The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C, December 3, 2007: “A delayed action bomb is in the process of going off. It seems that in the ‘40s. our wonderful CIA hired a number of ex-Nazis of some high rank and bad reputation to work for them, mostly in Europe. Now, it turns out that they also hired the head of the Gestapo and brought him to the United States! They have tried to sit on this one, and other such types, for some years now but the real story is coming out. They also sponsored a Walter Rauff (who invented the notorious gas vans) and the really awful Dr. Mengele. The latter, who used to experiment with Jewish twins at Auschwitz, was part of one of the CIA’s nutty programs to genetically create people. Also, there is a file floating around that the CIA is frantic to sit on, that discusses using microwaves to exert mind control. The did this down at Warrenton and used “volunteer’ black county jail inmates. Putting people in a room and turning on massive microwaves only cooked two of them, very well-done. They dumped the bodies on a neighbor’s farm. Aren’t the CIA wonderful people?  Here is an accurate account taken from Wikipedia and written by a former CIA operative.  Spastic colon, here we come!”

Employment by the CIA and Biographical Sources

Wikipedia:

Heinrich Müller, born April 28, 1900, was allegedly killed in the street fighting in Berlin in 1945 when the Soviet Army seized the German capital. In a Berlin cemetery there is a grave with a headstone, claiming that Heinrich Müller was buried underneath it. The memorial stone did not indicate that Müller had been an SS-Gruppenführer and a Lieutenant General in the German Police and that since 1935, was the head of the German Gestapo or the Secret State Police. On September 25, 1963, the body was exhumed for identification.

The exhumation had been requested by the West German Ludwigsburg Center that dealt with ex-Nazis sought for prosecution. This Center had information that Müller was not dead and was, in fact, gainfully employed by a foreign government. One of the first steps in proving this was to ascertain whether the corpse in the grave was that of Heinrich Müller who had been issued a death certificate from the Death Bureau of Berlin-Center numbered 11 706/45. A subsequent pathological examination proved that there were the remains of three different men in the grave, none of whom were Heinrich Müller

The man being sought was the son of a minor official, had completed a primary school education, had taken technical training in aircraft engines, worked for the BMW factory, building aircraft engines and in June of 1917 had joined the German Army. Because of his background, after his preliminary training, Müller was assigned to Flieger Ausbildung Abteilung 287 in April of 1918. In the seven months remaining before the war ended, Müller was promoted to NCO in August of 1918 and won the Iron Crosses First and Second Class. He was also awarded the Bavarian pilot’s badge and after injuring his leg in an aircraft accident, the retired Bavarian pilot’s badge.

Müller served on the Western Front throughout the war. When the war was over, Müller joined the Munich Police in 1919 as a junior assistant. He passed his entrance examination and became a police officer. He was promoted to Police Secretary in 1929 and was in Section VI of the Bavarian State Police, a unit that dealt with Communist activity. In 1934, Müller and a number of his associates were transferred to the Gestapo in Berlin and joined the SS as a Sturmführer on April 20, 1934. In 1935, Müller was head of Department II (Gestapo). In 1936, he was head of the Gestapo division of the headquarters of the Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei). In 1937, he was promoted to senior police official (Kriminalrat) and in 1939, to the rank of Reichskriminaldirektor or Director of Police.

In May of 1945, Heinrich Müller was last seen in Hitler’s Berlin bunker. Shortly after the city fell lto the Russians, the body of a senior SS officer, his wife and three children at the Air Ministry complex. The body was identified as SS General Heinrich Müller of the Main Security Office, the RSHA. This, however was not the head of the Gestapo. He was Dr. Heinrich Müller of the RSHA legal department. Gestapo- Müller was born April 28, 1900, and his SS number was 107 043 while the Müller found in Berlin was born June 7, 1896 and his SS number was 290 396 (Source: ‘Dienstalteresliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP, Berlin 1944, pps 11-12)

Immediately following the war, in May of 1945, Gestapo- Müller was put on the American Intelligence CROWCASS (Central Registary of War Crimes and Security Suspects) list of war criminals sought for arrest and prosecution. In 1946, U.S. CIC reported that Gestapo-Müller had escaped to Switzerland using the name Schwartzer. (Source: U.S. Army Intelligence file on Heinrich Müller XE 23 55 39 WJ p. 126)

In 1948, the CIA had taken over the intelligence organization being formed by the former Wehrmacht General, Reinhard Gehlen who worked prior to this for the U.S. Army. The organization was led by Lt. Colonel James Critchfield and was stationed at Pullach, south east of Munich. At this time, Colonel Critchfield’s top recruiter was one Willi Krichbaum, then resident at Bad Reichenhall. Although Critchfield denied it later, Krichbaum was a Senior Colonel (Oberführer) in the Gestapo and Müller’s former deputy. He was born May 7, 1896 and his SS number was 107 039. During the war, Krichbaum was commander of the Geheime Feld Polizei of the Wehrmacht. (Source: Dienstalteresliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP, Berlin 1944, p. 29)

Müller had been working for Swiss intelligence under Paul Masson as an expert on Communist infiltration, was put in contact with Colonel Critchfield by Krichbaum and in August of 1948, interviewed at his home in Geneva, Switzerland by James Speyer Kronthal, the CIA’s station chief in Bern, Switzerland As the result of inquiries into the postwar survival of Heinrich Müller and his employment, in the United States, by the CIA and the U.S. Army, the German government’s main legal center wrote, in a report dated January 31, 2000, that although Müller was reported to have died in Berlin in 1945, their report (110 AR 1619/97), stated that Müller had escaped to Switzerland and had gone to work for the American CIA and was settled, under a false name, in Washington, was a member of the U.S. Army and died in 1973. (Source: Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltugen Report no. 110 AR 346/.2000)

Because the hiring of Heinrich Müller was considered to be a potential serious public relations disaster, some effort has been made to strongly distance the CIA from this employment by claiming that Müller may have survived the war but never was employed by the United States government in any capacity. Photographs of Müller in the uniform of the U.S. Army’s General Staff, taken by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, show him at a White House conference with President Truman in 1949

In 1967, a series of articles on Heinrich Müller appeared in the German media, claiming he was living in Panama but it was subsequently proven that the man, who bore slight resemblance to Müller, was an expatriate American.

American archival and published sources:

U.S. Army Intelligence Records, Ft. George Meade, MD File no XE 23 55 39 WJ U.S. National Archives : P&O File 311.5 TS (Sections I,II,III) 1948 top secret decimal file, Records of Army General Staff, RG 319, NA Trento, Joseph, ‘The Secret History of the CIA”, Random House, 2001, pp 29, and fn 5

National Archives Washington: Repositur (Record Group) 200, (Dwork-Ducker Papers)

German archival sources:

Bundesarchiv Koblenz Nachlaß Himmlers: NL 126 Akten des Persönlichen Stabes Reichsführer SS: Bestand NS 19/1686. 1703, 1813, 2011, 2040 ,2556, 2648, 3464, 3874 Einsatzbefehle und sonstige Anweisungen des Chefs der SIPO und des SD an die Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion: R70 SU/32 Ohlendorf-Prozeß, Nachfolgeverfahren des Nürnberger Prozessen über die Tatigkeit der Einsatzgruppen: Bestand All. Proz. 1, Rep. 501, XXVII, El8 (Anklage Paul Blobel)

Bundesarchiv, Abteilungen Potsdam: Akten des RSHA Bestand R58/18, 67, 93, 141, 142, 214, 239, 241, 242, 243, 265. Akten der Parteikanzelei: NS 6/16, 22 Unterlagen aus dem Archiv des ehemaligen Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit, Abteilung 9/11 Aktenzeichen ZR 759 A. 14.

Institut für Zeitgeschichte in München: Zeugenaussagen: Bestand ZS 539, ZS 573 (Dr. Emanuel Schäfer), ZS 584 (Willy Litzenberg), ZS 1746 (Adolf Eichmann), ZS 1939 (Dr. Böhme), ZS 1940, ZS 2335 (Dr. Walther Stepp) Aufzeichnungen von Rudolf Hoess über Heinrich Müller, F 13/Bd 6, Blatt 339 - 342 Mikrofilm: MA 433, 443, 445 Beweisdokumente der Israelischen Polizei aus dem Eichmann-Prozeß: Eich Nr .299, 333,1395 Bestand Fa 506/8, Fa 18311, Fa 21:Wunveröffentlichte Dokumente der Alliierten aus dem Nürnberger Prozeß: L-35

Staatsarchiv München: Bestand Polizeidirektion München 6900, 6905, 6954, 8377; Akten der Regierung von Oberbayern, Kammer des Innern, Regierungsabgabe: RA58148

Bayerisches Hauptstantsarchiv München: Akten des Staatsministeriums des Innern: Bestand M Inn 71469, 71880, 71881, 71920, 71936,72059, 72060 und 76234, 272,276, 343, 400, 840. 1027, 1086, 1131

Staatsarchiv München: Karteikarte des Einwohnermeldeamtes, Signatur: PMB M 259 Polizeipräsidium München (bis 27. 10. 1976 Polizeidirektion), Personalabteilung: Karteikarte von Heinrich Müller.

Staatsarchiv Nürnberg: Unveröffentlichte Dokumente der Alliierten aus dem Nürnberger Prozeß” NO245, NO255, NO441, NO608, NO744, NO 1533, NO 1973, N02522, N02550, NO 381 8, NO 4631, NO 4633, NO 4636, NO 4658, NO 4700, NO 4999, NO 5322 NID9915 NG 237, NG 362, NG 2354, NG 2550. NG 2652, NG 3522, NG 3700, NG 3746, NG 4275, NG 5178, NG 5554, NG 5764 PS 1151, PS1165, PS1276, PS 1682,152375,PS2377, PS2615.PS3319 (7), PS3166, D 046, D 050 US 557 USSR-413 NOKW 040, NOKW 134

Archiv der Hauptschule Schrobenhausen: Zensurbuch der freiheren Deutschen Werktagsschule zu Schrobenhausen aus den Jahren 1906-1908

Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltung in Ludwigsburg: Aktenzeichen 1 AR 422/60, 415 AR 422160, 1Js 1/65 (RSHA), 1Js 4/65 (RSHA), 1Js 7/65 (RSHA) und 1Js 12/65 (RSHA)

Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin: Ermittlungsverfahren gegen Heinrich Müller wegen Mordes; Aktenzeichen 1Js l/68 (RSHA)

British Archival Sources:

Public Records Office, Kew, Richmond: Akten der Britischen Militärgerichte: WO 235/430, 573, 574

More gay men describe sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig

Allegations made since news of the Minneapolis case broke lend weight to rumors about Craig

December 3, 2007

by Dan Popkey

Idaho Statesman.

David Phillips. Mike Jones. Greg Ruth. Tom Russell.

Four gay men, willing to put their names in print and whose allegations can't be disproved, have come forward since news of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig's guilty plea. They say they had sex with Craig or that he made a sexual advance or that he paid them unusual attention.

They are telling their stories now because they are offended by Craig's denials, including his famous statement, "I am not gay, I never have been gay." Those words, spoken on live national TV on Aug. 28, are now memorialized on a just-released-for-Christmas Talking Senator Larry Craig Action Figure.

David Phillips is a 42-year-old information technology consultant in Washington, D.C., who says Craig picked him up at a gay club in 1986 and that they subsequently had sex.

Mike Jones is a former prostitute who told the world he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard last year. The former Colorado Springs evangelist at first denied it but eventually confessed. Jones says Craig paid him for sex in late 2004 or early 2005.

Greg Ruth was a 24-year-old college Republican in 1981 when he says he was hit on by Craig at a Republican meeting in Coeur d'Alene.

Tom Russell, now 48, is a former Nampa resident who lives in Utah. Russell said his encounter with Craig occurred at Bogus Basin in the early 1980s.

A fifth gay man, who is from Boise but who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, offered a recent and telling account: He was in a men's restroom at Denver International Airport in September 2006 when the man in the next stall moved his hand slowly, palm up, under the divider. Alarmed, the man said he waited outside the restroom and then identified the man in the adjoining stall as Craig, whom he had met in Idaho.

Craig, 62, says he was a victim of "profiling" when he was arrested June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer in an adjoining stall in a men's restroom. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in August. He is appealing his conviction, financed by his 2008 re-election fund. Because of the scandal, Craig no longer needs the money to run for office; after 33 years in state and national office, he says he will not seek re-election next year. Craig also faces a Senate Ethics Committee inquiry, which was requested by Senate GOP leadership.

"I know what people feel like when they're profiled, when innocent people get caught up in what I was caught in as an innocent person," Craig told NBC's Matt Lauer in a prime-time interview that aired Oct. 16.

The appearance on NBC was the latest denial by Craig that he has engaged in gay sex.

The denials began June 30, 1982, when CBS broke news of a scandal alleging gay sex between congressmen and underage pages. The following day, before any public allegation that he was involved, then-Rep. Craig issued a denial. Craig married a year later and adopted the three children of his wife, Suzanne. In 1990, the Idaho Statesman asked Craig about an allegation that he was gay made by an opponent in his first Senate race. "Why don't you ask my wife?" Craig replied.

In October 2006, Craig directly denied the claims of a blogger who reported he'd spoken with three anonymous sources who said they had sex with Craig. In May 2007, after hearing a tape of an accuser who said he and Craig had sex in two men's restrooms at Washington's Union Station rail depot, Craig said, "I am not gay."

And when he emphatically told Matt Lauer he was neither gay nor bisexual, Craig persuaded 28 percent of viewers to believe he had been wrongly charged in Minnesota, according to a survey of 606 viewers by HCD Research and Muhlenberg College.

Craig declined comment on this story. He stopped replying to questions from the Statesman after the paper's Aug. 28 report that included the accounts of three unnamed men, one who said he had sex with Craig and two who said he solicited them for sex. But Craig's staff told other media that the allegations made by Phillips and Jones were false.

As with the Statesman's August report, the new evidence is not definitive. There are no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. Like last August, they are he-said, he-said allegations about a man seeking discreet sex from partners whom he counted on to never tell.

But the Statesman's investigation, which included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, found nothing to disprove the five new accounts. The men offer telling and sometimes similar details about what happened, or the senator's travel records place him in the city where sex is alleged to have occurred, or his accusers told credible witnesses at the time of the incident.

Craig has said he hoped to keep his guilty plea secret. Only after news of the guilty plea broke Aug. 27 did he tell his wife, staff, colleagues and constituents. His admission of guilt, taken together with the three accounts published Aug. 28 and the five new statements, add weight to the evidence that Craig has been living a double life.

HERE ARE THEIR STORIES:

DAVID PHILLIPS: SEX IN CAPITOL HILL HOUSE

Phillips' account was first published this Oct. 25 at Wonkette.com, a liberal Web site. Shortly after the Spokane Spokesman-Review linked to the story on Oct. 26, Craig spokesman Sid Smith replied on a blog that "there is not a shred of truth to this."

In a tape-recorded interview with the Statesman, the 1985 graduate of Rice University said he met Craig on a weekday afternoon between May and August 1986 at a gay strip club called The Follies in Washington, D.C. The club was a place where gay men met for sex, often on the premises. Phillips said he mistakenly told Wonkette the incident happened in 1987.

Phillips, then 21, said he and Craig talked and then hugged. Craig said he didn't feel comfortable at the club and suggested they leave. Phillips had his car, but Craig hailed a cab, with Phillips following him to Capitol Hill. The cab stopped and Craig got out, telling Phillips to park and wait for him to return. In a few minutes, Craig came back on foot and escorted Phillips to the rear door of a house reached by an alley.

On the way to an upstairs bedroom, Phillips said Craig told him, "You've never been here. You don't know me."

Phillips said Craig removed his suit coat, but otherwise remained dressed. He said Craig first performed oral sex on him, and then unzipped his pants so Phillips could reciprocate. Craig then left the room, returning with condoms and lubricant. The two men then had anal sex. Afterward, Craig became agitated and pressed Phillips to leave.

"After the sex, he just wanted me out of there," Phillips said. He said Craig stuck $20 in his pocket and said, "'I can buy and sell your ass a thousand times over. You were never here.' "

Phillips said he saw a note card addressed to Suzanne Craig as he left the house. But he said he never recognized Craig as his sex partner until the recent story broke and he heard Craig's distinctive and formal voice on TV.

"I didn't hear that voice again until August," Phillips said. "Then that 'I can buy and sell your ass a thousand times' came back to me. It just all rolled back so vividly."

Smith, the Craig spokesman, said in his blog posting after the Wonkette report that Phillips should not be believed because Craig did not live on Capitol Hill in 1987, but on his boat at the Capitol Yacht Club. "Everything in that story, from beginning to end, is pure lies and fiction," Smith wrote.

It's not clear whether Craig lived on a boat between May and August 1986, when Phillips said the encounter actually occurred. But Craig told the Statesman in May 2007 that he "went through four boats," remodeled them, "made a little money on each one," and sometimes lived on land between boats.

It's also not clear whether Craig may have had access to a house on Capitol Hill.

MIKE JONES: MALE ESCORT TOOK $200 FROM CRAIG FOR SEX

Jones, 50, told the Statesman that Craig paid him $200 to have sex with him on a night between November 2004 and March 2005. Jones said he recognized Craig only after he became a big story in August.

"Once I saw Larry Craig do his news conference, that's when I go, 'My God! That guy came to see me.' "

Jones contacted the Statesman in September after Craig signaled he might back away from his vow to resign Sept. 30. After Craig said on Oct. 4 that he would complete his term in 2009 and appeared on NBC on Oct. 16, Jones went on the record with the Statesman, describing a sexual encounter with Craig.

(In October, broadcast and Web reports quoted Jones saying Craig had visited him, but did not say the two had sex). Here is what Jones told the Statesman in a tape-recorded interview:

Jones said a man phoned to make an appointment, not giving his name. The man, whom Jones later recognized as Craig, then arrived at a studio apartment on Sherman Street in downtown Denver. Craig asked whether Jones followed politics but then quickly changed the subject. "When I said, 'Yes,' he said, 'Oh, gee, it's cold outside.'" Jones said he immediately deduced from his client's odd response that he was servicing a politician.

Craig removed his coat and dress shirt, leaving his T-shirt, slacks and shoes on when he climbed onto Jones's massage table. Craig asked that Jones be naked. Craig undid his own zipper and masturbated while performing oral sex on Jones. When Craig finished, he paid Jones $200 in cash and left.

The encounter lasted less than an hour, said Jones, who said he kept no records on his escort clients. Jones said he advertised his "massage" services exclusively in gay publications, including the bi-weekly newspaper Out Front Colorado and Rentboy.com.

Craig was in Denver on Feb. 11, 2005, and in nearby Keystone, Colo., on Feb. 12. On the 12th, he attended a meeting at the Keystone Center, a policy think tank. Craig's Senate travel records also show six other trips where Craig may have had layovers in Denver between November 2004 and March 2005.

Craig and his staff won't respond to questions from the Statesman. But Dan Whiting, a Craig spokesman, told KIVI-Today's 6, "Mike Jones is lying in order to sell his book - plain and simple. Larry has never met Mike Jones."

Jones has written a book about his experience with Haggard. Haggard resigned in November 2006 as president of the National Evangelical Association and was forced out as pastor of New Life Church after Jones came forward with voice mails implicating Haggard.

Jones acknowledged his allegation about Craig may help sell books, but said he is motivated by the desire to expose hypocritical conduct by men like Haggard and Craig, who has a consistently anti-gay voting record.

"Here they are putting down the gay community in a sense, treating us like second-class citizens, and they want to have their cake and eat it, too," he said.

GREG RUTH: RESTROOM PROPOSITION IN COEUR D'ALENE

Ruth attended the Republican Western Roundup in Coeur d'Alene in October 1981, where he said Craig made a sexual advance. At the time, Craig was a 36-year-old bachelor and first-year congressman and Ruth was a 24-year-old college Republican from the University of Puget Sound.

Ruth, who was openly gay in 1981, told the Statesman in a tape-recorded interview that Craig paid him unusual attention at the political gathering. Ruth said he excused himself to use the restroom, but Craig soon entered and stood next to Ruth at the urinal, looking at Ruth's penis.

"He looked over and said, 'Hi,'" Ruth said. "But he didn't touch me or anything like that. And then after we finished urinating, we washed hands. He gave me his phone number and he said, 'If you ever get to D.C., call me. You can stay with me.'"

Ruth, now a professional photographer, said he never followed up and lost the slip of paper with Craig's number. But Ruth said he has no doubt Craig was making a sexual advance. "I'm gay, and I knew he was hitting on me," Ruth said. "There's no question about that."

Returning to Tacoma, Wash., Ruth immediately told his uncle about the incident. The uncle, Gerald King, is a retired major who served 25 years in the Army. Ruth, 50, is a former Army captain who served seven years on active duty in the infantry and 12 years in the Army Reserve.

"Mind you," said King, "Greg was strikingly handsome. (Craig) was extremely friendly and overt with Greg in trying to get him to socialize with him."

King said his nephew told him in 1981 that Craig made a sexual advance. "No question about it," said King. "I don't think they were going to make Jell-O."

ANOTHER MEN'S RESTROOM ENCOUNTER

Another gay man, a 46-year-old professional from Boise, told the Statesman that Craig reached his hand into his restroom stall in September 2006 during a layover at the Denver airport. The man, who travels in political circles, had met Craig before. He asked that he not be named by the Statesman.

The man said he was flying from Boise to Washington, D.C., on the same flights as Craig and Craig's wife, Suzanne. Denver, like Minneapolis, is a key connecting hub for flights between Boise and Washington.

During the layover in Denver, the man said he was in a men's restroom stall when a hand came under the divider and reached toward him. The hand was palm up, as the officer in Minnesota also described, and slid toward him for two or three seconds. The man said he noticed unpolished, dark, lace-up shoes worn by the man in the next stall. He did not respond to the gesture.

"I freaked out," said the man, who was traveling with his long-time partner. "I finished my business and left."

The man said he then waited outside the men's restroom on a bench. Shortly after, a man wearing the shoes he saw in the adjacent stall exited. The man was Larry Craig.

"Those shoes came out, and I looked up, and it was like, 'Oh, my God.'"

After boarding the second flight, the man told his partner about the incident. The partner confirmed having heard the details of Craig's advance that day.

The man said one reason he requires anonymity is he fears Craig will use his power to retaliate. He is afraid Craig may have recognized him and, perhaps knowing he is gay, followed him into the men's restroom thinking he would be amenable to sex.

TOM RUSSELL: MUTUAL COME-ON AT BOGUS BASIN SKI RESORT

Russell, 48, a Nampa native who lives in Utah, was among three men who contacted the Statesman about what they described as unusually attentive behavior on Craig's part. Russell was willing to be named for this story and spoke in a tape-recorded interview.

Russell worked as a food service manager at Bogus Basin ski resort and said his encounter probably occurred in the 1983-84 ski season, soon after Craig had married following the 1982 page scandal. Russell had taken a food class from Suzanne Craig and had heard the rumors that Craig was gay.

Russell, openly gay at the time, said he set out to engage Craig "and attempted to show a personal interest - not in a suggestive way - but a personal interest to see if he would respond."

"I recall that he was very delighted to talk to me - smiling, happy, very delighted - and that he had suggested that we could get together sometime," he said. "Why would he have a personal interest in meeting me elsewhere?"

Russell said he became convinced Craig was gay because he used subtle signals consistent with communication between gay men in public places.

"You've heard the term, 'gaydar'? OK, it's there. You know it. You know when somebody is raising an eyebrow at you because it's their gesture when they say 'hello' or when they are subtly trying to send you a message that they recognize you as being a gay person."

Nothing came of the meeting, Russell said. But he came forward now because he is offended by Craig's denials.

"I'm disgusted because it's hypocritical, and he's lying. He's lying through his teeth. Heterosexual men do not behave like that."

Iraq As a Pentagon Construction Site: How the Bush Administration ‘Endures’

December 3, 2007

by Tom Engelhardt

TomDiapatch.com

The title of the agreement, signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in a “video conference” last week, and carefully labeled as a “non-binding” set of principles for further negotiations, was a mouthful: a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America.” Whew!

Words matter, of course. They seldom turn up by accident in official documents or statements. Last week, in the first reports on this “declaration,” one of those words that matter caught my attention. Actually, it wasn’t in the declaration itself, where the key phrase was “long-term relationship” (something in the lives of private individuals that falls just short of a marriage), but in a “fact-sheet” issued by the White House. Here’s the relevant line: “Iraq’s leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq.” Of course, “enduring” there bears the same relationship to permanency as “long-term relationship” does to marriage.

In a number of the early news reports, that word “enduring,” part of the “enduring relationship” that the Iraqi leadership supposedly “asked for,” was put into (or near) the mouths of “Iraqi leaders” or of the Iraqi prime minister himself. It also achieved a certain prominence in the post-declaration “press gaggle” conducted by the man coordinating this process out of the Oval Office, the President’s so-called War Tsar, Gen. Douglas Lute. He said of the document: “It signals a commitment of both their government and the United States to an enduring relationship based on mutual interests.”

In trying to imagine any Iraqi leader actually requesting that “enduring” relationship, something kept nagging at me. After all, those mutual vows of longevity were to be taken in a well publicized civil ceremony in a world in which, when it comes to the American presidential embrace, don’t-ask/don’t-tell is usually the preferred course of action for foreign leaders. Finally, I remembered where I had seen that word “enduring” before in a situation that also involved a “long-term relationship.” It had been four-and-a-half years earlier and not coming out of the mouths of Iraqi officials either.

Back in April 2003, just after Baghdad fell to American troops, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt reported on the front page of the New York Times that the Pentagon had launched its invasion the previous month with plans for four “permanent bases” in out of the way parts of Iraq already on the drawing board. Since then, the Pentagon has indeed sunk billions of dollars into building those mega-bases (with a couple of extra ones thrown in) at or near the places mentioned by Shanker and Schmitt.

When questioned by reporters at the time about whether such “permanent bases” were in the works, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the U.S. was “unlikely to seek any permanent or ‘long-term’ bases in Iraq” — and that was that. The Times’ piece essentially went down the mainstream-media memory hole. On this subject, the official position of the Bush administration has never changed. Just last week, for instance, General Lute slipped up, in response to a question at his press gaggle. The exchange went like this:

“Q: And permanent bases?

“GENERAL LUTE: Likewise. That’s another dimension of continuing U.S. support to the government of Iraq, and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year.”

White House spokesperson Dana Perino quickly issued a denial, saying: “We do not seek permanent bases in Iraq.”

Back in 2003, Pentagon officials, already seeking to avoid that potentially explosive “permanent” tag, plucked “enduring” out of the military lexicon and began referring to such bases, charmingly enough, as “enduring camps.” And the word remains with us — connected to bases and occupations anywhere. For instance, of a planned expansion of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, a Col. Jonathan Ives told an AP reporter recently, “We’ve grown in our commitment to Afghanistan by putting another brigade (of troops) here, and with that we know that we’re going to have an enduring presence. So this is going to become a long-term base for us, whether that means five years, 10 years — we don’t know.”

Still, whatever they were called, the bases went up on an impressive scale, massively fortified, sometimes 15-20 square miles in area, housing up to tens of thousands of troops and private contractors, with multiple bus routes, traffic lights, fast-food restaurants, PXs, and other amenities of home, and reeking of the kind of investment that practically shouts out for, minimally, a relationship of a distinctly “enduring” nature.

The Facts on Land — and Sea

These were part of what should be considered the facts on the ground in Iraq, though, between April 2003 and the present, they were rarely reported on or debated in the mainstream in the U.S. But if you place those mega-bases (not to speak of the more than 100 smaller ones built at one point or another) in the context of early Bush administration plans for the Iraqi military, things quickly begin to make more sense.

Remember, Iraq is essentially the hot seat at the center of the Middle East. It had, in the previous two-plus decades fought an eight-year war with neighboring Iran, invaded neighboring Kuwait, and been invaded itself. And yet, the new Coalition Provisional Authority, run by the President’s personal envoy, L. Paul Bremer III, promptly disbanded the Iraqi military. This is now accepted as a goof of the first order when it came to sparking an insurgency. But, in terms of Bush administration planning, it was no mistake at all.

At the time, the Pentagon made it quite clear that its plan for a future Iraqi military was for a force of 40,000 lightly armed troops — meant to do little more than patrol the country’s borders. (Saddam Hussein’s army had been something like a 600,000-man force.) It was, in other words, to be a Military Lite — and there was essentially to be no Iraqi air force. In other words, in one of the more heavily armed and tension-ridden regions of the planet, Iraq was to become a Middle Eastern Costa Rica — if, that is, you didn’t assume that the U.S. Armed Forces, from those four “enduring camps” somewhere outside Iraq’s major cities, including a giant air base at Balad, north of Baghdad, and with the back-up help of U.S. Naval forces in the Persian Gulf, were to serve as the real Iraqi military for the foreseeable future.

Again, it’s necessary to put these facts on the ground in a larger — in this case, pre-invasion — geopolitical context. From the first Gulf War on, Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of energy on the planet, was being groomed as the American military bastion in the heart of the Middle East. But the Saudis grew uncomfortable — think here, the claims of Osama bin Laden and Co. that U.S. troops were defiling the Kingdom and its holy places — with the Pentagon’s elaborate enduring camps on its territory. Something had to give — and it wasn’t going to be the American military presence in the Middle East. The answer undoubtedly seemed clear enough to top Bush administration officials. As an anonymous American diplomat told the Sunday Herald of Scotland back in October 2002, “A rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It’s not just a case of swopping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S. regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity.”

As those officials imagined it — and as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz predicted — by the fall of 2003, major American military operations in the region would have been re-organized around Iraq, even as American forces there would be drawn down to perhaps 30,000-40,000 troops stationed eternally at those “enduring camps.” In addition, a group of Iraqi secular exiles, friendly to the United States, would be in power in Baghdad, backed by the occupation and ready to open up the Iraqi economy, especially its oil industry to Western (particularly American) multinationals. Americans and their allies and private contractors would, quite literally, have free run of the country, the equivalent of nineteenth century colonial extraterritoriality (something “legally” institutionalized in June 2004, thanks to Order 17, issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, just before it officially turned over “sovereignty” to the Iraqis); and, sooner or later, a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA would be “negotiated” that would define the rights of American troops garrisoned in that country.

At that point, the U.S. would have successfully repositioned itself militarily in relation to the oil heartlands of the planet. It would also have essentially encircled a second member of the “axis of evil,” Iran (once you included the numerous new U.S. bases that had been built and were being expanded in occupied Afghanistan as part of the ongoing war against the Taliban). It would be triumphant and dominant and, with its Israeli ally, militarily beyond challenge in the region. The cowing of, collapse of, or destruction of the Syrian and Iranian regimes would surely follow in short order.

Of course, much of this never came about as planned. It turned out that, once the Sunni insurgency gained traction, the Bush administration had little choice but to reconstitute a sizeable, if still relatively lightly armed, Iraqi military (as a largely Shiite force) and then, more recently, arm Sunni militias as well, possibly opening the way for future clashes of a major nature. It had to accept a Shiite regime locked inside the highly fortified Green Zone of the Iraqi capital that was religious, sectarian, largely powerless, and allied to some degree with Iran. It had to accept chaos, significant and unexpected casualties, continual urban warfare, and an enormous strain and drain on its armed forces (as well as a black hole of distraction from other global issues). None of this had been predicted, or imagined, by Bush’s top officials.

On the other hand, the Bush administration has demonstrated significant “endurance” of its own, especially when it came to the linked issues of oil and bases. In a recent report for Harper’s Magazine, “The Black Box, Inside Iraq’s Oil Machine,” Luke Mitchell describes traveling the southern Iraqi oil field of Rumaila with a petroleum engineer working for Foster Wheeler, a Houston engineering firm hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “to oversee much of the oilfield reconstruction,” and protected by private guards employed by the British security company Erinys. He describes what’s left of the Iraqi oil industry after decades of war, sanctions, civil war, sabotage, and black-market theft — a run-down industrial plant with a rusting delivery system that, at a technical level, is now largely in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the State Department, and private contractors like KBR, the former division of Halliburton. At the most basic level, he reports that many of “Iraq’s native oil professionals,” who heroically patched up and held together a broken system in the years after the first Gulf War, have (along with so many other Iraqi professionals) fled the country. He writes:

“The Wall Street Journal in 2006 called this flight a ‘petroleum exodus’ and reported that about a hundred oil workers had been murdered since the war began and that ‘of the top hundred of so managers running the Iraqi oil ministry and its branches in 2003, about two-thirds are no longer at their jobs.’ Now most of the [oil] engineers in Iraq are from Texas and Oklahoma.”

Similarly, in Baghdad, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not expected to handle the crucial energy problems of its country alone. Here’s a relevant (if well-buried) passage from a recent New York Times piece on the subject: “Earlier this month, the White House dispatched several senior aides to Baghdad to work with the Iraqis on specific legislative areas. They include the under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, who is working on the budget and oil law…” This is what passes for “sovereignty” in present-day Iraq.

In this context, the following line of text about agreed-upon subjects for negotiation in last week’s Bush/Maliki “declaration” caused eyebrows to be raised (at least abroad): “Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.” As the British Guardian put the matter: “The promise was immediately seen as a potential bonanza for American oil companies.” A BBC report commented, “Correspondents say US investors benefiting from preferential treatment could earn huge profits from Iraq’s vast oil reserves, causing widespread resentment among Iraqis.” (American coverage regularly ignores or plays down the oil aspect of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies, even though that country has the third largest reserves on the planet.)

Bases, Bases Everywhere

Among the most tenacious and enduring Bush administration facts on the ground are those giant bases, still largely ignored — with honorable exceptions — by the mainstream media. Thom Shanker and Cara Buckley of the New York Times, to give but one example, managed to write that paper’s major piece about the joint “declaration” without mentioning the word “base,” no less “permanent,” and only Gen. Lute’s slip made the permanence of bases a minor note in other mainstream reports. And yet it’s not just that the building of bases did go on — and on a remarkable scale — but that it continues today.

Whatever the descriptive labels, the Pentagon, throughout this whole period, has continued to create, base by base, the sort of “facts” that any negotiations, no matter who engages in them, will need to take into account. And the ramping up of the already gigantic “mega-bases” in Iraq proceeds apace. Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon will call on Congress to pony up another billion dollars soon enough for further upgrades and “improvements.”

We also know that frantic construction has been under way on three new bases of varying sizes. The most obvious of these — though it’s seldom thought of this way — is the gigantic new U.S. Embassy, possibly the largest in the world, being built on an almost Vatican-sized plot of land inside Baghdad’s Green Zone. It is meant to be a citadel, a hardened universe of its own, in, but not of, the Iraqi capital. In recent months, it has also turned into a construction nightmare, soaking up another $144 million in American taxpayer monies, bringing its price tag to three-quarters of a billion dollars and still climbing. It is to house 1,000 or so “diplomats,” with perhaps a few thousand extra security guards and hired hands of every sort.

When, in the future, you read in the papers about administration plans to withdraw American forces to bases “outside of Iraqi urban areas,” note that there will continue to be a major base in the heart of the Iraqi capital for who knows how long to come. As the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler put it, the 21-building compound “is viewed by some officials as a key element of building a sustainable, long-term diplomatic presence in Baghdad.” Presence, yes, but diplomatic?

In the meantime, a relatively small base, “Combat Outpost Shocker,” provocatively placed within a few kilometers of the Iranian border, has been rushed to completion this fall on a mere $5 million construction contract. And only in the last weeks, reports have emerged on the latest U.S. base under construction, uniquely being built on a key oil-exporting platform in the waters off the southern Iraqi port of Basra and meant for the U.S. Navy and allies. Such a base gives meaning to this passage in the Bush/Maliki declaration: “Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.”

As the British Telegraph described this multi-million dollar project: “The US-led coalition is building a permanent security base on Iraq’s oil pumping platforms in the Gulf to act as the ‘nerve centre’ of efforts to protect the country’s most vital strategic asset.” Chip Cummins of the Wall Street Journal summed up the project this way in a piece headlined, “U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports — Long-Term Presence Planned at Persian Gulf Terminals Viewed as Vulnerable”: “[T]he new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn’t shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country’s oil industry.”

Though you’d never know it from mainstream reporting, the single enduring fact of the Iraq War may be this constant building and upgrading of U.S. bases. Since the Times revealed those base-building plans back in the spring of 2003, Iraq has essentially been a vast construction site for the Pentagon. The American media did, in the end, come to focus on the civilian “reconstruction” of Iraq which, from the rebuilding of electricity-production facilities to the construction of a new police academy has proved a catastrophic mixture of crony capitalism, graft, corruption, theft, inefficiency, and sabotage. But there has been next to no focus on the construction success story of the Iraq War and occupation: those bases.

In this way, whatever the disasters of its misbegotten war, the Bush administration has, in a sense, itself “endured” in Iraq. Now, with only a year left, its officials clearly hope to write that endurance and those “enduring camps” into the genetic code of both countries — an “enduring relationship” meant to outlast January 2009 and to outflank any future administration. In fact, by some official projections, the bases are meant to be occupied for up to 50 to 60 years without ever becoming “permanent.”

You can, of course, claim that the Iraqis “asked for” this new, “enduring relationship,” as the declaration so politely suggests. It is certainly true that, as part of the bargain, the Bush administration is offering to defend its “boys” to the hilt against almost any conceivable eventuality, including the sort of internal coup that it has, these last years, been rumored to have considered launching itself.

In an attempt to make an end-run around Congress, administration officials continue to present what is to be negotiated as merely a typical SOFA-style agreement. “There are about a hundred countries around the world with which we have [such] bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements,” Gen. Lute said reassuringly, indicating that this matter would be handled by the executive branch without significant input from Congress. The guarantees the Bush administration seems ready to offer the Maliki government, however, clearly rise to treaty level and, if we had even a faintly assertive Congress, would surely require the advice and consent of the Senate. Iraqi officials have already made clear that such an agreement will have to pass through their parliament in a country where the idea of “enduring” U.S. bases in an “enduring” relationship is bound to be exceedingly unpopular.

Still, a formula for the future is obviously being put in place and, after more than four years of frenzied construction, the housing for it, so to speak, is more than ready. As the Washington Post described the plan, “Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops…”

No matter what comes out of the mouths of Iraqi officials, though, what’s “enduring” in all this is deeply Pentagonish and has emerged from the Bush administration’s earliest dreams about reshaping the Middle East and achieving global domination of an unprecedented sort. It’s a case, as the old Joni Mitchell song put it, of going “round and round and round in the circle game.”

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute’s Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has recently been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture’s crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.

Russia's Putin wins landslide

December 3, 2007

Reuters

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin's party won a landslide victory in a parliamentary election, official results showed on Monday, giving him a mandate to shape Russia's political landscape after his second term ends next year.

But opposition parties and independent election monitors cried foul. They said biased media coverage during the campaign, overt government support for Putin's United Russia party and numerous irregularities during voting had skewed the outcome.

The Central Electoral Commission said that with almost all votes counted, United Russia had won 64.1 percent of votes, nearly six times as many as the nearest challenger, the Communist party. Two smaller pro-Kremlin groupings took another 16 percent of the vote and pro-Western parties won no seats.

The Kremlin hailed the vote as a strong personal endorsement for Putin, who campaigned vigorously for United Russia. Financial market analysts said the result would bolster stability and encourage investment.

"Russian voters spoke in favor of United Russia, thus supporting President Putin's course, and spoke in favor of it being continued after the current president's second term ends," said Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman.

What Putin will do after his second term ends next May unclear. Some observers say he could seek a third term as president, although he has said he will not change the constitution to pave the way for this.

Projections by the Electoral Commission showed pro-Kremlin parties would win about 393 of the 450 seats in the next State Duma, the lower house of parliament. That would be more than enough to allow them to change the constitution if they wished.

Opinion polls show Putin, a 55-year-old former KGB agent, is extremely popular after eight years of oil-fuelled economic growth. Voters credit him with restoring stability and national pride and like his tough nationalism and criticism of the West.

OPPOSITION CHALLENGES VOTE LEGITIMACY

The Communists, who won 11.6 percent of votes, said they would challenge the result in the courts. In a first reaction from abroad, the United States urged Russia to investigate the numerous reports of vote-rigging.

In Chechnya, a region in the North Caucasus which faces a separatist insurgency and is run by pro-Kremlin Ramzan Kadyrov, officials said a partial count showed United Russia had won 99.3 percent of the votes on a 99-percent turnout.

Europe's main ODIHR election watchdog — seen in the West as a key yardstick of the fairness of an election — decided not to monitor the election, citing obstruction by Russian authorities.

Independent election monitors and opposition parties said officials mounted a nationwide campaign of bribery, intimidation and ballot-stuffing to make sure the vote handed Putin a resounding mandate.

The allegations included voters being offered the chance to win televisions and refrigerators if they backed United Russia, and a report people were being bussed around the city of St Petersburg and voting in one polling station after another.

Grigory Melkonyans of Golos, Russia's biggest independent election observer, said: "These are not isolated incidents. The complaints are from every corner of Russia."

Liberal politician Boris Nemtsov called it "the most dishonest election in the history of modern Russia."

The head of Russia's Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov, a former colleague of Putin, dismissed the allegations of fraud. "I think there were no serious violations on polling day," Churov told reporters.

Investors were not overly concerned. They said the result should provide stability and continuity and Putin would regard it as a clear mandate to retain control.

"Criticism over the handling of the election from foreign governments should be short-lived," Chris Weafer, chief analyst at Moscow investment bank Uralsib, said.

Allegations of ballot fraud are unlikely to strike a chord with the majority of Russians who, opinion polls show, want Putin to stay on as a "national leader." The opposition parties most critical of Putin have marginal support.

But the allegations could drive a new wedge between an increasingly assertive Moscow and the West, which Putin accused last week of "poking their snotty noses" in Russia's affairs.

US urges inquiry into Putin election landslide

By: Adrian Blomfield and Richard Holt on: 03.12.2007

The Telegraph

The US has called for an investigation into claims of vote-rigging after President Vladimir Putin's party swept to a landslide victory in Russia

The result clears the way for the president to retain his grip on power even after he is required to step down next year at the end of his second term.

Whether he plans to do so as president, prime minister or from some other post is only likely to become apparent later this month.

The Kremlin has hailed the result as a sign that voters want Mr Putin to maintain his influence.

"Russian voters spoke in favour of United Russia, thus supporting President Putin's course, and spoke in favour of it being continued after the current president's second term ends," a Kremlin spokesman told Reuters.

The Communists, who came second with just under 12 per cent of the vote, have vowed to challenge the result in the courts.

"Early reports from Russia include allegations of election-day violations. We urge Russian authorities to investigate these claims," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for White House national security council.

The US had criticised Moscow for stifling dissent before the poll. Mr Putin replied by telling the West not to poke their "snotty noses" into Russian affairs.

Critics called the vote "the most dishonest" in post-Soviet history, outstripping even Boris Yeltsin's questionable re-election in 1996.

Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist party leader, said: "If under Yeltsin there were two ways to get votes - intimidation and ballot fixing - now they have thought up at least 15 ways to entrap and betray voters."

Although voters had a choice of 11 parties, the only ones with a chance of making it into Russia's notoriously feckless Duma are either creations of the Kremlin or loyal to it.

Even the Communist Party is reluctant to criticise Mr Putin openly - even if it is allowed to oppose the government on peripheral matters.

Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces, two pro-Western parties, were allowed to take part.

A display at Central Election Commission headquarters shows the massive lead for Mr Putin's United Russia party

Critics say this was because their failure to unite meant there was no chance of them crossing the seven per cent threshold needed to gain representation in the Duma.

Mr Putin's most serious opponents, an unlikely coalition of pro-Western liberals and radical nationalists known as The Other Russia, were prevented from standing.

Its leader, the former chess champion Garry Kasparov, was jailed for five days last weekend after being found guilty of participating in an unlawful opposition protest that police violently broke up.

"They are not just rigging the vote, they are raping the whole electoral system," Mr Kasparov said after casting a deliberately spoiled ballot. "These elections are a reminder of Soviet elections when there was no choice."

While the elections lack international legitimacy after Europe's main observer body boycotted the poll, many Russians appeared happy to endorse the president by supporting United Russia.

Yelena Parinova, an economist, said as she left a polling station: "Instead of drinking vodka we drink something healthier because we have something to live for now. For the first time we have a government we can trust."

Affection for Mr Putin is widespread, thanks to Russia's energy-driven economic boom and the censorship of much of the media.

The election campaign has been almost laughably one-sided. State television has lavished positive coverage on United Russia, whose billboards has been almost omnipresent across the country.

Some academics, civil servants and students claim to have been threatened with dismissal or expulsion if they did not vote for United Russia, while opposition protests have been broken up violently.

Many Russians believe that the loss of freedom has been an acceptable price to pay for the stability they have enjoyed in the past few years - but not everyone agrees.

"Stability isn't really stability if basic human rights are violated," said Georgy Tskhadadze, a 23-year-old analyst, after casting his vote for the Union of Right Forces.

"I don't want to live in a country where repression, the absence of freedom of speech and political prisoners are again the norm."

Russian parliamentary election by the numbers

• 60 per cent turnout at the election - higher than in 2003 despite widespread apathy. Critics said the figure had been inflated to add legitimacy to Mr Putin's victory.

• 11 parties contested the polls, including ciphers, loyalists and no-hopers created by the Kremlin.

• 300 observers monitored an election in a country that spans 11 time zones after Europe's main observer mission boycotted the poll. Mr Putin told Western leaders to keep their "snotty noses" out of the election.

Venezuelans reject constitutional change, Chavez accepts

December 3, 2007

AFP

CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez acknowledged Monday his first-ever election defeat after voters rejected reforms in a weekend referendum that would have strengthened his grip on power and turned his oil-rich country into a socialist state.

"Don't feel sad," a chastened-looking Chavez told his supporters via a media conference. He stressed that he had lost by only a "minimal" margin and was encouraged by the support he did get.

The National Electoral Council said "no" votes against the reforms had outweighed "yes" votes by a very narrow 51 to 49 percent.

"I tell you from the heart: For a few hours I debated with myself, in a dilemma," Chavez said. "I've now left the dilemma behind and I'm calm. I hope the Venezuelans are as well."

He added: "Now, Venezuelans, let's put our trust in our institutions."

Opposition members and sympathizers immediately celebrated their victory, setting off fireworks in Caracas and filling the streets with cheers and whistles.

Chavez supporters, in contrast, looked despondent in their red campaign colors, their "yes" flags and banners lowered.

It was the first time since Chavez came to power in 1999 that he has lost at the polls. In all his past elections, the charismatic leftwing firebrand triumphed with comfortable leads.

During his campaigning for the referendum, the president had labeled as "traitors" those swelling the ranks of the opposition — including an unprecedented number of the country's poor, who, while still expressing affection for him, balked at endorsing his reforms.

Chavez, a firebrand critic of the United States with ties to Iran and Cuba, had been counting on the referendum to continue his rule beyond January 2013, when he must step down under the current constitutional two-term limit.

The 53-year-old former paratrooper had said he wanted the constitution overhauled so he could seek re-election "until 2050" — when he would be 95.

He had also wanted to gain even tighter control over the country by putting more of the military under his command, permitting media censorship in times of emergency and scrapping the central bank's autonomy.

But street protests started by university students put paid to those ambitions, growing into the grassroots opposition movement that eventually vanquished him at the polls.

His exhortations that a "no" vote would be a vote for US President George W. Bush and US "imperialism" failed to carry the day in his favor.

There was a disturbing few hours after the vote, however, during which the government gave no results whatsoever and Chavez pondered what to do.

With the opposition clamoring for the release of figures — and soldiers moving in to block entry to the National Electoral Council building — a media conference was finally held in the early hours of Monday in which NEC chief Tibisay Lucena announced the defeat of the reforms.

Chavez mocked the opposition in his concession speech, saying that their concerns that he might refuse to accept the result were clearly misplaced.

"Now the tensions have dropped I hope they will see things more calmly," he said.

Fears remained of street violence in the wake of the result, however.

Chavez also warned right up to the eve of the referendum that he suspected the United States had a plan to exploit the vote to sow unrest, and he vowed to cut oil supplies to the US if he saw any meddling.

A historian, Margarita Lopez Maya, told AFP that the result was "a personal rout for the president" but overall good for the country.

"Chavez will survive, but will be forced to rethink the timing of his project and the ways he might be able to persuade the population," she said.

Venezuela's constitution prevents Chavez from re-presenting his constitutional reform under the current congress — though he could conceivably appoint a constituent assembly to draft an entirely new basic law for adoption.

The Green Zone Follies

3,400 soldiers alerted to serve in Iraq and Kuwait in 2009

The Associated Press

12/03/2007

MADISON, Wis.—More than 3,400 soldiers from around the state have been alerted to serve in Iraq and Kuwait in 2009, the Wisconsin National Guard said Monday.

The Wisconsin Army National Guard's 32nd Brigade Combat Team, which includes units in 36 Wisconsin communities, would serve along with brigades from Oregon and Mississippi, Lt. Col. Tim Donovan said in a news release.

The current plan is for the about 3,450 soldiers to do base defense and route security in Iraq and Kuwait in the summer of 2009.

Donovan said the advance alerts help provide predictability for families and flexibility for businesses to plan for their employees' service.

The 32nd Brigade's soldiers were notified over the weekend during scheduled weekend drills.

In all, the alerts for the three states affect about 8,000 men and women, the Defense Department said.

The soldiers headed to Iraq will train for "security force" missions like defending bases and guarding convoys. However, it is difficult to know exactly how the soldiers will be used so far in advance. Conditions on the battlefield are constantly changing and the military is forced to adapt.

The brigade has units in 36 Wisconsin communities: Camp Douglas, Wisconsin Rapids, Marshfield, Stevens Point, Appleton, Clintonville, Waupun, Ripon, Green Bay, Fond du Lac, Marinette, Eau Claire, Abbottsford, Menomonie, New Richmond, Rice Lake, Arcadia, Onalaska, River Falls, Portage, Janesville, Elkhorn,

Mauston, Milwaukee, Baraboo, Madison, Waupaca, Neillsville, Mosinee, Wausau, Merrill, Onalaska, Antigo, Fort Atkinson, Watertown and Reedsburg.

Some of the brigade's units have previously served since Sept. 11, 2001. Those include:

—Eau Claire-based 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry (Iraq service from June 2004 to November 2005)

—Camp Douglas-based 32nd Brigade Headquarters (Kuwait service from June 2005 to July 2006)

—Appleton-based 2nd Battalion, 127th Infantry (Kuwait and Iraq service from June 2005 to August 2006)

—Wisconsin Rapids-based 1st Battalion, 120th Field Artillery (Kuwait and Iraq service from August 2005 to November 2006)

—Madison-based 105th Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron (formerly 2nd Battalion, 128th Infantry, with Kuwait service from August 2005 to November 2006)

—Janesville-based Company A, 132nd Brigade Support Battalion (a one-year mission in Afghanistan beginning November 2005)

—Madison-based Company B, Brigade Special Troops Battalion (formerly the 232nd Military Intelligence Company with Afghanistan service from November 2005 to January 2007).

http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_7624952?nclick_check=1