Tony Blair’s attempt to keep his Iraqi Oil Profits a secret

Tony-gate: Blair Strikes Oil in Iraq

By Jayne Lyn Stahl

March 26, 2010

Here in the States when someone mentions “UI,” most of us think of Unemployment Insurance, but not former UK prime minister Tony Blair.

Late last week came word of a major scandal from the UK Daily Mail. In the three years since he stepped down as prime minister, Blair pocketed more than $30 million in oil revenues from his secret dealings with a South Korean oil consortium, UI Energy Corporation. Despite all his best efforts to keep his connection to UI secret, word is spreading like wildfire throughout the U.K.

Now, you might ask, that he’s no longer in government and has his own company, Blair Associates, why would anyone care what his business dealings are? Well, for openers, Mr. Blair is also the West’s envoy to the Middle East. Of concern to British politicians, too, is that a former prime minister has been stone cold silent about being on the payroll of an immense multinational oil corporation, specializing in oil exploration in Iraq, and one that coincidentally happens to find itself in another challenging part of the globe.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Blair isn’t the only prominent politician on UI’s payroll. Others reportedly include former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke, as well as politicians like Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former ambassador to Egypt, Nicholas A. Belites, and U.S. Commander for the Middle East General John P. Abizaid. And, these are just the ones who acknowledge any association with the oil conglommerate.

Two-time presidential candidate, Ross Perot, is listed on UI Energy Corp.’s Web site as part of their extended family. One wonders if there are any other presidents, or presidential candidates, who may have been considered family by the South Korean oil firm.

While they’ve only been around for about twenty years, it didn’t take UI long to come up to speed. A message from the company’s president, posted to their Web site, says they are interested in “development of overseas resources such as the Middle East and Africa. Especially, Iraq where various Energy (sic) developments are expected.”

UI is now considered among the largest investors in Iraq’s oil rich Kurdistan region, which is said to have obtained a modicum of autonomy since the Iraq war.

Some argue that Blair is benefiting hugely from the connections he made during the Iraq war, but maybe it’s the other way around. More likely, the decision to collaborate with the U.S. on military adventurism in Iraq was on account of connections already in place by then leaders of both countries.

Blair worked hard to prevent disclosures of what is alleged to have been only a three year relationship with the South Korean oil firm, but it’s not inconceivable that his relationship with UI Energy Corp. precedes his departure as prime minister. It’s also quite conceivable that his dedication to keeping this matter confidential was meant to protect other international political figures besides himself.

As the UK Daily Mail notes, “The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisors.” Who else may be found to be among UI’s secret foreign political advisors?

Importantly, it is one thing to consult with a firm that acknowledges resource “development” in Iraq when one is envoy to the Middle East. Yes, that may well be conflict of interest, but multiply that conflict of interest exponentially should evidence emerge of his dalliance with UI Energy while he was acting prime minister.

Clearly, the Blair scandal calls into question the exact nature of the alliance between two central figures, and engineers of the Iraq war; then UK prime minister, Tony Blair, and an American president, George W. Bush.

Source

Blair’s fight to keep his oil cash secret: Former PM’s deals are revealed as his earnings since 2007 reach £20million

By Jason Groves
March 19 2010

Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.

The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation.

Mr Blair – who has made at least £20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 – also went to great efforts to keep hidden a £1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq’s neighbour Kuwait.

In an unprecedented move, he persuaded the committee which vets the jobs of former ministers to keep details of both deals from the public for 20 months, claiming it was commercially sensitive. The deals emerged yesterday when the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments finally lost patience with Mr Blair and decided to ignore his objections and publish the details.

Click on pic to enlarge

News of the secret deals fuelled fresh accusations that Mr Blair is ‘cashing in on his contacts’ from the controversial Iraq war in what one MP called ‘revolving door politics at its worst’.

They will increase concerns that Mr Blair is using his role as the West’s Middle East envoy for personal gain.

The revelations also shed fresh light on his astonishing earnings, which include lucrative after-dinner speaking, consultancies with banks and foreign governments, a generous advance for his forthcoming memoirs, as well as the pension and other perks he enjoys as a former Prime Minister.

The full extent of his income is cloaked in secrecy because he has constructed a complex web of shadowy companies and partnerships which let him avoid publishing full accounts detailing all the money from his commercial ventures.

Critics also point out that a large proportion of his earnings comes from patrons in America and the Middle East – a clear benefit from forging a close alliance with George Bush during his invasion of Iraq.

Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair’s links to UI Energy Corporation: ‘This doesn’t just look bad, it stinks.

‘It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.

‘Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now.

‘This is revolving door politics at its worst. It’s not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East.

‘I’m afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It’s no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive – we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.’

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: ‘These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale – he is driven by making as much money as possible.

‘I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.’

The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq’s oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war.

Mr Blair’s fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.

Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was ‘market sensitive’ and could not be made public.

The committee agreed to suspend its normal practice and keep the deals secret for three months. Mr Blair then asked for a further extension.

When this ran out last year the committee repeatedly ‘chased’ Mr Blair about the issue without hearing anything. Eventually the committee’s chairman, former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Lang, reviewed the papers and ordered the deal to be made public, along with a separate deal with Kuwait which had been kept secret at the request of the Kuwaiti government.

Click on pic to enlarge

The decision to keep the deals secret will fuel concerns about the effectiveness of the committee, which has been repeatedly criticised for its failure to halt the revolving door between politics and industry. The committee is supposed to ease public concerns about former public servants using their contacts for private gain.

Ministers have to have all jobs vetted within two years of leaving office. But the committee is packed with former politicians and Whitehall grandees and is thought never to have banned a former minister or senior civil servant from taking up a lucrative job in the private sector.

Earlier this month the Government quietly rejected calls for the committee to be beefed up with more figures from outside the world of politics.

Gordon Brown has so far refused to answer questions about whether Mr Blair’s arrangements breach his responsibilities under the ministerial code.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said last night: ‘Mr Blair gave a one-off piece of advice in respect of a project for UI Energy in August 2008.

‘He sought, and received, approval from the Committee on Business Appointments before undertaking this project.

‘It was UI Energy who requested of the committee that they delay public announcement, for reasons of market sensitivity.’

Source

You don’t want to know what I am thinking, really you don’t?

• Images if Iraq Democracy
• Images of Iraq Falluja massacres Made by USA
• Images of Iraq War Crimes
• Iraq Freedom!!!
• Iraq USA did it in Najaf, Baghdad, Kufa 08/2004
• Iraq War Images
• Iraq: USA Terror On Al Falluja ( 7 days = 850 killed more than 1500 wounded )
• US Air strike on Iraqi civilians Tall Afar, Falluja, Samarra, Baghdad

Recent

Women in Iraq Miss Saddam

Israel condemned at Arab summit over Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land

NATO Smears a Truth-Teller in Afghanistan

Soldiers, Mental illness, Drugs and Suicide

Israel condemned at Arab summit over Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land

Destroying Educational Institutions or Using Them For Military Purposes Is A War Crime

Cheap Food Imports destroyed Haitian agriculture

Warning Facebook Strikes again, this time a Virus

American Civil Rights Org Fights Against Israeli Desecration of Ancient Cemetery

Britain expelled Israeli diplomat over fake passports used in Dubai

Shoe-thrower Muntazer al-Zaidi was tortured while in jail, brother says

By Richard Kerbaj in Baghdad

September 15, 2009

Prison doctors repeatedly injected “unknown substances” into the reporter who threw his shoes at the former US President George Bush, his family claimed yesterday.

The Iraqi was also allegedly tortured with cigarettes and had his nose and ribs broken.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, who became a hero in the Arab world for attacking Mr Bush, is scheduled to be flown to Greece for treatment on his expected release from prison today.

His eldest brother, Uday, told The Times that hospital specialists in Greece were expecting the reporter’s arrival after his visa was recently approved.

“We decided as a family for him to go for physical and psychological treatment in Greece,” Uday said at his brother’s flat in central Baghdad. One of Mr al-Zaidi’s three brothers will accompany him.

Mr al-Zaidi, 30, who was convicted in March of assault after hurling his shoes at Mr Bush at a press conference last December, was expected to be released yesterday. His release was postponed by a day after officials cited a delay in processing his paperwork.

Uday alleged that his brother, a television journalist, was given injections by prison staff against his will. He said that doctors told his brother that they were treating him for migraines and stress.

“They injected him with substances but he had no idea what they were,” he said. “Every time he tried to refuse having the injections, the doctors would say, ‘You don’t know our job better than we do’.”

Mr al-Zaidi was imprisoned at an Iraqi military compound at the former Al-Muthana Airport in Baghdad. Uday said that his brother was burned with “cigarettes behind his ears, had his ribs and nose broken”. He said that the torture was the result of Mr al-Zaidi’s refusal to write and sign a letter of apology to Mr Bush and to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who was standing next to the President during the incident.“When Muntazer called me this morning he sounded very broken because the prison guards would not let him call us for ten days,” Uday said.

Mr al-Zaidi plans to set up a human rights group, his brother said. He will not return to journalism despite receiving a salary from Al-Baghdadia Television while in prison. Nor will he venture into politics.

“He will not go into politics, contrary to what has been said in the past. He wants to do something to help the Iraqi people,” Uday said.

“And he has done more to help Iraqi people with his defiance than any politician has.”

Mr al-Zaidi’s three-year sentence was cut to one year on appeal because he had no criminal record. He is expected to be released three months early for good behaviour.

Source

Iraqi shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zeidi to be released from jail

Brown attacked for delaying Iraq war inquiry

Opposition says Prime Minister wants to postpone report until after election

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

December 19 2008

Gordon Brown provoked a political storm yesterday by rejecting calls for an immediate inquiry into the Iraq war and its aftermath.

The Prime Minister came under fire from opposition parties after he told the Commons it would not be “right” to have such an investigation until British troops return home next summer. Allies said Mr Brown does not want to consider an inquiry while a substantial number of British troops – currently 4,100 – remain in Iraq. They say he will need to revisit the issue next July, when fewer than 400 will remain to protect Iraqi oil platforms and train the Iraqi navy.

Ministers will come under huge pressure next summer not to use the smaller-scale presence as an excuse to further delay an inquiry. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, promised MPs last week: “We are not going to hide behind the idea that the last troops must have come home. We have always made it clear our commitment is in respect of combat troops, and we intend to honour that commitment.”

Opposition parties believe Mr Brown is keen to ensure the full investigation does not report until after the next general election, which must be held by June 2010. Although the controversial 2003 invasion was seen as “Tony Blair’s war”, Mr Brown has backed it and said he would not have acted differently.

David Cameron demanded a “robust, independent inquiry”, saying it is vital to learn lessons which could help during the campaign in Afghanistan. With up to 400 troops remaining in Iraq, there is a chance the investigation could be delayed for “many, many years”, he said.

The Tory leader insisted there is no need to wait until all troops are home because past inquiries had been held while conflicts continued. Troops who have served in Iraq are owed an investigation, he said. He told Mr Brown the inquiry should look into the decision to go to war, and the mistakes made in its conduct and planning. “Do you accept that if we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past we are more likely to make them again in the future?” he asked.

The Prime Minister confirmed that British military operations in Iraq would end by 31 May at the latest, saying a rapid withdrawal would be complete by July.

On the inquiry calls, Mr Brown said: “I have always said this is a matter we will consider once our troops have come home. We are not at that position at the moment, and therefore it is not right to open the question now.”

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, urged Labour and the Tories to apologise for backing an “illegal war” which he described as the “single worst foreign policy decision of the past 50 years” and called for a public inquiry.

Charles Kennedy, who opposed the war as Liberal Democrat leader, said it was “shameful” that the US and UK did not “even bother to count” the number of innocent lives lost during the conflict and occupation. He said it would leave a “legacy of hatred” for generations. The Prime Minister replied: “I do acknowledge the sufferings of the Iraqi people. You must not forget the violence against the Iraqi people practised by Saddam Hussein. We were dealing with a dictatorship and we now have a democracy.”

Angus Robertson, leader of the Scottish National Party at Westminster, said: “Now that there is a timetable for withdrawing our forces, there is no reason why we cannot have a timetable for an inquiry.”

Source

Lie by Lie:  Iraq War Timeline

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq “1,284,105”
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Gov’t Study Concludes “Gulf War Syndrome” is Legitimate Condition, Affects 1 in 4 Vets

December 4 2008

Seventeen years after the Gulf war, a congressionally mandated committee has concluded that “Gulf war syndrome” is a legitimate condition that continues to affect one quarter of the nearly 700,000 US soldiers deployed in that war. In a report presented last month to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses said, “Scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans.” We speak with a Gulf War vet who was a part of the committee and who himself is sick.

Guest:

Anthony Hardie, Member of Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses and National Secretary and Legislative Chair of Veterans of Modern Warfare.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Seventeen years after the Gulf War, a congressionally mandated committee has concluded that Gulf War syndrome is a legitimate condition that continues to affect one quarter of the nearly 700,000 US soldiers deployed in that war. In a report presented last month to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses said, “Scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans.”

The 450-page report details the serious longstanding and sometimes permanent neurotoxic damage seen in veterans of the 1991 war with Iraq. It concludes that the condition was primarily caused by overexposure to pesticides and a drug given to troops to protect against nerve gas.

The US government has long denied the existence of Gulf War syndrome, despite growing evidence and claims by veterans. Gulf War veterans were often told they were suffering the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, and their symptoms were trivialized. The report says that no effective treatment has been found so far and emphasizes the need for further research.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthony Hardie is a veteran of the Gulf War, member of the Research Advisory Committee that authored the report. He is national secretary and legislative chair of Veterans of Modern Warfare and a former officer with the National Gulf War Resource Center, joining us from Madison, Wisconsin.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Anthony. You’re sick, as well?

ANTHONY HARDIE: Yes, that’s right. I’ve had health issues ever since—

AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us what you suffer from?

ANTHONY HARDIE: Absolutely. I’ve had health issues ever since being in the Gulf. First, about two-thirds of the group that I was with began to be ill from the pyridostigmine bromide, or the nerve agent protective pills that we took, and then, once in Kuwait, began having severe respiratory and sinus issues. Those have continued and have progressed into the kinds of chronic multi-symptom illness that I’m certainly far from unique. Between 175,000 and 210,000 of my fellow Gulf War veterans are suffering from the same kinds of symptoms and illness that I’m suffering from and many far worse than my situation.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, could you tell us a little bit about what the report concluded, because obviously there’s been a lot of debate over the years about the many possible causes of what came to be called as Gulf War syndrome?

ANTHONY HARDIE: Well, that’s right. Well, it was an exhaustive study of about—a survey of about 1,800 scientific studies. And I want to clarify, the report was written by the scientists on the committee, and there are five of us Gulf War veterans on the committee, and we assisted in reviewing the report, but it was a scientific report. And the study concluded that pyridostigmine bromide, or the nerve agent protective pills, and pesticides were the two, could be linked causally to the health effects of Gulf War veterans and a majority who are suffering from chronic multi-symptom illness.

It also determined that we could not rule out a number of other potential causes, including low-level nerve agent and chemical warfare agent exposure throughout the Gulf War and a number of other causes. It suggested that things like depleted uranium, while there are known health effects including cancers, was probably not the cause of the chronic multi-symptom illness affecting most Gulf War veterans, but it certainly didn’t rule out that depleted uranium has health effects of its own.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you surprised by any of the findings, Anthony Hardie? And talk about the significance of this being well over a dozen years since you were serving in the Gulf.

ANTHONY HARDIE: Well, seventeen years after the war, the report says what we Gulf War veterans have been saying all along. And that’s that we have health issues, that those health issues began during the Gulf, that they have progressed since then, that they have been largely unabated and that they’re continuing. So the report says in scientific terms what we’ve been saying all along.

The most disappointing thing is that current VA secretary, Dr. James Peake, said during his presentation that we neither deny nor trivialize the health issues of Gulf War veterans. Yet just a few days later, Secretary Peake and the federal VA referred the report, rather than jumping on its conclusions and making benefits and healthcare changes for Gulf War veterans, referred it to yet another committee, the Institute of Medicine, deciding that they needed further evidence.

And it’s awfully disappointing that still, seventeen years after the war, nearly 200,000 Gulf War veterans still remain ill and are not getting adequate healthcare from the federal VA. And as I testified before Congress last year, being seen is not the same thing as being treated, and to add further to that, treating symptoms is not the same thing as treating the disease.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And this pill that many of the soldiers took, were they forced to take this pill? Could they refuse it? And what were you told at the time when the military administered it?

ANTHONY HARDIE: That the pill was the pyridostigmine bromide pill, also known as the nerve agent protective pill, and it was to help us survive a nerve agent attack, helping to make sure that the atropine injectors that we had would be more successful in saving our lives if we were exposed to nerve agents.

I understand that throughout the Gulf War theater of operations, that it varied on how Gulf War veterans—excuse me – Gulf War troops were taking the pills. In my group, I think we were more of the typical type, in that we were mandated to take the pills. In fact, as a supervisor, I was required to physically watch my soldiers put the pill into their mouth, swallow it and make sure that they had taken it, again because there were—these measures were taken because there were significant side effects for so many of us. Again in my group, about two-thirds of us had pretty significant side effects at the time of taking the pill.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthony, did people resist?

ANTHONY HARDIE: Some were concerned about it, but it was—again, it was mandated, and it’s the military, and we do what we were told.

AMY GOODMAN: Were they approved by the FDA?

ANTHONY HARDIE: My understanding at the time was that there was a waiver given by the FDA to the US Department of Defense that waived informed consent, and we were told that at the time, told that it was an experimental drug, but that we were still required to take it. And experimental in the sense of—

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the immediate effects that you had at the time?

ANTHONY HARDIE: Like we were told we would have the symptoms of low-level nerve agent exposure, so watery eyes, respiratory issues, runny nose, diarrhea, upset stomach, tremors, fatigue, all those sorts of things, and feeling very—just simply feeling very ill.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us what the Kuwaiti cough is, Anthony Hardie?

ANTHONY HARDIE: Sure, that’s a nickname that some of us Gulf War veterans gave our cough that we developed while over in the Gulf and then came back with. I coughed up black sputum for the last two months that I was there. I was excited when the war was over. I could start running again, began running and breathing in that black oil well fire smoke that colored my sputum black, by coughing up significant chunks of—large chunks about the size of a large gumball from my lungs. I believe now that those are probably pieces of lung tissue from exposure to chemical warfare agents and then colored black from the oil well fire smoke as well. But many of us came back, and we had this cough continued thereafter. And while running, then we would use our asthma inhalers—determined later that we didn’t have—we did not have asthma, but joked that that was our—you know, sort of our medal, as well, for the Kuwait battle.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthony, we just have twenty seconds, and I wanted to know, with the report out, what do you want to see happen right now?

ANTHONY HARDIE: We need to see, most of all, treatment, effective treatment for Gulf War veterans. It’s been seventeen years, and that’s an awful long time to wait for effective treatment. For those who are not getting compensation, of course they need to be compensated. But most importantly, treating those who are ill.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you for being with us. Anthony Hardie, joining us from Madison, Wisconsin—

ANTHONY HARDIE: Thank you very much.

AMY GOODMAN: —member of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, just came out with its report, and national secretary and legislative chair of Veterans of Modern Warfare.

Source

Gulf War illness is real
WASHINGTON

November 18 2008

A congressionally-mandated panel has concluded that “Gulf War syndrome” is real and that more than a quarter of the 700,000 US veterans of the 1991 conflict suffer from the illness.

The most extensive-ever report on the debilitating, multi-symptom illness released Monday concluded that it is caused by exposure to toxic chemicals including pesticides, used against sand flies and other pests, and a drug administered to protect soldiers against nerve gas.

“The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is the result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time,” said the 450-page report, presented to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake.

“Veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War had the distinction of serving their country in a military operation that was a tremendous success, achieved in short order. But many had the misfortune of developing lasting health consequences that were poorly understood and, for too long, denied or trivialized,” the report said.

The report’s producer, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses comprised of scientists and veterans, was chartered by Congress in part because of many complaints that veterans were not receiving adequate care.

The committee’s scientific director, Boston University school of public health dean Roberta White, said the findings “clearly substantiate veterans’ beliefs that their health problems are related to exposures experienced in the Gulf theatre.”

She said veterans “have been plagued by ill health since their return 17 years ago. Although evidence for this health phenomenon is overwhelming, veterans repeatedly find that their complaints are met with cynicism and a ‘blame the victim’ mentality that attributes their health problems to mental illness or non-physical factors.”

The report said Gulf War illness is typically characterized by memory and concentration problems, persistent headaches, unexplained fatigue and widespread pain, and may also include respiratory symptoms, digestive problems and skin rashes.

The panel cited two exposures causally associated with Gulf War illness: the drug pyridostigmine bromide, or PB, given to soldiers to protect against nerve gas; and pesticides widely used during the war.

The panel noted that federal funding for Gulf War research had dropped dramatically in recent years and urged 60 million dollars in annual funding.

Gulf War syndrome is the popular name for a chronic multisymptom illness complex first identified by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1994 after thousands of returning troops complained of numerous unexplained symptoms.

Several earlier reports pointed to the stress of combat as a likely explanation for the illness.

Source

Billions here, billions there: A look at where it’s going

Billions here, billions there: A look at where it’s going

November 24 2008

Wars. Bailouts. Unemployment aid. Automakers. Washington has opened the tap on big spending and money is gushing down the pipeline.

The national debt now stands at $10.6 trillion, compared with about $5.7 trillion in 2000 before George W. Bush took office. Buckle up, because that figure is going to climb.

Here’s where some of the big bucks are going:

Iraq war — Various estimates put the total cost of the military operation since 2003 at about $600 billion.

Bailout — The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), signed on Oct. 3, provides $700 billion in financial relief. Of that amount, the Treasury Department has committed about $270 billion in cash injections for banks and another $40 billion for the insurer American International Group.

Economic stimulus — Earlier this year, Bush signed into law a $168 billion stimulus package that included rebates for households and tax breaks for businesses. President-elect Barack Obama is preparing another stimulus plan, and Democratic lawmakers say they expect the package could total between $500 billion and $700 billion.

Detroit — General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and their suppliers have been authorized $25 billion by Congress to retool their assembly lines for making more fuel-efficient cars. Now, the Big Three want an additional $25 billion to ensure they will have the funds to operate through spring. Congress could act on it in December.

Housing — In July, Bush signed a housing bill that included $300 billion in new loan authority for the government to guarantee cheaper mortgages for troubled homeowners. In September, the Treasury took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pledging up to $200 billion to back their assets.

Jobless aid — Congress last week approved an extension of up to three months for expiring unemployment benefits. The cost is nearly $6 billion.

Federal Reserve — In the past year the Fed has increased its lending and purchases of debt by $900 billion, to almost $2.2 trillion.

The federal deficit — It’s the difference between what the government received from taxes and other revenue and what it spent. In fiscal 2008, which ended Sept. 30, the budget deficit was $455 billion, quite a difference from 2007’s $161.5 billion. Just one month into fiscal 2009, the budget deficit had already reached $232 billion, including $115 billion going directly on the deficit ledger for bank stock purchases as part of the financial bailout. The deficit for fiscal 2009 could reach $1 trillion.

Source

Millionaires reap farm payments; Nobody checking incomes

Investigators say the problem will get worse

By LARRY MARGASAK
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — A sports team owner, a financial firm executive and residents of Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia were among 2,702 millionaire recipients of farm payments from 2003 to 2006 — and it’s not even clear they were legitimate farmers, congressional investigators reported Monday.

They probably were ineligible, but the Agriculture Department can’t confirm that, since officials never checked their incomes, the Government Accountability Office said.

The Agriculture Department cried foul: It said the investigators had access to Internal Revenue Service information on individuals that the department is not permitted to see.

John Johnson, deputy administrator in the department’s Farm Service Agency, said officials there are in touch with the IRS to devise a system for including tax information in its sampling program to determine eligibility.

He added that 2,702 recipients cited by the GAO was a small percentage of the 1.8 million recipients of farm payments from 2003 through 2006.

The investigators said the problem will only get worse, because the payments they cited covered only the 2002 farm bill subsidies.

The 2008 farm legislation has provisions that could allow even more people to receive improper payments without effective checks, they said.

There are three main types of payments: direct subsidies based on a farmer’s production history; countercyclical payments that kick in when prices are low and disappear when they recover; and a loan program that allows repayment in money or crops.

The 2002 farm bill required an income test for the first time.

An individual or farm entity was ineligible if average adjusted gross income exceeded $2.5 million over three years — unless 75 percent or more of that income came from farming, ranching and forestry.

According to the report, the 2,702 recipients exceeded the $2.5 million and got less than 75 percent of their income from these activities.

The payments to them totaled more than $49 million.

“USDA has relied principally on individuals’ one-time self-certifications that they do not exceed income eligibility caps, and their commitment that they will notify USDA of any changes that cause them to exceed these caps,” the GAO said.

The report said Agriculture field offices have been able to request that recipients submit tax returns for review.

But the administrator in charge of the payment programs, Teresa Lasseter, told the GAO, “Requiring three years of tax returns initially from over 2 million program participants was not a viable option or cost-effective alternative.”

The GAO said 78 percent of the recipients resided in or near a metropolitan area, while the remaining 22 percent resided in large towns, small towns and rural areas.

Further, the investigators said the Agriculture Department should have known that 87 of the 2,702 recipients were ineligible because it had noted in its own databases that they exceeded the income caps.

The GAO said it was prevented by law from identifying individuals cited in its report, but the investigators offered these examples of likely improper payments:

A founder and former executive of an insurance company received more than $300,000 in farm program payments in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 that should have been subject to the income limits.

An individual with ownership interest in a professional sports franchise received more than $200,000 for those same years that should have been barred by the income limits.

A person residing outside the United States received more than $80,000 for 2003, 2005 and 2006 on the basis of the individual’s ownership interest in two farming entities.

A top executive of a major financial services firm received more than $60,000 in farm program payments in 2003.

A former executive of a technology company received about $20,000 in years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 that were covered by the income limits.

This individual also received more than $900,000 in farm program payments that were not subject to those limitations.

The investigators also found nine recipients resided outside the United States — in Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom, for example.

The remainder resided in 49 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.

Five states — Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois and Texas — accounted for 36 percent of the recipients and 43 percent of the $49.4 million in farm program payments.

Source

We must also remember that $2.3 Trillion they admitted to losing on September 10, the day before 9/11 still hasn’t been found either.

One has to wonder how much money, has been lost in other areas as well?

“Accountability” is not something the Bush Administration took to seriously.

Bush accountability is gone: just a reminder

By Leonard Pitts Jr.

June 7, 2007

Somebody owes me a Diet Coke.

That’s what was at stake in a wager a gentleman and I made over dinner at a restaurant in Baton Rouge. He had asked if I didn’t agree that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then, as now, under fire in the scandal over the alleged politically motivated firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would soon be forced to step down. I said no. He said Gonzales would not last six weeks. We made a bet on it.

This was 11 weeks ago. Gonzales, of course, is still in office. In fact, President Bush last month reiterated his support for his embattled friend, who faces a possible Senate no-confidence vote later this month.

I wish I could say that in wagering on Gonzales’ political survival, I relied upon some insider knowledge, some astute reading of the tea leaves based on long years of watching the political scene. Truth is, what I relied on is a belief in the utter shamelessness of George W. Bush’s administration.

No, Team Bush does not own the patent on shamelessness. Some of us thought it bespoke an alarming imperviousness to embarrassment when Bill Clinton, caught lying about being serviced by a young intern in the Oval Office, chose to brazen his way through the resulting furor rather than resign.

But if the Bush people did not invent shamelessness, they have refined it to a level that once seemed impossible. So much so that this shamelessness, this indifference to perception, this abysmal lack of what Thomas Jefferson called “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” may prove to be the administration’s defining characteristic, its calling card in matters both grand and small. Granted, shamelessness will have to battle hubris and incompetence to earn that distinction, but still …

No administration in living memory has shown Team Bush’s ability to reverse itself so blithely, to deny the obvious so serenely, to ignore precedent, propriety and responsibility with such placid unconcern for consequences or public perception.

Weapons of mass destruction not found where you once guaranteed they would be? Pretend you invaded Iraq for other reasons.

“Stay the course” proving an ever more threadbare strategy? Deny it was ever your strategy at all.

FEMA director presides over a botched disaster relief effort that costs hundreds of American lives? Praise him for doing “a heckuva job.”

CIA director presides over intelligence gathering failures that cost thousands of American lives? Give him a Medal of Freedom.

And so on.

If you’re looking for accountability, you’re looking in the wrong White House. Or as Bush once put it, “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections.” In other words, if you win the election you can do whatever you want and it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.

So I am not surprised that, despite growing evidence he allowed the Justice Department to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, Alberto Gonzales still has a job with the federal government. To be honest, I am more surprised that Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and former FEMA chief Michael Brown do not.

And ain’t that a kick in the head? We have reached a pass where one is almost shocked to see people held to answer for scandal and ineptitude. Where one is taken aback at the notion that failure carries a price. And where tough talk and a “What, me worry?” smugness now routinely pass for iron resolve and moral clarity.

If you had told me in 2001 that this would be the state of things six years later, I’d have laughed in your face.

I’d have lost a lot of Diet Cokes on that.

Source

GAO: Labor Dept. Misled Congress

By Carol D. Leonnig

November 25, 2008

The Labor Department gave Congress inaccurate and unreliable numbers that understated the expense of contracting out its employees’ work to private firms, according to a Government Accountability Office report released yesterday.

The department’s decisions in allowing contractors to compete for bureaucrats’ work — known as “competitive sourcing” — also demoralized workers, according to most of the 60 agency employees interviewed by the GAO.

“DOL’s savings reports are not reliable: a sample of three reports contained inaccuracies, and others used projections when actual numbers were available, which sometimes resulted in overstated savings,” the GAO report said. “Because of these and other weaknesses, DOL is hindered in its ability to determine if services are being provided more efficiently as a result of competitive sourcing.”

Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao began having some agency workers compete for their jobs in 2004, but since then few employees have actually lost their jobs and had their pay cut as a result of the privatizing effort, GAO found. Of the 314 federal workers who had a job change as a result of competitions with private firms, 263, or 84 percent, were either reassigned to positions with the same title and pay or were promoted. Of the 16 workers who were demoted, 14 kept their same professional grade or pay.

Twenty-two employees were demoted or laid off, and all were African American. An additional 29 employees left voluntarily.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairmen of their chambers’ appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction over the Labor Department, asked for the report and urged Congress not to fund the competition program until the GAO provided the answers. They issued a statement yesterday saying the review documented “the negative impact the Bush Administration’s failed policies have had” on the agency.

“Under the direction of this White House, the Department of Labor has increasingly attempted to move work performed by Federal employees to private contractors” and, in so doing, hurt workers’ morale and “grossly overstated savings,” they wrote. “We look forward to working with the Obama Administration to strengthen the Department of Labor as it undertakes the critical missions of making sure our workplaces are safe; protecting employee pensions, health benefits and rights; and providing workers with the skills they need to compete successfully in the 21st century economy.”

Patrick Pizzella, an assistant secretary who oversees competitive sourcing, told the GAO in a letter last month that the department agrees tracking costs and performance more systematically would give the agency a more accurate picture of the usefulness of competitive sourcing. “As the GAO report indicates, DOL has made progress developing a system to assess the performance of winning service providers in our competitive sourcing program, and DOL’s competitions rarely resulted in lost jobs or salary reductions for DOL employees,” he said yesterday.

Pizzella said the Office of Management and Budget does not require that fuller counting; the GAO urged the OMB to require agencies to do so.
Source

Will the lies ever end?

Obama, McCain discuss ways to change ‘bad habits’ of Washington

November 17 2008

By BETH FOUHY

CHICAGO

President-elect Barack Obama and former Republican rival John McCain pledged Monday to work together on ways to change Washington’s “bad habits,” though aides to both men said it was unlikely McCain would serve in an Obama cabinet.

The two men met in Obama’s transition headquarters in Chicago for the first time since the Illinois senator vanquished McCain in the presidential election Nov. 4.

Obama said they wanted to talk about “how we can do some work together to fix up the country,” and he added that he would offer his thanks to McCain “for the outstanding service he’s already rendered.”

Obama has said he is likely to invite at least one Republican to join his cabinet, but McCain was not expected to be a candidate. McCain is serving his fourth term in the U.S. Senate.

Obama and McCain sat together for a brief picture-taking session with reporters, along with Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, and South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, McCain’s close friend.

Obama and McCain were heard briefly discussing football, and Obama cracked that “the national press is tame compared to the Chicago press.”

When asked if he planned to help the Obama administration, McCain replied, “Obviously.”

After the meeting, the two issued a joint statement saying: “At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time.”

“It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family,” it said.

“We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy and protecting our nation’s security.”

Obama and McCain clashed bitterly during the fall campaign over taxes, the Iraq War, and ways to fix the ailing economy. Things got ugly at times, with McCain running ads comparing Obama to celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and raising questions about his rival’s distant relationship with a 1960s-era radical, William Ayers.

Obama’s campaign labelled the 72-year old McCain “erratic” and ran a campaign ad falsely suggesting that McCain and Rush Limbaugh shared similar anti-immigration views.

McCain delivered a gracious concession speech on election night, paying tribute to Obama’s historic ascendancy as the country’s first black president. The two agreed that night to meet after the election when McCain called Obama to concede defeat.

Meanwhile, Obama said in his first television interview since his historic election that Americans shouldn’t worry about the growing federal deficit for the next couple of years and also urged help for the auto industry.

While investors are still riding a rollercoaster on Wall Street, Obama told CBS’ “60 Minutes” in an interview broadcast Sunday that the economy would have deteriorated even more without the $700 billion bank bailout. Re-regulation is a legislative priority, he said, not to crush “the entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking of American capitalism” but to “restore a sense of balance.”

He also said, “We shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. … The most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession.”

Obama said he has spent the days since the election planning to stabilize the economy, restore consumer confidence, create jobs and get sound health care and energy policies through Congress.

“There’s no doubt that we have not been able yet to reset the confidence in the financial markets and in the consumer markets and among businesses that allow the economy to move forward in a strong way,” Obama said. “And my job as president is going to be to make sure that we restore that confidence.”

While he said “we have the tools,” the president-elect said not enough has been done to address bank foreclosures and distressed homeowners.

“We’ve gotta set up a negotiation between banks and borrowers so that people can stay in their homes,” Obama said. “That is going to have an impact on the economy as a whole. And, you know, one thing I’m determined is that if we don’t have a clear, focused program for homeowners by the time I take office, we will after I take office.”

Obama credited Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for trying to remedy “an unprecedented crisis” the country hasn’t seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

A member of the transition team works with Paulson daily, Obama said, getting the needed background and sometimes offering approaches to address the economic meltdown.

Obama also acknowledged meeting with former Democratic rival Senator Hillary Clinton last week, but refused to say whether she was being considered for secretary of state, as has been widely reported. He also said the Republican party will be represented in his cabinet.

In the CBS interview, Obama also said that as soon as he takes office he will work with his security team and the military to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, shore up Afghanistan and “stamp out al-Qaida once and for all.”

Obama confirmed reports that he intends to close the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, and “make sure we don’t torture” as “part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.”

Obama also said he plans to put al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in the crosshairs.

“I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaida,” Obama said. “He is not just a symbol, he’s also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets.”

Source

Plans underway to “Microchip” Newborns in U.S. and Europe

January 2008

Doctor alleges plans underway to “Microchip” Newborns in U.S. and Europe

Compiled by Lucien Desjardins
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01290.html
Regarding plans to microchip newborns, Dr. Kilde said the U.S. has been moving in this direction “in secrecy.”

She added that in Sweden, Prime Minister Olof Palme gave permission in 1973 to implant prisoners, and Data Inspection’s ex-Director General Jan Freese revealed that nursing-home patients were implanted in the mid-1980s. The technology is revealed in the 1972:47 Swedish state report, Statens Officiella Utradninger.

Are you prepared to live in a world in which every newborn baby is micro-chipped? And finally are you ready to have your every move tracked, recorded and placed in Big Brother’s data bank? According to the Finnish article, distributed to doctors and medical students, time is running out for changing the direction of military medicine and mind control technology, ensuring the future of human freedom.

“Implanted human beings can be followed anywhere. Their brain functions can be remotely monitored by supercomputers and even altered through the changing of frequencies,” wrote Dr. Kilde. “Guinea pigs in secret experiments have included prisoners, soldiers, mental patients,handicapped children, deaf and blind people, homosexuals, single women, the elderly, school children, and any group of people considered “marginal” by the elite experimenters. The published experiences of prisoners in Utah State Prison, for example, are shocking to the conscience.

“Today’s microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The 20-billion-bit/second supercomputers at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) could now “see and hear” what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS).

“When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillimeters) is placed into optical nerve of the eye,”, Dr. Kilde indicates “it draws neuro-impulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights, and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuro-impulses can be projected back to the person’s brain via the microchip to be re-experienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target’s performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads. ”

“Every thought, reaction, hearing, and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures, and voices, ” Dr. Kilde adds. “Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person’s brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture.”

Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006
Also a lot of of other information. At this site as well.
http://www.spychips.com/
The below are just a few of the links at the site there are many more.
What is RFID?

How “spychips” pose a threat to your privacy

What should be done?
CASPIAN’s Proposed Legislation would require labeling on products containing RFID
CASPIAN’s Joint Position Statement requests limits on business and government use of RFID

Stop RFIDs in California IDs Tell Your Lawmakers to Vote “YES” to SB 768
California residents, click here to find out more.

CASPIAN Launches Worldwide Tesco Boycott!
Consumers react as retailer flaunts expanding use of RFID

Business Week Article:
“Industry is finally getting the message: RFID is fine for pallets of goods in a warehouse, but not for people.”

CIO Magazine Article:
Customers to Retailers: “Take us Seriously”
Privacy Advocates Turn up the Pressure

Scandals

DHS Wants Beefed up RFID To Silently ID People 25 Feet Away

The VeriChip Can be Cloned, May Not Work When Needed

Ex-HHS Head Puts Off Being Chipped Despite July Promise

Ex-Bush cabinet member praises & recommends VeriChip

CASPIAN uncovers Government RFID Promotion Scheme

Mexican Chipping Overstated (CASPIAN reveals 18 officials chipped, not 160)

FDA letter outlines serious health risks from VeriChip human implants

Censored! CASPIAN told to remove incriminating RFID tagging photos

Photos of chipped CVS products, Kleenex, Huggies baby wipes

Calvin Klein and other clothing labels with hidden RFID tags

Mexican Attorney General and staff take RFID implants

Wal-Mart is RFID tagging in Texas! Call 1-800-Wal-Mart to complain!

Industry Attempt to Smear RFID Activist Katherine Albrecht
Grocery Manufacturers of America and Gillette CEO asked to explain

CASPIAN finds embarrassing confidential RFID documents
Talk of “pacifying” consumers, hoping for “apathy,” and bringing lawmakers into the “inner circle.”

CASPIAN asks “How can we trust these people with our personal data?”

Metro “Future Store” hides RFID in shopper cards
Protest and backlash force a recall
Wal-Mart, P&G Caught in Secret RFID Test
Consumers used as guinea pigs for controversial technology