Douglas Caddy

Investment Giant Rushed to ICU by Panicky Fed Chief Bearly Alive By MIKE WHITNEY March 15/16 2008 www.counterpunch.org http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03152008.html On Friday, Bear Stearns blew up. It was the worst possible news at the worst possible time. A day earlier, the politically-connected Carlyle Capital hedge fund defaulted on $16.6 billion of its debt. Carlyle boasted a $21.7 billion portfolio of AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed securities, but was unable to make a margin call of just $400 million. (Where did the $21.7 billion go?) The news on Bear was the last straw. The stock market started reeling immediately; shedding 300 points in less than an hour. Then, miraculously, the tide shifted and the market began to rebound. If there was ever a time for Paulson's Plunge Protection Team to come to the rescue; this was it. For weeks, the markets have been battered with bad news. Retail sales are down, unemployment is up, consumer confidence is in the tank, inflation is rising, the dollar is on the ropes, and the credit crunch has spread to even the safest corners of the market. Facing these fierce headwinds, Washington mandarins and financial heavyweights had to decide whether to sit back and let one small investment bank take down the whole equities market in an afternoon or stealthily buy a few futures and live to fight another day? Tough choice, eh? We'll never know for sure, but that's probably what happened. We'll also never know if Bernanke's real purpose in setting up his new $200 billion auction facility was to provide the cash-strapped banks with a place where they could off-load the mortgage-backed junk that Carlyle dumped on the market when they went belly-up. That worked out well, didn't it? Now the banks can trade these worthless MBS bonds with the Fed for US Treasuries at nearly full value. What a deal! That must have been the plan from the get-go. The Bear Stearns bailout has ignited a firestorm of controversy about moral hazard and whether the Fed should be in the business of spreading its largess to profligate investment banks. But the Fed had no choice. This isn't about one bank caving in from its bad bets. The entire financial system is teetering and a failure at Bear would have taken a wrecking ball to the equities market and sent stocks around the world into a violent death-spiral. The New York Times summed it up like this in Saturday's edition: "If the Fed hadn't acted this morning and Bear did default on its obligations, then that could have triggered a widespread panic and potentially a collapse of the financial system". Bingo. So, what makes Bear so special? How is it that one of the smallest investment banks can pose such a threat to the whole system? That's the question that will be addressed in the next couple weeks and people are not going to like the answer. For the last decade or so the markets have been reconfigured according to a new "structured finance" model which has transformed the interactions between institutions and investors. The focus has been on maximizing profit by creating a vast galaxy of exotic debt-instruments which increase overall risk and volatility in slumping market conditions. Derivatives trading which, according to the Bank of International Settlements, now exceeds $500 trillion, has sewn together the various lending and investment institutions in a way that one failure can set the derivatives dominoes in motion and bring down the entire financial scaffolding in a heap. That's why the Fed got involved and (I believe) approached Congress in a closed-door session (which was supposed to be about FISA legislation) to inform lawmakers about the growing possibly of a major economic meltdown if conditions in the credit markets were not stabilized quickly. The troubles at Bear and the danger they pose to the overall system were articulated in an article by Counterpunch co-editor, Alexander Cockburn in a November, 2006 article "Lame Duck: The Downside of Capitalism": "In a briefing paper under the chaste title, 'Private Equity: A discussion of Risk and Regulatory Engagement', the FSA raises the alarm. "Excessive leverage: The amount of credit that lenders are willing to extend on private equity transactions has risen substantially. This lending may not, in some circumstances, be entirely prudent. Given current leverage levels and recent developments in the economic/credit cycle, the default of a large private equity backed company or a cluster of smaller private equity backed companies seems inevitable. This has negative implications for lenders, purchasers of the debt, orderly markets and conceivably, in extreme circumstances, financial stability and elements of the UK economy." Translation: It's about to blow! "The duration and potential impact of any credit event may be exacerbated by operational issues which make it difficult to identify who ultimately owns the economic risk associated with a leveraged buy out and how these owners will react in a crisis. These operational issues arise out of the extensive use of opaque, complex and time consuming risk transfer practices such as assignment and sub-participation, together with the increased use of credit derivatives. These credit derivatives may not be confirmed in a timely manner and the amount traded may substantially exceed the amount of the underlying assets." Translation: "The world's credit system is a vast recycling bin of untraceable transactions of wildly inflated value." The problem is that the oversight and stability of the world credit system is no longer within the purview of familiar international institutions like the International Monetary Fund or the Bank of International Settlements. Private traders are now installed at all the strategic nodes, gambling with stratospheric sums in such speculative pyramids as the credit derivative market which was almost nonexistent in 2001, yet which reached $17.3 trillion by the end of 2005. Warren Buffett, America's most famous investor, has called credit derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction." Cockburn's article anticipates the current problems at Bear and shows why the Fed cannot allow them to fester and spread throughout the system. The investment banks and brokerages all do business with each other, taking sides in trades as counterparties. If one player goes down it increases the likelihood of more failures. So the problem has to be contained. The volume of derivatives contracts, that are not traded publicly on any of the major exchanges, has exploded in the last few years. These unregulated transactions, what Pimco's Bill Gross calls the shadow banking system, have taken center-stage as market conditions continue to deteriorate and the downward-cycle of deleveraging begins to accelerate. The ongoing massacre in real estate has left the structured investment market frozen, which means that the foundation blocks (ie mortgage-backed securities) upon which all this excessive leveraging rests; is starting to crumble. It's a real mess. Derivatives trading, particularly in credit default swaps, is oftentimes exceeds the value of the underlying asset many times over. Credit Default Swaps are financial instruments that are based on loans and bonds that speculate on a company's ability to repay debt. (a type of unregulated insurance) The CDS market is roughly $45 trillion, whereas, the aggregate value of the US mortgage market is only $11 trillion; four times smaller. That's a lot of leverage and it can have a snowball effect when the CDS trades begin to unwind. In truth, the biggest risk to the financial system is counterparty risk; the possibility that some large investment bank, like Bear, goes under and sucks the rest of the market with it from the magnitude of its losses. Last year, Bear was the 12th largest counterparty to CDS trades according to Fitch ratings. If they were to suddenly disappear, the effects to the rest of the system would be catastrophic. Fed Chairman Bernanke sat on the board of the FOMC when the investment gurus and brokerage sharpies customized the markets in a way that enhanced their own personal fortunes while increasing the risks of systemic failure. The SIVs, the conduits, the opaque derivatives, the off-balance sheets operations, the dark pools, the massive leverage, and the reckless expansion of credit; all emerged during his (and Greenspan's) tenure. The Federal Reserve has its own large share of responsibility for the brushfire it is presently trying to put out. Now, in capitalism's extreme crisis Bernanke, acting beyond his mandate, invokes a law that hasn't been used since the 1960s so the Fed can become the creditor for an institution that attempted to enrich itself through wild speculative bets on dubious toxic investments which are now utterly worthless. Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

If you wish an answer to this, you should direct your question to Mr. Dankbaar.

Seal was a friend of mine. I used to work for Radio KEPS Eagle Pass Texas, I know the Murchinsions. I am from Dallas. Peter Brewton (The Mafia CIA and George Bush; 1992; pgs 91-93-95) interviewed me many times as to some the above information. I flew C-130's all around Iron Mountain, Eagle Pass, Lajitas MX (referenced and documented; Tri-State Drug Task Force) during the Iran/Contra resupply network. I worked an undercover federal interdiction program. Some of the information above is perhaps correct and some is not correct. I would be very careful as to background research and where it came from on some of this information. I smell something funny here. Seal was in no way associated with Dallas and the assassination of JFK... I have gone over this years ago and produced documentation to that fact... I was called names because I would not go along with the story. I was in Mexico many times with Seal and have pictures and documentation to support that. I testified in the Seal case and I know some of the players. If you would like to talk about this with me, then Email me privately. If I do not hear from you then I know a con is in the works. Simkin has my email. and I'll be happy to talk with Mr. WorthingtonII and you in reference to this subject matter. However, I am sure some will advise you not to do that. AND that TOO, will tell me something about the credibility of this story. http://toshplumlee.info/pdf/DEAfiles.pdf Referenced documentation and file locator numbers: 1-99-J DH 39711 (RUC) 1989 1-99-J R- 39711-7 ITE-0653 1-99-R-DN-39711-3 10-17-89 Report of: Feb. 9, 1990 Classified Secret SA Wayne Schmidt DEA SA Hector Berrellez DEA SA Susan Baldwin DEA ...also reference found as to the investigations of the murder of KiKi Camarena and his pilot Alverz. ... ... References as to Richmont Aviation Mena Ark. reference; C-130 N- 0699 P pilot W. Plumlee; C-123 pilot B Seal fuel forms; Setco aviation Costa Rico. ref; Plumlee aircraft, (Big Toad); B A Seal, aircraft (Fat Lady 1) Operation "Iron Butterfly" It appears that with Mr. Plumlee the forum may have another Ashton Gray on its hands. We all remember him, don’t we? I have never met or corresponded with Mr. Plumlee. Yet, like Mr. Gray, Mr. Plumlee appears all too willing to engage in character assassination, implying that I am engaged in some sort of con, which is dictionary defined as a “swindle.” I have been an attorney for 38 years and this is the first time that someone, in this case a complete stranger, has used that term in connection with my professional reputation. I got involved in the forum primarily because John Simkin started a thread on me, which can be found at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4727 Another reason I got involved in the forum was because Alfred Baldwin was willingly answering members’ questions about Watergate. Then Mr. Gray emerged from nowhere and engaged unceasingly in character assassination against Mr. Baldwin and myself for our roles in the scandal. Mr. Baldwin, apparently taking the understandable attitude of “who needs this crap?”, withdrew from the forum and with him an invaluable source of new information into Watergate dried up, thanks to Mr. Gray. I decided to stick with the forum and not reply to Mr. Gray’s numerous verbal assaults, expecting that his rude and insulting behavior would expand to include other members and that such activity would eventually lead to his withdrawal from the forum, which indeed is what occurred. I do not hold myself out as an expert on the assassination of JFK. (For that matter neither does Jack Worthington II.) My strategy has always been as I uncover promising lines for research that these should be posted on the forum in the event that real experts, such as John Simkin, Pat Speer, J. Raymond Carroll and other forum members, might find a clue therein worth further pursuit. Mr. Worthington’s contention as to his JFK parentage has already produced one great embarrassment for two eminent scholars. Robert Caro and J. Robert Dallek, who are acknowledged as the foremost biographers of LBJ, are quoted in the April 2008 Vanity Fair article, “A Claim to Camelot”, as stating on page 238 that “they’ve never come across a reference to Johnson residing with” Maverick County Judge Robert Bibb. Yet the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 18, 2008, in its article on the Bibbs’ relationship to Jack Worthington II, reported from Maverick County that “Lyndon Johnson spent the night at our house and my father spent the night in the White House,” said Gravis Bibb, the judge’s son. “My father was a very, very good friend of LBJ. They were buddies going way back.” So here is a promising line of inquiry into the life and times of LBJ, heretofore not known, that serendipitously has been opened up as a result of the effort by Jack Worthington II to establish his parentage. Mr. Plumlee appears above to object to the contents of the emails of Jack Worthington II that can be viewed on Vanity Fair’s blog. Vanity Fair saw fit to post these, so it is safe to assume that the magazine believed they are worthy of public attention. Mr. Plumlee, like Mr. Gray, must learn one of life’s most basic lessons: employing common courtesy and good manners usually cause strangers to respond reciprocally, thus achieving one’s goal, whereas insults and boorishness get one nowhere.

http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/d...worthingto.html March 12, 2008 The Magazine Jack Worthington II Responds Canada-based investment banker Jack Worthington II is the subject of a story in the current issue of Vanity Fair, which explores whether or not he is the long-lost son of President John F. Kennedy. Worthington has a MySpace page in which he decries the Vanity Fair piece, offers a rebuttal to his Houston family (who characterized his statements as "unequivocally false"), and calls for a boycott of the magazine and the Waverly Inn restaurant. In addition, Worthington sent three e-mails to the magazine today and yesterday, which we reprint here. MARCH 11 E-MAIL (Subject Field: Important Information) …I risked public humiliation to bring this situation to public attention. You certainly did your part on public humiliation. I was hoping that ABC or Vanity Fair would discover the information below on their own, and bring a bit more light into this dark area of our history. Now, would you please look into the real story, as a matter of public service/duty? That is why I’ve come forward. I’m skeptical of the idea that American media will do anything with these facts, and that it must go international. Prove me wrong. FACTS: • • The Bibbs were very close, lifelong friends and political allies of LBJ. Proven by letters written to Bob Bibb from LBJ contained in the LBJ library and reported by VF. My mother framed and gave me a note written to her by LBJ stating, "I had a nice talk with your daddy today. Your friend, Lyndon". Also framed LBJ inauguration invitation to my mother’s parents. • • • The Bibbs were very close friends with Richmond Harper, a fellow resident, banker, business partner, and rancher of Eagle Pass, Texas (Maverick County). Richmond Harper’s name was frequently discussed in my family when growing up. I remember my family discussing it when he was arrested with Barry Seal. To verify the relationship: I believe they were co-owners of the bank that the Bibb’s owned. Or, ask any Eagle Pass old-timers about their relationship. I cannot remember the name of the bank, but the note LBJ wrote my mother is on a deposit slip. It’s in storage in the US and I can access it if needed. To locate that bank and its history officially: http://www.banking.state.tx.us/corp/bnkhistory.htm . The social network diagram for Richmond Chase Harper on http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?HARPER_RICHMOND_CHASE includes the Gambino family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambino_crime_family , major Dallas/Ft Worth oilmen Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson amongst others who have been accused of being involved in the JFK assassination, and key leaders of American organized crime. Direct links. • • • Richmond Harper was arrested by the FBI with Barry Seal, and Murray Kessler in 1972 for smuggling explosives and weapons to Anti-Castro Cubans in Mexico via the international border crossing at Eagle Pass (Maverick County), which the Bibb’s controlled. Comments on Richmond Harper, Barry Seal, etc… from the FBI agent assigned to investigate Barry Seal http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a395415382bea.htm • • • The Bibb’s controlled the Federal international border crossing at Eagle Pass via Customs, Naturalization and Immigration, and Maverick County politically for over 30 years. Vanity Fair and the Globe and Mail have research on the Bibbs. The Bibb’s relationship dynamic with LBJ is best understood via Barr McClellan’s book. • • • Barry Seal and the following people are best understood via Jim Garrison’s work (Oliver Stone movie), and subsequently Wim Dankbaar. Seal trained under David Ferrie in the Civilian Air Patrol, where he also met Lee Harvey Oswald. Seal’s New Orleans office was operated or owned by Clay Shaw. Seal’s wife has said he was involved in the assassination. Barry Seal was closely associated with the prime suspects in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory proposed by Jim Garrison (Oliver Stone). More on Barry Seal: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKseal.htm . http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CIAseal.htm Illumination on Barry Seal’s life: http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.p...d=208&aid=3 <http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=208&aid=3> . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6930 . • • • Richmond Harper was a close friend and business partner of Murray Kessler, who was also arrested along with Seal and Harper in 1972. Murray Kessler was a nephew of mob boss Carlo Gambino. • • • Douglas Valentine might be a good investigator to help out with this. http://www.douglasvalentine.com/ . Interview of Doug Valentine: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00242.htm . • • • My grandfather slept with a loaded pistol under his mattress. Well-known fact by all in my family. I slept in the same room with him when visiting. • • • My mother inherited an important sum of money from the Bibbs. I don’t know the amount. • • • My birthdate is 2 years prior to JFK’s assassination. My sister’s birthdate is 3 years prior to RFK’s assassination (the day he was shot – around midnight 4 June). Douglas Valentine would be a good investigator to help out with this. http://www.douglasvalentine.com/ . Interview of Doug Valentine: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00242.htm . It should be clear why the "Family" issued a statement disputing me. It should be clear why I’m coming forward with these facts. This is not about me. In my view, airing our dirty laundry is vitally important to the credibility of our claim to be a truly free and open society dedicated to the betterment of the human condition. In fact, I believe this purging process is awe inspiring in our world of cynicism. I’m willing to go through a public humiliation for it. I don’t believe American journalists will go here. Prove me wrong. MARCH 12 E-MAIL #1 (Subject Field: Additionally) Porter Goss and George HW Bush knew Barry Seal very well. MARCH 12 E-MAIL #2 (Subject Field: Bibb Link to Oswald) Link from Bibb to Oswald: In the Warren Commission interviews (Nodule 10 link: http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec10.htm Under the section “TITO AND CONCHITA HARPER” ———————————————————————————————————————————————————— TITO AND CONCHITA HARPER During his testimony before the Warren Commission, George DeMohrenschildt told Albert Jenner he had visited Tito and Conchita Harper on their ranch straddling the U.S./Mexican border. On July 3, 1972, The New York Times reported that Federal officials arrested nine men in Texas and Louisiana on charges of conspiring to smuggle munitions to Mexico. Among those arrested were Richmond C. Harper, 48, the brother of Tito Harper, a rancher and Director of the Frontier State Bank of Eagle Pass, Texas, and Marion Hagler, a former Inspector with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Murray Kessler and Alder B. Seal were also arrested. Kessler, who was a house guest at the Harper ranch last June, had a record of six convictions in Federal and state courts on charges of interstate theft, transporting stolen property, bookmaking and conspiracy to possess heroin. Federal authorities described him as an associate of the Gambino organized-crime family. ———————————————————————————————————————————————————- Richmond Harper is described as a Director of the Frontier State Bank of Eagle Pass, Texas. This is the bank owned by the Bibbs. Marion Hagler worked for the Bibbs as a Customs Inspector (the Bibbs fall guy above). This Warren Commission interview says it all. George DeMohrenschildt is a mutual friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Richmond Harper per the Warren Commission. Seal and Kessler are CIA and Mafia respectively. JFK and RFK were assassinated on the birthday’s of Mary Evelyn Bibb’s children (my sister and I). I’ll bet it can be found that the Bibb’s were also friends of DeMohrenschildt. The Bibbs had a larger ranch outside Piedras Negras, Mexico than the Harpers, and still own it. People are still alive to talk about this.

Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the sixth astronaut to walk on the Moon, reveals in this recent audio interview that the incident at Roswell did occur and that the presence of aliens visiting planet Earth will soon be acknowledged. The interview is not to be missed as Dr. Mitchell imparts new information and knowledge on a wide variety of vital topics. There is no charge for listening to the interview. Merely click on the link below and then go to the top of the masthead and click on “listen now.” The interview is recorded on the March 8, 2008 Dreamland program of www.unknowncountry.com. http://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/?id=383 Edgar Mitchell: The Way of the Explorer Here is Dr. Edgar Mitchell in one of his most moving and revealing interviews ever! Did you know that he grew up in Roswell, New Mexico? He speaks with total candor about his knowledge of the Roswell Incident, and about the issue of alien presence in general. His discussion of his new book, The Way of the Explorer is moving and highly informative, and his description of what happened to him on the way back from the moon is unforgettable. Lynne McTaggart says of Edgar Mitchell, "His journey into outer space has been matched by a lifelong journey into inner space, where he investigated the final frontier, the nature of mind, and returned with nothing less than an extraordinary new science of life." Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s website is EdMitchellApollo14.com. His foundation, the Institute for Noetic Sciences is found at Noetic.org.

War is hell - and hellishly expensive By William D Hartung Asia Times March 8, 2008 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC08Ak01.html War is hell - deadly, dangerous and expensive. But just how expensive is it? In a recent interview, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz asserted that the costs of the Iraq war - budgetary, economic and societal - could reach US$5 trillion. That's a hard number to comprehend. Figuring out how many times $5 trillion would circle the globe (if we took it all in $1 bills) doesn't really help matters much, nor does estimating how many times we could paper over every square inch of Rhode Island with it. The fact that total war costs could buy six trillion donuts for volunteers to the presidential campaigns - assuming a bulk discount - is impressive in its own way, but not all that meaningful either. In fact, the George W Bush administration's war costs have already moved beyond the human scale of comprehension. But what if we were to try another tack? How about breaking those soaring trillions down into smaller pieces, into mere millions and billions? How much, for instance, does one week of Bush's wars cost? Glad you asked. If we consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan together - which we might as well do, since we and our children and grandchildren will be paying for them together into the distant future - a conservative single-week estimate comes to $3.5 billion. Remember, that's per week! By contrast, the whole international community spends less than $400 million per year on the International Atomic Energy Agency, the primary institution for monitoring and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; that's less than one day's worth of war costs. The US government spends just $1 billion per year securing and destroying loose nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials, or less than two days' worth of war costs; and Washington spends a total of just $7 billion per year on combating global warming, or a whopping two weeks' worth of war costs. So, perhaps you're wondering, what does that $3.5 billion per week actually pay for? And how would we even know? The Bush administration submits a supplemental request - over and above the more than $500 billion per year the Pentagon is now receiving in its official budget - to pay for the purported costs of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for the global "war on terror". If you can stay awake long enough to read the whole 159-page document for 2008, it has some fascinating revelations. For example, to hear the howling of the white-collar warriors in Washington every time anyone suggests knocking a nickel off administration war-spending requests, you would think that the weekly $3.5 billion outlay is all "for the troops". In fact, only 10% of it, or under $350 million per week, goes to pay and benefits for uniformed military personnel. That's less than a quarter of the weekly $1.4 billion that goes to war contractors to pay for everything from bullets to bombers. As a slogan, insisting that we need to keep the current flood of military outlays flowing "for Boeing and Lockheed Martin" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it. You could argue, of course, that all these contracting dollars represent the most efficient way to get our troops the equipment they need to operate safely and effectively in a war zone - but you would be wrong. Much of that money is being wasted every week on the wrong kinds of equipment at exorbitant prices. And even when it is the right kind of equipment, there are often startling delays in getting it to the battlefield, as was the case with advanced armored vehicles for the US Marine Corps. But before we get to equipment costs, let's take a look at a week's worth of another kind of support. The Pentagon and the State Department don't make a big point - or really any kind of point - out of telling us how much we're spending on gun-toting private-contract employees from companies like Blackwater and Triple Canopy, our "shadow army" in Iraq, but we can make an educated guess. For example, at the high end of the scale, individual employees of private military firms make up to 10 times what many US enlisted personnel make, or as much as $7,500 per week. If even one-tenth of the 5,000 to 6,000 armed contract employees in Iraq make that much, we're talking about at least $40 million per week. If the rest make $1,000 a week - an extremely conservative estimate - then we have nearly $100 million per week going just to the armed cohort of private-contract employees operating there. Now, let's add into that figure the whole private crew of non-government employees operating in Iraq, including all the cooks, weapons technicians, translators, interrogators and other private-contract support personnel. That combined cost probably comes closer to $300 million per week, or almost as much as is spent on uniformed personnel by the air force, army, navy and marines. By one reliable estimate, there are more contract employees in Iraq alone - about 180,000 - than there are US troops. There are thousands more in Afghanistan. But since many of these non-military employees are poorly paid subcontract workers involved in cooking meals, doing laundry and cleaning latrines, the total costs for the services of all private-contractor employees in Iraq probably runs somewhat less than the costs of the uniformed military. Hence our estimate. So, if $650 million or so a week is spent on people, where does the other nearly $3 billion go? It goes for goods and services, from tanks and fighter planes to fuel and food. Most of this money ends up in the hands of private companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root. The list of weapons and accessories paid for from our $3.5 billion is long and daunting: $1.5 million for M-4 carbines (about 900 guns per week). $2.3 million for machine guns (about 170 per week). $4.3 million for Hellfire missiles (about 50 missiles per week). $6.9 million for night vision devices (about 2,100 per week). $10.8 million for fuel per week. $5 million to store and transport that fuel per week. $14.8 million for F-18E/F fighter planes per week (one every four weeks). $23.4 million for ammunition per week. $30.7 million for Bradley fighting vehicles (10 per week). And that's only a very partial list. What about the more mundane items? "Laundries, showers and latrines" cost more than $110,000 per week. "Parachutes and aerial delivery systems" cost $950,000 per week. "Runway snow removal and cleaning" costs $132,000 per week. Flares cost $50,000 per week. Some of these figures, of course, may cover worldwide military operations for the US armed forces. After all, by sticking the acronym GWOT (global war on terror)in the title of any supplemental war-spending request, you can cram almost anything into it. Then there are the sobering figures like: $2.4 million per week for "death gratuities" (payments to families of troops killed in action) and $10.6 million per week in "extra hazard pay". And don't forget that all the death and destruction lurking behind these weekly numbers makes it that much harder to get people to join the military. But not to worry, $1 million per week is factored into that supplemental funding request for "advertising and recruitment" - not enough perhaps to fill the ranks, but at least they're trying. Keep in mind that this only gives us a sense of what we do know from the public Pentagon request; there's plenty more that we don't know. As a start, the Pentagon's breakdown of the money in its "emergency" supplemental budget leaves huge gaps. Even your own congressman doesn't know for sure what is really in the US war budget. What we do know is that the Pentagon and the military services have been stuffing more and more projects that have nothing to do with the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even the "war on terror", into those war supplementals. Layered in are requests for new equipment that will take years, or even decades, to build and may never be used in combat - unless the Iraq war really does go on for another century, as Republican presidential nominee John McCain recently suggested. These "non-war" items include high-tech armored vehicles and communications devices for the army as well as new combat aircraft for the air force. Even though these systems may never be used on the US's current battlefields, they are war costs nonetheless. If they weren't inserted into the supplemental requests for Iraq and Afghanistan, they might never have been funded. After all, who wants to vote against a bill that is allegedly all "for the troops", even if it includes weapons those troops will never get? These add-ons are not small change. They probably cost in the area of $500 million per week. Given all of this, it may sound like we have a fair amount of detail about the costs of a week of war. No such luck. Until the "supplemental" costs of war are subjected to the same scrutiny as the regular Pentagon budget, there will continue to be hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted for each and every week that the wars go on. And there will be all sorts of money for pet projects that have nothing to do with fighting current conflicts. So don't just think of that $3.5 billion per week figure as a given. Think of it as $3.5 billion ... and counting. Doesn't that make you feel safer? William D Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation. He is the author of And Weapons for All (Harper Collins, 1994) and How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration (Nation Books, 2004). His commentaries on military and economic issues have appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and the Nation magazine. (Source note: Readers who want to check out the latest Department of Defense supplemental request for war-fighting funds can click here and read, "FY 2008 Global War on Terror Pending Request" from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC08Ak01.html

Wiretapping focus shifts to email, as firms move data overseas Microsoft, Google don't deny participation in NSA program WWW.RAWSTORY.COM March 7, 2008 http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Wiretapping_...email_0307.html Little-noticed comments by a senior Justice Department official suggest Congress' fight over renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surround interception of email and Internet data. At a Monday breakfast sponsored by the American Bar Association, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein remarked that the fight over the eavesdropping bill actually centers on US interception of email. "In response to a question at the meeting by David Kris, a former federal prosecutor and a FISA expert, Wainstein said FISA's current strictures did not cover strictly foreign wire and radio communications, even if acquired in the United States," the Washington Post reported Tuesday. "The real concern, he said, is primarily e-mail, because "essentially you don't know where the recipient is going to be" and so you would not know in advance whether the communication is entirely outside the United States." Unlike phone calls, email messages are generally stored before being transmitted to the sender. Most messages are stored on an email provider's servers before they are accessed by the recipient. Because they can be located anywhere, this means any portion of the law related to the Web could snare Americans' data overseas. Microsoft declined to comment when asked about their participation in any NSA program, saying only that they have 300 million active email accounts. Google told CNET: "As our privacy policy states, we comply with law enforcement requests made with proper service. We do not discuss specific law enforcement requests and generally do not share aggregate information about them. There are also some legal restrictions on what information we can share about law enforcement requests." US companies moving data centers overseas The admission comes amidst US email and Internet companies moving some of their servers overseas. According to a piece in March's edition of Harper's Magazine, AT&T, Microsoft and Google all have or plan overseas data centers in an effort by the companies to cut costs. "Microsoft has announced plans for a data center in Siberia, AT&T has built two in Shanghai, and Dublin has attracted Google and Microsoft," Harper's notes. Americans' personal data isn't just email. More and more computer users are storing personal word processing, photographs and other files online through document sharing programs like Google Documents. "As the functions long performed by personal computers come to be executed by these far-flung data centers," the magazine writes, "the technology industry has rapturously rebranded the Internet as 'the cloud.'" Some say Wainstein's admission that the debate over the eavesdropping act is centered not on "wire and radio" transmissions -- eg, phone calls -- suggests that most of the National Security Agency's concern is about their ability to spy on Internet data. Director of National Intelligence "Michael McConnell, the serial exaggerator who claims to be a non-political straight shooter, himself kept saying the NSA lost 70 percent of its capabilities after the ruling," Wired blogger Ryan Singer writes. "If that's the case, that means that 70 percent of what the NSA does is collect emails inside United States telecom infrastructure and service providers." If Congress approves immunity for companies that participated in President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, these email carriers will get a pass. Though most debate centers around those companies already identified as participants -- Verizon, AT&T and Sprint -- the Act provides immunity for all companies that complied with federal orders, provided they had a solid legal foundation. CNET's Chris Soghoian offers more. He writes that yet more companies could have been involved, noting that there are numerous firms that make up the Internet backbone -- Tier 1 Internet service providers. According to Wikipedia, Soghoian continues, these providers are: AOL Transit Data Network, AT&T, Global Crossing, Verizon Business, NTT Communications, Qwest, SAVVIS, and Sprint. "That leaves AOL, Global Crossing, NTT Communications, and SAVVIS as other potential participants in any NSA effort to sniff email communications," he adds.

You wrote: Please give me quote to where the article says that. Maybe I missed something, or maybe you did? I don't recall reading about a DNA comparison with his family's DNA. But if such a DNA test was done and it proved what you said it proved, than you've got me over. Files a crackpot? 10 million viewers in Japan last february 21 didn't think so .... Oh well, you can't win them all ....... I realize you idolize JFK, and blind yourself for his less marvelous virtues, but that doesn't make truth untrue, only inconvenient. Don't watch this film then, especially not if you want to blame it on Bobby Baker only: http://www.offthefence.com/content/programme.php?ID=431 "End of discussion" is usually a sign of weakness. Wim 'JFK Love Child': Now I Don't Want To Know Jack Worthington Says His Quest to Know If JFK Is His Biological Father Has Ruined His Life By BRIAN ROSS, ANNA SCHECTER and MADDY SAUER ABC NEWS http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4408596&page=1 March 7, 2008— The man who told ABC News and numerous other media outlets that he might be the love child of John F. Kennedy now says his quest for the truth has ruined his life and he no longer wants his DNA tested against that of the former president. Jack Worthington II, who is featured in an exclusive broadcast interview on tonight's "20/20," is standing by his story that his mother told him his father is JFK, but says that if his mother lied, "at a minimum she is emotionally disturbed, if not criminally liable in my view," he wrote in an e-mail to ABC News earlier this week. Watch the full investigation tonight on "20/20" at 10 p.m. ET. Worthington, who is featured in a lengthy article in this week's Vanity Fair magazine, told ABC News that four years ago his mother told him that he is the late president's son. "I lived my whole life believing in one thing, and then all of a sudden, the blocks have been thrown up into the air," he said. During the illness, which would eventually lead to the death of the father that raised him, Jack Worthington Sr., Worthington says he wanted to test himself and his children for the genetic disease that his father carried. "'Mom, we should, everybody should be tested,'" he says he told his mother. "She says, 'Jack, that's not important; you don't have to do that. Your father isn't Jack Worthington. It's John Kennedy,'" Worthington recounts. Vanity Fair editor David Friend spent almost a year investigating Worthington's claim. "Well there was this notion that what sort of person would out their own parent unless there was something to back it up?," Friend told ABC News. "And secondly, it seemed sort of the holy grail of journalism." As Friend pointed out, JFK was known for his wandering eye. In fact, author Laurence Leamer, who has written three books on the Kennedys, said even he was surprised by the number of women that the former president bedded. "When I began my research, I thought all this stuff about JFK's sex life was exaggerated," Leamer said. "But I'm just amazed at how many women there were. He really was a sexual addict." Jack Worthington II was born on Nov. 22, 1961, ironically two years to the day that JFK would be assassinated. His birth date also means that he would have had to have been conceived during Kennedy's first few months in office. When asked if this was really credible, that JFK would have had an affair with a woman who lived in Texas during those crucial first months of his administration, Worthington said he hadn't considered it. "Oh, I don't know, I have no idea," he said. "We didn't talk about that," he added. But when ABC News went through the official daily appointment schedule of JFK's first three months in office, it is clear that JFK never visited Texas during that time, and he almost never left Washington, D.C. Worthington claims that he has no interest in a piece of the Kennedy estate or in fame or notoriety. "As far as fame, I don't really have any need for fame," he said. "I don't have that personal drive, desire in me." Yet in this month's Vanity Fair he appears in a photo spread shot by one of Jacqueline Kennedy's favorite photographers, Harry Benson, who has shot numerous past presidents and Caroline Kennedy's wedding. Worthington says he approached Vanity Fair under the conditions that he would go public if the magazine performed DNA testing. "From my perspective, that's really what I need out of this project," he said. The Kennedy family was not interested in cooperating with this project, but the magazine did obtain some hair samples believed to have been swept from the floor of Peter Lawson's home after JFK received a haircut there. They compared the samples to Worthington's; no match. While the tests are not definitive, they do suggest non-paternity, said Friend. And more troubling evidence. Friend soon discovered a yearbook picture of Jack Worthington Sr., who looked very similar to Jack Jr. Then following the ABC interview and on the eve of the Vanity Fair publication date, Worthington's family spoke out. They released a statement saying that Jack Worthington's claims are "unequivocally false and have been fabricated." But Worthington's own response is that he is telling the truth and that he will "proceed with criminal charges against her for willfully and maliciously misleading me regarding my paternity."

Jack Worthington's MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/jackworthingtoncanada

I seriously doubt that the Kennedy family is in turmoil over the delusions of one Jack Worthington. This guy's DNA will match his parents DNA, and that's the reason he has jerked everyone around about his inability to allow his parents DNA to be compared to his own. It is Mr. Worthington's own family that is in turmoil tonight, God help them. The Kennedys are busy plotting Obama's takeover of the White House. Both Jack Worthington and David Friend, author of the Vanity Fair article, will be interviewed on Friday, March 7, on ABC's Good Morning America. Mr. Worthington will also appear that evening on 20/20.

Editorial from today's Washington Post: Mr. Buckley himself never posed as a heavyweight, though he loved to use words of many syllables and wrote incessantly -- books, columns, articles -- right up to his death yesterday at 82. His defining characteristic was that he was a man of good cheer who rarely got nasty in print or in person and who cultivated friends across the political spectrum, listened to them, and delighted in engaging one and all in civilized discourse, of which he was something of a master -- one who will be missed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1 I am still waiting for someone to supply even a shred of credible EVIDENCE that the late William Buckley had anything whatsoever to do with the assassination of JFK Or, for that matter, that he committed a crime. [Note: David Franke was one of the founders of the modern conservative movement. He helped organize the National Student Committee for the Loyalty Oath and Youth for Goldwater in 1959 and Young Americans for Freedom in 1960. His Appreciation of William F. Buckley, Jr. provides an insight into those early years of the movement.] Thanks, Bill, for the memories--and for so much more 02-29-2008 By David Franke Editor UltimateRonPaul.com Friday, February 29, 2008 Bill Buckley died Wednesday, but his legacy lives on and thousands of his admirers are voicing their sorrow in eulogies and emails to their friends. This is also a time for refreshing our memories of how the founder of the conservative movement impacted our lives. I was one of the lucky few who worked for WFB, or WFB Jr., depending on which shorthand you preferred for William F. Buckley Jr. (And note, no comma before “Jr.”) If you are too young to have been present at the creation of the conservative movement—and most of you are—you may wonder what all the fuss is about. I invite you to go to www.ConservativeHQ.com and find out. You will find plenty there about Bill’s founding of National Review, his early books on Yale and Joe McCarthy, his unsurpassed (to this day) television show, “Firing Line”—all of which scandalized the Liberal Establishment, even as it gave a home to the thousands, then millions of Americans whose concerns and aspirations he was voicing. I also urge you to read Chapter 5, “The Birth of a Movement,” in America’s Right Turn (by Richard A. Viguerie and yours truly). I won’t duplicate that history here. Rather, I’d like to tell you how he affected the life of a 21-year-old Texas kid who reported for duty one day in 1960 to his office at 150 East 35th Street in Manhattan. Thousands of us have stories about our encounters with Bill Buckley. This is mine. Present at the creation Bill Buckley was my hero long before I met him. I had been converted to the cause of individual freedom and anti-communism, quite literally overnight, when I read John T. Flynn’s The Road Ahead while in junior high school. In high school I survived attempted brainwashing by devouring the pamphlets of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (ISI) and the two publications they sent me as student gift subscriptions—Human Events, at that time an eight-page Washington newsletter, and a fortnightly magazine, The Freeman. Those two publications exposed me to a wide variety of exciting right-wing dissidents—including Bill Buckley in The Freeman. I was circulating petitions, writing letters-to-the-editor of the Houston Chronicle (and having them published—quite exciting for a high school student!), and communicating by snail mail (no email back then) with a vast nationwide network of fellow McCarthyites—Joe, not Gene, of course. Somehow one of my student petitions got published in The Freeman, and in the mail soon afterwards came a letter postmarked Sharon, Connecticut, with my name and address typed out in red ink. I asked myself, who do I know in Sharon, Connecticut? Well, the masthead of the letter inside read “Libertarians for…” something or another, or perhaps it was “The Libertarian International.” Whatever, this “organization” apparently was run by two brothers, Reid and William F. Buckley. They exhorted me, in red ink again, to keep up the fight, while warning me, “You will be called a fascist, a hate mongerer,” etc. etc. with lots of exclamation points. (I really do have to find that letter somewhere in my boxes of “files,” frame it, and place it above my desk.) I went off to a college by the beach in South Texas as a music major. But then, in my freshman year, Bill Buckley launches National Review. I had an ISI gift subscription and was so excited I changed my line of studies to history and political science, and became editor of my campus newspaper in my sophomore year. So Bill Buckley, long before I met him personally, was largely responsible for my becoming a professional writer rather than a professional musician. Under my editorship, The Foghorn of Del Mar College may have been the second conservative campus publication in America, though I have to admit that the Yale Daily News under Bill Buckley’s tutelage had more cachet (this is called understatement). We didn’t use the word “networking” back then, but that’s what I was doing, sending my editorials to Bill and the folks at Human Events and anyone else who wouldn’t send me a bomb in return. A year later, Human Events offered me a work-scholarship, and I became the first student in the very first Human Events journalism class led by M. Stanton Evans (Doug Caddy and Bill Schulz were the other students). It was during these years in Washington (1957-1960) that we first began hearing and sometimes using the term “conservative.” And this was when roommate Doug Caddy and I started the first nationwide conservative activist organization, the National Student Committee for the Loyalty Oath. Thanks to publicity in Human Events and National Review, we were amazed to hear from hundreds of conservative students across the country when we thought we were pretty much alone in the liberal wilderness. The National Student Committee begat Students for Goldwater for Vice President which begat Young Americans for Freedom…but I digress. Also during these years, Bill Buckley was launching his public persona as the scourge of the Liberal Establishment. The prototype conservative movement had plenty of good people doing good work, but none caught the public’s eye like Bill Buckley, with his wit and charm and eloquence. In him we finally had someone who could stand up at the lecture podium to the likes of John Kenneth Galbraith and make him look like the intellectual inferior he was! So I was elated beyond words when I was offered the position of Editorial Assistant to THE Man. At the center of the conservative universe You can imagine—no, you cannot imagine—how nervous I was to enter the inner sanctum of National Review and work directly for the Most Important Man in the Conservative Universe. Remember, I was only 21 and just a few years out of the sagebrush, plopped into the very heart of Gotham. But if anyone could put you at ease, it was Bill and his sister Priscilla, the managing editor of National Review. I was surprised when they introduced me to my work quarters. It would be an exaggeration to call it an office—more a cubbyhole, barely big enough for a small desk table with typewriter and some shelves. Any apprehension evaporated when I learned that my predecessor occupying these quarters was Whittaker Chambers. And I was a poster boy at that time for the World Hunger Campaign, so if rotund Chambers could work in there I should have no problem. As they soon told me, both Whittaker Chambers and I had an ability to pack more newspapers and assorted “files” into that cubbyhole than anyone thought possible. When a groundbreaking magazine makes history, as National Review in retrospect did, it’s a natural tendency to think you worked there during its Golden Age. And I do. Certainly it would have been exciting to work there at launch, but the early 60s were the buildup to the Goldwater campaign, when the new conservative movement was first beginning to think big and dream big. Bill Buckley’s National Review was the epicenter for both the intellectual side of the movement and the political strategy side of the movement. An editorial table in Bill’s office suite served as our gathering spot for handing out the next issue’s assignments, evaluating them before deadline, and engaging in general discussion during our weekly editorial luncheons. We were all equal in having our say, but naturally some were more equal than others in having their ideas accepted, and Bill was The Decider at that table. The intellectual giant at the table was James Burnham, really one of the three great political philosophers of that era, the others being Sidney Hook and George Orwell. (Frank Meyer’s editorial power was diminished by his being a nonresident, ensconced in the Catskills.) If there was divided opinion on an editorial matter, Bill would usually—but not always—side with Burnham. If you’re a fan of “The McLaughlin Group,” you know the routine. John McLoughlin will make the rounds of his TV panel, seeking their responses, and then pronounce, “The answer is…” And you never knew who might join us for lunch. One week I’d sit down and the person to my right, passing the sandwich platter, would be the comedian and TV host Steve Allen, making his case for disarmament. (Not accepted.) Another time it would be a couple of scientists employed by the tobacco industry, trying to convince us that our editorial position was wrong and there was no scientific evidence that nicotine was harmful. (This was a time when cigarette ads featured M.D.’s assuring you that one brand was better than the others.) Burnham carried the ball on that one, since he was the only one of us with a good scientific understanding, while Bill just sat at the head of the table, twirling his pencil, grinning his Cheshire cat grin, and enjoying the spectacle of the cancer-shrills being intellectually dismembered. The fun together didn’t always stop when the work was finished. We would often repair to The Brasserie or some other eatery after an issue was put to bed. At some point toward the end of my formal employment at National Review, Nicola Paone on 34th Street became “the National Review restaurant.” I last ate there two years ago with Priscilla Buckley and my dear friend Tim Wheeler, another one-time editorial assistant at National Review, while Bill Buckley was celebrating his 80th birthday at the next table with friends. Now both Tim and Bill are gone, and I’m thinking I may want that to be my last memory of Paone’s. All in all, Bill was one of the most easygoing bosses I’ve ever had. But that made it all the more crushing when you weren’t doing your job and were reminded of that in his sonorous tones. He was also a demanding editor. In this pre-computer age, you could readily see all the changes he had made in your copy by the markings of his red pen. Sometimes there seemed to be more red ink than black typewriter copy on the pages I had submitted, but eventually that decreased some. Either I was becoming a better writer or he was giving up. Of course, when you work for someone as famous as Buckley, what you cherish most are the personal moments together, away from the crowd. I always thought he felt guilty about the peon’s pay I got from National Review, because so often he would go out of his way to augment my pay—but there probably was no guilt involved, just generous Bill. One time he asked me to walk with him to the small apartment he rented a couple of blocks away from the office. He opened the door to the foyer closet and asked me to try on one of his suits. Perfect fit—yes, I was that skinny back then. Bill had developed a wool allergy, and soon I was the new owner of five or six handsome Savile Row suits. Best of all were the times spent on his boat. Mind you, he was a world-class sailor and I only learned which side was which, starboard and port, by remembering that both “port” and “left” have four characters. So taking me aboard, instead of picking someone who could help him battle the elements in a raging sea, was an act of pure generosity on his part. Bill’s nautical generosity knew its sensible bounds, though, and I was never invited to join one of his cross-Atlantic sails. Instead, I would be invited on board to ply the calm waters of Long Island Sound. At night we’d anchor and, with the lights of some Long Island harbor village turning on, Bill would cook dinner and the two of us would consume several bottles of wine, of which he was most fond for as far back as I can remember. We’d have hours of lively talk before the wine took its toll—talk about politics and the conservative movement, to be sure, but mostly about everything else that interested us, which is to say, a lot. One time we were bringing his boat back from Stamford, Connecticut, where he had his home, to Manhattan. We pulled up at the East River pier on the East River where he normally docked, noticing some strange, rather large ship on the opposite side of the pier. No sooner had we hurled out our ropes than we were overtaken by Secret Service agents. We had forgotten that some Evil Empire potentate was in town, probably Khrushchev if I remember correctly, and no way were they going to allow America’s Mr. Anti-Communist to share that pier. That had a happy ending for me, though. Bill’s backup was a pier on the Hudson near the George Washington Bridge. He graciously let me take the helm as we sailed under the Brooklyn Bridge, then quickly took it back before I could capsize us. What a memory for a landlubber! The greatest memory of all You will notice a recurrent theme in the eulogies coming forth: his personal generosity. It really was his most prominent trait. When I get to know a man of power and influence, I judge his personal character by the way he treats those with less power, or no power, who depend on him for their well-being in some way. And I know that those people in Bill’s life worshipped him. I also look at how he handles a crisis in a friend’s life, a crisis of that friend’s making. Does he cut and run to avoid embarrassment by association, or does he stand with his friend even as he tries to set him on the right path? There never was any question which path Bill would take. He was generous of himself, of his time, and, yes, of his money. And all of this was with no publicity, no accolades, no expected payback. No wonder he died with thousands mourning him. Bill Buckley was no saint, and he made mistakes, but above all he was a man of character and endless energy and generosity. He taught me that you can have a goal-filled life full of accomplishment while enjoying the journey to the fullest. David Franke was Editorial Assistant to William F. Buckley Jr. (1960-1962), Washington editor (“Cato”) of National Review (1965-1967), and the compiler of Quotations from Chairman Bill: The Best of William F. Buckley Jr. (Arlington House). http://www.ultimateronpaul.com/blog/thanks...r_so_much_more/

ABC is calling the show: THE MAN WHO WOULD SELL HIS OWN MOTHER AND DISOWN HIS OWN FATHER (to guarantee his 15 minutes of fame) Cleaning out the skeletons in the family closet CARLY WEEKS From Tuesday's Toronto Globe and Mail February 19, 2008 John F. Kennedy hardly charted new territory if he fathered a child with a mistress in the early 1960s. History has no shortage of philandering husbands who have been forced to deal publicly with the consequences when the illegitimate child from an extramarital affair came calling. Former Toronto mayor Mel Lastman was embroiled in a scandal in 2000 when two men who claimed to be his children from a lengthy affair sued him for compensation. Rev. Jesse Jackson's reputation suffered a serious blow in 2001 when it emerged that he had fathered an illegitimate child. Prince Albert's ascent to the throne in Monaco in 2005 was overshadowed by the revelation that he fathered an illegitimate child with a flight attendant. A year later, he admitted he also had a teenaged daughter from an affair with another woman. While high-profile scandals like these make for great material at the water cooler, family members involved in such real-life dramas are often left struggling with the fallout when the past comes knocking, forced to question everything they believed and to confront memories that now seem tarnished by deception. "It's like finding out you're adopted at 23," said Mark Laing, a therapist at the Bayridge Family Center in Burlington, Ont. "The biggest difficulty is we remove that parent from the pedestal." The Kennedy family may be experiencing that kind of emotional turmoil after recent reported allegations that the former U.S. president conceived an illegitimate child during the early part of his presidency. The man claiming to be his son, Jack Worthington, is now living in British Columbia and seeking a DNA sample from the Kennedys to determine his parentage. Talk of affairs and dark secrets from the past can cause family members to rethink how well they really know one another, said Catherine Lee, a family psychologist and clinical psychology professor at the University of Ottawa. "It causes you to question what else you don't know and it causes you to question your relationship with your parents," said Dr. Lee, who is also president-elect of the Canadian Psychological Association. Many parents decide to keep past indiscretions, affairs and even the existence of another child a secret in order to protect their children. But Mr. Laing says this approach is exactly what causes so much hurt and anguish when the truth does emerge."Sometimes that can backfire," he said. "We all can make mistakes and when we can admit them, and apologize for them, families can work through it. When it's kept a secret, you're rolling the dice. You might get away with it, but often you don't." But even when parents are honest with their children about the nitty-gritty details of their past lives, finding out about the existence of another sibling can be difficult information for a child to process. It's an experience former Toronto New Democratic MPP Marilyn Churley experienced first hand when she decided to tell her nine-year-old daughter about the boy she had given up for adoption after an unplanned pregnancy years earlier. Although there were some issues at the beginning, Ms. Churley said, her daughter, an only child, was "delighted" by the news she had an older brother out there. But when Ms. Churley went on a mission to find her boy, eventually having a reunion with him 11 years ago, her daughter, who was by then in her early 20s, experienced some emotional stress coming to grips with the changes in her family. Ms. Churley said that even though her daughter was excited to meet her brother, she experienced severe headaches following the reunion that they now attribute to the roller coaster of emotions she was feeling. "I think it was difficult to share her mom for a while and to see her mom completely fixated on somebody else," Ms. Churley said. "It was very stressful for her for a while - being raised a beloved only child, having to share a spotlight with the long-lost boy." Even if an extramarital affair doesn't produce a child, finding out the truth can have significant consequences on the affected family members - particularly for the children involved. "It causes [children] to question their own judgment," Dr. Lee said. It's often much more difficult for grown children to deal with these types of family dramas, she said. Adults are less flexible than children and often have trouble facing the fact they were in the dark for so many years about a family bombshell. "The longer a secret goes on, the longer the deception is and potentially the more challenging it is," Dr. Lee said. But in situations where the parents involved have already died, their children are often left with many mixed feelings and unanswered questions that can haunt them. "If the parents are dead, they can't even talk to them about it. They can't express their anger, they can't ask questions," Mr. Laing said. Although it is possible to recover from such a devastating blow, psychology experts say it's difficult unless family members are willing to be open and honest and discuss how they feel. The best thing to do, according to Dr. Lee, is to tell the truth, regardless of how difficult it seems. "You're not doomed for life if you've discovered this," Dr. Lee said. "I think it poses a challenge, but yes, I've looked at families who are able to come to terms with it."

Jack Worthington is scheduled to be interviewed on ABC's 20/20 on Friday night, March 7.

MOTHER WILL NOT DISCUSS ALLEGED KENNEDY LIAISON Family in Texas say they are stunned to learn of the link made public by Jack Worthington, now living in British Columbia Jessica Leeder From Monday’s Toronto Globe and Mail February 18, 2008 at 5:00 AM EST Eagle Pass, Tex – The family link that connects the mother of a man who recently identified himself as John F. Kennedy’s son to the former president has its dusty roots in this scrubby town on the southern border of Texas. It was here, in the late 1930s, over country club visits and long lunches across the Rio Grande at the famous El Moderno restaurant, that Lyndon Johnson began his friendship with Robert Bibb, a fierce Democrat and county judge whose 22-year political career cemented his reputation as a local legend. Judge Bibb, who gave up his seat in 1964, kept strong ties to Mr. Johnson when he assumed the presidency after Mr. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. It is well known that the judge even spent nights at the White House, his son Gravis told The Globe and Mail. However, family members of the late judge say they were stunned to learn this week that there might be a second connection between the Bibbs and the White House, one that runs deeper than the judge’s. [PHOTO: Mary Evelyn Bibb shown in a 1958 yearbook photo. ‘Hell, she was a beautiful woman,’ her cousin, Gravis Bibb, says. His father, a local judge, had strong ties to Lyndon Johnson and the White House. Ms. Worthington, a widow, now lives in Houston.] Jack R. Worthington, the secretive, B.C.-based Texas who has requested DNA testing to prove he is the son of Mr. Kennedy, hinted in a statement to The Globe last week that a key pillar of his story lies in the historical connections between his mother’s paternal relatives and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Worthington has been working with Vanity Fair magazine for the past 18 months on a story involving his claims, but publication was stalled after a member of the Kennedy family raised concerns, the New York Post recently wrote. In the wake of that coverage, Mr. Worthington approached The Globe to tell his story. Although he agreed to reveal his identity, Mr. Worthington has been cautious in interviews and is reluctant to answer the most glaring questions posed by his tale. He refuses to speak about his mother, Mary Evelyn Bibb Worthington, and will not discuss the details of her alleged encounter with Mr. Kennedy. Barr McClellan, a former Kennedy supporter and a Johnson-administration lawyer who recently published a conspiracy-theory book that posits an involvement of Mr. Johnson in Mr. Kennedy’s assassination, said the encounter is not beyond the realm of possibility. “In Washington, Johnson was very much a woman chaser. We knew that he could make women available and did for Jack [Kennedy]. JFK had a similar attraction to and for young women,” he said, adding: “Making the connection from Johnson and his allies or family friends rests with Jack.” Ms. Worthington, who was widowed last May when her husband, also named Jack R. Worthington, succumbed to emphysema, did not answer the door at her north Houston home this week. Her daughter, Houston socialite Nancy Littlejohn, threatened to call the police to her home in the post River Oaks district when approached by a reporter. The Globe has interviewed several family members and former classmates of Ms. Worthington as part of the ongoing investigation into her son’s claims. While all confirm the family’s political connections to Mr. Johnson – Ms. Worthington is Judge Bibb’s niece – no one can recall for certain whether Ms. Worthington, an only child born here in 1941, was specifically introduced to Mr. Johnson or Mr. Kennedy. “Lyndon Johnson spent the night at our house and my father spent the night in the White House,” said Gravis Bibb, the judge’s son. “My father was a very, very good friend of LBJ. They were buddies going way back.” Mr. Bibb, a teacher in Eagle Pass, said he does not know whether Ms. Worthington encountered Mr. Kennedy – who never made an official visit to Eagle Pass – let alone via connections of Mr. Johnson. “She would have been someone Kennedy would have looked at,” he said. “I don’t know how they hell they could have met.” Mr. Bibb, who was close to Ms. Worthington growing up, escorted his cousin to the senior prom at Eagle Pass High School. “Her father wouldn’t let her go with anyone else. My uncle was overly protective,” he said, adding: “Hell, she was a beautiful woman.” In 1958 yearbook photos taken during her senior year, Ms. Worthington’s features, accented by long, wavy born hair and a petite waist, are reminiscent of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Her popularity is evident: she was voted Homecoming Princess and was a runner-up for the school’s Most Beautiful Competition. She was also a band twirler, head majorette, and part of the Future Teachers of America Club. After graduation, Ms. Worthington enrolled in Southwest Texas State University in San Marcos to get her teaching degree, cousin Daisy Diaz said. She also kept up her extracurricular activities, joining the dance team. “Somewhere along the way, she met Jack [Worthington,]” Ms. Diaz said. “There was a lot of love there.” None of the family members interviewed could recall exactly when Ms. Worthington met her future husband, who was also pursuing an education degree and playing varsity basketball. It is unclear when the couple married. An obituary published last May after Mr. Worthington’s death said the couple had been married 47 years. If the younger Mr. Worthington’s revelations are correct – he was born on Nov. 22, 1961 – he would have been conceived after the Worthingtons were married. In interviews, the younger Mr. Worthington has refused to say outright whether he believes his mother had an extramarital affair with Mr. Kennedy. However, he referred to the elder Mr. Worthington as “the man who raised me,” not his father. Ms. Diaz, who went to high school with Ms. Worthington and married her first cousin, said Ms. Worthington “dedicated her whole life” to her husband, who suffered for years from emphysema. “Even if it is true, I don’t know what Jack is thinking,” Ms. Diaz said. She went on to say that the younger Mr. Worthington has been somewhat an enigma his entire life, having lived in Australia, Singapore, England, Thailand, Indonesia, Holland and Texas. “I have never been able to figure out what he really does,” she said. Mr. Worthington told The Globe that he is a businessman, but would not be more specific. Texas State University confirmed Mr. Worthington attended there in the early 1980s, and quit the varsity basketball team in 1983. The year before, at age 21, he married his first wife, whom he divorced after two years. His second marriage lasted longer, but crumbled after his wife, Alison, gave birth to their twin girls. “He left her when they were weeks old. He met some chick,” said Laurie Bentley, who lived next door to the couple on a neighbouring acreage for about five years. Alison Worthington and her daughter now live in Seattle, where the girls attend Kindergarten and were recently baptized, according to a neighbour. Ms. Worthington declined to speak to The Globe. Ms. Bentley said Mr. Worthington has always been a mystery to her. She recalls he assembled a stable of polo ponies and worked at an Internet startup, Agvortal.com, which he walked away from in 2003. Ms. Bentley said Mr. Worthington never mentioned a Kennedy link to her and suspects it’s a recent revelation. “If he even suspected this years ago, I don’t think Jack had the ability or the ego to keep quiet,” she said. With reports from Marsha Lederman in Vancouver and Marjan Farahbaksh in Toronto.

Mother denies Victoria man's claim he's son of JFK By Denise Ryan Vancouver Sun Friday, February 29, 2008 http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...b2b&k=80429 VANCOUVER - The family of Jack Worthington, the Victoria man who claims to be an illegitimate son of president John F. Kennedy, released a statement to Vanity Fair magazine today stating Worthington is not related to JFK. "It is our understanding that Jack R. Worthington, Jr. has made the statement that he is the son of John F. Kennedy and that his mother, Mary Evelyn Worthington, was introduced to president Kennedy by Lyndon B. Johnson." "It is the position of the family that the above statements are unequivocally false and have been fabricated by Jack R. Worthington Jr. for reasons unknown to his family." The statement also says that his mother, Mary Evelyn Worthington, never met either John F. Kennedy or Lyndon B. Johnson. "Jack R. Worthington Jr. is the natural-born son of Jack R. Worthington, Sr. and Mary Evelyn Worthington," said the statement. Worthington, who until today was unaware his family had released the statement, spoke to The Vancouver Sun within minutes of getting the news that his family had spoken out against his claims. Worthington, who stands by his story, said "my mother is not telling the truth. She has reservations. She just doesn't want to deal with it now, the publicity." Within hours of receiving the statement from Worthington's family, Vanity Fair circulated it to media, and published an article by David Friend on its website entitled "A Claim to Camelot," with the overline "The Man Who Would be Jack." Friend's article positions Worthington as a possible poser whose approach to the magazine through his lawyer Douglas Caddy immediately rang "alarm bells." "How many time had would-be Kennedy heirs come out of the woodwork? And how many tall tales had originated...in the dark heart of conspiracy country - vast, incorrigible Texas, where JFK was murdered, LBJ connived and thrived, and two presidents Bush catapulted from the oil business to the Oval Office?" Friend writes. News about the story of a possible JFK love child living in the wilds of British Columbia first surfaced when the New York Post ran an item in its well-read Page Six gossip column a few weeks ago. The report suggested Vanity Fair had spiked a politically hot-button item on the alleged JFK son, caving under pressure from Ted Kennedy. The item proved a source of fascination and Worthington immediately became the target of an international media hunt. He was reluctant to come forward, but did speak at length to The Vancouver Sun, alluding to himself as "a potential Rosetta Stone for a confusing time in American history," and suggesting the Vanity Fair article might provide some information that would solve the cloud of mystery that still hangs around the assassination of JFK. The article published on its website today does anything but, giving Worthington a starring role as a man of "conflicting assertions and motives and press conferences," a man whose mother denies him and who "was told [by Vanity Fair] that he was free to take his story elsewhere." Worthington admits he does not have a close relationship with his mother, but said he was surprised by her press release and shocked by the tone of the Vanity Fair article. He said David Friend had told him last week, before receiving contact with his mother, that Vanity Fair was "coming forward with the article, and that it would be fair and balanced." Worthington, who was in New York last week shooting a segment for ABC's 20/20, slated to air March 7, said he is particularly outraged by the article's assertion, supported by a letter they reproduce stating, effectively, that he approached Vanity Fair through his lawyer Douglas Caddy, offering them exclusive rights to his story. "Caddy was a personal friend. He knew my story. He talked to someone at Vanity Fair who passed it on to Friend, but I didn't know about it. Then he came back to me and said, Vanity Fair wants to help you." "That is untrue," said Vanity Fair spokesperson Beth Kseniak Friday in an interview with The Sun. "His lawyer approached us." Worthington did admit to The Sun that he retained Caddy as his lawyer when it came time to negotiate a confidentiality agreement with Vanity Fair. Worthington said "people somewhere influenced Vanity Fair to butcher me." He added that "in early January [Vanity Fair editor] Graydon Carter had a meeting or call with the Kennedys and after that was influenced to stop the publication. I think my family was influenced by the same people." Worthington said he isn't surprised that people have doubts about his story - but that the answers will come out in the end. "On 20/20 Brian Ross asks all the tough questions, questions the American public would want to know." Kseniak would not comment on whether the story was tweaked after receiving the statement from Worthington's family, or on the coincidental timing of its web publication. "We did hear from the family today. Our story is about Jack Worthington. It speaks for itself," she said. dryan@png.canwest.com

Typically interesting article from Vanity Fair. Especially the part about Worthington's attorney. Yes, the originator of this thread. Perhaps Douglas will give us further insights into Worthington's motives, as well as his own motives. I released this statement to the press today on the letterhead of Simoneaux & Frye, PLLC, the Houston law firm to which I serve Of Counsel: For Immediate Release STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS CADDY, ATTORNEY FOR JACK WORTHINGTON, ON THE VANITY FAIR ARTICLE THAT CLAIMS MR. WORTHINGTON MAY BE THE SON OF JOHN F. KENNEDY Soon after his mother informed him that he was JFK’s son, Mr. Worthington retained me in August 2006 to represent him in gathering DNA evidence to support the claim. He did so because of his knowledge of my prior legal representation of clients such as Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy, Billie Sol Estes and Barr McClellan. We soon came to the conclusion that we would need strategic assistance in this effort. We decided to enlist Vanity Fair magazine. On October 3, 2006 I wrote to Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, on the letterhead of Simoneaux and Frye, the Houston law firm of which I am Of Counsel. Soon thereafter David Friend, Editor, Creative Development for Vanity Fair, responded. As a result, a meeting was held in November 2006 in the NYC at Vanity Fair. Present were Graydon Carter, David Friend, Sharon Bush (a close friend of Mr. Worthington), Jerry Simoneaux and myself. The Vanity Fair article is the end product that began with that meeting. On the evening preceding the meeting Jerry Simoneaux and I visited with Mr. Worthington at the Harvard Club. Afterwards Mr. Simoneaux and I agreed that seeing and talking to Mr. Worthington was an “electrifying” experience as his appearance and demeanor are indeed reminiscent of JFK. Mr. Worthington has had successful business career. Last year he took up residence in British Columbia. During the prior 20 years he lived in 8 countries and worked literally throughout the world in senior executive management roles where he enjoyed high credibility in mergers and acquisitions of international corporations. I wish to express my appreciation to two Houstonians who advised me in the preliminary interfacing with Vanity Fair. These are Ray Hill, a citizen activist, and Susan Bardwell, former crime reporter for the Houston Chronicle. I also want to call attention to an invaluable Internet source for information about the death of JFK. This is the “JFK Assassination Debate” that is administered by the distinguished British historian, John Simkin, which can be found at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...8/04/jack200804

Burke's Peerage: Queen Elizabeth II Descended from the Prophet Muhammad www.juancole.com February 29, 2008 I was surprised that the writers of comments over at Salon.com did not know the below. It is common knowledge to anyone interested in genealogy. I know that it is hard for people invested in a hard East/ West dichotomy to imagine that the icon of Western civilization, the British royal family, has Arab Muslim antecedents (along with a host of other nationalities of course.) But it does. The Greater Mediterranean got all mixed up over millennia. Most Sicilians (i.e. most Italian-Americans) also have Arab Muslim ancestors. It works the other way around, too. It is obvious that a lot of Egyptians, Lebanese and Jordanians have descent from the Christian European Crusaders. This is connected to just pointing out that having ancestors named Hussein is more common among Europeans and Americans than is usually realized. Elizabeth II can't be descended from the Prophet Muhammad without also being descended from his grandson, the original Husayn / Hussein, since that is the line of descent of the Sayyids. 'United Press International October 10, 1986 MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth's blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke's Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family. ''The royal family's direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,'' he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ''It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.'' Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England's 15th century King Edward IV. '

I believe that the Appreciation published on the editorial page of The New York Times strikes the right note concerning the life of William F. Buckley, Jr. That said, I cannot help but also believe that in his heart of hearts as his life drew to an end he was appalled that his/our conservative movement had been captured by sociopaths and opportunists whose evil actions have adversely affected to an degree beyond measurement the citizens in every country in the world. APPRECIATIONS William F. Buckley Jr. By ROBERT B. SEMPLE Jr. Editorial Page The New York Times February 28, 2008 When William F. Buckley Jr.’s “God and Man at Yale” appeared in 1951, the critic and conservative sage Peter Viereck dismissed it as jejune, a word much favored by Mr. Buckley in his later years to describe views he regarded as uninformed by experience. Mr. Buckley’s fierce denunciation of collectivism and atheism on the Yale faculty was all to the good, Mr. Viereck said, but it fell far short of the “profound” conservative manifesto that needed to be written. To do that, Mr. Buckley — who was one year out of Yale, where he had thundered away on the editorial pages of the Yale Daily News — would have to marinate in the paradoxes of the human condition and endure “the dark night of the soul.” Only then could he aspire to parity with great conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill. When the news arrived Wednesday of Mr. Buckley’s death at the age of 82, the image that jumped to mind was not of dark nights of the soul (though for all I know he may have endured them) but of a witty and gracious man who enjoyed sailing, skiing, writing, good food and drink, Latinate constructions and strenuous debate. He had a mischievous sense of humor and must surely have laughed when he heard himself mentioned in the same sentence as Burke or Disraeli. His views — an amalgam of Friedrich Hayek’s free-market economics, Russell Kirk’s cultural conservatism and Whittaker Chambers’s anti-Communism — were hardly original. What was pioneering was his insistence on giving conservatism as he saw it a voice and a forum. That was National Review, the magazine that Mr. Buckley founded in 1955. There he fanned a very small flame that, over time, gave the country the Young Americans for Freedom, who gave it Barry Goldwater, who in turn laid the groundwork for Ronald Reagan. There are not many issues on which Mr. Buckley and this page agreed or would agree — except, perhaps, the war in Iraq, which Mr. Buckley regretted as “unrealistic” and “anything but conservative.” Yet despite his uncompromising beliefs, Mr. Buckley was firmly committed to civil discourse and showed little appetite for the shrillness that plagues far too much of today’s political discourse. For a time back in the 1960s and ’70s, Mr. Buckley and the liberal columnist Murray Kempton were something of a traveling road show. And they were friends. Yale’s angry young man turned out to be not so angry after all. He hated most of what the liberals stood for. He didn’t hate them. ROBERT B. SEMPLE JR.

What We Still Don't Know About That Minot Nuke Incident General Welch's Whitewash By DAVE LINDORFF February 25, 2008 www.counterpunch.org http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff02252008.html A new report on the August 30 incident in which six nuclear-armed advanced cruise missiles were effectively "lost" for 36 hours, during which time they were, against all regulations, flown in launch position mounted on a pylon on the wing of a B-52H Stratofortress, from Minot AFB in North Dakota across the continental US to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, has left unanswered some critical questions about the event. Directed by retired Air Force Gen. Larry D. Welch, the task force's Report on the Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear Weapons found plenty wrong with the way the US military handles its nuclear weapons, but appears to have dealt lightly with the specific incident that sparked the inquiry-only giving it a few paragraphs. According to the report, when nuclear-capable missiles are placed onto a pylon assembly (in the case of the B-52, these pylons can hold six missiles), procedures call for a clear distinction to be made as to whether they are armed with nuclear weapons or with dud warheads. In the storage bunker, pylons with dud warheads are supposed to be encircled with orange cones like those used by highway repair crews, and placards announcing that the warheads are duds are supposed to be hung on all four sides. This reportedly was not done, leaving no distinction between one pylon containing six nuclear-armed missiles, and two others that had missiles carrying nukes. A second failure was in record keeping. According to regulations for handling nuclear weapons, every step in moving a nuke requires written verification and manual checking. When the weapons were taken from storage racks and installed on the missiles, there should have been written records, including the serial numbers of each warhead. When a breakout crew moved the nuclear-armed missiles on the pylon and passed it to a convoy crew for removal from the storage bunker to the airfield for mounting on the plane, there was supposed to be a visual verification of the warheads by the convoy crew, and another written record of the transfer of ownership. When the convoy crew handed over the pylon to the crew chief for mounting on the plane, there was supposed to be another warhead verification check by the crew chief and another written record. Finally, the aircrew was required to verify the payload, warhead by warhead. Reportedly, none of these steps were taken. In other words, there was a failure to check the payloads of the missiles not just once but at every step of the way-an astounding breakdown in controls and procedures, which at a minimum suggests that the US nuclear arsenal is as vulnerable to theft, extortion and nefarious misuse as those in the former Soviet Union or in Pakistan-not a pleasant thought. A third failure, more systemic, which was identified in this latest report, was a general decline-even a breakdown-in the decades-long tradition of high standards and professionalism in the US nuclear force itself. The Strategic Air Command, which oversaw all nuclear equipment, has been eliminated, and command and control of nuclear weapons have been integrated into the regular forces, right down to the storage of nuclear devices themselves, which are now routinely kept together with conventional warheads-a recipe for disaster not just because of the kind of confusion that allegedly led to the Aug. 30 incident, but also because of the possibility of accidents in which a non-nuclear device could detonate, scattering nuclear debris. Furthermore, the report documents that the nuclear force, once a prime career choice for advancement-minded military professionals, has become a dumping ground for mediocrity-a place where military personnel go to be forgotten. Pilots of B-52s, for example, no longer even get nuclear certified-so unlikely is it that they will be called upon to fly nuclear missions, the report states. The report is a catalog of failure and ineptitude, and should lead to a complete overhaul. But it is also failure itself. This is because as disastrous as the picture it paints of America's nuclear forces and handling procedures may be, the report also ignores the big questions that remain about the recent incident which led to the Welch investigation in the first place. Primary among these questions is why, if all the various teams that handled the six nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise Missiles up at Minot, from the guards and handlers in the storage bunker to the pilots, failed to note that the warheads on the missiles were nukes, was the ground crew that went out onto the tarmac to service the plane after it landed at Barksdale able to spot them and identify them as nukes almost immediately upon arriving at the plane? After all, the personnel at Minot knew they were handling weapons in a bunker, and coming from a bunker, that stored nuclear weapons, and so should have been on alert to the possibility. The crew at Barksdale, however, had absolutely no reason to expect nuclear weapons. Not only was the delivery of these cruise missiles to Barksdale part of a long, on-going routine process of ferrying the obsolete weapons in for decommissioning and destruction. In addition, for the last 40 years, it has been against military rules to fly nuclear weapons over domestic airspace except in specially outfitted military cargo planes. That is to say, prior to this incident no B-52 or other bomber has carried a nuclear weapon in launch position over US territory since 1967! Given that history, one has to assume that the warheads on those six missiles on the pylon must have been literally screaming out that they were nukes, for the ground crew to have noticed. Surely Gen. Welch and his colleagues should have addressed the question of why those Barksdale workers were so easily able to spot the "mistake" while, allegedly, no one in the chain of possession of the weapons at Minot managed to do it. The position of the report was clearly, from the start, that this whole thing was a mistake. That is to say, it's conclusion was foreordained. But we should know from the incredible, bald-faced lie about the reason for shooting down a spy satellite last week-that it posed an environmental and health threat because of a relatively small 1000 lb. fuel tank containing toxic hydrazine fuel that allegedly could make it to earth and then pose a health threat-that Pentagon explanations are often dishonest, or deliberately confusing. (Hyrdazine is no more dangerous than many toxic chemicals, and for someone to seriously be put at risk, he or she would have to walk up to the smoking tank after it hit earth, and hang around the noxious vapours breathing them in for some time-something few people would be likely to do. Moreover, the probability of an explosive fuel tank making it through searing re-entry to ground without bursting and releasing the material harmlessly in the upper atmosphere was always negligeable. The explanation for the $60-million missile shot was clearly a cover-up of a Pentagon scheme to test its space-warfare capability without having to admit what it was doing.) Could the Minot nuke incident have been something other than a mistake? A careful reading of the Welch report-both what it says and what it fails to say-has to leave that question unanswered. Recall that back in August and September, the Bush/Cheney administration was, as it is now, ratcheting up the talk about an attack on Iran over its nuclear activities and over its alleged support for insurgent attacks on American troops in Iraq. While the military top brass, as well as the secretary of defense are known, for the most part, to oppose such plans, there certainly are some, particularly within the Air Force, who have a higher opinion of the effectiveness of airpower. Recall too that in the weeks and days prior to and immediately following the Aug. 30 Minot nuke incident, no fewer than six airmen associated with Minot, Barksdale and the B-52 fleet died either in vehicle accidents or alleged suicides. One of the two suicides involved a Minot airman whose job was guarding the base's nuclear weapons storage facilities. The Welch report doesn't even mention this strange cluster of deaths--none of which has even been investigated by the military, according to local police and medical examiners contacted. Could someone at the top level of government-perhaps the Vice President, who is particularly belligerent towards Iran-have attempted to set up an alternative chain of command to "spring" a few unaccounted for nukes for use in some kind of "false flag" or rogue operation that, were it to succeed, could set a war against Iran in motion? Barksdale AFB, it should be noted, bills itself as the main staging base for B-52s being sent overseas for Middle East duty. The way the Aug. 30 incident came to light, which was thanks to Air Force whistleblowers who contacted a reporter at the Military Times newspaper publishing office-makes such an idea seem at least plausible. Clearly, some uniformed personnel were so upset at what happened that they were willing to risk their military careers to go outside of the chain of command and alert the public in the only way they knew how. Clearly too, they were so distrustful of their superiors, right on up to the office of the Secretary of Defense, that they did not consider taking their information to anyone within the Pentagon. Maybe it's asking too much to expect a retired general, tasked to investigate this incident by the Secretary of Defense who himself was appointed by the White House, to look into such a theory, which after all if true would represent an act of treason. And yet, the failure of this report to at least explore the idea makes it into something of a cover-up. The obvious answer here is that Congress should be holding public hearings into the incident, and asking these tough questions. Incredibly, this has not happened. The Democratic-led Congress, here as in virtually every issue that has come before it (with the exception of steroids in professional sports!), has ducked its responsibility. In this case Congress has been content to let Air Force officials, behind closed doors, offer them information about the incident-which is a far cry from holding hearings where the officers would be grilled under oath about what they know. Given this gutless and irresponsible behavior by legislators who, I am sure, would be holding high-profile hearings had the same kind of incident occurred in Russia, China, or Pakistan, we are left having to hope that someone with real knowledge of what happened at Minot will come forward and tell the story to a reporter. For the record, I'm ready and waiting, pen in hand Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His n book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky. He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

Banks are a good way for the elites to make money. When I was a child banking was described to me something like this; you would have money in a bank account and they would pay interest on it. The bank got the money with which to pay you interest (and pay their operating expenses) from the persons whom they lent the money to and from which they charged a higher interest rate. Well, it came as something as a shock to me later to realize later that banks are allowed to make their own money, in effect, and to lend it out as loans. They are supposed to have a % of 'real money' in reserves in the bank but I'm not sure that anyone knows what is where anymore. They get 'real money' paid back to them though and they can foreclose on real homes etc. Under an interest payment system there is always a loser. It is built into the system. Just like musical chairs. Its not called a mortgage / death gamble for nothing. It's Time to Dump the Federal Reserve by Mike Whitney February 22, 2008 www.lewrockwell.com by Mike Whitney "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." ~ Aldous Huxley The credit storm which began in July when two Bear Stearns hedge funds were forced to liquidate, has continued to intensify and roil the markets. Last week the noose tightened around auction-rate securities, a little-known part of the market that requires short-term funding to set rates for long-term municipal bonds. The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20% on some bonds – a new benchmark for short-term debt. Auction-rate securities are now headed for extinction just like the other previously-vital parts of the structured finance paradigm. The $2 trillion market for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), the multi-trillion-dollar mortgage-backed securities market (MBSs) and the $1.3 asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) market have all shut down, draining a small ocean of capital from the financial system and pushing many of the banks and hedge funds closer to default. The price of insuring corporate bonds has skyrocketed in the last few weeks making it more difficult for businesses to get the funding they need to expand or continue present operations. Much of this has to do with the growing uncertainty about the reliability of credit default swaps, a $45 trillion dollar market which remains virtually unregulated. Credit-default swaps are a type of financial instrument that are used to speculate on a company's ability to repay debt. They pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent if a borrower fails to adhere to its debt agreements. When the price of CDSs increases, it means that there is greater doubt about the quality of the bond. Prices are presently soaring because the entire structured finance market – and anything connected to it – is under withering attack from the meltdown in subprime mortgages. As foreclosures continue to rise, the securities that were fashioned from subprime loans will continue to unwind, destroying trillions of dollars of virtual-capital in the secondary market. It all sounds more complicated than it really is. Imagine a 200-ft. conveyor belt with two burly workers and a mountain-sized pile of money on one end, and a towering bonfire on the other. Every time a home goes into foreclosure, the two workers stack the money that was lost on the transaction – plus all of the cash that was leveraged on the home via "securitization" and derivatives – onto the conveyor-belt where it is fed into the fire. That is precisely what is happening right now and the amount of capital that is being consumed by the flames far exceeds the Fed's paltry increases to the money supply or Bush's projected $168 billion "surplus package." Capital is being sucked out of the system faster than it can be replaced, which is apparent by the sudden cramping in the financial system and a more generalized slowdown in consumer spending. According to a recent Bloomberg article: "A year ago $20 million would have gotten Luminent Mortgage Capital Inc. access to $640 million in loans to buy top-rated mortgage-backed securities. Now that much cash gets the firm no more than $80 million. ...(Only) 6 lenders are offering 5 times leverage, while a year ago, 20 banks extended 33 times." The banks are not providing anywhere near as much money for leveraged investments as they did just last year. And, when credit shrinks on a national scale – as it is – so does the economy. It's a simple formula; less money means less economic activity, less growth, fewer jobs, tighter budgets, more pain. Bloomberg continues: "Wall Street firms, reeling from $146 billion in losses on their debt holdings, are fueling a credit crisis by clamping down on lending to investors and hedge funds that use borrowed money to buy securities. By pulling back, (the banks) are contributing to reduced demand and lower prices throughout the fixed-income world." The banks are in no position to be extravagant because they're already saddled with $400 billion in MBSs and CDOs – as well as another $170 billion in private equity deals – for which there is currently no market. They've had to dramatically cut back on their lending because they either don't have the resources or are facing bankruptcy in the near future. An article which appeared on the front page of the Financial Times last week, illustrates how hard-pressed the banks really are: "US banks have been quietly borrowing massive amounts of money from the Federal Reserve...$50 billion in one month." The Fed's new Term Auction Facility "allows the banks to borrow money against all sort of dodgy collateral," says Christopher Wood, analyst at CLSA. "The banks are increasingly giving the Fed the garbage collateral nobody else wants to take ... [this] suggests a perilous condition for America's banking system." The move has sparked unease among some analysts about the stress developing in opaque corners of the US banking system and the banks' growing reliance on indirect forms of government support." ("US Banks borrow $50 billion via New Fed Facility," Financial Times.) (The story appeared nowhere in the US media.) At the same time the banks are getting backdoor injections of liquidity from the Fed, banking giant Citigroup has been trying to off-load some of its branches so it can cover its structured investment losses. It all looks rather desperate, but scouring the planet for capital to shore up flagging balance sheets is turning out to be a full-time job for many of America's largest investment banks. It is the only way they can stay one step ahead of the hangman. In the last few days, gold has spiked to $950, a new high, while oil futures passed the $100 per barrel mark. The battered greenback has already taken a beating, and yet, Fed chairman Bernanke is signaling that there are more rate cuts to come. The prospect of a global run on the dollar has never been greater. Still, Bernanke will do whatever he can to resuscitate the faltering banking system, even if he destroys the currency in the process. Unfortunately, interest rates alone won't cut it. The banks need capital; and fast. Meanwhile, the waning dollar has sent food and energy prices soaring which is leaving consumers without the discretionary income they need for anything beyond the basic necessities. As a result, retail sales are down and employers are forced to lay off workers to reduce their spending. This is all part of the self-reinforcing negative-feedback loop that begins with falling home prices and then rumbles through the broader economy. There is no chance that the economy will rebound until housing prices stabilize and the rate of foreclosures returns to normal. But that could be a long way off. With housing inventory at historic highs and mortgage applications at new lows, the economy could keep somersaulting down the stairwell for a full two years or more. Only then, will we hit rock-bottom. The country is now headed into a deep and protracted recession. Low interest credit and financial innovation have paralyzed the credit markets while inflating a monstrous equity bubble that is wreaking havoc with the world's financial system. The new market architecture, "structured finance" has collapsed from the stress of falling asset-values and rising defaults. Many of the banks are technically insolvent already, hopelessly mired in their own red ink. Public confidence in the nations' financial institutions has never been lower. Monetary policy and deregulation have failed. The system is self-destructing. Now that the credit crunch has rendered the markets dysfunctional, spokesmen for the investor class are speaking out and confirming what many have suspected from the very beginning; that the present troubles originated at the Federal Reserve and, ultimately, they are the ones who are responsible for the meltdown. In an article in the Wall Street Journal this week, Harvard economics professor and former Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, Martin Feldstein, made this revealing admission: "There is plenty of blame to go around for the current situation. The Federal Reserve bears much of the responsibility, because of its failure to provide the appropriate supervisory oversight for the major money center banks. The Fed's banking examiners have complete access to all of the financial transactions of the banks that they supervise, and should have the technical expertise to evaluate the risks that those banks are taking. Because these banks provide credit to the nonbank financial institutions, the Fed can also indirectly examine what those other institutions are doing. The Fed's bank examinations are supposed to assess the adequacy of each bank's capital and the quality of its assets. The Fed declared that the banks had adequate capital because it gave far too little weight to their massive off balance-sheet positions – the structured investment vehicles (SIVs), conduits and credit line obligations – that the banks have now been forced to bring onto their balance sheets. Examiners also overstated the quality of the banks' assets, failing to allow for the potential bursting of the house price bubble. The implication of this for Fed supervision policy is clear. The way out of the current crisis is not." How odd? So, when all else fails, tell the truth? But Feldstein is right; the Fed refused to perform its oversight duties because its friends in the banking industry were raking in obscene profits selling sketchy, subprime junk to gullible investors around the world. They knew about the "massive off balance-sheet positions" which allowed the banks' to create mortgage-backed securities and CDOs without sufficient capital reserves. They knew it all; every last bit of it, which simply proves that the Federal Reserve is an organization which serves the exclusive interests of the banking establishment and their corporate brethren in the financial industry. Surprised? The upcoming global recession/depression will give us plenty of time to mull over the ruinous effects of Fed policy and to devise a plan for abolishing the Federal Reserve once and for all. That is, if they don't destroy us first. February 22, 2008 Mike Whitney [send him mail] lives in Washington state. Find this article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/whitney8.html

Italy Follows Trail of Secret South American Abductions By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO February 22, 2008 The New York Times BUENOS AIRES — In an unusually sweeping investigation, Italian authorities are seeking to prosecute former top officials in seven South American countries for their roles in a secret operation in the 1970s and 1980s by the region’s security forces to crush left-wing political dissent. The extraordinary breadth of the seven-year Italian investigation, into what is known as Operation Condor, has drawn in countries formerly not thought to have been deeply involved in the shadowy program, particularly Peru. It has also agitated political establishments up and down the continent. The investigation and recently declassified documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times, suggest a complicit role of the United States in Condor’s often-deadly operations, some of which American officials knew about before but did little to stop. In late December, Judge Luisianna Figliolia in Rome issued arrest warrants for 140 former officials from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, seeking to prosecute them in connection with the disappearance of 25 Italian citizens. The Condor countries helped one another locate, transport, torture and ultimately make disappear dissidents across their borders, and even collaborated on assassination operations in Europe and the United States. In an operation that historians call reminiscent of the United States’ modern terrorist rendition program, the Condor countries sometimes used an allied intelligence network to track and transport terrorism suspects to a third country for interrogations. “This is the most ambitious look yet at Operation Condor,” said Reed Brody, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch in Brussels. “I don’t know of any other case that has taken on so much.” While Argentina and Chile are well known to have been at the center of Operation Condor, the arrest warrants have forced new soul-searching in Peru and a reconsideration of its involvement. The 250-page indictment issued by Judge Figliolia, part of which was reviewed by The Times, names four former Peruvian officials, including Peru’s dictator from 1975 to 1980, Gen. Francisco Morales Bermudez, and his military commander, Pedro Richter Prada. The arrest orders for the Peruvians deal indirectly with the June 1980 abductions of four leftist rebels, called Montoneros, in Lima by a joint group of security agents loyal to General Morales Bermudez and members of Argentina’s military police. At the time, Peru had largely avoided the guerrilla movements and brutal counterinsurgencies that had roiled Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, where Operation Condor was most active. But in June 1980, in the last two months of General Morales Bermudez’s dictatorship, members of Argentina’s 601 Battalion, a special army intelligence unit, went to Peru to track down Montoneros members bent on overthrowing Argentina’s junta. The Argentine agents had captured one member of the group, Federico Frías Alberga, in Buenos Aires, and took him with them to Peru to help identify his comrades in a sting operation. On June 12, 1980, Argentine and Peruvian intelligence agents took undercover positions in a park in Lima, the Peruvian capital, dressed as salesmen, street artists and transients. After Mr. Alberga exchanged a coded message with one Montonero, the agents pounced. They arrested her and two others, Noemí Giannotti de Molfino and Julio César Ramírez, according to a 2004 book by a Peruvian journalist, Ricardo Uceda. The Argentines later tortured them at a Peruvian military installation, according to the account by Mr. Uceda, who interviewed a Peruvian Army intelligence agent who witnessed the torture sessions. One week later, on June 19, according to the declassified documents, James J. Blystone, a political officer in the American Embassy in Buenos Aires, described in a memo to his boss what was to happen next. Mr. Blystone told his boss, Ambassador Raul H. Castro, that an Argentine intelligence source had informed him that the four Montoneros would be held in Peru and then “expelled to Bolivia” and sent on to Argentina, where they would be “interrogated and then permanently disappeared.” Mr. Castro wrote to the secretary of state’s office in Washington that an Argentine source had confirmed the abductions and a plan to take the captured Montoneros back to Argentina. But the news of the arrests found its way into the Peruvian media, and because of the public outcry, the plan to return the rebels to Argentina was dropped, according to a copy of Mr. Castro’s memo, which is among the declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, a private research institute and library. In a phone interview, Mr. Castro, now 91, said he recalled “being concerned” about the Montoneros operation. But, he said, “I don’t recall what action, if any, we took at the time.” The level of Peru’s involvement in Operation Condor was debated heavily in American intelligence circles, he said. “We couldn’t agree, the Foreign Service and Washington and the intelligence services, if Peru was involved,” Mr. Castro said. “I thought they were very much involved. It seemed very clear after those Montoneros were taken to Bolivia.” Mr. Blystone, also reached by phone, said American officials should have lobbied harder for the prisoners’ release. “I got all that information and I passed it on, and we could have done something,” he said. “But we dropped the ball, let’s face it.” A month later, the scandal still had not died down when Mr. Castro met with the Argentine Army commander, Lt. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri. Mr. Castro prodded him so much about the Montoneros that General Galtieri waved his hand and said, “Enough is enough,” according to Mr. Castro’s report to Washington. Despite the publicity, the Argentine security agents went ahead with their plans, which apparently included taking Mrs. Molfino to Spain. On July 21, 1980, she was found dead in a Madrid apartment. The three other Montoneros were never found. Peru is already reeling from the continuing human rights trial of Alberto K. Fujimori, who was president for a decade until 2000, and officials there have been quick to defend those accused in the Italian case. President Alan García viewed the arrest warrants as an affront to Peru’s sovereignty. He described Judge Figliolia’s move as an attempt to depict Peru as a “little banana republic” and offered his support to General Morales Bermudez. The Italian investigation deals not only with individual cases involving Italian citizens but also with the broader responsibility for Condor’s cross-border kidnapping and torture operations, according to two people in Italy involved in the case. Italy claims jurisdiction because it believes crimes occurred against its citizens. But only one of the accused, a retired Uruguayan Navy officer, was taken into custody in Italy, and he was later released for what a magistrate cited as a lack of evidence. It seems unlikely that the South American countries will go through with extraditions. Remigio Morales-Bermudez Pedraglio, a son of General Morales Bermudez, the former dictator, said in an interview that the case was “a disgrace.” He said his father would agree to be extradited to Italy only if Peru’s Supreme Court found merit in the Italian charges. Under Italian law, he can be tried in absentia, however. General Morales Bermudez, now 88, took power in 1975 in a coup but is still admired by many Peruvians for allowing presidential elections in 1980. In an interview with the Peruvian journalist, Mr. Uceda, in 2000 he acknowledged that he had given the order to capture the Montoneros, following the advice of Mr. Richter, his military commander. “We couldn’t give ourselves the luxury of having subversives on the loose in the country during the transition of power,” he said. In statements to the Peruvian media, General Morales Bermudez rejected the assertion that Peru was part of Operation Condor, but said he was prepared to clarify the events in question. Simon Romero contributed reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, and Andrea Zarate from Lima, Peru.

The State of the Jihad, As Bin Laden Might See It By Michael Scheuer Sunday, February 17, 2008 Washington Post On Feb. 5, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell warned the Senate Intelligence Committee that al-Qaeda is regrouping, not retreating -- and boosting its capacities to launch another attack inside the United States. So how does the war on terrorism look these days through our enemies' eyes? Here's an informed -- albeit fictional -- guess. In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate -- Brothers, I write to give my view of how far we have, with God's help, traveled since declaring war on the United States in 1996. Al-Qaeda has today become all that we hoped for when we formed it in 1988: a vanguard organization whose main mission is not fighting, but rather inciting and inspiring young Muslims to arm themselves and defend Islam from the American crusaders, their Zionist offspring and their agent regimes in the Muslim world, especially the House of Saud. We must thank God for the steady flow of young Muslims to our ranks, men who now make the forces of al-Qaeda and its allies larger, more intelligent and more pious than ever. By God's grace, al-Qaeda's incitement has met with wondrous success; Western polls show that hundreds of millions of Muslims now believe that U.S. foreign policy aims to undermine or destroy Islam. Ironically, Washington itself has become a major inciter of Muslim hatred for the United States, simply by maintaining policies -- slaughtering the innocent in Iraq, propping up the House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak's tyranny in Egypt, blindly backing the pretender state of the Jews -- that drive Muslims into our ranks. Not all these Muslims are ready to take up arms, but even the limited number who are now fighting have proved more than enough to stymie U.S. plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and to support the jihad in Algeria, Lebanon, Thailand, Somalia, Gaza and Europe. And so, even with limited numbers, al-Qaeda appears to Muslims as a huge, rising and conquering army. Just as important, Americans have been taught by their leaders to see al-Qaeda behind every rock and tree, ready to pounce. American leaders, in effect, now terrorize ordinary Americans, making Washington appear to be the enemy of its own people's civil liberties. This all gives us confidence in our plan to defeat America -- by bleeding it into bankruptcy and tempting it to spread out its forces. Brothers, the amount of money that Washington spends on wars to murder Muslims and on pointless "homeland security" measures is staggering, with no end in sight. The war in Iraq alone is costing $12 billion per month. Bush is also burning money to deploy troops to Africa, under a new Pentagon command created to steal the continent's oil. And after America's Iraq "surge," U.S. generals cannot scrape up the few thousand troops they would need to fight our Taliban brothers in Afghanistan because Washington's NATO allies refuse to send reinforcements. Thanks be to God, brothers, America is hemorrhaging money and ruining its military by trying to fight al-Qaeda's mujaheddin wherever they appear -- or, more accurately, wherever U.S. officials imagine they appear. Our military and media operations have advanced the ultimate goal of our grand strategy -- restoring Islamic rule to the Muslim world. We have a winning formula: -- Driving the United States from the Middle East; -- Destroying Israel and the region's Arab tyrannies; and -- Settling scores with the heretical Shiites. * * * Frankly, brothers, things had to get much worse for Muslims before they could get better. We had to goad America into sending a larger, more vulnerable presence into the Muslim world before we could bleed its forces and treasury. The mujaheddin's 9/11 raid did just that; the inexplicable U.S. decision to invade Iraq vastly expanded the American presence. (Only God could grant such a miracle!) Al-Qaeda and the groups we have inspired are now exploiting both the triumph of 9/11 and the hornet's nest in Iraq that the Americans so foolishly kicked over. But to win this war, our strategy's three parts must be pursued in order: First, drive America from Arab lands, then finish off Israel, Mubarak and the House of Saud, then deal with the Shiite apostates. But we risk defeat if we simultaneously fight the Americans, the Zionists, the corrupted Arab regimes and the Shiites. When the Americans occupied Afghanistan after 9/11, we were confident that we could defeat them there, which would start their retreat from the region. When the Americans madly invaded Iraq, we grew more confident, perhaps cocky. Brothers, we lacked humility for these gifts from God, and now we are on the edge of a setback -- one that could disrupt our grand strategy. Military success came too fast in Iraq. The Iraqi mujaheddin are not ready to unite in an Islamist government to replace the U.S. agent, Nouri al-Maliki. Part of this failure is al-Qaeda's fault. We allowed the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, may God accept him as a martyr, to remain al-Qaeda's commander in Iraq for too long. He was consumed by hatred for Iraq's Shiites and struck them murderously, angering Shiite and Sunni alike. His excesses helped create what, for now, is an unbridgeable split between the two sects, and he raised the specter of civil war in Iraq. Such a conflict would hurt our ability to keep the world's Muslims focused on the Crusaders and Zionists and allow the apostate Arab regimes to pose as Islam's protectors by supplying guns, money and fighters to Iraq's Sunnis in their battle with the Shiites. Al-Qaeda and its allies in Iraq are laboring to repair the damage left by our martyred Abu Musab, and have had some success. But Saudi preachers and spies are deepening the hatred for Shiites among Iraq's Sunni insurgents faster than we can heal the wounds. As in post-Soviet Afghanistan, the perfidious House of Saud is stealing the fruit of Islam's military victory by preventing the emergence of a united Sunni front through bribery, false religious guidance and efforts to stoke intra-Sunni fighting. We must face this reality, brothers, and be ready to retake the initiative in 2008. While U.S. forces are in Iraq, the mujaheddin will focus on them, but after they retreat -- and a new U.S. president could leave quickly -- the chance of civil war increases. If such a conflict erupts, the mujaheddin might focus on Iraq, not America. For this reason, I urge you to consider two military options for al-Qaeda to have in hand if needed: An attack on a major oil-production plant in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques, which suffers under the rule of the House of Saud, to greatly disrupt the world's oil supply and compel U.S. forces to rush into the kingdom to protect the undamaged facilities and rebuild the others; or A raid greater than 9/11 in the United States, an option that could do graver and graver damage as the U.S. economy deteriorates. Brothers, we can execute either operation. Each would make Washington overreact, again unleashing the Americans' military ferocity. Such a response would have only a minor impact on the dispersed forces of al-Qaeda and our allies in jihad, but America's vengeance would kill many, many innocent Muslims -- and, perhaps, with the approval of the despised House of Saud, find the Americans again desecrating the holy soil of Arabia near Mecca and Medina. These results would focus the wrath of the world's Muslims on America, delay a Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq and keep our grand strategy viable. Brothers, think about these ideas, and join me in praying for God's guidance. msresponse@yahoo.com Michael Scheuer was chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999. His latest book is "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq."

"We need JFK DNA' Is well-dressed Vancouverite Jack Worthington actually John F. Kennedy's third child? Are there more? Chris Selley | Feb 13, 2008 | 1:51 pm EST Macleans.ca http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/art...4908&page=1 http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/art...4908&page=2 UPDATE: The identity and portrait of the man claiming to be John F. Kennedy's illegitimate son have been revealed: he is Jack Worthington, born on November 22, 1961—two years to the day before his purported father was assassinated in Dallas. Mr. Worthington came forward with new information and agreed to be photographed, the Globe reports, after a "Vancouver publication"—that would be CanWest's Province—revealed his identity on Tuesday. In the opinion of British tabloid The Sun, the heavily watermarked photo "shows a similarity" to Kennedy. Not all commenters at the Globe are entirely convinved, however. "He looks like a Kennedy," someone calling himself Winston O'Boogie concedes. "But then again, he also looks like Bob Costas." As for the "potentially profound impact" Worthington said the revelations in a Vanity Fair article about him might have, the Globe revealed further details that could intrigue conspiracy buffs. "Part of [Vanity Fair's] research focuses on my mother's paternal family and their history as lifelong political allies of [Lyndon Johnson] in South Texas," he told the Toronto publication. "That research is related to the rise of LBJ and fall of JFK, which is an extraordinarily sensitive topic to Americans." President Johnson, famously, was sworn in aboard Air Force One less than two hours after the "fall of JFK." Meanwhile, somewhere, Jack Worthington was celebrating his second birthday. What it all means is anybody's guess, and guesses are welcome at chris.selley@macleans.rogers.com. Is John Kennedy Jr. alive and well and living in Vancouver? Well, a John Kennedy Jr., perhaps. If a certain "tall, slim" lotus-lander "with a freckled complexion, hazel eyes, … thick reddish-brown hair" and impeccable taste in haberdashery proves not to be a complete nutter, the Kennedys may soon be adding yet another chapter to their scandal-tinged family memoirs. The New York Post's Page Six gossip column broke the story last week, reporting that Vanity Fair had a bombshell on its hands but had decided to hold off on the story until "proof" of the Vancouverite's lineage could be established. This reportedly followed a "courtesy call" to Senator Ted Kennedy that, as one might expect, did not elicit any courtesy in return. Renowned photographer Harry Benson had already been sent to Vancouver to shoot "the tall, handsome man in his late 40s - whose first name is Jack and who bears a strong resemblance to the 35th president," Page Six reported. The Globe and Mail picked up on the story the next day, at which point the man named Jack decided he'd try to nip speculation in the bud. The Globe's Marsha Lederman confirmed "a striking resemblance" between the two men and noted his "perfectly straight teeth." "[A]s soon as he walked through the door I knew it was him," Lederman told CTV of her meeting with the man in an undisclosed "public place" in Vancouver. "He certainly does bear a striking resemblance to John F. Kennedy." He told Lederman that his wife is Canadian, but that he'd only recently moved to B.C. He claimed to "work in business," to be free of money troubles, and to be willing to pledge to the Kennedy family that he would never seek profit from his story. Indeed, he'll probably need their help if he or Vanity Fair are ever going to prove his lineage. "Vanity Fair needs help," he told the Globe. "We need JFK DNA and, barring that, DNA from any male Kennedy directly related to Joe Kennedy [JFK's father], either in the U.S. or Ireland [for a Y chromosome analysis]." Intriguingly, he said the story in Vanity Fair wasn't about the "silly, trivial 'discovery of JFK's illegitimate son,' " but that it would have a "potentially profound impact." Lederman told CTV he declined to elaborate on this teasing statement. Macleans.ca welcomes any information, speculation, Kennedy DNA, photographs of JFK look-alikes or other claims to be illegitimate offspring of Camelot at chris.selley@macleans

Bye, Bye Reagan, Hello FDR The Great Bust of '08 By MIKE WHITNEY www.counterpunch.org February 8-9, 2008 http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney02082008.html On January 14, 2008 the FDIC web site began posting the rules for reimbursing depositors in the event of a bank failure. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is required to “determine the total insured amount for each depositor.....as of the day of the failure” and return their money as quickly as possible. The agency is “modernizing its current business processes and procedures for determining deposit insurance coverage in the event of a failure of one of the largest insured depository institutions.” The implication is clear. The FDIC has begun the “death watch” on the many banks which are currently drowning in their own red ink. The problem for the FDIC is that it has never supervised a bank failure which exceeded 175,000 accounts. So the impending financial tsunami is likely to be a crash-course in crisis management. Today some of the larger banks have more than 50 million depositors, which will make the FDIC's job nearly impossible. It's worth noting that, due to a rule change by Congress in 1991, the FDIC is now required to use “the least costly transaction when dealing with a troubled bank. The FDIC won't reimburse uninsured depositors if it means increasing the loss to the deposit insurance fund....As a result, uninsured depositors are protected only if a bank acquiring the failed bank will pay more for all of the deposits than it would for insured deposits only.” (MarketWatch) That's reassuring. And there's more, too. FDIC Chairman Shiela Bair warned that “as of Sept. 30, there were 65 institutions with assets of $18.5 billion on its list of "problem" institutions;” although she wouldn't give names. So, what does it all mean? It means that people who want to hold on to their life savings are going have to be extra vigilant as the situation continues to deteriorate. Right now, many of the country's largest investment banks are holding $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities and other structured investments that are steadily depreciating in value. As these assets wear-away the banks' capital, the likelihood of default becomes greater. This week, Fitch Ratings announced that it will (probably) cut ratings on the 5 main bond insurers (Ambac, MBIA, FGIC, CIFG,SCA) “regardless of their capital levels”. This seemingly innocuous statement has roiled markets and put Wall Street in a panic. If the bond insurers lose their AAA rating (on an estimated $2.4 trillion of bonds) then the banks could lose another $70 billion in downgraded assets. That would increase their losses from the credit crunch -- which began in August 2007 -- to $200 billion with no end in sight. It would also impair their ability to issue loans to even credit worthy customers which will further dampen growth in the larger economy. Structured investments have been the banks' “cash cow” for nearly a decade, but, suddenly, the trend has shifted into reverse. Revenue streams have dried up and capital is being destroyed at an accelerating pace. The $2 trillion market for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) is virtually frozen leaving horrendous debts that will have to be written-down leaving the banks' either deeply scarred or insolvent. It's a mess. There were some interesting developments in a case involving Merrill Lynch last week which sheds a bit of light on the true “market value” of these complex debt-pools called CDOs. The Massachusetts Secretary of State has charged Merrill with “fraud and misrepresentation” for selling them a CDO that was "highly risky and esoteric" and "unsuitable for the City of Springfield.” (Most cities are required by law to only purchase Triple A rated bonds) The city of Springfield bought the CDO less than a year ago for $13.9 million. It is presently valued at $1.2 million -- more than a 90 per cent loss in less than a year. Merrill has quietly settled out of court for the full amount and seems genuinely confused by the Massachusetts Secretary of State's apparent anger. A Merrill spokesman said blandly, “We are puzzled by this suit. We have been cooperating with the Secretary of State Galvin's office throughout this inquiry.” Is it really that hard to understand why people don't like getting ripped off? This anecdote shows that these exotic mortgage-backed securities are real stinkers. They're worthless. The market for structured debt-instruments has evaporated overnight leaving a massive hole in the banks' balance sheets. The Fed's multi-billion bailout plan; the “Temporary Auction Facility” (TAF) is a quick-fix, but not a permanent solution. The real problem is insolvency, not liquidity. The smaller banks are dire straights, too. They're bogged down with commercial and residential loans that are defaulting faster than any time since the Great Depression. The Comptroller of the Currency,John Dugan -- who is presently investigating commercial real estate loans -- discovered that commercial banks “wrote off $524 million in construction and development loans in the third quarter of 2007, almost nine times the amount of 2006”. The commercial real estate market is following residential real estate off a cliff. Dugan found out that, “More than 60 per cent of Florida banks have commercial real estate loans worth more than 300 per cent of their capital, a level that automatically attracts more attention from examiners.” (Wall Street Journal) He said that his office was prepared to intervene if banks with large real estate exposure maintained unreasonably low reserves for bad loans. Dugan is forecasting a steep “increase in bank failures.” “Dozens of U.S. banks will fail in the next two years as losses from soured loans mount and regulators crack down on lenders that take too much risk, especially in real estate and construction," eport Reuters, quoting Gerard Cassidy, RBC Capital Markets analyst. Apart from the growing losses in commercial and residential real estate, the banks are carrying over $150 billion of “unsyndidated” debt connected to leveraged buyout deals (LBOs) which are presently stuck in the mud. Like CDOs, there's no market for these sketchy transactions which require billions in cheap, easily available credit. They've just become another anvil dragging the banks under. On January 31, Bloomberg News reported: “Losses from securities linked to subprime mortgages may exceed $265 billion as regional U.S. banks, credit unions and overseas financial institutions write down the value of their holdings.” Standard and Poor's added that “it may cut or reduce ratings of $534 billion of subprime-mortgage securities and CDOs as default rates rise.” Another blow to the banks withering balance sheet. There's an even bigger threat to the financial system than these huge losses at the banks. A default by one of the big bond insurers could trigger a meltdown in the credit-default swaps market, which could lead to the implosion of trillions of dollars in derivatives bets. The inability of the under-capitalized monolines (bond insurers) to “make good” on their coverage is likely to set the first domino in motion by increasing the number of downgrades on bond issues and intensifying the credit-paralysis which already is spreading throughout the system. MSN Money's financial analyst Jim Jubak summed it up like this: "Actually, I'm worried not so much about the junk-bond market itself as the huge market for a derivative called a credit-default swap, or CDS, built on top of that junk-bond market. Credit-default swaps are a kind of insurance against default, arranged between two parties. One party, the seller, agrees to pay the face value of the policy in case of a default by a specific company. The buyer pays a premium, a fee, to the seller for that protection. This has grown to be a huge market: The total value of all CDS contracts is something like $450 trillion..... Some studies have put the real credit risk at just 6 per cent of the total, or about $27 trillion. That puts the CDS market at somewhere between two and six times the size of the U.S. economy. All it will take in the CDS market is enough buyers and sellers deciding they can't rely on this insurance anymore for junk-bond prices to tumble and for companies to find it very expensive or impossible to raise money in this market." (Jim Jubak's Journal; "The Next Banking Crisis is on the Way", MSN Money) Jubak really nails it here. In fact, this is what Wall Street is really worried about. $450 trillion in cyber-credit has been created through various off balance sheets operations which neither the Fed nor any other regulatory body can control. No one even knows how these abstruse, credit-inventions will perform in a falling market. But, so far, it doesn't look good. The enormity of the derivatives market ($450 trillion) is the result of Greenspan's easy-credit monetary policies as well as the reconfiguring of the markets according to the “structured finance” model. The new model allows banks to run off-balance sheets operations that, in effect, create money out of thin air. Similarly, “synthetic” securitization, in the form of credit default swaps (CDS) has turned out to be another scam to avoid maintaining sufficient capital to cover a sudden rash of defaults. The bottom line is that the banks and non-bank institutions wanted to maximize their profits by keeping all their capital in play rather than maintaining the reserves they'd need in the event of a market downturn. In a deregulated market, the Federal Reserve cannot control the creation of credit by non-bank institutions. As the massive derivatives bubble unwinds, it is likely to have real and disastrous effects on the underlying-productive economy. That's why Jubak and many other market analysts are so concerned. The persistent rise in home foreclosures, means that the derivatives which were levered on the original assets (sometimes exceeding 25-times their value) will vanish down a black hole. As trillions of dollars in virtual-capital are extinguished by a click of the mouse; the prospects of a downward deflationary spiral become more likely. As economist Nouriel Roubini said: “One has to realize that there is now a rising probability of a 'catastrophic' financial and economic outcome, i.e. a vicious circle where a deep recession makes the financial losses more severe and where, in turn, large and growing financial losses and a financial meltdown make the recession even more severe. That is why the Fed has thrown caution to the wind and taken a very aggressive approach to risk management.” (Nouriel Roubini EconoMonitor) "In the fourth quarter of 2007, new foreclosures averaged 2,939 a day, double the pace of a year earlier." (RealtyTrac Inc.) The banks are presently cutting back on home equity loans which provided an additional $600 billion to homeowners last year for personal consumption. Bush's $150 billion “stimulus package” will barely cover a quarter of the amount that is lost. As consumer spending slows and the banks become more constrained in their lending; businesses will face overproduction problems and will have to limit their expansion and lay off workers. This is the downside of “low interest” bubble-making; a painful descent into deflation. Bernanke wants direct government action that will provide immediate stimulus. But that takes political consensus and there's still debate about the gravity of the upcoming recession. The pace of the economic contraction is breathtaking. This week's release of the Institute for Supply Management's Non-Manufacturing Index (ISM) was a real shocker. It showed steep declines in all areas of the nation's service sector---including banks, travel companies, contractors, retail stores etc—The Business Activity Index, the New Orders Index, the Employment Index, and the Supplier Delivery Index have all contracted at a “historic” pace. Everyone took a hit. “The numbers are so terrible, it's beyond belief,” said Scott Anderson, senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co. The $2 trillion that has been wiped out from falling home prices, the slowdown in lending activity at the banks, the loss $600 billion in home equity loans, and the faltering stock market have all contributed to a noticeable change in the public's attitudes towards spending. Traffic to the shopping malls has slowed to a crawl. Retail shops had their worst January on record. Homeowners are hoarding their earnings to cover basic expenses and to make up for their lack of personal savings. America's consumer culture is in full-retreat. The slowdown is here. When equity bubbles collapse; everybody pays. Demand for goods and services diminishes, unemployment soars, banks fold, and the economy stalls. That's when governments have to step in and provide programs and resources that keep people working and sustain business activity. Otherwise there will be anarchy. Middle class people are ill-suited for life under a freeway overpass. They need a helping hand from government. Big government. Good-bye, Reagan. Hello, F.D.R. The Bush stimulus plan is a drop in the bucket. It'll take much, much more. And, we're not holding our breath for a New Deal from George Walker Bush. Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com