The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., November 14, 2007: “It has been a long-established custom for the President of the United States to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans’ Day.

This year, however, Bush did not lay the wreath but went to Texas on a vacation instead, leaving the ceremony to Vice President Cheney.  Was this simple arrogance? Or stupidity? Neither. It is the story inside the White House that the Secret Service White House Detail kept him attending the ceremony because of what they called a “very credible plot to assassinate him.”

It seems, upon poking around, that George W. Bush has received more very serious death threats than any other sitting president. Last year, it was discovered that an unknown sniper had fired at the windows of the Oval Office. The rifle bullet did not penetrate the bullet-proof glass but a small crater in one of the window panes gave this away. No one on the White House roof (where there is permanent party stationed to thwart any aerial attacks on the building) heard a thing so it was suspected that a silenced weapon was used. An intense investigation failed to disclose the location of the shooter and they were not even certain when the sniping took place.

The Secret Service had learned that when Bush was visiting Mainz in Germany, that there was an equally credible report, this time from German counter intelligence, that there was a plan to blow up the President’s car while it was traveling through the German city. All of the manholes were promptly welded shut, sewer entrances heavily guarded, homes and businesses along the route evacuated and German security personnel put in all the windows.

This is a very sensitive subject here and strictly forbidden to even hint at but several workers here have refused their assignments to the White House mail room because it is strongly feared that some Chemical Warfare device or an explosive device could somehow get past the very strict security.

Please note that not one word of this ongoing problem has ever been in the American media and, by orders, never will. Arlington is large, relatively unguarded and filled with visitors, relatives of the dead, ongoing funerals and so on. Also, the area is heavily wooded and it was believed that a sniper concealed in a tree could easily escape detection. We live in such interesting times.”

Putin: I have a moral right to continue wielding influence

November 14, 2007

Luke Harding in Moscow

The Guardian

Vladimir Putin yesterday gave his strongest hint yet that he intends to stay in power in Russia after his term as president expires in next year, declaring that he had a "moral right" to maintain influence.

Putin said that if, as expected, his United Russia party wins a landslide victory in next month's parliamentary elections this would give him a mandate to carry on as the country's de facto leader.

He refused to explain how he intends to maintain his grip on power, merely saying that there were "various possibilities". Under Russia's constitution Putin, who was elected in 2000, is obliged to step down in May after two consecutive presidential terms.

But yesterday's remarks are the baldest affirmation yet that Putin has no real intention of resigning from politics. "If the people vote for United Russia, it means that a clear majority of the people put their trust in me and in turn that means I will have the moral right to hold those in the Duma and the cabinet responsible for the implementation of the tasks that have been set today," he said during a visit to the Siberian town of Krasnoyarsk.

"In what form I will do this, I cannot yet give a direct answer. But various possibilities exist," Putin said.

Last month Putin announced that he would put his name at the top of the federal list for the United Russia party. The move boosted the party's ratings from 47% to 56% and seems designed to ensure that he has a personal power base after leaving office.

Putin has hinted that he could continue to run the country as prime minister. Other possibilities include propelling the current incumbent, Viktor Zubkov, 66, into the president's job and Putin moving back into the post when Zubkov steps down for "health reasons".

Pro-Kremlin politicians have also suggested that Putin should become "father of the nation", though what this means in real terms is not clear. There is also speculation that Putin will become chairman of the 2014 organising committee preparing Russia's Winter Olympics in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

"I think this statement is more or less an attempt to give a vague, but nonetheless clear-cut, message that he is going to remain somehow important," Grigorii Golosov, a professor in the political sciences and sociology faculty at St Petersburg's European University, said.

"He will assert a decisive impact on what any presidential successor will do in power. It will create a really complex situation."

FBI Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause

November 14, 2007

by David Johnston and John M. Broder

New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company’s employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration’s failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.

Representative David E. Price, a North Carolina Democrat who has sponsored legislation to extend American criminal law to contractors serving overseas, said the Justice Department must hold someone accountable for the shootings.

“Just because there are deficiencies in the law, and there certainly are,” Mr. Price said, “that can’t serve as an excuse for criminal actions like this to be unpunished. I hope the new attorney general makes this case a top priority. He needs to announce to the American people and the world that we uphold the rule of law and we intend to pursue this.”

Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company’s guards opened fire during the shootings, at least some with automatic weapons. Investigators have focused on one guard, identified as “turret gunner No. 3,” who fired a large number of rounds and was responsible for several fatalities.

Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.

Government officials said the shooting occurred when security guards fired in response to gunfire by other members of their unit in the mistaken belief that they were under attack. One official said, “I wouldn’t call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement.”

Among the 17 killings, three may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force to be used in response to an imminent threat, the F.B.I. agents have concluded. They concluded that Blackwater guards might have perceived a threat when they opened fire on a white Kia sedan that moved toward Nisour Square after traffic had been stopped for a Blackwater convoy of four armored vehicles.

Two people were killed in the car, Ahmed Haithem Ahmed and his mother, Mohassin, a physician. Relatives said they were on a family errand and posed no threat to the Blackwater convoy.

Investigators said Blackwater guards might have felt endangered by a third, and unidentified, Iraqi who was killed nearby. But the investigators determined that the subsequent shootings of 14 Iraqis, some of whom were shot while fleeing the scene, were unprovoked.

Under the firearms policy governing all State Department employees and contractors, lethal force may be used “only in response to an imminent threat of deadly force or serious physical injury against the individual, those under the protection of the individual or other individuals.”

A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.

Anne E. Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said she would have no comment until the F.B.I. released its findings.

Although investigators are confident of their overall findings, they have been frustrated by problems with evidence that hampered their inquiry. Investigators who arrived more than two weeks after the shooting could not reconstruct the crime scene, a routine step in shooting inquiries in the United States.

Even the total number of fatalities remains uncertain because of the difficulty of piecing together what happened in a chaotic half-hour in a busy square. Moreover, investigators could not rely on videotapes or photographs of the scene, because they were unsure whether bodies or vehicles might have been moved.

Bodies of a number of victims could not be recovered. Metal shell casings recovered from the intersection could not be definitively tied to the shootings because, as one official described it, “The city is littered with brass.”

In addition, investigators did not have access to statements taken from Blackwater employees, who had given statements to State Department investigators on the condition that their statements would not be used in any criminal investigation like the one being conducted by the F.B.I.

An earlier case involving Blackwater points to the difficulty the Department of Justice may be facing in deciding whether and how to bring charges in relation to the Sept. 16 shootings. A Blackwater guard, Andrew J. Moonen, is the sole suspect in the shooting on Dec. 24 of a bodyguard to an Iraqi vice president.

Investigators have statements by witnesses, forensic evidence, the weapon involved and a detailed chronology of the events drawn up by military personnel and contractor employees.

But nearly 11 months later, no charges have been brought, and officials said a number of theories had been debated among prosecutors in Washington and Seattle without a resolution of how to proceed in the case.

Mr. Moonen’s lawyer, Stewart P. Riley of Seattle, said he had had no discussions about the case with federal prosecutors.

Some lawmakers and legal scholars said the Sept. 16 case dramatized the need to clarify the law governing private armed contractors in a war zone. Workers under contract to the Defense Department are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA, but many, including top State Department officials, contend that the law does not apply to companies like Blackwater that work under contract to other government agencies, including the State Department.

Representative Price’s bill would extend the MEJA legislation to all contractors operating in war zones. The bill passed the house 389 to 30 last month and is now before the Senate.

He said it cannot be applied retroactively to the Sept. 16 case, but he said that the guards who killed the Iraqis must be brought to justice, under the War Crimes Act or some other law.

Paul von Zielbauer contributed reporting from Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Consumer groups warn subprime mess to get worse

November 14, 2007

by Joanne Morrison

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leaders of community home ownership groups from across the nation on Wednesday warned at a national meeting that a surge in foreclosures already seen from subprime mortgages was only the tip of the iceberg.

The housing leaders faulted regulators for not doing enough to protect borrowers from being lured into these risky and costly loans that in many cases have left many Americans without their homes.

Many of the leaders at the roundtable meeting, all board members for the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, an association of nearly 600 community-based groups promoting fair access to housing and financial services, have been prodding Congress and regulators both at the state and federal level to beef up consumer protections for years.

"It's been about six years since this issue has been going on and we know it's gong to get worse," said Jean Ishmon of the Northwest Indiana Reinvestment Alliance, of the subprime mortgage market troubles.

A decade ago they were urging Congress to make Wall Street more accountable for the products they pitch to consumers and borrowers and that was their same concern on Wednesday, but with even more urgency as a housing recession is driving the economy into a slowdown and many Americans out of their homes.

"Let's face it, people are not in this situation because the American public got more ignorant about housing products and mortgages. It's really the ethics of the lending industry that really changed," said John Taylor, president and chief executive officer of the national Community Reinvestment Coalition who convened the group of housing leaders.

Taylor and others at the roundtable meeting said in recent months they have met with top regulators on the issue, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

Baghdad blast shows security 'fragile': US

November 14, 2007

AFP

BAGHDAD (AFP) - - A US commander warned on Wednesday that despite improving security in Iraq, progress is fragile and "far from irreversible", hours after a massive bomb ripped into a US military convoy in Baghdad.

"The enemy still has both the will and the capacity to cause significant loss of life and damage to property," US military spokesman Rear Admiral Gregory Smith told a press conference.

He referred to Wednesday's bombing of the military convoy outside the highly fortified Green Zone in which a US soldier and two civilians were killed, and to an attack by a large group of Al-Qaeda gunmen on the town of Adwaniyah near Baghdad on Monday that was eventually repulsed by US and Iraqi forces.

"There has been significant progress and accomplishments by the combined efforts of the Iraqi and coalition forces in Baghdad and its surrounding areas," Smith said.

"But this progress is fragile and far from irreversible."

The Baghdad blast, which shattered the relative calm that has prevailed in the capital in recent weeks, came as Iraqi officials and politicians were converging on the Green Zone to discuss the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq.

Iraqi security officials said the blast near a police post killed two Iraqi civilians and wounded three.

Smith told AFP that there was "at least one US fatality" in the attack.

A heavily armoured Stryker vehicle of the US military was badly damaged in the blast, which sent a thick plume of smoke into the sky.

An AFP correspondent at the site said a bomb had been planted at the foot of a watchtower at the end of a long row of concrete blast walls protecting a police station, just 100 metres (yards) from a main entrance to the sprawling Green Zone.

The last Stryker in the three-vehicle convoy bore the full brunt of the explosion, which scattered fragments of metal across the street.

Smith told reporters that Monday's day-long clashes in Adwaniyah, in which 15 Al-Qaeda militants were killed, was one of the largest by the local branch of Osama bin Laden's jihadi group in recent months, and "is evidence that Iraq has many enemies."

Meanwhile, police said a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden vest at a meeting on Wednesday of Sunni Arab tribal leaders near the town of Iskandiriyah, about 60 kilometres (35 miles) south of Baghdad, killing two people and wounding six.

"A suicide bomber blew himself up in the house of Sheikh Imad al-Gurtani," said police captain Muthana Mohammed of Babylon province.

The Sunni sheikh, leader of the Gurtani tribe which has been spearheading the fight against Al-Qaeda in Babylon province, survived the attack.

In another incident on Wednesday, a US soldier was shot dead during combat operations near the northern city of Mosul, a military statement said.

Another two US soldiers were killed in an explosion while conducting operations in the volatile Diyala province north of Baghdad on Tuesday, a separate statement said, adding that another four troops were wounded.

The latest fatalities brought the military's losses to 857 so far in 2007, the deadliest year for the military since the March 2003 invasion.

The military's overall losses since the invasion have reached 3,862, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures, which also take into account soldiers who die after leaving Iraq for treatment.

The high casualties in 2007 have occurred despite -- or because of -- a "surge" of an extra 28,500 US troops in Iraq since June, a deployment that is seen as a key factor for a drastic dip in sectarian violence across Iraq.

Iraqi government soldiers, meanwhile, shut down the Baghdad headquarters of one of the most powerful Sunni Muslim groups in Iraq on Wednesday, the group said.

Soldiers moved into the Um al-Qura mosque in a Sunni district of western Baghdad where the Committee of Muslim Scholars is based and ordered the occupants out, according to a statement on the group's website.

The raid is seen as yet another sign of the growing battle for influence between the Committee of Muslim Scholars and rival Sunni groups, some of which have joined US forces in the fight against Al-Qaeda.

The grand delusion

November 13, 2007

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Online Journal

With an endless, futile and costly Iraq war, a stinking economy and most Americans seeing the country on the wrong track, the greatest national group delusion is that electing Democrats in 2008 is what the country needs.

Keith Olbermann was praised when he called the Bush presidency a criminal conspiracy. That missed the larger truth. The whole two-party political system is a criminal conspiracy hiding behind illusion induced delusion.

Virtually everything that Bush correctly gets condemnation for could have been prevented or negated by Democrats, if they had had courage, conviction and commitment to maintaining the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution. Bush grabbed power from the feeble and corrupt hands of Democrats. Democrats have failed the vast majority of Americans. So why would sensible people think that giving Democrats more power is a good idea? They certainly have done little to merit respect for their recent congressional actions, or inaction when it comes to impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

One of the core reasons the two-party stranglehold on our political system persists is that whenever one party uses its power to an extreme degree it sets the conditions for the other party -- its partner in the conspiracy -- to take over. Then the other takes its turn in wielding excessive power. Most Americans -- at least those that vote -- seem incapable of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two teams in the same league, serving the same cabal running the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other, the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power.

The genius of the plutocrats is to create the illusion of important differences between the two parties, and the illusion of political choice in elections. In truth, the partner parties compete superficially and dishonestly to entertain the electorate, to maintain the aura of a democracy. Illusion creates the delusion of Americans that voting in elections will deliver political reforms, despite a long history of politicians lying in campaigns about reforms, new directions and bold new policies. The rulers need power shifting between the teams to maintain popular trust in the political system. Voting manifests that trust -- as if changing people will fix the system. It doesn’t.

So voters become co-conspirators in the grand political criminal conspiracy. Those who vote for Democrats or Republicans perpetuate the corrupt, dishonest and elitist plutocracy that preferentially serves the interests of the Upper Class and a multitude of special interests -- some aligned with the Republicans and some with the Democrats. Voting only encourages worthless politicians and those that fund and corrupt them.

Public discontent leads to settling for less through lesser evil voting rather than bold thinking about how to reform the system to get genuine political competition and better candidates and government.

I understand why sane people would not want to vote for Republicans, based on the Bush presidency. But I cannot understand why politically engaged people think that putting Democrats in power will restore American democracy and put the welfare of non-wealthy Americans above the interests of the wealthy and the business sector. Bill Clinton’s administration strongly advanced globalization and the loss of good jobs to foreign countries. Economic inequality kept rising. Trade agreements sold us out.

And in this primary season, talk about reforming our health care system among Democrats never gets serious about providing universal health care independent of the insurance industry. And why should citizens be supportive of a party that favors illegal immigration -- law breaking -- that primarily serves business interests by keeping labor costs low?

Nor have Democrats stood up to challenge the official 9/11 story that no longer has any credibility to anyone that takes the time to seriously examine all its inconsistencies with what really happened and the laws of physics.

Whoever wins the Democratic presidential nomination will not be free of corruption and lies. He or she will owe paybacks to all the fat-cat campaign donors. Voters will be choosing the lesser-evil Democratic presidential candidate. Is that really the only choice? Is there no other action that can advance the national good?

There seem to be just two other choices. Vote for some third party presidential candidate, but the downside of that is twofold. No such candidate can win in the current rigged system. Worse, voting gives a stamp of credibility to the political system, as if it were fair, when it is not. Voting says that you still believe that the political system merits your support and involvement.

The second option is to boycott voting to show total rejection of the current political system and the plutocratic cabal using the two-party duopoly to carry out its wishes. When a democracy no longer is legitimate, no longer is honest, and no longer serves the interests of ordinary citizens, then what other than violent revolution can change it? When the electoral system no longer can provide honest, corruption free candidates with any chance of winning, what can citizens do? Either stay home or just vote in local and state races and for ballot measures.

I say remove the credibility and legitimacy of the federal government by reducing voter turnout to extremely low levels. Show the world that the vast majority of Americans have seen the light and no longer are deluding themselves about their two-party democracy. A boycott on voting for candidates for federal office is a form of civil disobedience that has enormous power to force true political reforms from the political system. This is the only way to make it crystal clear that the presidency and Congress no longer represent any significant fraction of the people. This is the only way to show that America’s representative democracy is no longer representative and, therefore, is no longer a credible democracy. Just imagine a federal government trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent of the eligible voters actually voted.

It takes more courage to boycott voting than to vote for lesser evil Democrats and, in the end, this is the only way for people to feel proudly patriotic. This is the only way to not contribute to the ongoing bipartisan criminal conspiracy running the federal government.

We have broken government because the spirit of Americans that gave us our revolution and nation’s birth has been broken, in large measure by distractive and self-indulgent consumerism. It is better to recognize that those who vote suffer from delusion than to criticize those who do not vote as apathetic. Non-delusional nonvoters recognize the futility of voting.

Democrats will not restore our democracy. That is the painful truth that most people will not readily accept. Such is the power of group delusion. Voting produces never-ending cycles of voter dissatisfaction with those elected, both Democrats and Republicans. It is time to break this cycle of voter despair. Voters that bitch and moan about Congress and the White House have nobody to blame but themselves, no matter which party they voted for.

Joel S. Hirschhorn observed our corrupt federal government firsthand as a senior official with the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; reach him through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.

Justice restarts domestic surveillance inquiry

Investigators gain necessary security clearances days into tenure of new AG

November 14, 2007

AP

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has reopened a long-dormant inquiry into the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, a major policy shift only days into the tenure of new Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility was shut down last year, after the investigators were denied security clearances. Gonzales told Congress that President Bush, not he, denied the clearances.

“We recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation,” H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the OPR, wrote to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. A copy of the letter, dated Tuesday, was obtained by The Associated Press.

Hinchey and other Democrats have long sought an investigation into the spying program to see if it complies with the law. Efforts to investigate the program have been rebuffed by the Bush administration.

“I am happily surprised,” Hinchey said. “It now seems because we have a new attorney general the situation has changed. Maybe this attorney general understands that his obligation is not to be the private counsel to the president but the chief law enforcement officer for the entire country.”

Officials: Bush denies security clearance

The OPR investigation was begun in February 2006 but was shut down a few months later when the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the security clearances to ask questions about the program. Justice Department officials said Gonzales recommended Bush approve the clearances, but the president said no.

The Office of Professional Responsibility was created to ensure that Justice Department lawyers do not violate ethical rules. It is not authorized to investigate activities of the National Security Agency.

Bush’s decision to authorize the spy agency to monitor people inside the United States, without warrants, generated a host of questions about the program’s legal justification.

The administration has vehemently defended the eavesdropping, saying the NSA’s activities were narrowly targeted to intercept international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to the al-Qaida terror network.

A separate Justice Department internal investigation was also opened by the agency’s inspector general, but Democrats have criticized that review for not attempting to determine whether the program violates federal law.

Probe restarts day before ceremony

News of the reborn investigation comes a day before the first formal ceremony marking Mukasey’s new post as head of the Justice Department.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the ceremonial oath to Mukasey, a retired federal judge who has promised to enforce laws fairly and keep the Justice Department free of political pressure from the White House.

Bush is scheduled to speak at the ceremony, set for 10:10 a.m. ET, after which Mukasey will address his employees for the first time.

Mukasey was sworn in last Friday in a brief, private ceremony that allowed him to start receiving daily classified briefings from his national security aides.

Mukasey, the third attorney general of the Bush administration, has 14 months until the president’s term is up to turn around the beleaguered department. Gonzales resigned in September amid charges that he allowed politics to illegally interfere with personnel decisions and lied to Congress about national security programs.

A department investigation also is looking at last year’s firings of nine U.S. attorneys — and whether at least one of them was dismissed because he refused to target Democratic candidates shortly before the 2006 elections.

Mukasey, nominated by Bush the day Gonzales left the department, is a retired chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

His confirmation by the Senate hit a brief — but serious — snag after he refused to say point-blank that he considered a harsh interrogation tactic known as waterboarding to be torture.

The Senate narrowly confirmed him late Thursday, 53-40. Critics noted that marked the slimmest margin by which an attorney general was confirmed in more than 50 years.

Over 35 million Americans faced hunger in 2006: USDA

November 14, 2007

by Christopher Doering

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government said the number of Americans who went hungry in 2006 was held in check at 35 million people from the prior year, but food advocacy groups said on Wednesday more needs to be done.

The U.S. Agriculture Department said a total of 12.65 million households were "food insecure," or 10.9 percent of U.S. homes, up from 12.59 million a year ago.

The USDA defines food insecurity - its metric for measuring hunger - as having difficulty acquiring enough food for the household throughout the year.

"It looks very stable from this year to last year," said Mark Nord, who co-authored the annual report for USDA's Economic Research Service.

Overall, 35.52 million people, including 12.63 million children, went hungry compared with 35.13 million in 2005. The survey was conducted in December 2006 and represented 294 million people, an increase of 2.5 million from 2005.

Food advocacy groups said the figures showed the United States was not doing enough to combat hunger, and feared conditions could worsen.

"As costs for food, energy, and housing continue to rise and wages stagnate or decline, households are finding themselves increasingly strapped," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center. "This may mean even worse numbers in 2007."

Very low food security was most prevalent in households with children headed by a single woman -- 10.3 percent in 2006, USDA said.

Food stamps and other public nutrition programs account for about 60 percent of the USDA's spending. Funding for the department's 15 nutrition assistance programs has risen 70 percent since 2001 to $59 billion in 2006, and 20 percent of all Americans are impacted by the programs each year.

Some 27 million people are enrolled in the food stamp program alone, which helps poor Americans buy food. USDA has estimated 65 percent of eligible people participate in the program, up from 54 percent in 2001.

"We have more work to do," said Kate Houston, USDA's deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. "We can't say that everybody that is eligible for our programs is participating."

(Reporting by Christopher Doering; editing by Jim Marshall)

A Rupert Murdoch Special!

Here is a charming story appearing in trash king Rupert Murdoch’s Chicago Sun-Times. The only thing missing are large color pictures. Rupert just bought out the once-respectable Wall Street Journal and the betting is that he will have lots of articles just like this on the front page. Probably with nice pictures. Let’s hope the paper does better than Murdoch’s collapsed farce of a TV ‘Business’ program.

Man defecates in the middle of McDonalds

November 2, 2007

by Pat Rehkamp

Chicago Sun-Times

Patrons of a North Loop McDonald’s were left grimacing Thursday morning after a man, who appeared to be homeless, defecated in the middle of the restaurant.

Around 5 a.m., the disheveled man walked in to the 24-hour McDonald’s at 10 E. Chicago — near the Water Tower and Holy Name Cathedral — and tried to enter the restroom.

It was out of order, so the man walked toward the soda fountain machine and defecated on the floor, said witness Mike Sims, who was eating a sausage McMuffin at the time.

“He just said ‘I have to go to the bathroom’ and that is when he did it in front of the entire crew,” said Sims, a 57-year-old culinary student. “What got me was, being a student chef, is that he took a napkin and cleaned it up and placed it on the counter where anyone can put your food and get your condiments.”

Workers threatened to call police, so the man left, Sims said. There were just a handful of customers in the restaurant at the time.

A manager at the store confirmed the incident — as did a spokeswoman at the chain’s corporate offices — and insisted that everything was cleaned up.

A wet-floor “caution” sign was still out hours later when a reporter showed up. And when the reporter began asking questions, a worker began to mop the spot.

The incident didn’t make for the happiest of meals for Sims, but it didn’t spoil his appetite either. He said he finished his sausage McMuffin before leaving.