Saturday, December 27, 2008

Obama is fronting for the secretive, elitist power behind the power in USA.

Pay attention to his CIA2/MOSSAD appointments....working full time for the secret power behind the power in USA and the PNAC hegemonic designs worldwide getting a new lease on life. In fact, I reaffirm that these so-called Zionist/Israeli/Jewish/evangelical lobbies, are completely subservient to the real power behind the power in USA.

It's pretty obvious that an apparently newly forming neo-con and neo-lib consortium of oligarchs have bought Obama. We won't see any further investigation of the Cheney/Bush Administration once he takes office and he'll use the very same excuses that Jerry Ford used - "We need to move on for the good of the nation" [paraphrased]....

I'm convinced that we saw this same vote getting machine at work with McCain to get him through the New Hampshire primary. McCain was literally at the bottom of a heap of losers when prominent neo-cons Joe Lieberman and Charles Krauthammer endorsed him in a major media blitz. They had few alternatives at the time -- a time before Obama was brought on board with campaign finance capital and threats using Larry Sinclair. Suddenly McCain's pole numbers exploded (I believe the some polls were bogus and others electronically manipulated) and only two weeks later he won New Hampshire.
Most are pretty blind to who Obama really is as well. Her censor bots are over there working overtime. As someone whom you all know has a reputation for insisting on objectivity over anti-Semitism, let me just say you don't use the word "Israel" without the censor bot seizing your message for further analyzes by a "human."
These folks who parade themselves as Progressive are just leaving me astounded and nauseated, the least of whom are the most virulent of Obama's supporters who haven't been paying attention to his CIA2/MOSSAD appointments.... working full time for the secret power behind the power in USA and the PNAC hegemonic designs worldwide getting a new lease on life. In fact, I reaffirm that these so-called Zionist/Israeli/Jewish/evangelical lobbies, are completely subservient to the real power behind the power in USA.

You would like this site: is dead. is live.

Watch what happens when you click on it, Liberty. Ooooh. Ahhhh.
Picture electric light bulbs clicking on overhead.

1919 Letter Offers Evidence That the Rothschild Bank is Truly in Control of America, its Political System, and its "Subjects".

The world is in unison that the scrooge of PNAC CIA2/MOSSAD and the
White House Murder Inc, terror must end. Whether these attacks are
aimed at innocent people, VIPs, world leaders or economic
infrastructure becomes immaterial and we must unite to condemn
these attacks. The more we wonder how the menace of terror has
become invisible we need to factually take into account the sources
and links that have directly or indirectly pumped life into these
monsters and their terror cells and establishments. The answers to
these will provide the reasons why terror still remains over and above
the calls for the elimination of terrorism from the world.

How do these terrorists operate – from where do they get the money to
buy weapons and ammunition – how do they escape international and
local detection - how are they able to transport these items to
various destinations – who trains these men and women and even
children and where are these training bases – why are they not
revealed to the international public? Do they have links to a
country’s intelligence services, which are the countries that profit
from the arms trade and how much of these are provided to terrorists
and why?

These are some of the questions that will answer why terrorism still
exists. Of the oft quoted examples we are aware that money is raised
from extortion, drug trafficking, foreign supporters, money
laundering, charitable organizations, legitimate businesses and even
State patronage. Islamic terrorist groups pass money through a system
known as ‘hawala’. Afghanistan is the haven for opium as is Myanmar
and one of the reasons why Taliban regime thrives and surprisingly
enough despite the US occupation in Afghanistan opium production has
plummeted to over 4000 tons – the IMF says that heroin represents
40-50% of Afghanistan’s economy & 95% of its economic recovery. Did we
mention that the US is the world’s largest user of heroin! There is a
greater urgency to explore the links to these non-state actors and to
find out whether they are being influenced by legitimate Governments &
their connected agencies & offices.

The list of terrorist organizations is many. Governments of various
countries have their own individual lists and the UN the custodian of
world peace has its own list. Many would prefer going by the UN list
of terrorists but unfortunately the UN list has come into controversy
with the inclusion of Haji Muhammad Ashraf of the Lashkar-e-Taiba
who’s been dead for over 6 years.

Countries also have banned some groups and even frozen their assets.
The US State Dept has 42 Foreign Terrorist Organizations listed. The
UK has 45 international terrorist organizations listed. The EU has
placed 47 terrorist organizations on its list but surprisingly enough
the EU has excluded the Al Qaeda. This may be in large measure due to
the fact that the Al Qaeda is more of a franchise entity with a
network collection of groups all linked to it. But, there still
remains only one supreme commander therefore EU needs to explain why
its list excludes Al Qaeda. Australia’s list of terrorist
organizations number 18. Amidst the inconsistency in designating
terrorist organizations we are compelled to explore whether the
proverbial saying that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s
terrorist is actually true. As we wonder why terrorism continues to
thrive and contemplate how much terrorism has turned into a lifestyle
for some and a business for others we need to realistically picture
the real situation in order to understand what exactly is really
happening around us.

Links to terrorists

Amidst the controversies there are plenty of allegations and counter
allegations often against Governments and their intelligence services
who in the pretext of their national sovereignty foster terror in
foreign climes by training terrorists. It was the US who created Bin
Laden and the Al Qaeda to fight a war against Russia who invaded
Afghanistan. Could it not be that these fighters trained to resist
moves of forceful occupation are now confused by the change in
ideology when the US decides to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? As we
raise alarms over terrorism and its rise throughout the world, we
should first ask how and why powerful Governments chose to carry out
covert and overt operations by creating monsters that have now become
out of control. You find Pakistan being accused of training
terrorists, its army accused of links to terror groups but similarly
all other countries including UK, Germany, France, Iran, Israel,
India, China and the US all have plenty of skeletons in their closets
though they enjoy preaching peace.

India’s intelligence agency – RAW is accountable for the training,
arming and financial support that eventually internationalized the
LTTE into becoming one of the world’s most ruthless killer forces.
India will not acknowledge this nor will India allow the Government of
Sri Lanka to end the terrorism that prevails in the island nation.
India’s National Security Advisor Narayan was one time tasked with
handling the LTTE leader. Similarly, the Indian Intelligence Agency –
RAW is accused of collaborating with the Northern Alliance remnants &
training anti-Pakistan terrorists (tribal dissidents) in Afghanistan
through its 4 consulates located in Afghanistan.

In the wake of the Mumbai attacks a new form of terror arose – where
10 armed men were able to attack 13 places in the financial hub of
Mumbai and take on elite commandos for 60 hours (four successive days)
A global power that watched silently for 4 days as gun fire, grenade
explosions, fires took place may need to look inward and ask why India
took so long to bring things under control and it would become rather
farcical if India goes to war on the grounds that these men were from
Pakistan and that they were trained there. The fact of the matter
remains that all the countries that declare “war on terror” are the
culprits of creating that terror. Had it not been for the selfish and
self-centered reasons for allowing intelligence services to equip,
train and order these men and women to carry out terror we would not
have to fear walking on the streets or entering public places.

The US has been training members of Palestinian President’s Fatah
security forces in Jericho in the West bank since late 1990s.
Currently 300 security members are under US training. US also provide
the Fatah Force 17 which also serves as the Preventative Security
Services with arms and assault rifles in a bid to bolster Fatah
against the Hamas. The funding for the US training is estimated at
USD86.5million approved by the US Congress. It is widely believed that
known terrorist leaders including the deputy commander of the Al Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade and other members of the group that carried out
suicide bombings in Israel in 2005/2006.

Despite giving an amnesty by Israeli former Prime Minister Olmert as a
gesture to Palestinian President Abbas, the Brigade members have not
disarmed but have continued their terror attacks. Thus, while the US
may voice eulogies on its solidarity with the Israeli people the US
training (military and intelligence) and arms supplies to Fatah have
been responsible for the spate of attacks on Israeli interests. Thus,
we can safely assume that the financial, military and intelligence
training provided for the Palestinian resistance by the US has left
over 1000 Israeli dead and us wondering what the US rhetoric on
terrorism is really about. "Schmoozing with Terrorists," a book by
Aaron Klein has even declared that US funded Hamas schools &
university has chemistry labs which produce rockets and suicide bomb

The US Army School of Americas (SOA now known as the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) has been under attack
for using terror for foreign policy objectives. The mission of the
school is to train Latin American soldiers in combat, Counter-
insurgency And counter-narcotics. It therefore should come as no
surprise when nearly all of Latin America’s human rights abusers have
actually graduated from the school including Panama’s Manuel Noriega a
CIA operative until he was removed by the US in 1989. Graduates of the
SOA were also part of the 1973 military coup in Chile, the 1976
assassination of former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier in
Washington, and the wars in Argentina and Bolivia in the 1970s. The
SOA is also responsible for training Anastasio Somoza’s National Guard
in Nicaragua in the 1970s, the civil war abuses in El Salvador and
kidnappings in Colombia as well as murders of peace commissioner.

President Eisenhower during his presidency used plenty of covert
operations through CIA to overthrow suspected communist Governments.
Three attempts were made during his Presidency to overthrow
Governments in Iran – CIA replaces Muhammad Mossadegh with Shah
Muhammad Reza Pahlavi (when Mossadegh seized British oil properties in
1953). In Guatemala, the CIA overthrew Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1954 &
Indonesia in 1958 with the overthrowing of Sukarno. His Eisenhower
Doctrine promised Middle East nation’s military aid if they were being
threatened by communism.

Presently, there is much focus against Iran and a build up made to
project Iran as fostering terrorism and nuclear weapons. In 2007,
Congress agreed to President Bush’s request to fund a major covert
operation against Iran. A covert operation would mean working with
opposition groups which ultimately will create another terror force.
Is it these creations that eventually refuse to be bound to their
masters and prefer instead to take their own path of instilling terror
and anarchy?

The issue of using covert state terrorism to advance neo-liberal
global project has varied views – we can take as an example the CIA
bombing of a Cuban airliner on October 6, 1976 which killed 73
innocent civilians. It was meant to create fear and submission by the
Cuban authorities. George Bush Snr., was the CIA Director at the time
and there were close ties that linked the Bush family to oil
businesses and key politicians in Venezuela. James Baker who was
appointed Secretary of State owned the Commerce Bank of Texas in
Venezuela. Posada the CIA agent arrested by Cuban authorities for the
bombing threatened to reveal details which would create another
“Watergate” – secrecy, hidden documents all end up cover ups for
realities of situations that take place beyond the score of public
review though the public end up beneficiaries of the terror. The
western Balkans the fate of the “new Kosovo” has emerged following
detection of 3 Germans whether any moves were afoot to replace the UN
office with an EU office. However, the Kosovo media say that the 3 men
are German intelligence agents (BND). This is further to a Christian
Science Monitor report which gave details of a deal with Serbia to
deploy a EU mission in Kosovo.

The public needs to be aware of the interrelationships between the
wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq, the
Iraqi people may wonder whether the dictator Saddam was ever as bad as
their current situation where an average 50 deaths are reported

Evidence in a report compiled by German TV ZDF reveals how the CIA and
the German Intelligence (BND) supported the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA) which has links to the Al Qaeda. The report reveals that German
intelligence knew 3 weeks prior to the March 17 attacks on Serbs
throughout Kosovo & Samedin Xhezairi of the KLA was the link between
Albanian extremists and the Al Qaeda. Samedin Xhezair had also fought
in Chechnya, was trained in Afghanistan and was evacuated by US
paratroopers from the US private military company MPRI from Macedonia
barely a few weeks before the September 11 attack on the US. If the US
military has been working with the Al Qaeda we can but wonder what the
"war on terror" is all about.

What remains true is that the Atlantic Alliance supported the KLA and
made them attack ethnic Albanians in order to allow the NATO and US
troops to enter citing "humanitarian" grounds and accuse the Serbian
Government of ethnic cleansing. This was the US and NATO’s "just war"
which resulted in the bombing of Yugoslavia and supported by western
media which provided a disinformation campaign. No one claimed that
the invasion of Kosovo was a violation of international law. As terror
groups most of whom happen to be Islamic fundamentalists become armed
with sophisticated weaponry we not only wonder whether the peace
keeping forces are actively or passively creating a new form of terror
that is assured to turn against their creators as we have seen.

The earliest form of overt operation was committed by the US on
hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese in 1945 by dropping not one
but 2 atomic bombs. There is also the 1965-72 napalming of large areas
of Vietnam and then the 2003 bombing of Baghdad once again by US

When a nation’s public silently agree to covert operations because
their State Dept labels nations as “rogue nations” the damage is
colossal. Was not the “Special Forces” trained during the World War 2
men who were trained in unconventional warfare? The US media has been
party to most of the heinous crimes that the US Government’s covert
operations have ventured upon. Without balancing their argument they
prefer to project everyone as enemies of the US. In many ways the 9/11
became a wake up which left many asking whether the US’s decision of
turning teams hostile to other nations was not another form of
terrorism? The CIA’s budget is Top Secret and even not disclosed to
Congressmen. So while there is the US military there is also another
set of private and shadow force with the power above US law. As we
read deeper into US "interests" we need to realize how far the US is
likely to go to protect "US interests?" The US entered Somalia in 1991
on the pretext that 1000 people were starving – it turned out not to
be quite the contrary.

What should countries like the US wish to make countries unstable – is
this the way they look after the people’s human rights? There are many
ways invasions are justified – to save people from ruthless dictators
and weapons of mass destruction as was the Iraq example, starvation
was the reason in Somalia, genocide in Kosovo, 9/11 in
Afghanistan….now the covert operations in these nations by US Special
Forces means that men are being trained and supplied with arms so long
as they remain faithful to US interests. Saddam Hussein was a friend
of the US in the 1980s & so was Osama bin Laden.

As we look deeper into terrorism we need to explore its close ties to
Government foreign policies especially those that apply covert & overt
operations and wonder how far they are interlinked. The expense
currently been used to eliminate terrorism and its associated entities
could have cured the world of hunger and even provided different means
of employment. There are 300,000 unemployed in the US. Of the
6.7billion world population 10,023,383 have died so far this year.
USD60,900,000 is spent on weight loss programs in the US. 80,000 tons
of food is wasted daily in the US.

Only USD19,700,000 is needed to feed the world. USD25,800,000 is spent
on pet food in the US & Europe. In 1994 alone, the developing world
spent close to £90 billion on weapons. Yet the United Nations has
estimated that just £11 billion of this money would pay for all the
primary health care needs in all countries that are considered to be
developing countries today.

World military expenditure in 2006 is estimated to have reached $1204
billion in current dollars; The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent
of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current
world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half
of the world total. The US accounts for 46% of world military spending
following by UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5% each. Of the active
conflicts in 1999, the United States supplied arms or military
technology to parties in more than 92% of them --39 out of 42. In over
one-third of these conflicts - 18 out of 42 - the United States
provided from 10% to 90% of the arms imported by one side of the
dispute. Between 1986 and 1995 the United States delivered $42 billion
worth of armaments to parties in 45 ongoing conflicts. A significant
portion of the $6 billion in covert U.S. arms and training sent to
Afghan rebel groups in the 1980s was funneled to right-wing Islamic
fundamentalist forces that now use these resources to attack U.S.
allies and citizens.

United States has a consistent record of giving military aid and
weapons to governments that engage in serious human rights abuses,
including Uzbekistan, Colombia, and Turkey. With the arms trade being
such an influencer we cannot ignore some of the practices and impacts
of the arms industry. Most of the armament firms lobby for war
policies so they can continue to sell their arms. These firms even
bribe government officials both at home & abroad even emissaries,
roughly $2.5 billion a year is paid in bribes, nearly a tenth of
turnover; these firms are also able to influence public opinion
through control over news media locally & internationally.

These firms are even able to play one country against another.
We can but wonder how successful has the post 9-11 War on Terror has
actually been & how far human rights of innocent people has been
secured by those waging the war. If we take a look at the Indo-Pak
scenario while the international community wishes for restraint in the
Indo-Pak border, UK & US are attempting to sell arms to India. We can
then wonder why Condoleezza Rice made such a hurried stopover in India
following the Mumbai attack!

So what are the hard realities – is it not true that the arms
manufacturers are profiting from terrorism. We can but wonder whether
these arms are for Governments to defend terror or for terrorists to
terrorize us.

86% of all arms sold come from the 5 permanent members of the UN
Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia & China)

How can these countries Talk Peace but sell arms? Are not these very
nations guilty of having links to terror outfits who were once their
friends but who have now become their foes? The people of the world
are today suffering as a consequence of the clandestine foreign
policies adapted by nations who have involved themselves in covert/
overt/espionage & most recently striking deals with terrorists – most
of whom have been sent through a brainwashing process, trained to
hate, armed to kill & determined to destroy – can any negotiation
work? Obviously not, that is why we will never see a reduction in arms
trade & that is why the world can only dream of a peaceful tomorrow.
Leaders & countries who attempt to quell terrorism are brought down by
fabricating scenarios like human rights violations, kidnapping, extra-
judicial killings so as to provide the basis for world opinion to go
against these countries & to deny them the glory of defeating

Sri Lanka in its last leg of a war that has gone on for almost 30
years has had to face similar accusations – genocide, ethnic
cleansing, and human rights violations. The brigade that unites to
overshadow the military successes of the Government are doing their
best to create a scenario that undermines the Government. So far the
successes of the military, their ability to take over rebel-held
territory have silenced many. The answer to the untruths of genocide
and ethnic cleansing are equally easy to prove – Sri Lanka suffers
none of these fabrications. Yet a formidable challenge to Sri Lanka
still remains India who for internal political survival ends up having
to appease Tamil Nadu leaders most of whom nurse a separatist agenda
that compliments the LTTE terrorism.

How can India warn Pakistan of nurturing terror on its soil when there
are conclusive evidence against India for its role in training Sri
Lanka’s LTTE on Indian soil (in a camp located at Chakrata, Tamil
Nadu) by India’s intelligence service RAW who even termed the LTTE as
"our boys". Is this not a visible example of encouraging cross-border
terrorism by India upon a friendly SAARC neighbor? Yet, Sri Lanka’s
public while condemning the actions of past and present political
leaderships of India still have the highest of regard for India and
its people.

The dangers of allowing terror to continue need not be reminded to
India. The past few years India has had to endure series of bomb
explosions culminating in a 60hour siege by just 10 men. Even for
political survival, India should not have to dance to the tunes of men
like Karunanidhi and Vaiko. We are surprised how the Indian Government
can allow them to openly portray their allegiance with the LTTE while
India preaches peace & the determination to overcome terrorism. Little
does India realize that the LTTE is only a ploy for these Tamil Nadu
leaders to eventually carve out a separate State in Tamil Nadu using
Sri Lanka’s North as their base – the fate of Algeria’s Ben Bella is
likely to happen to Prabakaran the leader-in-hiding of the LTTE.

World leaders those of whom have contributed to the creation of
terrorist organizations and their cells must finally realize that they
cannot control these hostile elements. The tragedy remains that these
world leaders have not been magnanimous enough to accept this reality
– or perhaps the creation of these terror cells is to continue the
sale of arms, the indoctrination of countries and its people to neo-
liberal attitudes etc. Can the world’s powerful nations those that
benefit from wars and terrorism please answer!

Monday, December 8, 2008

* Public records show that USAID has long been a front for CIA intelligence gathering, as well as a conduit for CIA funding to foreign stooges.

+ Public records show that USAID has long been a front for CIA intelligence gathering, as well as a conduit for CIA funding to foreign stooges, agents, and cronies within governments, like the 14Hmars
USAID/CIA2 spruces up municipal website in Lebanon in order to steal Intelligence at the source, with tailor made US Software to SPY, just like at the Justice department in Lebanon and many other countries worldwide, with the "promise software" bundled in....

BEIRUT: Residents of the Shiyyah municipality in Baabda will be able to contact local officials over the Internet thanks to the launch of a US-funded interactive website, the US Agency for "CIA2" ...International Development said Friday. The website is a part of an "E-Municipality" project designed to make local governance more efficient and to improve the lives of residents by offering a more streamlined process. Citizens are able to visit a website to access information regarding municipal decisions, information from their tax records or to complain about municipal officials. They can also track payments they have made to the municipality to help keep track of their finances. -

*1- Public records show that USAID has long been a front for CIA intelligence gathering, as well as a conduit for CIA funding to foreign governments and agencies. See: Sen. Vitter's Foreign Relations Committee oversight role examined in DC sex scandal, attached.













Defendant Deborah Jeane Palfrey, appearing pro se as her court-appointed counsel refuses

to bring these matters to the Court’s attention and objecting to the delay imposed without her consent

upon this matter by the Court’s order of September 7, 2007, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Appendix,

Classified Information Procedures Act, §2, hereby files her Memorandum of Facts in support of her

motion for “a pretrial conference to consider matters relating to classified information that may arise

in connection with the prosecution.”

The “classified” discovery sought arises from Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compel

testimony (i) in support of her defense – among others – that she has a public authority defense as

recognized under FRCP, Rule 12.3 and (ii) regarding information on the witnesses Defendant intends

to call in her defense.


In espionage, a honeypot, more often called a honey-trap, is a trap set to capture, kill or

compromise a person, commonly but not necessarily an opposition agent, officer, or employee, using

sex as the lure. Even if the target does not deliberately give information to his seducer, the seducer

may accidentally be given opportunities to obtain it herself. A long-term relationship is not


necessarily the goal, however — the technique can also be used to blackmail those who later regret

their actions. Incriminating photographs can be an effective tool of coercion, for example. The most

common employment of this technique is by women, either female intelligence agents or (if the

purpose is simply to obtain material for blackmail) prostitutes.

There are numerous recent real public examples of the utilization of this technique by


1. Clayton J. Lonetree, a Marine Sergeant embassy guard in Moscow,

was entrapped by a female Soviet officer in 1987. He was then

blackmailed into handing over documents when he was assigned to

Vienna. Lonetree is the first US Marine to be convicted of spying

against the United States.

2. Roy Rhodes, a US Army NCO serving at the US embassy in Moscow,

had a one-night stand (or was made to believe he had) with a Soviet

agent while drunk. He was later told the agent was pregnant, and that

unless he co-operated with the Soviet authorities, this would be

revealed to his wife.

3. Irvin Scarbeck, a US diplomat, was entrapped by a female Polish

officer in 1961, and photographed in a compromising position. He

was blackmailed into providing secrets.

4. Sharon Scranage, a CIA employee described by one source as a "shy,

naive, country girl", was allegedly seduced by Ghanaian intelligence

agent Michael Soussoudis. She later gave him information on CIA

operations in Ghana, which was later shared with Soviet-bloc


5. Mordechai Vanunu, who had disclosed Israeli nuclear secrets, began

an affair with an American Mossad agent, Cheryl Bentov, operating

under the name "Cindy" and masquerading as an American tourist, on

September 30, 1986. She persuaded him to fly to Rome, Italy with her

on a holiday. Once in Rome, Mossad agents drugged him and

smuggled him to Israel on a freighter.

6. John Vassall, a British civil servant who was guided by the KGB into

having sex with multiple male partners while drunk. The KGB then


used photographs of this to blackmail Vassall into providing them

with secret information.

7. Katrina Leung, indicted as a double agent working for both China and

the FBI, seduced her FBI handler, James J. Smith, and was able to

obtain FBI information of use to China through him. She also had an

affair with another FBI officer, William Cleveland.

8. In May 2007 a female officer serving in Sweden's Kosovo force is

suspected of having leaked classified information to her Serbian lover

who turned out to be a spy.

9. Ms. Nolan-Cooper pled guilty to money laundering on March 10,

1997 in Philadelphia. (Philadelphia Daily News, 3/11/97). Sentenced

to 72 months in prison, the former attorney had helped an undercover

IRS agent named Louis Oubre to launder $190,000. Noteworthy in

this case is that the recently divorced mother of two young boys had

been wined and dined by Oubre and with whom she enjoyed sexual

relations. Oubre came to her initially seeking advice on how to move

money from abroad to the U.S. and through various manipulative

behavior, including repeated sexual liaisons, succeeded in convincing

Ms. Nolan-Cooper to break the law.

Common sense compels the conclusion that for every public disclosure of such governmentsponsored

honey-traps, dozens more are not publically revealed.

Indeed, as recently as June 2007, MI5, which is responsible for protecting the United

Kingdom against threats to national security, released an advisory: “Spies target techies with honey

traps.” A copy of that article is attached.

Most noteworthy is that for over 13 years Defendant operated her escort service without a

single arrest of an escort though she was operating in a metropolitan area that is policed by over

Fifty (50) law enforcement agencies. Moreover, given that there are at least Seventeen (17) federal

intelligence agencies operating in Washington D.C., it is much more than supposition that the

Defendant’s agency was allowed to operate without police interference for the benefit the agency

1 Public records show that USAID has long been a front for CIA intelligence gathering, as well

as a conduit for CIA funding to foreign governments and agencies. See: Sen. Vitter's Foreign

Relations Committee oversight role examined in DC sex scandal, attached.


provided to the United States government. Accordingly, Defendant will be seeking discovery of the

direct and/or indirect utilization the Defendant’s service by the government for public benefit to the

end of an presenting an equitable collateral estoppel defense.


What is publically known at this point in the prosecution of the Defendant is that –

notwithstanding the obfuscation by the government and without meaningful resources – Defendant

has identified four significant individuals who were customers of the service.

1. Senator David Vitter who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, which has oversight responsibilities of U.S. foreign

policy agencies, including USAID.1 Senator Vitter is also currently

the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee's

Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations,

Democracy and Human Rights, which oversees, among other things,

the State Department, the U.S. Foreign Service (i.e. the diplomatic

corps), and U.S. participation in the United Nations.

2. Randall “Randy” Tobias former Director of Foreign Assistance, and

Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development


3. Harlan Ullman is a highly respected and widely recognized expert in

national security whose advice is sought by governments and

businesses. A senior adviser at Washington's premier think tank, the

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), his expertise

spans national security, foreign policy, terror, defense, economics,

and finance as well as Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. His column

in the Washington Times is called "Owls and Eagles" and he writes

for other publications in the US and abroad. He is a frequent

commentator in U.S. and international media including Fox, BBC,

and Al Jazeera TV and is a regular on the Washington Post radio



4. Ronald Roughead works for “Science Applications International

Corporation.” (“SAIC”). His curriculum vitae is attached hereto. His

brother is one Gary Roughead, now Chief Naval Officer of the United

States Navy. Admiral Roughead is mentioned as a speaker in a couple

of military association and foundation newsletters (National Defense

& Transportation Association & the Naval War College Foundation),

along with Harlan K. Ullman. While Admiral Roughead isn’t in the

phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates, Ronald Roughead is.

Plainly, each of the individuals possess the highest security clearance the government grants

and has access to the most sensitive information the government possess. As part of obtaining their

testimony, Defendant will be seeking documentary evidence on them, including their “Single Scope

Background Investigation” or SSBI.

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court promptly hold the requisite pretrial

conference pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act to address the above, and other,

discovery issues presented.

Rafic Hariri is an Assassin...., He lived by the Sword of KSA, SYRIA and Jacques Chirac's DGSE....and his "silent Partnership in crime...", and Dies by the Sword. Hariri's Specialty is the Murder of Potential Opponents...., especially a Heroes' Hero, and a powerful and popular Christian Politician...., Who Knew too much about him....about Saudi Intelligence, CIA2, MOSSAD, DIA2 within OSP, MI6 etc. etc. and about Randa ZAKKA... etc.... and his "practices" over the years....He dies of a WELL deserved
DEATH in HELL...with his "72 Virgins"! and No one is Sorry for his spectacular DEMISE...Good Riddance.

It is most unwise, PUNK, to attempt to kick butts,
when you are standing with one foot in the grave...

Dancing ghost chop
impossible butterfly defiance
lucky river smash
peaceful death palm
mystic dragon bow
innocent terror lunge
seven mantis bite
vicious fox-woman forehead
sound of the zodiac elbow
magnificent scorpion energy
kiss of the crane knife
spinning immortal fury
iron ghost frenzy nadat
blood of the mustard-seed antagonism
iron zodiac ambush
laughing dragon smash
strange rat energy
running terror assault
dipping fairy kick Zakhka...
imperial butterfly touch
whirling crane assault
mad butterfly attack
supernatural rabbit smash
mystic sky defiance
innocent monk punch
iron crane hand hike
three butterfly spirit
10,001 rabid onslaught
heavenly dragon nerve pinch
kiss of the fairy block
midnight shadow protection
shining rabid A. hammer
SSeven ghost wheels...

The Hariri Legacy, " poverty, debt, confiscation of property from rightful owners, corruption, egotistic narcissism, gross mis-management, delusion of grandeur, anarchy, autocratic tendencies, obfuscation of power and the truth, demagoguery, and a rush to buy the land of poor peasants and other land owners for peanuts, to bring in hoards of Gulf arrogant buffoons, to tighten the grip of his coreligionists' ".

March , 2008 .

Although Western journalism has long had a spotty track record in Lebanon, no subject has been more misrepresented than the legacy of the late Prime Minister (1992-1998 and 2000-2004) Rafiq Hariri.

Many elements of the myth are true, of course. He was a man of humble origins who struck it rich and lavished money on charitable causes for two decades before becoming prime minister. A great many Lebanese - including some of his fiercest political opponents - genuinely liked him as a person and grieved when he was brutally assassinated in February 2005. Nevertheless, the reality was "more complicated than the fairy tale," as Anna Ciezadlo aptly observed, and "not as easy to report." [1]

During the 1990-2005 Syrian occupation of Lebanon, mainstream American and European media regurgitated a quasi-fictitious narrative of Lebanon's postwar economic and political revival marketed by Hariri. They showed little interest in the darker sides of Beirut's glittering reconstruction, such as steadily widening income inequalities, rampant corruption, and the devastating impact of unregulated Syrian labor exports (which benefited Hariri and other Lebanese construction tycoons) on the poor. The steady erosion of civil liberties during Hariri's first tenure (a necessary adjunct of his economic policies) was largely downplayed.

Sugar coated press coverage was driven less by inscrutable complexities of the subject matter or conscious intent to distort facts than by a profound reluctance to acknowledge problems that have no easy solution and heartfelt support for a political establishment that many Westerners saw as the only viable bulwark against extremism and internal disintegration. While Western media coverage of Hariri during his lifetime was slanted mostly by omission, it veered toward blatant misrepresentation after his February 2005 assassination and the subsequent withdrawal of Syrian forces. As the March 14 coalition of stooges made in CIA2 and MOSSAD, headed by the Hariri family and Druze CIA agent Walid Jumblatt, narrowly stole a parliamentary majority and assumed the reins of power, an even more grandiose Hariri myth was born and reproduced verbatim in the Western media.

Hariri, who never once publicly criticized the Syrian occupation, was recast by The New York Times as a towering nationalist "known as a fierce opponent of Syrian domination."[2] Variations of this claim have been ubiquitous in Western media reports on Lebanon. The Los Angeles Times and the BBC prefer the phrase "vocal opponent,"[3] while Agence France Press is partial to "outspoken opponent."[4]

While Hariri is known to have secretly encouraged outside pressure on Syrian leader Bashar Assad not to extend the presidential term of Emile Lahoud (his political archrival) in 2004, his aim was simply to win a greater share of the spoils within Syria's orbit. Even after the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1559 calling for an unconditional Syrian withdrawal and began deliberating over how to implement it, the prime minister spent weeks trying to convince Assad to grant him a two-thirds veto-proof cabinet majority before eventually resigning. Being killed by the Syrians (by Assef Shawkat's goons of SMI) does not retroactively make Hariri a "fierce opponent" of Syrian domination, even if his death inspired many others to demand an end to the occupation.... In some western circles and in France, it was said of Rafiq Hariri, that he Sold His Soul to Syria completely for decades, and he taught them to be corrupt to the core.... Lebanese were used to bribing Syrians with "peanuts" before the advent of Hariri's insatiable sharks onto the scene.... Most of the so-called March 14th stooges were never allowed to set foot in Hariri's home or office for years, some of them desperately tried to get an appointment with him... which was never granted for years.... like Amine Gemayel and a few others.....

Other aspects of the late Hariri's legacy are routinely misrepresented in the Western media. Hariri did not, as The New York Times reported, "broker an end to the civil war in 1991."[5] He played a role in persuading (and, it is widely rumored, bribing) parliamentary deputies to sign the horrific 1989 Taif Accord, but the terms of this accord were handed down by the Saudis, with non-negotiable clauses legitimating the Syrian military presence and confiscating all executive power within the PM's dirty hands... In any case, the agreement did not bring an end to the war (none of the combatants were even present at the negotiations) - it brought a beginning to internationally sanctioned Syrian hegemony in Lebanon.

The Economist recently reported that "a lack of foreign aid and high reconstruction costs" after the war account for Lebanon's crushing debt burden today.[6] In fact, Lebanon was one of the world's largest per capita recipients of foreign aid during the occupation. The problem was that billions of dollars in bilateral and multilateral grants and soft loans were grossly misspent. A 2001 UN-commissioned assessment report on corruption in Lebanon estimated that the country had been losing $1.5 billion in graft annually (almost 10% of its GDP).[7] This was why Lebanon was saddled with "high reconstruction costs" and why it now has a massive debt burden.

Whether Hariri "drove the country forward often by sheer force of his personality," as The New York Times recently reported,[8] is perhaps debatable (since the Syrians were appointing Lebanese prime ministers, the alternatives could have been worse). However, modest economic growth at the expense of generating one of the largest per capita foreign debts of any country in the world doesn't normally win plaudits from Western journalists. These results might well have been the best possible in a country under Syrian occupation, but if so that only highlights that the occupation might well have collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions had Hariri and his Saudi financial backers not stepped in. Saudis want complete hegemony for the followers of wahhabism, salafism and CIA2 rogue operations throughout the greater middle east with Bandar bin Saud Bin criminal thug at the helm...

The rehabilitation of Hariri's legacy has greatly benefited his political heirs and allies in the March 14 coalition (where is name is invoked more often than American Republican politicians talk of Ronald Reagan) have inherited much of the media's fawning coverage. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, a close associate of Hariri, who was transplanted into the Hariri Dynasty by American Intelligence, and CIA in particular since Fouad Sannioura was an agent of CIA for years, just like Al-Maliki in Iraq, Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine..., and who ran the finance ministry of occupied Lebanon longer than all others combined, was described by The Financial Times as "a career banker intentionally thrust . . . into the top job by CIA to destroy Lebanon's fabric to the core..." after Hariri's assassination.[9] In fact, this government stalwart was chosen after careful deliberations within the Hariri family and the March 14 coalition of stooges of CIA2 and MOSSAD.

The Western media's misrepresentations and glorification of Hariri's legacy constitute one of the most startling anachronisms in journalism today. Elsewhere in the Middle East (and the world), Western journalists intensively scrutinize governments, empowering their disaffected constituents and enhancing the international community's understanding of impediments to democratic change. Lebanon remains very much an exception.

Les derniers témoins du patrimoine architectural beyrouthin tombent sous les bulldozers de Solidere...

À Wadi Abou Jmil, trois immeubles, pourtant classés, n’ont pas pu résister aux bulldozers de Solidere. Aujourd’hui, à la place des trois bâtiments, joyaux du patrimoine architectural beyrouthin, il ne reste plus qu’un amas de pierres...
- Nombre de personnes s’élèvent contre cette atteinte à la mémoire du Liban depuis 1992, en vain :

« Souvenez-vous du massacre de Cana. Durant les jours qui avaient suivi, les journalistes s’étaient presque tous rendus au sud du pays pour se rendre compte de l’ampleur du désastre...

Au même moment, profitant du choc dans le pays et du fait que toute l’attention était portée sur Qana / ou Cana, la société Solidere avait précipité ses bulldozers sur Wadi Abou Jmil afin de raser une dizaine de bâtiments classés. Beaucoup de gens et équipes d'architectes n’ont pu à l’époque que déplorer la disparition de ces magnifiques témoignages du patrimoine architectural beyrouthin. À leur retour du Liban-Sud, il n’y avait plus rien à faire. Seuls trois édifices accolés à la synagogue avaient échappé au ravage.
Aujourd’hui, alors que les Libanais sont pris par la crise politico-économique, et que la presse est tout entière braquée sur l’effondrement des institutions, les bulldozers ont repris discrètement leur besogne. Les trois derniers anciens immeubles de Wadi sont éventrés puis rasés. Il n’en reste plus qu’un amas de pierres...

Depuis des années pourtant, le promeneur pouvait voir bien en évidence, sur la façade de chacun d’eux, un écriteau signé Solidere et menaçant d’arrestation quiconque toucherait à un seul élément de ces édifices classés. Aujourd’hui, il vous est surtout interdit de vous aventurer dans le coin avec un appareil photo. Cela explique la mauvaise résolution des photos prises avec un téléphone portable.
Nous assistons, encore une fois impuissants, à la disparition de notre patrimoine architectural, culturel et identitaire. Ces édifices représentaient le dernier témoignage d’une époque qui fut l’âge d’or de la communauté israélite beyrouthine. »

[1] Anna Ciezadlo, "Sect Symbols," The Nation, 5 March 2007.
[2] "U.N. Delivers Plan for Court In Hariri Case To Lebanon," The New York Times, 11 November 2006.
[3] "U.N. Raises Pressure on Syria Over Killing; The Security Council tells Damascus to fully assist in Hariri inquiry or face consequences," The Los Angeles Times, 1 November 2005. UN team investigates Beirut blast, BBC, 24 February 2005.
[4] "Hariri assassination probe underway: Annan," Agence France Presse, 16 June 2005.
[5] "A Father's Shadow Clouds His Son's Rise in Lebanon," The New York Times, 3 October 2007.
[6] "Debt and destruction; Lebanon's economy," The Economist, 2 September 2006.
[7] The report was conducted by Information International, and commissioned by the United Nations Center for International Crime Prevention. "Lebanon loses 1.5 billion dollars annually to corruption: UN," Agence France Presse, 23 January 2001; The Daily Star (Beirut), 27 January 2001.
[8] "A Father's Shadow Clouds His Son's Rise in Lebanon," The New York Times, 3 October 2007.
[9] "Ceasefire leaves tensions between Beirut and Hizbollah simmering," The Financial Times, 9 November 2006.
By way of deception, thou shalt take over and start running things ...

YouTube Partners with MOSSAD - ADL

It sounds too weird to believe, but that's the news.... YouTube
now has on-board one of the US’s domestic branches of Israel's
intelligence service, the Mossad. The ADL, the Mossad’s most
"professional" organization whose "specialty is spreading hate", are
recruited as a professionals in the just struggle of "fighting against
Preparing for possible confrontation with Hezbollah...

By street thugs in Tel-Aviv on Potomac.Aman, MOSSAD, CIA2, DIA2.OSP, & the Infamous White House Murder Inc. at the forefront.

The Golan Heights looked like a war zone this week. Helicopters and fighter aircraft zipped over the wet, green hilltops, as thousands of soldiers practiced war against Syria and Hezbollah in a massive exercise involving the Golani Brigade, cannons and Merkava tanks. This exercise, like the dozens that have been held since the Second Lebanon War, is aimed at improving interoperability among the different IDF branches -- intelligence, air and ground forces. To achieve such interoperability, the Officer's Training School has established a new course to train future cadets in the infantry track how to use artillery support during a war, and coordinate their movements with artillery firepower. Whereas before the war in 2006, only a select number of officers in infantry units were trained to be "artillery liaison officers," now, all are.
One of the officers overseeing the exercise was Brig Gen Mikha'el Ben-Barukh, the chief artillery officer. He climbed the ranks in the Artillery Corps, taking command of it last year after serving as the head of training in the Ground Forces Command during the war. He was the officer appointed after the war to investigate the use of cluster bombs against Hezbollah. In a candid interview with The Jerusalem Post on the sidelines of the exercise, Ben-Barukh spoke about the war as a "missed opportunity," one that was caused by "poor management" at the highest levels of the military. Artillery, Ben-Barukh revealed, fired more than 170,000 shells into Lebanon during the war, an average of 5,000 a day. While the number is astounding, he says the artillery fire was misused. "In the last war, we fired to disrupt Hezbollah activity," and kill civilians indiscriminately, which is the IDF specialty since 1948...he explained. "The next time we will fire to destroy."

The way to do this, he said, is to have better UNIFIL and Civilian targets, just like what IDF/Sayyarets Metkal did in 1982 at Sabra and Shatila targets. For that, he ruled, you need not only good intelligence, but also new technological systems. One such system is a new radar the corps hopes to declare operational next year, capable of detecting the exact location of rocket launchers, and of transmitting the information digitally to the cannon or rocket systems deployed nearby. Another new technology is a small, lightweight, unmanned aerial vehicle which, in the coming months, the IDF will supply to infantry and tank battalions to enable commanders to see "over the hill." To prepare for another possible war with Hezbollah, the IDF has also drawn up operational plans that it believes will succeed in ending the battle - with a clear and decisive victory - in four or five days...., not like last time..... dream on bunch of creepy cowards.

In the event of a war, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi's recommendation to the cabinet, defense officials said this week, would be to give the IDF the green light to heavily bomb Lebanese infrastructure, now that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government. "In the last war, we made a distinction between Hezbollah targets and Lebanese national targets," a senior IDF general told the Post. "Now that Hezbollah is in the government -- with veto power in the cabinet -- there is no longer a reason to make this distinction, since a Hezbollah attack against Israel is essentially a Lebanese attack against Israel." ....LOL, FDDC at its best, since Hezbollah was part of the government since 2005, and the Veto power is for the opposition, not for Hizbullah on its own, but the IDF and the Israeli government do always what they do best, with constant LIES, propaganda and false flag operations, killings, maiming civilian populations of Lebanon, since 1948.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak conveyed this exact message two weeks ago during an address to the Knesset plenum. "In practice, UN Resolution 1701 isn't working," because Israeli incursions into Lebanese airspace is in the thousands since 2006 he said. "And Hezbollah's integration within the Lebanese republic exposes Lebanon and its infrastructure to a more massive strike in the event of a future standoff." While during the last war, Israel defended itself against accusations that its response to the abduction of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser was "disproportionate," today the IDF makes no secret of its plan to respond "disproportionately" from the outset.... which has always been Israel's dream to destroy Lebanon at its core, because Israeli leaders have shown time and again in Lebanon, the west bank and Gaza, savage disregard for any laws. Warmongering, killings, assassinations and murder is Israel's specialty from its inception in 48.

In general terms, the plan consists of two stages. The first: to strike hard at Hezbollah infrastructure from the air, and to hope that this is devastating enough to force Hezbollah to end the war. For this reason, the Air Force continues to fly regularly over Lebanon to gather intelligence and track the weapons shipments that is being smuggled in from Syria. The second: to conduct a massive ground attack, probably up to the Karantina River, the area where most of Hezbollah's short-range Katyusha rockets are believed to be deployed. The difference between the next war and the last is that the IDF will not wait until the final 24 hours of a month-long war to recommend sending troops to the Litani; they will do so immediately.....dream on cowards.

Due to the deployment of UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces south of the Litani, Hezbollah has encountered difficulty in building up positions in open areas. Instead, it has put its focus primarily on Shiite villages, where it has set up command-and-control posts and deployed its rocket launchers. For this reason, the question of whether the army will be able to strike back freely at the villages has been raised. "No village will be immune," explained the senior general. "We will give them about a 12-hour warning, and then strike back."

Ben-Barukh says that the decision of whether to fire artillery into inhabited villages will be up to the political echelon and top IDF brass. "We need to make sure to hit civilians, exactly as we always do, and always did in South Lebanon, by murdering thousands of innocent civilians and UNIFIL troops and people in the crossfire" he said. "That is why we have smart, precision weapons, for when they fire at us from within cities or villages." The larger question involves if and when the next war will break out. There is the same clear answer, just like the usual way the IDF conducts its business of killing from 1948 onwards. Some members of the General Staff are even in favor of launching a preemptive strike against Hezbollah, due to its unprecedented military capability, though this is the most likely scenario..... dream on cowards.

The assessment is that even though Hezbollah has always been a member of the Lebanese government, it still believes in the defense of Lebanon from Israeli hooligans, thugs and murderers, who have relentlessly pounded Lebanon with millions of bombs and high explosives over the years since 1948.... To justify its existence as an armed Resistance, it will need once again to fight against any invaders of Lebanon, foreign or domestic stooges of CIA2/MOSSAD and the IDF, if it is ever foolish enough to come back for more. Meanwhile, the IDF is still on high alert for a Hezbollah retaliatory attack to avenge February's assassination of arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, by the most infamous assassination machine in history, the White House's Murder Inc., of CIA2/MOSSAD and its CEO in the Levant the killer/murderer Assef Shawqat, the pimp of Damascus.

Regional peace.... piece by piece with land grabbing from central Asia to Somalia....

It is not foolish to believe that Syrian-Israeli peace can come about shortly after Obama enters the White House. However, if Obama decides to endorse the talks, and make them direct - what Bush had curtly refused to do - then probably, a deal can be achieved by early 2010. All parties agree that no deal can be achieved without the Americans involvement and endorsement from the White House Murder Inc., and its liaison in Damascus with Asef Shawkat.

Imad Mustapha, Syria's ambassador to the United States, recently said that "as far as Syria is concerned, we are cautiously optimistic. Our optimism stems from our realization of how deep is America's masterly creation of the White House Murder Inc., which will start to bear its fruits shortly after the coming big-one....additional murder/assassination, our perception of Barack/Chicago thugs Obama, the CIA2 man and the president..., and how Bush's foreign policies have miserably succeeded with the achievements of the White House Murder Inc., with our Syrian help and candid coordination with CIA2 in Damascus, who replaced the State Department for about 5 years now begrudgingly...and have conducted splendid covert operations from Damascus with the notorious Asef Shawkat in charge". Obama comes to power in January and needs no less than 10 months to get his domestic house into order and then start concentrating on the Middle East. That means that no serious results can be achieved on the Syrian-Israeli track before October 2009.... and a few other murders here and there....

The Turks meanwhile - depending on the outcome of the Israeli elections - can keep the momentum alive for peace talks between Syria and Israel, so too can figures like former president Jimmy Carter, who will be visiting Damascus next Saturday. What many people fail to understand is that Syria is always seeking financial rewards for its achievements in the White House Murder Inc. deal with CIA2/MOSSAD, Israel - just like the case with Egypt in 1978 or Jordan in 1994. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, once even commented that she was always surprised that the Syrians were always seeking direct US, and ARAB and MAFIAS' financial assistance, when talks were on the verge of succeeding in the mid-1990s.... and since the outset of the Syrian Baath of the Assad's family of thugs and KILLERS.

Syria's argument always has been that the only reward it wants is the constant membership and achievements of the White House Murder Inc, allowing the Syrian economy to grow and attract investment in a prosperous and healthy manner, from Europe, the US and the Arab Gulf. Syria is a rich country that has enough wealth and potential to manage and develop its own economy, with US and many other mafia's money. Paying it to sign a peace agreement would mean that strings are never attached, the Syrians believe strongly in the achievements of the White House Murder Inc. If peace does materialize in late 2009 - or early 2010 - this would give, in addition to restoration of the occupied Golan Heights, a tremendous boost for the Syrian economy, providing jobs, attracting investment and increasing growth....of the achievements of the White House Murder Inc.

Matters began shifting in Syria's favor after the achievements of the White House Murder Inc. The Europeans - more so than the US - realized that isolating Syria had led nowhere, except to empower groups like the White House Murder Inc. If anything constructive was going to be done in the Middle East with regard to Arab-Israeli peace or Lebanon, it needed to include the Syrians within the framework of the White House Murder Inc. as always. The perception of Syria started to change, from its achievements in the White House Murder Inc.

Annapolis is actually what got the Americans to refrain from vetoing the Syrian-Israeli talks, but Bush was never interested in pursuing Sarcoxie's path toward Damascus. The Syrians realized this early on, and capitalized on achievements of the White House Murder Inc , towards the Middle East. The French are practical when it comes to Lebanon; they want solutions, regardless of how they are reached and who is involved in reaching them, whether it is achievements of the White House Murder Inc, Iran or Syria. It just so happened that since January 24th 2002, solutions were formulated in Damascus with a string of assassinations, starting with the murder/assassination of Mr. Elie Hobeika and his comrades, by Asef Shawkat's killers, on orders from the butcher Ariel Sharon, CIA2/MOSSAD. The more Syria can offer on achievements of the White House Murder Inc, the more likely it is going to have a good 2009....and way beyond, thanks to its subservience to the grand Israeli
designs sine 1970....and the protection it offords the ASSAD Mafia in Damascus, and
a very successful assoCIAtion with the White House Murder Machine for years...

Monday, August 11, 2008

The least Mysterious Downfall of Assef Shawkat; Murderer par excellence takes an unceremonial exit before more befalls down on him from UNIIIC.

The least Mysterious Downfall of Assef Shawkat; Murderer par excellence takes an unceremonial exit before more befalls down on him from UNIIIC.

In recent months, there has been a whirlwind of regional and international speculation regarding the fate of Brig. Gen. Assef Shawkat, the head of Syrian military intelligence and brother-in-law of President Bashar Assad. Long considered to be the most powerful member of the regime, Shawkat's influence has declined over the past six months, though the extent of and reasons for his fall from grace are not yet clear.
Shawkat's troubles came in the wake of two spectacular intelligence failures. The first was Israel's bombing of a Syrian nuclear facility in September 2007, followed by the Bush administration's release of damning photographic evidence of a reactor gathered by spies on the ground. The second incident was the February 2008 assassination of notorious Shiite terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus, an operation that almost certainly required the complicity of someone in the Syrian intelligence apparatus.

It was soon evident that Shawkat had lost favor with his brother-in-law. He was excluded from the investigation into Mughniyeh's assassination, which Assad put under the charge of his cousin Hafez Makhlouf (the brother of Rami Makhlouf). In early April, exiled former Syrian Vice-president Abdul Halim Khaddam told the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal that Shawkat was under house arrest.[1] There were also credible reports that Shawkat's wife, Bushra Assad, and children had left Syria for Paris. The London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted a high-level French source as denying that Bushra had requested asylum and saying that she was residing in an unidentified Arab country (widely believed to be the UAE).[2]

There were numerous reports in the Arab press that Shawkat was under suspicion of being involved in the assassination of Mughniyeh, though this claim was initially confined to press organs known for publishing hearsay as fact, such as the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa.[3] Some, such as the Algerian daily Ech Chorouk, reported that Shawkat had been arrested for plotting a coup.[4] According to the Lebanese weekly Al-Shiraa, two Syrian military intelligence officers were executed for their involvement in the plot.[5] In June, the German newspaper Die Welt reported that Shawkat had plotted to overthrow Assad and was arrested in February after Mughniyeh tipped off the Syrian president to the plot. Mughniyeh was killed a few days later, according to the report, possibly by associates of Shawkat.[6]

Other explanations have been offered for Shawkat's fall from favor. In early June, French journalist Georges Malbrunot reported in Le Figaro that Shawkat was under house arrest, though he argued that the likely cause had more to do with Shawkat's confirmed involvement in the 2002 assassination of Mr. Elie Hobeika , January 24th 2002 and that of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005 and outside pressure on Assad to demote him.[7] According to Syrian sources cited by Basel Oudat, Shawkat's downfall was due to non-political reasons.[8] It's possible that Bushra departed Syria because of her own personal dispute with Assad. Having risen to his position largely due to her influence, Shawkat's downfall may have been the result (rather than the cause) of her estrangement from her brother.

Since the revelations came out, Syrian state television has broadcast footage of Shawkat attending military graduation ceremonies at least three times (most recently on July 3) and there are some reports that Shawkat has been seen going to his office frequently,[9] However, there is a fairly solid consensus among informed Syrian observers that he has effectively (if not yet officially) been removed as head of military intelligence, with his second-in-command, Maj. Gen. Ali Younis (who is not close to Shawkat), effectively running things. According to the opposition Reform Party of Syria (RPS), Shawkat has been appointed head of a newly created (and toothless) National Security Council.[10] If so, it would appear he has merely been obliged to take an early retirement.


[1] Al-Mustaqbal (Beirut), 6 April 2008.
[2] Al-Sharq al-Awsat (London), 10 April 2008.
[3] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), 16 March 2008.
[4] Cited in Olivier Guitta, "What's going on in Syria?", The Middle East Times, 14 April 2008.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Die Welt (Germany), 7 June 2008.
[7] Georges Malbrunot, "En Syrie, Bachar el-Assad redistribue le pouvoir," Le Figaro (Paris), 3 June 2006.
[8] Basel Oudat, No internal threats, Al-Ahram Weekly, 19 - 25 June 2008.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Assef Shawkat Restored to Honorary Status, Reform Party of Syria, 15 July 2008.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Washington, DC ( The White House Murder Inc.)


It's easy! Just mix-and-match, selecting from
the conventient menu options:

A) New York, NY ((Reuters) -
B) Miami, Florida (AP) -
C) Las Vegas, NV (CNN) -
D) Minneapolis, MN (UPI) -
E) Washington, DC ( The White House Murder Inc.)

Today, a

A) crane
B) bridge
C) Amtrack train
D) chemical plant
D) cooling tower at a nuclear reactor
E) Murders in Beirut and Damascus


A) collapsed
B) collided
C) burned down
D) blew up
D1) rolled over and gave out
E) UNIIIC "joke"

causing the deaths of an estimated people

A) 2
B) 200
C) 2000
D) 200,0000
D1) 2,000,0000
E) Hundreds murdered by ( The White House Murder Inc.)

Investigators are uncertain what went wrong. Only yesterday,
a full inspection had concluded that everything was

A) A-OK!
B) ready to Rock & Roll
C) fit as a fiddle
D) sound as a dollar
E) meeting rigorous and exacting quality standard requirements...

A full investigation is underway. Investigators
say that at this time, the tragedy does not appear
to involve:

A) Al-Qaeda
B) demonically possessed pigeons or poets
C) gay dwarfs and trolls
C) inadequate management oversight and controls

This tragic event appears to be

A) completely random
B) an example of life's meaningless and capricious cruelty
C) part of an ominous pattern
D) a harbinger of worse things to come
E) nothing to worry about ( The White House Murder Inc.)

and probably represents

A) a serious breach of security
B) chickens coming home to roost
C) overdue payback
D) the decline of the Empire
E) a minor, annoying blip on an otherwise fuzzy screen of ( The White House Murder Inc.)

State officials vow to get the bottom of the matter,
and assure the public that such an event

A) was a complete fluke
B) will not be tolerated
C) could never happen again in a million years
D) was probably the will of God
E) is no reason to stop shopping ( The White House Murder Inc.)
What the Americans want!!!

Since World War II, the Middle East has been one of the most penetrated regions in the world in terms of American presence, influence and domination. Apart from South America, no other area on the planet has experienced as gigantic a footprint of the United States, stretching during its zenith from Cairo in the west to Tehran in the east. If great powers are prone to throwing their weight around where they perceive vital interests, the US has done it with all means in the Middle East for over six decades.

By imposing itself on Middle Eastern countries in a rainbow of avatars - exploiter, peacemaker, ally, enemy, eminence grise and occupier - the US became an arbiter of the region's destiny. One measure of the colossal impact that Washington had as a result is that no major diplomatic initiative could afford to ignore "what
the Americans want".

On the occasion of any significant political event in the Middle East, it used to be commonplace to ask whether it had an American hand or if it reflected American will. The very axes of change were shaped by American preferences and opposition to them. Until recently, that is.

A series of new developments raises doubts about whether the US can still be the ultimate intersection in the Middle East through which all roads must cross. The just-hammered ceasefire between Hamas and Israel to halt violence across the Gaza Strip lacked American inputs and bypassed Washington's stated goal of marginalizing the democratically elected Islamic militant movement.

The reason why Egypt could mediate the ceasefire without apparent American backing is because both parties to the conflict had confidence in the contextual neutrality of Cairo. If Egypt had taken the advice of its American friends and brought in American wishes through backdoor channels, Hamas and possibly even Israel would have walked out of the dialogue process. The hostile and punitive policies of the George W Bush administration towards Hamas ruled out any chance of Washington itself being a mediator or facilitator of the negotiations.

A similar logic underlies the "indirect peace talks" being held in Turkey between two long-time antagonists, Israel and Syria, the first in eight years. Turkish mediation is palatable to Syria and Israel due to Ankara's general non-involvement and neutrality in Arab-Israeli disputes. As the only non-Arab Muslim country in the region besides Iran, Turkey is viewed favorably in Tel Aviv. Ankara is also acceptable as a third party for Syria as a means of breaking free from the American stranglehold that denies Damascus the chance to normalize relations with so-called "moderate states" of the region.

Turkey's mediation of the ongoing Israel-Syria entente went against Washington's desire of isolating Damascus owing to its closeness to Tehran. Absence of the writ of American blessings thus did not deter either Egypt nor Turkey from enacting constructive roles. These actions bring to the fore the question of how unbalanced the US's patron-client relationships in the region have grown. If Egypt and Turkey, two staunch "friendly regimes" cultivated by the US, are setting out on their own in ways that displease their patron, it conveys distinct loss of American leverage.

The most startling departure of a client regime from the American patrimonial grip is the announcement that Saudi Arabia has signed a massive $4 billion arms deal with Russia, breaking the American monopoly over military hardware supplies to the kingdom. The Saudis had earmarked $12 billion for defense upgrading this year and the revelation that one-third of it was awarded to Russian companies dismayed Washington to no end. The deal places Russia in an enviable position in the Middle East as a seller of weapons to both Saudi Arabia and Iran, a luxury for potential future Russian mediation to manage the intense rivalry between the region's predominant Sunni and Shi'ite powers.

So weak is the US in its current state of dependency on Saudi Arabia to overcome the staggering price of oil that it could not convince Riyadh to spurn the Russian arms manufacturers. In fact, in a bid to placate Riyadh, the Bush administration is mooting a new civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the Saudis against stiff opposition from Congress. The irony of the world's largest oil producer being offered nuclear technology for alleged energy generation purposes is not lost on observers.

Apart from the Russian angle, the proposed US-Saudi nuclear cooperation is aimed at countering Iran's own obstinate march towards nuclear power status. In the American imagination, Washington is the stabilizer of last resort in the Middle East. Since Iran is thumbing its nose at the US and EU by playing hardball on its nuclear ambitions, Washington thinks that it must stoke Saudi Arabia's nuclear program in order to keep the "balance of terror" in the region.

Iran's shadow also looms heavily on the US's difficulties in getting Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki government to acquiesce in the new "Status of Forces" agreement, which legalizes permanent American military bases and immunizes American soldiers and contractors from prosecution. Prime Minister Maliki's latest assurances to Iranian leaders that he "would not allow the use of Iraqi territory for staging attacks against Iran" are clear signals that Baghdad shares Tehran's concerns about prolonging the American occupation of Iraq.

Maliki's threat of asking US troops to go home at the end of the year when their United Nations mandate expires might be political posturing for domestic consumption, but it certainly adds to the erosion of American traction in the region. If one of the original intentions of occupying Iraq was to use it as a bridgehead to topple the Iranian government, Washington is being forced to eat humble peanuts....

Last, but not least, in the saga of depleting American hegemony in the Middle East is Washington's loss of face in last month's stand-off between Hezbollah and pro-Western forces in Lebanon. Hezbollah emerged as the victor of the tense showdown with the Lebanese government and bagged a favorable negotiated settlement in a manner that rubbed the American nose to the ground. Washington could only watch as a bystander as Iran and Syria demonstrated that their proxy, Hezbollah, was strong enough as a state within the state to dictate to American-backed elements.

As was the case with Egypt and Turkey, another American ally - Qatar - mediated an end to the worst internal Lebanese conflict since the end of the civil war in 1990. Thanks to its image as an honest broker, Doha was instrumental in bringing about a crisis closure that benefited Hezbollah.

So widely appreciated was Qatar's intervention in the Lebanese case that speculation now rages that it might be able to pull off a rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah in Palestine. Here too, the Americans have been working overtime to keep the two main Palestinian guerrilla groups divided and weakened. If Qatar or Saudi Arabia can wheedle Fatah and Hamas into an elusive truce, it would further sideline the US as the grandmaster that wins most outcomes of the Middle East chessboard.

It is still early to conclude that the Middle East is the graveyard of Pax Americana. The flow of localized negotiated settlements could clog and return to old stalemates, necessitating grand "roadmap for peace"-style solutions that Washington espouses. The array of American troops and battleships in the Middle East is quite formidable and far from being quickly routed. Most autocratic Arab regimes are beholden to the US for survival, another card that Washington can bank on.

However, the paradox that the world's largest possessor of diplomatic resources and skills has to rely on its military machine and the loyalty of despots to remain relevant in the Middle East speaks of how poorly Washington harnessed its cachet under George W Bush. It is now left to a possible Barack Obama administration to ensure that the American voice gets heard again in the region, not due to fear of attack but respect for its wisdom.


Beyond the Facade: Political Reform in the Arab World

Shortly after 9/11, President George W. Bush declared that the best hope for peace and security in the Middle East lay in the expansion of democracy and freedom there. The stroke of a speechwriter's pen had collapsed the divide between U.S. ideals and U.S. interests in the region. But soon enough, democratization began to collide with core U.S. interests after all. U.S. pressure for political reform proved distracting (and potentially destabilizing) to regional allies whose assistance was crucial in the drive to stabilize Iraq and restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. And when democratic elections were held, they often delivered outcomes at odds with Washington's hopes and intentions. Hamas' victory in Palestinian elections, the onset of political paralysis in Lebanon, the deepening sectarian divide in Iraq–all raised significant doubts about the wisdom of a U.S. strategy built around promoting democracy.

Is it time to reconsider the democratization agenda in the Arab world? For many observers, this seems a foregone conclusion. Promoting democracy from the outside is a challenging task anywhere. Democratization is a long and uncertain process, one prone to stalls and setbacks, one that is often chaotic and sometimes violent. In the Middle East, the difficulties are even more daunting: despite the Bush administration's claims, nowhere else do U.S. ideals and U.S. interests seem so starkly counterposed.

Two excellent new books–Freedom's Unsteady March, by Tamara Cofman Wittes, and Beyond the Facade, edited by Marina Ottaway and Julia Choucair-Vizoso–help negotiate this terrain in an informed way. Although they vary significantly in their tone and enthusiasm for democracy promotion in the Arab world, their policy recommendations are surprisingly congruent. Washington must narrow its efforts to the protection of political freedoms (in the hope of building "people power" on the ground), press reluctant regimes to include Islamists in the political process, and make aid and trade conditional on performance on these more limited goals.


Freedom's Unsteady March is billed as a "realist's guidebook for democracy promotion." Wittes does not shrink from acknowledging the failures of the Bush administration in this area. But she attributes these failures to a halfhearted effort rather than the inherent unachievability or inadvisability of the objective. "Interest requires us to embrace democracy," she argues unabashedly. Historically, the United States has had three core interests in the Middle East: preserving the free flow of oil and gas, securing the movement of maritime traffic through the Suez Canal, and guaranteeing the safety of key allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. (More recently, a fourth objective has joined the fist: gaining assistance in counterterrorism efforts.) For much of the post-World War II era, these interests spelled a devil's bargain: ally with reliable autocrats and forgo pressuring them to pursue democratic reform. Consequently, even when the United States was enthusiastically embracing the "third wave" of democratization that swept southern and eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa in the late twentieth century, its endorsement of a democratic agenda in the Middle East was halfhearted and inconsistent, marred by a "deep-seated ambivalence."

This has remained true even during the Bush administration, notwithstanding its soaring rhetoric about the importance of democracy and freedom. Wittes offers a trenchant analysis of the Bush administration's policies. Democracy promotion was too "small bore," focusing on financial support and technical assistance to civil-society associations, political parties, and legislative institutions and ignoring the fact that absent true freedom (to speak, to organize) in society, these technical improvements would do little to reapportion political power or force popular accountability. In addition, many in the Bush administration were persuaded that the first priority of the United States should be the promotion of economic development and economic reform "in the hope … that democratization [would] follow as a natural consequence of economic freedom." An "economics first" approach was doomed to failure: economic irrationality was an essential part of the political survival strategy of many regimes in the region, and political interests in the economic status quo made economic reform as challenging as outright political reform.

The administration also made the mistake of focusing much of its democratizing energy on places where governance was severely challenged (Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine). The promotion of democracy in weak states (or nonstates) was bound to fail. Where government institutions cannot deliver basic security or welfare to society, people tend to fall back on kith and kin to secure these basic needs. In this primordially charged context, the introduction of democratic elections often serves to reinforce sectarian and ethnic cleavages and undermine social peace–not a promising environment for democracy's success.

To do better, Wittes argues, Washington must make a more concerted effort and develop the backbone to confront recalcitrant autocrats (even those who are U.S. allies). As a prior condition to both, however, the United States must overcome its ambivalence about the entire democratization enterprise. Americans, as Wittes sees it, must recognize that whatever the flaws in his administration's approach, Bush was right when he argued that U.S. interests and U.S. ideals are not in conflict when it comes to democracy promotion in the Arab world.

Wittes' argument rests on three legs. First, she argues, the region's long-term stability can be guaranteed only by democratization. Political crisis looms on the horizon. A growing number of Arab states are on the brink of failure, facing the triple threat of population explosion, economic stagnation, and political alienation. The three pillars of regime durability in the region–rent, repression, and (nationalist) rhetoric, "the three r's"–are less available and less effective than they once were. The end of the Cold War has shrunk the number of sources of foreign aid, and oil prices, no matter how high, cannot keep pace with population growth. In addition, the rise of new technology (the Internet, cell phones, satellite TV) has made regime behavior far more visible to the public, both domestically and internationally, raising the costs of repression. And the old nationalist rhetoric, which used to buy autocratic regimes some legitimacy, fails to resonate with a younger generation born after the end of formal colonialism and the nationalist struggles for independence. The mismatch between the challenges and the coping strategies means "the political status quo is beginning to crumble." Political change is inevitable, and the United States has an interest, Wittes argues, in "put[ting its] thumb firmly on the scale on the side of Arab democracy" to make sure that change is "managed toward a progressive end."

Second, democratization is the only way to prevent the empowerment of radical Islamists. Authoritarianism gives Islamist movements an advantage, because when political freedom and organization are constrained, the mosque becomes one of the few viable arenas for collective activism. Opening up the political system and expanding political freedoms would "level the playing field" in the Arab world and increase "the ability of Arab societies to debate, test, and, it is hoped, reject the claims of the radical Islamist movement."

Third, Wittes disputes the notion that democracy promotion will compromise the United States' ability to secure cooperation from allies, since cooperation is "forged on mutual interest." Working together on such issues as counterterrorism, advancing the peace process, and containing instability in Iraq and in Gaza is as much in the strategic interests of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia as it is in the interest of the United States. Washington can push its autocratic allies harder on the issue of political reform without worrying that this will cause them to abandon the United States in its pursuit of other goals.


All of this adds up to an impassioned, well-reasoned, and highly readable case for U.S. democracy promotion in the Arab world. Wittes has mustered some of the strongest evidence possible for this stand. Still, the argument does not quite square ideals and interests–and it falls short as a result.

The case for squaring democracy promotion with strategic interests turns on the proximity of regime breakdown in the Arab world and the utility of democratic reform for guiding the region into safer terrain. Wittes is unpersuasive on these points. First, she overstates the threat of regime breakdown. She is quite right to emphasize the challenges posed by economic stagnation and population growth. Deep pockets of popular grievance have developed in the Arab world, and they ought not to be discounted. But the conclusion that mounting discontent spells regime breakdown seems profoundly apolitical. As students of revolution know well, popular grievance is a near constant in human history, whereas successful regime overthrow is rare. The latter requires an effective capacity for collective action on the part of the aggrieved and political opportunity (particularly in the form of a dysfunctional coercive apparatus) on the part of the state, neither of which exists in most Arab countries. Arab regimes have been quite successful in thwarting collective organization through repression, co-optation, and fragmentation. And the coercive apparatus remains largely intact in most places in the Middle East. So why believe regime breakdown is inevitable? Analysts have been warning about the "yawning gap" between aspiration and opportunity in the region for decades–during the 1980s, many Middle Eastern countries were even more economically strapped than they are today–and yet nearly every regime in the Middle East has survived.

Wittes also overstates the challenges Arab regimes face. True, greater public scrutiny (made possible by new technology) raises the costs of repression. But are the costs of repression really so high as to outweigh the desire for survival? Does anyone doubt that when push comes to shove, these regimes will repress their enemies? Did close public scrutiny prevent the Egyptian government from imprisoning the opposition presidential candidate Ayman Nour? As for rents, it is true that their availability from some sources has declined (or at least not kept pace with population growth), but those that are available are still generally sufficient to sustain the coercive apparatuses of autocratic regimes. The bottom line is that regime elites in the Arab world continue to have a deep vested interest in regime endurance, and they generally command sufficient coercive capacity to hold on to power.

The idea that democracy is the best way to manage collapsing states also seems odd. Even if states in the region were on the verge of failing, would democracy promotion be the best recourse? Wittes' own insightful observation is that failed states do not constitute propitious environments for democratic experiments. People's first priority is to secure basic safety and welfare. Embarking on democratic experiments in the context of deep social division and insecurity is a recipe for disaster.

Similarly, Wittes may be overly optimistic about how democracy promotion can advance the fight against Islamic radicalism. It is true that the exposure of the Islamist platforms and parties to open debate and political competition would be an effective way to challenge the hold of radicals. The question is whether a rapid transition to democracy is the surest route to achieve this end. Immediate democratization may actually privilege Islamists, since they are generally the only group with effective mass movements. Fear of this outcome provides the primary rationale for gradual liberalization rather than rapid democratization in the Arab world, an approach that Wittes rejects. This is why (or at least the cover story for why) the Jordanian regime has gerrymandered districts and rigged election laws to limit (but not eliminate) Islamist representation in parliament. This is why (or at least the cover story for why) Egypt has amended its party law to forbid religiously inspired parties. The logic of Wittes' argument seems a more fitting defense for limited liberalization than for immediate, full-fledged democracy promotion.

Finally, Wittes argues that the United States' strategic interests are sufficiently shared by its key allies in the region that Washington need not fear losing their cooperation. But although King Abdullah may share Washington's interest in the peace process or the Saudi royal family may share its interest in counterterrorism, this is not the same as saying that Jordan or Saudi Arabia necessarily do. These shared interests are regime-specific; should allied regimes fall, there is no guarantee that their replacements would share the same objectives. (An Islamist or a Palestinian-led regime in Jordan might, for example, be less supportive of the Israeli-Palestinian status quo.)

In short, the ideal of democracy promotion will, at times, conflict with the United States' core interests. Some inconsistency and halfheartedness is thus an inevitable part of democracy promotion. Recognition of this fact ought to recommend retreat to a more modest agenda than that suggested by the Bush administration's rhetoric. And in fact, Wittes herself evidences such pragmatic "realism" in the concrete policy recommendations she makes. Despite its impassioned defense of democracy promotion, Freedom's Unsteady March outlines policies that largely echo those put forth by the much more skeptical analysts in the Ottaway and Choucair-Vizoso volume.


After Wittes' manifesto, the sober account put forth by Ottaway, Choucair-Vizoso, and their contributors in Beyond the Facade feels like a splash of a cold water. This superb collection traces the empirical reality of political reform in the Arab world, recounting the experience of ten countries in a coherent, concise, and consistently insightful fashion. Overall, the authors find no evidence of a genuine political paradigm shift occurring in the region. They see no substantive redistribution of power, no creation of effective checks and balances at the institutional level to limit executive power, no reforms sufficient to make political leadership truly accountable to the popular will. At most, they find cosmetic reform: some liberalization, some introduction of competitive elections. But such initiatives are hobbled in ways that are preventing a tangible shift in the balance of power. Reform in the Arab world has largely given rise to "facade democracy" rather than true democracy.

What accounts for the limited progress of political reform? The problem lies, first and foremost, in the provenance of the reform initiative. For the most part, reform in the Arab world has been launched from above, by regime incumbents, urged on by outsiders "who want to promote democratization without risking destabilization." Consequently, the reform process has prioritized incumbent survival rather than genuine political opening. The inability of domestic forces to build mass organizations has prevented them from advancing a more radical political agenda. And without substantial pressure from below, regime elites are unlikely to relinquish power voluntarily.

These elites employ many different strategies to protect their position. Recognizing the potential challenge that organized social forces might pose, they use every resource imaginable–legal, financial, ideological, repressive–to disorganize society and co-opt, fragment, and control collective action of any sort. Political parties are subject to onerous constraints (if they are permitted at all); associations are obliged to obtain government licenses (often denied); subsidies are spread around to duplicate NGOS and shape their agendas; and when all else fails, troublesome activists are harassed or arrested.

Regime elites also embrace the tools of institutional engineering to undermine checks on executive power. It is not uncommon in the Arab world for the chief executive to be constitutionally empowered to dismiss parliament at will, legislate by executive decree, form governments without taking into account parliamentary results, appoint and dismiss members of the judiciary, and bypass the judiciary altogether through the creation of executive-controlled "security courts."

Finally, should elites find that even their limited reforms are too threatening, they can simply reverse course. In Egypt, the unprecedentedly strong showing by the opposition in the parliamentary elections of 2005 so frightened the regime that it postponed the next scheduled elections for two years and then forced through a set of constitutional amendments that aimed to exclude the Muslim Brotherhood from future political activity altogether. In Jordan, when the initiation of free, fair, and competitive elections resulted in significant Islamist victories in 1993, the regime simply rewrote the election law, adopting a new system more likely to favor tribal (as opposed to Islamist) success.

This analysis of reversals and constraints is not meant to imply that there has been no progress in the region. The political situation in the Arab world today, at least in some countries, is quite different from what it was 20 years ago. In Kuwait, women now enjoy the right to vote and run for office; a competitive, pluralistic political scene prevails; and the opposition is sufficiently emboldened that it was able to push through the restructuring of the electoral system. In Morocco, the human rights situation has improved, a more progressive personal-status law has been enacted, and an opposition party has led the government. In Jordan, political parties are now legal, parliamentary elections have become more regular, and media freedom has increased. These are significant gains. But limited liberalization does not mean democracy. And the authors of this collection are largely pessimistic about the ability of these liberalizing initiatives to develop into democracy. None of these reforms has targeted the distribution of power in a serious way, and the constraints imposed on society and institutions forestall a true shift in political control.

Can outsiders do anything about this? In contrast to Wittes, the authors in Beyond the Facade are restrained. A number of them emphasize the limitations of U.S. economic leverage with some Arab countries awash in oil and gas (Algeria, Saudi Arabia) and with others that have limited trade and aid relations with the United States (Syria). Others emphasize the United States' conflicting objectives in the region and unlikeliness to follow through on democratization consistently. The broader concern is that foreign enthusiasm may outpace local enthusiasm–a clear recipe for failure.

Given these reservations, the volume includes four basic policy recommendations. First, foreign powers should focus on protecting political freedoms. The primary objective of this initiative should be to build "people power" on the ground. It is impossible to advance democracy without developing domestic social forces committed to this agenda and capable of mobilizing local political weight behind it. Consequently, the most important contribution an outside power can make is to foster the conditions, and especially the civil liberties, that will enable people to find their own footing, their own speech, and their own associations. Second, Islamists must be included in the political process. Outsiders must recognize that the Islamists constitute the main (and sometimes the only) mass movement in many of these countries. They are here to stay, and no project aimed at mass empowerment can legitimately exclude them. Political inclusion (albeit on certain terms) is necessary to create incentives for compromise and dialogue with more secular forces in Arab society. Third, Washington must be prepared to confront its allies on these issues and make aid, trade, and security agreements conditional on performance on these goals. And fourth, the United States must take the long view and scale down its ambitions. Democratization will not happen overnight, and overreaching will mean hypocrisy and failure.

Surprisingly, for all her differences in tone, Wittes makes many of the same recommendations. She, too, argues for freedoms first, Islamist inclusion, and building conditionality into aid and trade. She, too, cautions the United States to make sure that "external pressure never outstrips internal demand." She points to the cases of Chile, the Philippines, and South Korea as evidence that "a credible, grassroots, domestic democracy movement" has always been central to the success of U.S. interventions on behalf of democracy. And like the authors of Beyond the Facade, she argues against unilateralism in democracy promotion. The surest way to ensure commitment and follow-through on the part of Arab elites is to anchor these democratizing initiatives in international, rather than bilateral, relationships, linking them to multilateral agreements or international organizations.


The bottom line is that U.S. strategic interests do not require democracy promotion in the Arab world, at least not unambiguously and certainly not in the short run. Rapid democratization carries with it the danger of tipping deeply divided countries into sectarian civil war, fueling radicalism rather than moderation, and empowering forces that are deeply anti-American. But this is not equally true in every country; in many cases, a process of political opening, properly calibrated, would enhance stability and advance the process of moderation.

Of course, strategic interests are not the only factor informing U.S. foreign policy. Concern for human rights and basic freedoms gets a vote as well. How to reconcile all this? If nothing else, the work of these authors suggests that democratization is a messy process, that no great power can afford to pursue it with utter consistency, and that there are serious limits to the role that outsiders can play in coaxing democratization along. Since outsiders have neither the interest nor the endurance to see this protracted, nonlinear process through to its end, democratization must be the work of forces on the ground who daily make their own calculations of the costs and benefits of mobilizing collective power and challenging the status quo. The best that outsiders can do is cheer from the sidelines, pressure allied regimes to make space for these local forces, and provide material and technical assistance where possible.

Furthermore, they must do all this without the slightest hope of cashing in any political returns in the near term, certainly not within the timeframe of an election cycle. The work must be undertaken on faith. Recognizing the temporal, material, and political constraints that work against the achievement of democracy should lead to, at the very least, a deflation of ambition and rhetoric in its pursuit.