do they have to be offered it again?

Or are they going to be prosecuted under US laws for alleged activities that happened in a foreign country?

For we also have this article from a couple of weeks ago, via the Associated Press:

House Passes Bill That Would Hike Penalties for U.S. Security Contractors in Iraq

Thursday, October 04, 2007

WASHINGTON —  The House passed a bill Thursday that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts. It was the first major legislation of its kind to pass since a deadly shootout last month involving Blackwater employees.

Democrats called the 389-30 vote an indictment of the shooting incident there that left at least 13 Iraqis dead. Senate Democratic leaders said they planned to follow suit with similar legislation and send a bill to President Bush as soon as possible.

“There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity for tens of thousands of individuals working in countries” on behalf of the United States, said Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas.

So it would appear the Blackwater contractors do indeed have immunity, despite any claims to the contrary. It would also appear that their actions in Iraq are not subject to any current US laws.

So what exactly is going on?

And when is the ACLU going to jump in here and defend the rights of those brave Americans working for Blackwater and helping to rebuild Iraq?

(Just kidding, of course.)

From a distraught Associated Press:

US death toll in Iraq lower in October

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The monthly toll of U.S. service members who have died in Iraq is on track to being the lowest in nearly two years, with at least 34 troop deaths recorded as of Tuesday, but the military cautioned it’s too early to declare a long-term trend…

At least 34 American service members have died so far in October, nearly a third from non-combat causes.

It is the lowest number since 32 troops died in March 2006 and the second-lowest since 20 troop deaths in February 2004, according to an Associated Press count based on military figures.

That would be the second consecutive drop in monthly figures, after 65 Americans died in September and 84 in August…

Maj. Winfield Danielson, a military spokesman in Baghdad, pointed to a number of likely reasons for the decline, including a U.S. security push that has driven militants out of former safe havens and a change in strategy that has placed troops closer to the population. That, in turn, has caused a rise in the number of tips from residents about roadside bombs and other dangers.

He also singled out the cease-fire call by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who in August ordered his fighters to cease attacks against U.S.-led forces and other Iraqis for up to six months. Danielson said Iraqi forces also were increasingly taking charge of security operations.

He welcomed the lower numbers but stressed it was too early to say it was a downward trend.

“Have we turned a corner? It might be a little too early to say that,” he said. “It’s certainly encouraging.”

Ten of the American casualties, or nearly one-third, were listed as non-combat so far this month, compared with 19 of the 65 American troop deaths in September.

He said he could not immediately discuss whether the numbers of such deaths were unusual, although he calculated that about 82 percent of the overall casualties since the war started through Oct. 19 were from hostile fire or bombings.

The U.S. military usually doesn’t provide details about the causes of non-combat deaths in its releases, and Danielson said they could comprise anything ranging from vehicle accidents to suicides.

“Either way it’s a tragedy. We want to prevent both,” he said.

In August, the U.S. Army expressed concern that repeated deployments and tours of duty that have been stretched to 15 months were putting increasing pressure on military families and creating record suicide rates among soldiers.

There were 99 Army suicides last year — nearly half of them soldiers who hadn’t reached their 25th birthdays, about a third of them serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The 2006 total — the highest rate in 26 years of record-keeping and the largest raw figure in 15 years — came despite Army efforts to set up new programs and strengthen old ones for providing mental health care to a force stretched by the longer-than-expected conflict in Iraq and the global counterterrorism war entering its sixth year.

The current pace of civilian deaths also would put October at less than 900. The figure last month was 1,023 and for August, 1,956, according to figures compiled by the AP from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths are not included…

The Associated Press slays me.

That would be the second consecutive drop in monthly figures, after 65 Americans died in September and 84 in August.

Why wouldn’t October be the third consecutive drop?

But it would appear that the real motive for this article was to give the reporter an opportunity to speculate that all of the non-combat deaths were suicides. And all caused by the military’s heartlessly cruel treatment of the soldiers, of course.

Never mind that only a third of the suicides occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can’t be having good news from Iraq, you know.

That violates AP policy.

By the way, according to an August 16, 2007 MSNBC article:

In a half million-person Army, the [latest suicide] toll translated to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000…

But what both the AP and MSNBC neglect to report this niggling detail from an April 15, 2004 report from the Defense Department:

[T]he national average of 21.5 [suicides] per 100,000 for males ages 20 to 34 the age span for most U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

So even this terrible rate is still much lower than the national average. But we can’t have context like that from the AP.

They have an agenda to push.

From their associates at the Associated Press:

Pakistani Army officials collect evidence at the site of a suicide bombing in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2007.

Bomb 1/4-mile from Musharraf’s HQ kills 7

By ANJUM NAVEED, Associated Press Writer

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - A suicide attacker set off a bomb at a checkpoint a quarter-mile from the military headquarters where President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was staying Tuesday, killing seven people, police said.

The blast will likely feed fears for the country’s stability just as it prepares for crucial parliamentary elections and faces a growing threat from Islamic militants.

The man walked up to the checkpoint in the city of Rawalpindi a quarter-mile from Army House. Musharraf was safely inside at the time, his spokesman Rashid Qureshi said.

Police said three of their officers and four civilians were killed along with the lone assailant. Fourteen policemen and four civilians were wounded, he said.

“When police officers asked him to halt, the attacker got panicked. And as the police tried to capture him, he blew himself up,” city police chief Saud Aziz told The Associated Press. “Our officers died to protect the citizens of Pakistan.”

The attack left the area around the checkpoint, which guards a road leading to Army House and the residences of several top generals, strewn with flesh and torn clothing.

An Associated Press photographer saw emergency workers remove the body of an elderly man killed as he was riding by on a bicycle.

Police said women and children aboard a passing minibus were also among the dead and wounded. Television footage showed schoolbags abandoned on the seats of the vehicle, whose windows were blown out.

Investigators cordoned off the area to retrieve evidence. A policeman climbed an overhanging tree to dislodge part of the bomber’s severed head…

Another heroic martyr to the religion of peace.

By the way, this is how the “paper of record,” the New York Times reported the incident:

Young Bomber Strikes Within a Mile of Musharraf

By SALMAN MASOOD and GRAHAM BOWLEY
Published: October 31, 2007

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Oct. 30 — A young man blew himself up about one mile from the offices of Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in this garrison town near Islamabad, the capital, today, killing seven people including himself and wounding 14 others, according to police officials and the Interior Ministry…

The young scamp.

We certainly wouldn’t want to call him a terrorist, would we?

That’s not polite.

From the Associated Press:

Iraqi policemen and other residents stand near body bags containing the remains of policemen who were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, October 29, 2007.

Iraqi official: Kidnapped sheiks freed

By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer

A suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up Monday in a crowd of police recruits, killing at least 29 people, police and hospital officials said. Separately, a group of kidnapped Sunni and Shiite sheiks were freed, a government spokesman said.

Police and relatives have identified the tribal leaders abducted in Baghdad as seven Shiites and three Sunnis aligned against al-Qaida who were on their way home to Diyala province — the same region where Monday’s bombing took place — after attending a meeting with the Shiite-dominated government’s adviser for tribal affairs to discuss coordinating efforts against the terror group.

Police said one of the Sunnis in the group — seized from their cars in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood — was shot to death, but Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Askari said the rest were freed on Monday. He declined to specify how many or give more details.

The U.S. military, citing intelligence sources, said Monday that a rogue Shiite militia leader was responsible for the abduction, identifying him as Arkan Hasnawi, a former brigade commander in the Mahdi Army militia, which is nominally loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr…

The police recruits in Baqouba were waiting to be allowed inside the camp for the day’s training when the suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst, according to a police officer who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

A 22-year-old Sunni man from Baqouba’s central Tahrir area said he was among a group of some 60 recruits when the blast struck.

Akram Salman said it must have been an inside job because the suicide bomber apparently penetrated heavy security surrounding the police camp without being searched.

He said police failed to stop the bomber when he changed course suddenly from the main road toward the recruits.

“The police are infiltrated. Many people join the police but they have affiliations with al-Qaida. These infiltrators made it easy for the bomber to attack us,” he said. “There are two main checkpoints on the main road leading to the camp, it would be impossible for a man on a bicycle to pass without being properly searched.”

“Al-Qaida has threatened us before and prevented us from joining the police,” he said. “They slaughtered many policemen, burned their houses, killed their families and blew up their headquarters. Now, when the people have defeated al-Qaida and cooperated with the government, al-Qaida staged this operation to show their presence and to give a message that they are still in control.”

Mohammed al-Kirrawi, a doctor at the Baqouba general hospital, said most of the victims were struck by iron balls packed with the explosives to achieve maximum casualties. He said the hospital lacked the necessary equipment to save many of the wounded…

And yet the recruits still sign up. They won’t let the terrorists win.

Unlike the heroic Democrats in our country.

From those fans of nuclear proliferation at the Associated Press:

President Hosni Mubarak

Egypt announces nuclear plant projects

By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF, Associated Press Writer

Egypt said Monday that it would build several nuclear power plants, moving into the front of a group of nations raising fears of Middle Eastern proliferation with new pushes to develop nuclear energy.

President Hosni Mubarak announced live on national television that Egypt was building the power stations to diversify Egypt’s energy resources and preserve the country’s oil and gas for future generations.

“Energy security is a major part of building the future for this country and an integral part of Egypt’s national security system,” Mubarak said at a ceremony inaugurating the second phase of construction of an electrical power plant north of Cairo.

Jordan, Turkey and several Gulf Arab countries also have announced that they are interested in developing nuclear power programs, and Yemen’s government in September signed an agreement with Houston-based Powered Corporation to build civilian nuclear plants over the next 10 years.

Despite the declarations of peaceful intentions, there are worries that the countries could be taking the first steps toward a dangerous proliferation of nuclear technology in response to Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. calls cover for weapons development…

Mubarak said he would re-establish the Supreme Council for the Peaceful Purposes of Nuclear Power, which would be in charge of the nuclear program. He also said Egypt would seek the help of its “international partners” and the IAEA in building the plants…

At the time, Hassan Yunis, the minister of electricity and energy, said Egypt could have an operational nuclear power plant within 10 years…

Surely, this will guarantee yet another Nobel Peace Prize for the UN’s great guardian against nuclear proliferation, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Being a fellow Egyptian, you just know he is going to keep a very close eye on developments this time around. (Unlike, say Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Syria.)

But just to be on the safe side, the Israelis should keep their planes gassed up.