Somali Pirates Tell All:
They’re in It for the Money


By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
October 1, 2008
The New York Times


NAIROBI, Kenya — The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.

“We just saw a big ship,” the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. “So we stopped it.”

The pirates quickly learned, though, that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of heavy weaponry, heading for Kenya or Sudan, depending on whom you ask.

In a 45-minute interview, Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted (“just money”) to why they were doing this (“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters”) to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, “you know, normal human-being food”).

He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”

The pirates who answered the phone call on Tuesday morning said they were speaking by satellite phone from the bridge of the Faina, the Ukrainian cargo ship that was hijacked about 200 miles off the coast of Somalia on Thursday. Several pirates talked but said that only Mr. Sugule was authorized to be quoted. Mr. Sugule acknowledged that they were now surrounded by American warships, but he did not sound afraid. “You only die once,” Mr. Sugule said.

He said that all was peaceful on the ship, despite unconfirmed reports from maritime organizations in Kenya that three pirates were killed in a shootout among themselves on Sunday or Monday night.

He insisted that the pirates were not interested in the weapons and had no plans to sell them to Islamist insurgents battling Somalia’s weak transitional government. “Somalia has suffered from many years of destruction because of all these weapons,” he said. “We don’t want that suffering and chaos to continue. We are not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money.”

He said the pirates were asking for $20 million in cash; “we don’t use any other system than cash.” But he added that they were willing to bargain. “That’s deal-making,” he explained.

Piracy in Somalia is a highly organized, lucrative, ransom-driven business. Just this year, pirates hijacked more than 25 ships, and in many cases, they were paid million-dollar ransoms to release them. The juicy payoffs have attracted gunmen from across Somalia, and the pirates are thought to number in the thousands.

The piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago, Somali officials said, as a response to illegal fishing. Somalia’s central government imploded in 1991, casting the country into chaos. With no patrols along the shoreline, Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.

“From there, they got greedy,” said Mohamed Osman Aden, a Somali diplomat in Kenya. “They starting attacking everyone.”

By the early 2000s, many of the fishermen had traded in their nets for machine guns and were hijacking any vessel they could catch: sailboat, oil tanker, United Nations-chartered food ship.

“It’s true that the pirates started to defend the fishing business,” Mr. Mohamed said. “And illegal fishing is a real problem for us. But this does not justify these boys to now act like guardians. They are criminals. The world must help us crack down on them.”

The United States and several European countries, in particular France, have been talking about ways to patrol the waters together. The United Nations is even considering something like a maritime peacekeeping force. Because of all the hijackings, the waters off Somalia’s coast are considered the most dangerous shipping lanes in the world.

On Tuesday, several American warships — around five, according to one Western diplomat — had the hijacked freighter cornered along the craggy Somali coastline. The American ships allowed the pirates to bring food and water on board, but not to take weapons off. A Russian frigate is also on its way to the area.

Lt. Nathan Christensen, a Navy spokesman, said on Tuesday that he had heard the unconfirmed reports about the pirate-on-pirate shootout, but that the Navy had no more information. “To be honest, we’re not seeing a whole lot of activity” on the ship, he said.

In Washington, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, declined to discuss any possible American military operations to capture the ship.

“Our concern is right now making sure that there’s a peaceful resolution to this, that this cargo does not end up in the hands of anyone who would use it in a way that would be destabilizing to the region,” Mr. Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon. He said the United States government was not involved in any negotiations with the pirates. He also said he had no information about reports that the pirates had exchanged gunfire among themselves.

Kenyan officials continued to maintain that the weapons aboard were part of a legitimate arms deal for the Kenyan military, even though several Western diplomats, Somali officials and the pirates themselves said the arms were part of a secret deal to funnel weapons to southern Sudan.

Somali officials are urging the Western navies to storm the ship and arrest the pirates because they say that paying ransoms only fuels the problem. Western diplomats, however, have said that such a commando operation would be very difficult because the ship is full of explosives and the pirates could use the 20 crew members as human shields.

Mr. Sugule said his men were treating the crew members well. (The pirates would not let the crew members speak on the phone, saying it was against their rules.) “Killing is not in our plans,” he said. “We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger.”

When asked why the pirates needed $20 million to protect themselves from hunger, Mr. Sugule laughed and said, “Because we have a lot of men.”

Mohammed Ibrahim contributed reporting from Mogadishu, Somalia, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/africa/01pirates.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
__________________

Pirates Die Strangely after Taking Iranian Ship


By Andrew Donaldson
The Times
Sept. 28, 2008


The Russian frigate Neustrashimy, which was sent to the coast of Somalia this week after a Ukrainian ship carrying arms, including 33 T-72 tanks, was also hijacked by Somali pirates.

‘Our sources say it contains chemicals, dangerous chemicals’.

A tense standoff has developed in waters off Somalia over an Iranian merchant ship laden with a mysterious cargo that was hijacked by pirates.

Somali pirates suffered skin burns, lost hair and fell gravely ill “within days” of boarding the MV Iran Deyanat.

Some of them died.

Andrew Mwangura, the director of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, told the Sunday Times: “We don’t know exactly how many, but the information that I am getting is that some of them had died. There is something very wrong about that ship.”

The vessel’s declared cargo consists of “minerals” and “industrial products”. But officials involved in negotiations over the ship are convinced that it was sailing for Eritrea to deliver small arms and chemical weapons to Somalia’s Islamist rebels.

The drama over the Iran Deyanat comes as speculation grew this week about whether the South African Navy would send a vessel to join the growing multinational force in the region.

A naval spokesman, Lieutenant-Commander Greyling van den Berg, told the Sunday Times that the navy had not been ordered by the government to become involved in “the Somali pirate issue”.

About 22,000 ships a year pass through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aden, where regional instability and “no-questions-asked” ransom payments have led to a dramatic rise in attacks on vessels by heavily armed Somali raiders in speedboats.

The Iran Deyanat was sailing in those waters on August 21, past the Horn of Africa and about 80 nautical miles southeast of Yemen, when it was boarded by about 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. They were alleged members of a crime syndicate said to be based at Eyl, a small fishing village in northern Somalia.

The ship is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, or IRISL, a state-owned company run by the Iranian military.

According to the US Treasury Department, the IRISL regularly falsifies shipping documents to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments and operates under various covers to circumvent United Nations sanctions.

The ship set sail from Nanjing, China, at the end of July. According to its manifest, it was heading for Rotterdam where it would unload 42500 tons of iron ore and “industrial products” purchased by a German client.

At Eyl, the ship was secured by more pirates — about 50 on board, and another 50 on shore.

But within days those who had boarded the ship developed mysterious health trouble.

This was also confirmed by Hassan Allore Osman, minister of minerals and oil in Puntland, an autonomous region of Somalia.

He headed a delegation sent to Eyl when news of the toxic cargo and illnesses surfaced.

He told one news publication, The Long War Journal, that during the six days he had negotiated with the pirates, a number of them had become sick and died.

“That ship is unusual,” he was quoted as saying. “It is not carrying a normal shipment.”

The pirates did reveal that they had tried to inspect the ship’s cargo containers when some of them fell sick — but the containers were locked.

Osman’s delegation spoke to the ship’s captain and its engineer by cellphone, demanding to know more about the cargo.

Initially it was claimed the cargo contained “crude oil”; later it was said to be “minerals”.

And Mwangura has added: “Our sources say it contains chemicals, dangerous chemicals.”

But IRISL has denied that — and threatened legal action against Mwangura. The company has reportedly paid the pirates 200,000 — the first of several “ransom installments”, but that, too, has been denied.

Source:
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=851953
___________________


Somali pirates demand $35m for 'tank' ship


AFP
Sept. 27, 2008


Somali pirates have demanded a 35-million-dollar (24-million-euro) ransom for the release of a Ukrainian freighter carrying a shipment of tanks and grenade launchers, a regional maritime official said Saturday.

The MV Faina was seized on Thursday with a crew of 21 people on board as it neared the Kenyan port of Mombasa with a cargo of T-72 battle tanks, grenade launchers and ammunition destined for Kenya's military.

"They are demanding 35 million dollars for the ransom, but I think it is the start of the negotiation," said Andrew Mwangura, coordinator of the East Africa Seafarers Assistance Program.

Piracy is rife off the coasts of war-torn Somalia but this incident has threatened to make it a more global security problem with Russia now sending a warship to rescue the stricken vessel -- three of whose crew are Russian.

An official from the semi-autonomous northeastern region of Puntland said the freighter was headed Saturday for pirate strongholds in central Somalia.

"The pirates are heading towards Hobyo and Haradere and it seems that they are looking for chances to unload any light military supplies on board the ship," said Bile Mohamoud Qabowsade, an advisor to the Puntland presidency.

In a sign of the scale of the problem, Somali pirates holding more than a dozen merchant ships hostage released a Japanese vessel Saturday for a ransom of two million dollars, a local official said.

Egypt's MENA news agency also reported that pirates had released an Egyptian ship with 25 crew on board which was hijacked earlier this month off Puntland.

Qabowsade said he had received reports that the pirates who seized the tank-laden Ukrainian freighter were preparing for a battle.

"We are getting information that the pirates are getting ready" to respond if attacked, he said. "They deployed more armed men into the waters."

The Russian navy has sent the frigate Neustrashimy (Fearless) to the region in response to what it said was a "rise in pirate attacks, including against Russian citizens."

Haradhere, about 410 kilometres (255 miles) north of Mogadishu, and Hobyo, about 120 kilometres further north, are in an area controlled by Islamists who launched an insurgency against the Somali government in early 2007.

Residents of Haradhere interviewed by AFP said boats of pirates were seen early Saturday heading for Hobyo.

"I saw heavily armed pirates on board several speedboats heading towards Hobyo where the hijacked ship is believed to be coming," said local fisherman Adan Nile.

Meanwhile, a maritime watchdog reported that a Greek chemical tanker with 19 crew on board had become the latest vessel to be hijacked by Somali pirates in the notoriously dangerous Gulf of Aden.

Noel Choong, head of the International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Centre in Kuala Lumpur said the tanker was hijacked on Friday while it was on its way to the Middle East from Europe.

The coastal waters off Somalia, which has not had an effective central government for more than 17 years and is plagued by insecurity, are considered to be among the most dangerous waterways for shipping in the world.

Last year more than 25 ships were seized by pirates in Somali coastal waters despite US navy patrols, according to the International Maritime Bureau.

Source:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Somali_pirates_demand_35m_for_tank__09272008.html
___________________

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?


PBS is doing an instant online polls to ask "America" if they think Sarah Palin is fit to be Vice President.

The GOP has launched a successful all-out blitz to get Republicans to go on the site and click YES.

As a result right now it looks like 49% of "America" thinks Palin is qualified.

The Republicans are going to milk this for all its worth in their press efforts. We need to drive more Democrats and those opposed to Palin to the site to click vote NO.

Let's not give the GOP another easy weapon to put in their PR arsenal.

Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

You don't have to enter your email address, just vote.

Please forward this message to all your non-brain-damaged friends - using the BCC: option of course so you don't plaster their email addresses all over the Internet - thus keeping them out of the gnarly hands of nefarious spammers, hackers, and Repugnicans.

__________________
One Day Posting
__________________

Ron Paul’s Joint Economic Committee Statement


by Matt Hawes
Sept. 24th, 2008


Mr. Chairman, I believe that our economy faces a bleak future, particularly if the latest $700 billion bailout plan ends up passing.

We risk committing the same errors that prolonged the misery of the Great Depression, namely keeping prices from falling.

Instead of allowing overvalued financial assets to take a hit and trade on the market at a more realistic value, the government seeks to purchase overvalued or worthless assets and hold them in the unrealistic hope that at some point in the next few decades, someone might be willing to purchase them.

One of the perverse effects of this bailout proposal is that the worst-performing firms, and those who interjected themselves most deeply into mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and special investment vehicles will be those who benefit the most from this bailout.

As with the bailout of airlines in the aftermath of 9/11, those businesses who were the least efficient, least productive, and least concerned with serving consumers are those who will be rewarded for their mismanagement with a government handout, rather than the failure of their company that is proper to the market.

This creates a dangerous moral hazard, as the precedent of bailing out reckless lending will lead to even more reckless lending and irresponsible behavior on the part of financial firms in the future.

This bailout is a slipshod proposal, slapped together haphazardly and forced on an unwilling Congress with the threat that not passing it will lead to the collapse of the financial system.

Some of the proposed alternatives are no better, for instance those which propose a government equity share in bailed-out companies.

That we have come to a point where outright purchases of private sector companies is not only proposed but accepted by many who claim to be defenders of free markets bodes ill for the future of American society.

As with many other government proposals, the opportunity cost of this bailout goes unmentioned.

$700 billion tied up in illiquid assets is $700 billion that is not put to productive use.

That amount of money in the private sector could be used to research new technologies, start small business that create thousands of jobs, or upgrade vital infrastructure.

Instead, that money will be siphoned off into unproductive assets which may burden the government for years to come.

The great French economist Frederic Bastiat is famous for explaining the difference between what is seen and what is unseen.

In this case the bailout’s proponents see the alleged benefits, while they fail to see the jobs, businesses, and technologies not created due to this utter waste of money.

The housing bubble has burst, unemployment is on the rise, and the dollar weakens every day.

Unfortunately our leaders have failed to learn from the mistakes of previous generations and continue to lead us down the road toward economic ruin.

Source:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=606
__________________

McCain's "Unpresidential" Response & Age Issue


ABC Roundtable
Huffington Post


For John McCain, the panel discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos could not have been more brutal.

Minutes after conservative columnist George Will declared that the Senator was decidedly un-presidential is his unexpected call for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, Sam Donaldson, the long-time ABC hand, said that McCain's erratic message on the economy again raised questions about his age.

"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," said Will. "The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate."

Donaldson then jumped in: "It was two days after that he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. His talking points have gotten all mixed up. And I think the question of age is back on the table."



It should be noted that McCain's call for the firing of Cox was dismissed right off the bat, as the president does not have the authority to axe an SEC chairman.

The criticisms that Donaldson raised concerned the fact that McCain started the week by touting the fundamentals of the economy, before pivoting into fits of populist mantra and calling for increased regulation of the markets - position at odds with McCain's traditional economic philosophies.

"When I say age," he explained, "I don't know the difference between finding your talking points and not delivering the right ones, we have seen him do this frequently but this last week was the worst. Between two stops in Florida, as you say, he had to revise his thinking about what he wanted to say about the economy, wanted to feel the pain suddenly than say everything is great."

The whole, painful, episode crested with Will leveling an even harsher blow.

"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/abc-panel-tears-into-mcca_n_128055.html
____________________

How it all works


A good summation:


I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....


If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'

Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.



If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.



Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.



If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human
Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.



If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.



If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.



If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.


OK, much clearer now.

__________________

Dont' be fooled by the neocon biased media and Rovian lies and doublespeak.

Barak Obama and Joe Biden offer the only true experience and ability to bring this country back from economic and political bankruptcy.

Please register to vote today
__________________

Greenspan: This is the Worst Economy I've Ever Seen


Huffington Post
Sept. 14, 2008


Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan offered a woeful outlook of America's economic situation on Sunday, saying the crisis with the country's financial institutions was as dire as he had ever seen in his long career, and predicting that one or more of those institutions would likely collapse in the near future.

"Oh, by far," Greenspan said, when asked if the situation was the worst he had seen in his career. "There's no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I've seen and it still is not resolved and still has a way to go and, indeed, it will continue to be a corrosive force until the price of homes in the United States stabilizes. That will induce a series of events around the globe which will stabilize the system."

Appearing on ABC's This Week, Greenspan would not definitively say whether the government should come to the rescue of Lehman Brothers, which has been forced to consider a possible sale after its stock shares plunged drastically this past week. Instead he called the situation surrounding the investment bank -- and the bailout that occurred this past spring of Bear Stearns -- as a "once in a half century, probably once in a century type of event."

The circumstances for Lehman may, as Greenspan noted, be different. Bloomberg News reported on Friday: "Rising speculation that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. may fail is generating less concern among investors than when Bear Stearns Cos. imploded in March."

Much of the issue, Greenspan added, was the trouble in the housing market, which he predicted would become stabilized by next year. Pressed by host George Stephanopoulos as to whether another major financial institution -- such as the struggling Washington Mutual, American International Group, or Merrill Lynch -- would fail in the interim, the former Fed chair responded in the affirmative.

"I suspect we will [see one fail]," he said, "but in and of itself that does not need to be a problem. It depends on how it's handled and how the liquidations take place. And, indeed, we shouldn't try to protect every single institution. the ordinary cost of financial change has winners and losers."

In light of these dynamics, Greenspan noted that the government was left with tough decisions:

• which institutions are "so fundamental to the functioning" of society that they demanded a federal safety net?

Earlier in the week, the former fed chairman noted that such choses extended to tax policy as well. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Greenspan argued that the country couldn't afford the tax cuts being proposed by John McCain without an equally massive reduction in spending.

"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," he said. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."

Sources:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9362OS01

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/greenspan-this-is-the-wor_n_126274.html
________________

Energetically Wrong

Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.


FactCheck.org
Sept. 12, 2008


Summary

Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."

That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.

Analysis

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News' Charlie Gibson for an interview, part of which aired Sept. 11. In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production:

• 
  Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed.

That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power.

According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations.

According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark.

According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available.

That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production. And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here.

Either way, she was wrong.

McCain Gets It Wrong, TooSen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure.

On Sept. 3, McCain told ABC News' Gibson:

• 
  McCain: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.

McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6.

Footnote:

When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources.

It states:

• 
  Alaska Resource Development Council: Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.

This falls far short of supporting Palin's sweeping claim, however. It refers only to "oil and gas" production, not total energy.

It refers only to production, not total consumption or supply.

And the 20 percent figure is an "average" over many years, though the site does not say exactly how many.

That makes it very much out of date, because Alaskan oil production has declined sharply in recent years.

According to EIA figures Alaskan oil production has dropped 22 per cent in the most recent five years alone.

And in case you are wondering, Alaska produces even less of the nation's natural gas that it does of its oil.

EIA figures show Alaska accounted for just 1.9 percent of total U.S. natural gas production during the six months ended in June 2008.

And even that is dropping rapidly.

The figure was 2.3 percent just two years earlier.

–by Justin Bank

Sources:

Milkowski, Stefan. "One Year Later, Palin Making Progress in Role of Governor," The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 4 December 2007.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews John McCain," ABC News. 3 Sept 2008.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin," ABC News. 11 Sept 2008.

Caldwell, Rob. "News Center Interviews John McCain," WCSH6 NBC Portland.

Related Articles

Belittling Palin?
A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.

School Funding Misleads
An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

Sliming Palin
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Source:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
______________

American Coup d'état

9/11 and After

On September 11, 2001, people the world over watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, symbol of American economic power, collapsed after being hit by two jetliners. The Pentagon, symbol of American military power, was also a "target" of attack, although the American media quickly let the Pentagon fire slide under the rug, focusing instead upon the tragedy of the towers.

Something changed that day. George Bush the Second, in the mire of a collapsing economy, was in trouble. Within days media spin had spun him back to the top of the charts, the warrior leader who was taking a tough stand against those who would dare attack America at home.

Almost two years later, look at all that has changed. Civil rights are being stripped away in the United States. The US government is throwing its weight around internationally, making it clear, that as Bush said in the aftermath of 9/11, "you are either with us or against us". The Iraqi oil fields have been "liberated" for American oil giants while the Iraqi people are living in an American-sowed terror, without electricity, without water, without hope.

Bush, the AWOL Vietnam reservist, stages media events and lands on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit. He has had the fewest press conferences of any President. The so-called "liberal" media who watched Clinton like a starved dog eying a piece of meat have shut their eyes to the reality of Bush's America: lies about WMD in Iraq, lies about his relations with Kenneth Lay, former chief of Enron, lies about Iran and Syria, his strutting on the international stage like a tin-pot dictator, carrying through on his threats to let the rest of the world know that he is serious and the world belongs to him and his clique.

"You are either with us or against us."

We have been following and recording the descent of America into totalitariansim on this site since the events of that September. We have been putting it into a larger context. It seemed outrageous then. It seems even more outrageous now. Then it was outrageous that a clique within the upper echelons of the US government, most likely centered in the Pentagon, would plot such a thing, would willingly sacrifice 3,000 American citizens to set the stage for the introduction of their totalitarian policies. Now it is outrageous that they have gotten away with so much with so little reaction, with so little recognition on the part of the American people themselves of what was happening.

Leave the confines of the new American prison and you find that the populations of other countries can see what is going with greater clarity. There are no illusions that Americans were liberators in Iraq. They are carpetbaggers, covering their power politics with a thin veneer of propaganda.

Why can't Americans see it?

The links below are the articles that have appeared on the Cassiopaea site since the coup d'état in the US on this topic. They trace the thread of Mossad implication in the organizing of the attacks. Why should we be surprised? What other country in the world has benefited as greatly as Israel from 9/11. Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular have been labelled as "terrorists". The ruthless Israeli army is carrying out a campaign of genocide under the banner of the "war on terrorism" in the occupied territories of Palestine.

We also look at the question of the Pentagon crash. There was no commercial airliner at the crash site. The Pentagon was hit by a drone, carefully controlled to strike a section of the building that was under repair. As in an Agatha Christie novel where the actual killer becomes the victim of an unsuccessful murder attempt to divert our suspicions, so the Cabal in the Pentagon saw fit to organize an attrack on themselves to throw off the scent.

And it worked.

Even among those who are critical of Bush, who believe that he has profited from this tragedy to implement his fascist state, there is general disbelief that those around him could be implicated in such a cold-hearted scheme as to blow up Americans for their own political ends.

Why is this so hard to believe?

American governments do it the world over and have been for years. Are Americans so special?

The CIA conducted numerous chemical and bio-warefare tests on Americans and in American cities in the fifties and sixties. They subjected American soldiers to fall-out from nuclear testing to be able to study the after-effects of radiation exposure. Check here to see a prepared timeline of these types of activities.

If these people can order the assassination of third-world political leaders, can use depleted uranium in bullets and bombs that will contaminate cities for years to come, leading to the deaths of thousands of children, can impose sanctions against a country with the purported aim of bringing an opponent to his knees, sanctions whose only effect is to starve children and deprive them of much-needed medicine, is it "reasonable" to believe that they would exempt "Americans" from such terror if it served their ends?

Why would they care if the victims were "American" instead of being Iraqi or Chilean? Is it not clear that they consider themselves an "elite", high above the hoi-poloi of the general population. Must they not be laughing among themselves at how easy it is to lead the unwashed masses where they wish?

But is there any evidence for US complicity?

Such as Senator Bob Graham, chief of the Senate intelligence Committee, meeting with the chief of Pakinstani intelligence, Mahmoud Ahmad, the morning of September 11. Such as $100,000 passing from this same Pakinstani intelligence chief and into the bank account of Mohammad Atta, identified as the chief "terrorist". This is the subject of the article Mahmoud Ahmad and the Secret Cult.

PRAY

We Don't Get Fooled Again

We'll be fighting in the streets

With our children at our feet

And the morals that they worship will be gone

And the men who spurred us on

Sit in judgement of all wrong

They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come

We knew it all along

We were liberated from the fold, that's all

And the world looks just the same

And history ain't changed

'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again!

I'll move myself and my family aside

If we happen to be left half alive

I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky

Though I know that the hypnotized never lie.

There's nothing in the streets

Looks any different to me

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

And the parting on the left

Are now parting on the right

And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again!

Meet the new boss Same as the old boss

The Who

_________________

Stories About Palin the Public Needs to Know


By AlterNet Staff
AlterNet
Sept. 10, 2008


It takes most politicians years to rack up the kinds of scandals, hypocrisies, and inconsistencies that have plagued Sarah Palin's candidacy in the week and a half since she catapulted to national attention. But the disturbing revelations about Palin's record as mayor and governor, and her positions on the issues, inexplicably just keep coming.

AlterNet has compiled a list of the 8 most recent revelations about McCain's VP pick that the public needs to know.

1. Palin paid herself to stay at home.

Sarah Palin is being trumpeted as a fiscal conservative. And it's true to a certain extent. She did cut funding for a program that helps teen moms get back on their feet. But as the Washington Post revealed today, Palin may not be a paragon of fiscal restraint after all. The Post reports that Palin paid herself a per diem allowance (money that's supposed to cover expenses accrued while traveling on state business) for the 312 days she spent in her home in Wasilla during her 19 months in office.

The Post also states that travel expenses for her husband and kids totaled $43,490.

According to former Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles, this is hardly par for the course in Alaska:

"I gave a direction to all my commissioners if they were ever in their house, whether it was Juneau or elsewhere, they were not to get a per diem because, clearly, it is and it looks like a scam -- you pay yourself to live at home,"

Furthermore:

... the policy was not to reimburse for family travel on commercial airlines, because there is no direct public benefit to schlepping kids around the state.

As Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake writes:

Palin and her husband both make six-figure incomes. They don't need to be chiseling the state for this money to live, and she sure isn't entitled to be running on fiscal responsibility when she's pocketing cash in a way that has a history of being regarded in Alaska as a "scam."

2. Next to Palin, even McCain looks like an economic genius.

Over the weekend Palin probably gave economic analysts throughout the land mini-strokes when she made an egregious misstatement about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the lending institutions at the heart of the housing market meltdown. During a speech in Colorado Springs, Palin stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

While the two companies will soon face a takeover by the Treasury Department, they are currently privately owned. So any burden on taxpayers is in the future, when the government goes about the task of helping the lending giants out of their largely self-made mess.

As the Huffington Post reports, Palin's gaffe does not auger well for her ability to handle the complex economic issues that will dog the next administration:

"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."

3. Palin's Wasilla charged rape victims for their sexual assault exams.

When Sarah Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the town's police department charged rape victims for their forensic testing.

In a May, 2000 article, the Frontiersman reported:

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon stated:

"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer," Fannon said.

Let's be clear: charging a person who has the strength to come forward after being sexually assaulted for their own examination isn't just insensitive, it is monstrous. And for victims to hear the Chief of Police say that he thinks it's right to charge the victim is horrifying.

Now let's talk about Palin's executive responsibility on this issue. As a blogger on BitchPhD points out:

One can only assume that she supported Wasilla's policy of billing rape victims for their own rape kits ... not only because Fannon was her appointee, but also because this was four years into her tenure as mayor and because, let's be honest: in a town of that size, the mayor doesn't get to plead ignorance of policies or public statements of her own chief of police.

Palin was willing to raise taxes to build a sports complex. Her police chief was unwilling to use public funds to investigate rapes.

This shit needs to be in the national news. And Palin and McCain need to answer some hard questions about it.

4. Palin may have rewarded serviceman with promotion for his about-face on her candidacy.

When the McCain campaign first announced that Palin would be joining the Republican ticket, most people thought they had just undercut their best attack against Obama: his supposed lack of experience.

The McCain campaign was quick to answer concerns by parading Sarah Palin's position as Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard as an example of executive leadership. But few bought the sale, knowing enough about the National Guard to realize that being Governor doesn't exactly make you a general.

This idea was backed up when the Adjutant General of Alaska's National Guard Major Craig Campbell reportedly told the Boston Globe that the Alaskan governor is not in the chain of command and has no authority over its operations. But Campbell's thoughts on the matter quickly changed, as Brandon Friendman reports for the Huffington Post:

But suddenly -- and strangely -- the commander of the Alaska National Guard, Major General Campbell, changed his story. By the end of the convention, he was praising Palin's experience, talking on TV about how she had taken control of Alaska's National Guard operations and how she was a "great" leader.

Interestingly enough, Palin promoted him with his third star -- to the rank of Lieutenant General -- only three days later.

Essentially, Campbell had been unhelpful to the campaign at the very least. But all of a sudden he became one of Palin's biggest supporters. And he was then promoted to be one of the two highest-ranking state National Guard officials in the country.

The timeline that Friedman lays out in his piece shows Campbell's full metamorphosis from a critic to a preacher of Palin's executive experience with the National Guard.

Buying off a service-person with a quick promotion in order to get them to change their tune?

Maybe the McCain Campaign is right -- maybe Palin does have the chops of an executive after all.

5. Palin isn't big on government transparency.

Sometimes, the public wants to know what its elected officials are doing. That's what Andree McCleod, an "independent government watchdog," tried to find out when she requested internal documents from Palin's office that she suspected linked top-Palin aides to an effort to oust Alaska's Republican Party Secretary.

But, as Mother Jones reports, Palin's office withheld 1,100 emails from McCLeod, claiming the correspondence covered confidential policy matters. It didn't. As Mother Jones' David Corn points out:

... the subject lines of some of the withheld emails suggest they were not related to policy matters. Several refer to one of Palin's political foes, others to a well-known Alaskan journalist. Moreover, some of the withhold emails were CC'ed to Todd Palin, the governor's husband. Todd Palin -- a.k.a. the First Dude -- holds no official state position (though he has been a close and influential adviser for Governor Palin). The fact that Palin and her aides shared these emails with a citizen outside the government undercuts the claim that they must be protected under executive privilege.

As McLeod states, "When the finger is pointed at somebody else, she's all for accountability. When it's pointing at her, it's different."

6. Even Ed Koch, who supported President Bush, thinks Palin is "scary."

Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch is a bit of a controversial figure with a long political history. But the last race he got involved with was in 2004 and he endorsed George W. Bush. Koch not only endorsed Bush, but campaigned for him in six states including Florida; so, not exactly a passive endorsement. But now Koch is making it clear that he's endorsing Obama, and he's making his reason for switching sides clear: it's Palin. Ed Koch told Politico's Ben Smith what he thought of the new VP nominee, "She's scary." In his endorsement of Obama, Koch put the sentiment in writing, saying:

If the vice president were ever called on to lead the country, there is no question in my mind that the experience and demonstrated judgment of Joe Biden is superior to that of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a plucky, exciting candidate, but when her record is examined, she fails miserably with respect to her views on the domestic issues that are so important to the people of the U.S., and to me. Frankly, it would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency.

So a former Mayor who stumped for Bush in six (six!) different states is endorsing Barrack Obama because of Palin. And losing Koch doesn't just mean losing his vote, as Bush can probably tell you. Smith points out that Koch comes with a lot of other votes, especially in the sunshine state:

Koch is a member of a set of secular, swing-voting Jewish Democrats who may have been pushed away by the selection of Palin, and his endorsement may be a marker of an opportunity for Obama to strengthen his campaign among older Jewish voters in Florida.

7. Palin's views are so extremist her own friends may not vote for her.

ABC sent a reporter to Alaska for a hard-hitting interview with those "who know [Palin] best," a group of four women who met Palin in aerobics class. The interview revealed the earth-shattering news that Palin hates cats and likes white chocolate, but amid the fluff, something interesting and telling emerged:

Palin's views on abortion are so right-wing that even some of her best friends are hesitant to vote for her. Three of the women stated that they were pro-choice, and two admitted that while they supported her as a friend they were not sure they would support her candidacy for vice-president. One refused to fess up, stating "my vote is between me and the voting booth."

8. Palin and Big Oil's interests: one and the same.

Ok, so let's pretend you're an oil exec. You're looking for a buddy in the White House. Sure, you've had some success in the political world recently with people buying "the drill here, drill now" rhetoric ... but what you really need is a go-to person who's tied up in your interests.

McCain's coming around, but let's be honest, your go-to person is Sarah Palin. Because, as James Ridgeway at Mother Jones notes:

... she is an enthusiastic supporter of what the oil giants want most: to extract more oil and gas from Alaska and its adjoining waters. "We Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas," she said last week in her vice presidential acceptance speech. "And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both."

Yep, there is a lot of oil up there. But what about those damn pesky environmentalists? Aren't a lot of these places off-limits because they're natural treasures or something?

... Palin's elevation to national office would help give the companies a free hand when it comes to extraction, with little concern for environmental impact:

This spring, the state of Alaska announced that it would sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service to block the addition to the endangered species list of Alaska's polar bears -- which, if their habitat were protected, might pose an obstacle to the pipeline and other development.

She has also opposed protecting beluga whales in waters slated for oil and gas drilling (and she has backed a plan that allows the aerial hunting of bears and wolves). She is a steadfast booster of opening ANWR to drilling (a move that McCain opposes). And she has said that while she is concerned about climate change, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

All right! Except most people aren't oil executives who'll profit from Palin being in the White House. Most people are getting screwed at the pump while oil companies make record-breaking profits.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/98228/
_______________________

US military trained Georgian commandos

The US military provided combat training to 80 Georgian special forces commandos only months prior to Georgia’s army assault in South Ossetia in August.


By Charles Clover in Moscow and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Sept. 5 2008


The revelation, based on recruitment documents and interviews with US military trainers obtained by the Financial Times, could add fuel to accusations by Vlad­imir Putin, Russian prime minister, last month that the US had “orchestrated” the war in the Georgian enclave.

The training was provided by senior US soldiers and two military contractors. There is no evidence that the contractors or the Pentagon, which hired them, knew that the commandos they were training were likely be used in the assault on South Ossetia.

A US army spokesman said the goal of the programme was to train the commandos for duty in Afghanistan as part of Nato-led International Security Assist­ance Force. The programme, however, highlights the often unintended consequences of US “train and equip” programmes in foreign countries.

The contractors – MPRI and American Systems, both based in Virginia – recruited a 15-man team of former special forces soldiers to train the Georgians at the Vashlijvari special forces base on the outskirts of Tbilisi, part of a programme run by the US defence department.

MPRI was hired by the Pentagon in 1995 to train the Croatian military prior to their invasion of the ethnically-Serbian Krajina region, which led to the displacement of 200,000 refugees and was one of the worst incidents of ethnic cleansing in the Balkan wars. MPRI denies any wrongdoing.

US training of the Georgian army is a big flashpoint between Washington and Moscow. Mr Putin said on CNN on August 29: “It is not just that the American side could not restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal act [of intervening in South Ossetia]. The American side in effect armed and trained the Georgian army.”

The first phase of the special forces training was held between January and April this year, concentrating on “basic special forces skills” said an American Systems employee interviewed by phone from the US army’s Fort Bragg.

The US military official familiar with the programme said the Pentagon hired the military contracting firms to help supplement its own trainers because of a lack of manpower.

The second 70-day phase was set to begin on August 11, a few days after war broke out in South Ossetia. The trainers arrived on August 3, four days before the conflict flared on August 7.

“They would have only seen the inside of a hotel room,” quipped one former contractor.

Neither MPRI nor American Systems would speak at length to the FT about the programme.

American Systems di­rected questions to the US army’s Security Assistance Training Management Organisation (Satmo) at Fort Bragg, part of the US Army’s Special Warfare Center School. Satmo sends trainers, mainly special forces but also contractors, to countries such as Yemen, Colombia and the Philippines. Satmo trainers generally work with forces involved in counter-insurgencies, counter-terrorism or civil wars. A Satmo spokesman declined to comment.
One US military official familiar with the programme said it emerged from a Georgian offer to the US in December 2006 to send commandos to Afghanistan to work alongside American special operations forces.

According to this person, the US told Georgia that the offer should be made through Nato, which welcomed the offer but informed Georgia that its forces would need additional training to meet the military alliance’s standards.

While the programme is not classified, there is a lack of transparency surrounding it, though US military officials said the lack of publicity was not part of an effort to keep the programme secret.

Other US military training programmes in Georgia have their own websites and photo galleries.

A US European Command spokesman confirmed the existence of the programme only after reviewing an e-mail sent by MPRI recruiters that was obtained by the FT. According to the e-mail, which did not mention Nato operations, former US special operations forces would receive $2,000 ($1,150, €1,400) a week plus costs as trainers. “We can confirm the pro­gramme exists, but due to its nature and training ob­jectives we do not discuss specifics to ensure the integrity of the programme and force protection of the trainers and participants,” he said.

James Appathurai, Nato’s spokesman in Brussels, said: “Georgia has made an offer to provide forces to Isaf in the last two years. But until now these Georgian forces have not joined the Isaf mission.” An official at a senior Nato member state said it was understood that the forces had been trained by the US, but that the forces had not passed a certification process under which all potential members of the Isaf mission are vetted.

Additional reporting James Blitz in London

Conflict in the Caucasus

The conflict between Russia and Georgia began on the night of August 7, when Georgian forces, including commando units, tanks and artillery, assaulted the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.

Russia says that at least 133 civilians died in the attack, as well as 59 of its own peacekeepers, according to figures released this week.

In response Russia launched a mass invasion and aerial bombardment of Georgia, in which 215 Georgians have died, including 146 soldiers and 69 civilians.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bdffd9a6-7b71-11dd-b839-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
______________________

What is McCain Thinking?

One Alaskan’s Perspective


Mudflats
Aug. 39, 2008


“Is this a joke?”

That seemed to be the question du jour when my phone started ringing off the hook at 6:45am here in Alaska. I mean, we’re sort of excited that our humble state has gotten some kind of national ‘nod’….but seriously? Sarah Palin for Vice President? Yes, she’s a popular governor.

Her all time high approval rating hovered around 90% at one point. But bear in mind that the 90% approval rating came from one of the most conservative, and reddest-of-the-red states out there. And that approval rating came before a series of events that have lead many Alaskans to question the governor’s once pristine image.

There is no doubt in my mind that many Alaskans are feeling pretty excited about this. But we live in our own little bubble up here, and most of the attention we get is because of The Bridge to Nowhere, polar bears, the indictment of Ted Stevens, and the ongoing investigation and conviction of the string of legislators and oil executives who literally called themselves “The Corrupt Bastards Club”.

So seeing our governor out there in the national spotlight accepting the nomination for Vice Presidential candidate is just downright surreal. Just months ago, when rumors surfaced that she was on the long version of the short list, she was questioned if she’d be interested in the position. She said she couldn’t answer “until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day. I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here….”

There is no doubt that Palin has fierce territorial loyalties. When elected governor there was much concern because she came right out and said she would favor her own home town of Wasilla (where she was mayor) and its surrounding environs collectively known as “the Valley” while leading the state. And it’s obvious from her statement that Alaska was on her mind when accepting the VP nod (see my emphasis above).

So what is it that we’re “trying to accomplish up here”?

Palin is currently in the middle of a controversial gas pipeline project in Alaska. She’s favored the ‘Trans Canada’ proposal that will run the pipeline through Canada, in effect shipping US jobs over the border. Many Alaskans, including former governors, have favored the “All Alaska Route”.

She is also suing the federal government over listing the polar bears as a threatened species.

The science was even compelling enough to convince the Secretary of the Interior that the bears needed to be listed. But acknowledgement of this issue, and the potential disruption to development on Alaska’s oil-rich north slope spurred Palin to attempt to stop the listing.

Does she want to open ANWR? Yes.

Every politician in Alaska wants to open ANWR. It’s basically a requirement if you ever hope to get elected for anything. Even Mark Begich, the progressive Democrat running against the indicted Senator and Alaskan institution Ted Stevens, is pro-drilling.

That’s the sea we swim in up here. There are a few anti-drilling folks, but you have to look hard to find them, and work hard to have them admit it.

Will all this wash with voters in the ‘Lower 48′? Time will tell.

18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling

It was obvious anyway, but became beat-you-over-the-head-with-a-two-by-four obvious when Palin referenced the ‘glass ceiling’ line, that this choice is a blatant pander to women. I would like to believe that women will actually feel insulted by this. Yes, it would have been historic if Hillary had gotten the nomination. It was historic that she made it as far as she did. Yes, it would be great to have a woman in the oval office, or in the VP slot if they are the right woman…a woman who got there with her own drive, grit, determination, intelligence, skill and merits.

When you’re hand-picked by a man to win votes simply because you are a woman, that doesn’t count, and it doesn’t break any kind of ceiling. Would we have had a Stan Palin as our VP pick?

No. So choosing a woman because you think her gender will get votes is insulting.

Governor “Squeakyclean”….or not.

Another focus of Palin’s introduction today was her reform image. Listen to John McCain and you’ll hear about a maverick reformer who took on big oil, took on corrupt Alaska politicians, and whose ethics are unquestioned.

Alaskans really want to like Sarah Palin.

In a state where corruption is the rule, and the same faces keep recycling over and over and over again like a bad dream, a new face, with a promise of reform seemed like a breath of fresh air. Palin defeated incumbent governor Frank Murkowski (father of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski who he appointed to his own Senate seat when he was elected governor) because he was such an obnoxious, bloviating, downright BAD politician.

This staunchly republican state voted with relief, not having to cross over and vote Democratic, but still able to get Murkowski the hell out of office. In the general election Palin swept into office running against a former Democratic governor, Tony Knowles, who was capable but came with baggage. And he represented to Alaskans more of the same, tired old-style politics, and special interests that we have come to loathe.

So, if McCain had made his selection six months ago, the squeaky-clean governor meme would have made a little more sense. But, Sarah Palin is currently under an ethics investigation by the Alaska state legislature. The details of this investigation read like a trashy novel, and I suspect that the players will soon have new found celebrity on the national stage. I’ll try to explain for all you non-Alaskans who suddenly have good reason to want to know more about Sarah Palin. For those of you not interested in trashy novels, feel free to skip ahead.

Here it is…what we in Alaska call “TrooperGate”.

Sarah Palin’s sister Molly married a guy named Mike Wooten who is an Alaska State Trooper.

Mike and Molly had a rocky marriage. When the marriage broke up, there was a bitter custody fight that is still ongoing. During the custody investigation, all sorts of things were brought up about Wooten including the fact that he had illegally shot a moose (yes folks this is Alaska), driven drunk, and used a taser (on the test setting, he reminds us) on his 11-year old stepson, who supposedly had asked to see what it felt like.

While Wooten has turned out to be a less than stellar figure, the fact that Palin’s father accompanied him on the infamous moose hunt, and that many of the dozens of charges brought up by the Palin family happened long before they were ever reported smacked of desperate custody fight. Wooten’s story is that he was basically stalked by the family.

After all this, Wooten was investigated and disciplined on two counts and allowed to kept his position with the troopers. Enter Walt Monegan, Palin’s appointed new chief of the Department of Public Safety and head of the troopers. Monegan was beloved by the troopers, did a bang-up job with minimal funding and suddenly got axed.

Palin was out of town and Monegan got “offered another job” (aka fired) with no explanation to Alaskans. Pressure was put on the governor to give details, because rumors started to swirl around the fact that the highly respected Monegan was fired because he refused to fire the aforementioned Mike Wooten.

Palin vehemently denied ever talking to Monegan or pressuring Monegan in any way to fire Wooten, or that anyone on her staff did. Over the weeks it has come out that not only was pressure applied, there were literally dozens of conversations in which pressure was applied to fire him.

Monegan has testified to this fact, spurring an ongoing investigation by the Alaska state legislature.

But, before this investigation got underway, Palin sent the Alaska State Attorney General out to do some investigative work of his own so she could find out in advance what the real investigation was going to find. (No, I’m not making this up).

The AG interviewed several people, unbeknownst to the actual appointed investigator or the Legislature!

Palin’s investigation of herself uncovered a recorded phone call retained by the Alaska State Troopers from Frank Bailey, a Palin underling, putting pressure on a trooper about the Wooten non-firing. Todd Palin (governor’s husband) even talked to Monegan himself in Palin’s office while she was away. Bailey is now on paid administrative leave.

As if this weren’t enough, Monegan’s appointed replacement Chuck Kopp, turns out to have been the center of his own little scandal. He received a letter of reprimand and was reassigned after sexual harassment allegations by a former coworker who didn’t like all the unwanted kissing and hugging in the office.

Was he vetted? Obviously not.

When he was questioned about all this, his comment was that no one had asked him and he thought they all knew. Kopp, defiant, still claimed to have done nothing wrong and said to the press that there was no way he was stepping down from his new position. Twenty four hours later, he stepped down. Later it was uncovered that he received a $10,000 severance package for his two weeks on the job from Palin. Monegan got nothing.

After extensive news coverage about all this nasty behind-the-scenes scandal, which is definitely NOT squeaky clean, Palin’s approval ratings fell to 67%, still high, but a far cry from the 90% number that’s being thrown around so glibly by the Republicans today. Alaskans are quickly becoming disillusioned once again.

“Executive Experience”

Before her meteoric rise to political success as governor, just two short years ago Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla. I had a good chuckle at MSN.com’s claim that she had been the mayor of “Wasilla City”. It is not a city. Just Wasilla.

Wasilla is the heart of the Alaska “Bible belt” and Sarah was raised amongst the tribe that believes creationism should be taught in our public schools, homosexuality is a sin, and life begins at conception. She’s a gun-toting, hang ‘em high conservative.

Remember…this is where her approval ratings come from.

There is no doubt that McCain again is making a strategic choice to appeal to a particular demographic - fundamentalist right-wing gun-owning Christians. And Republican bloggers are already gushing about how she has ‘more executive experience’ than Obama does!

Here is a picture of lovely downtown Wasilla, for those of you unfamiliar with the area. Behind the Mug-Shot Saloon (the first bar I visited when I moved to Alaska long ago) is a little strip mall. There are street signs in Wasilla with bullet holes in them. Wasilla has a population of about 5500 people, and 1979 occupied housing units.

This is where your potential Vice President was two short years ago.

Can you imagine her negotiating a nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Discussing foreign policy?

Understanding non-Alaskan issues? Frankly, I don’t even know if she’s ever been out of the country. She may ‘get’ Alaska, but there are only a half a million people here. Don’t get me wrong….I love Alaska with all my heart. I’m just saying.

I, and all Alaskans will be interested to see how this whole process unfolds. This is definitely a gamble for McCain, and in my humble opinion, a gift to Obama and to Joe Biden who just got thrown a big hunk of red meat for the vice presidential debate.

This is the wedge-issue, desperate ’Hail Sarah’ pass of the McCain campaign.

Now I’m off to get some Jiffy Pop.

You can contact me at akmuckraker@yahoo.com

Source:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
__________________

[This is going to be my last post on Sarah "Another Republican Liar" Palin, she's become the burning issue of the day and I for one am not going to give her any more of my blog space, unless she steps down, then I will congratulate her. News2U Ed.]

McCain Campaign Tries to Block Ron Paul From Convention Floor


By Ali,
Think Progress
Sept. 2, 2008


The Washington Times reported today that the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee have been “negotiating with Rep. Ron Paul to win his support and acquire the names of his sympathizers among the 4,607 delegates and alternates at the Republican National Convention.”

However, when CNN’s John King asked Paul this morning whether such reports were true, Paul laughed. “I wouldn’t put it in those words,” he said. In fact, he said the RNC seemed to be trying to keep him off the convention floor, even though as a congressman, he should be able to get floor passes without a problem.

Watch it:


Paul was barred from speaking at the convention “because the congressman would not change his position on the war in Iraq, which he opposes.”

The Washington Times also reports that Paul “was denied permission to address the Republican Platform Committee last week” after “the McCain forces who controlled the platform proceedings, as well as the Rules Committee and the Credentials Committee, objected.”

The McCain campaign’s stonewalling of Ron Paul may not have the support of his vice
presidential pick, Gov. Sarah Palin. In an interview with MTV earlier this year, Palin expressed support for Paul, saying that he was “cool“:

"He’s cool. He’s a good guy. He’s a good guy. He’s so independent. He’s independent of like the party machine, I’m like, right on, so am I. The party machinery, on both sides of the party, ya know, Americans are tiring of the incessant partisanship that gets in the way of just doing the right thing for this country."

Paul will at least be welcome at a “counter convention” held in Minneapolis for his supporters, where he is speaking today. Paul said he expected around 18,000 people to attend today’s rally.

© 2008 Think Progress All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.thinkprogress.org//97260/


Related Articles:

Paul Is Here, and the RNC Isn't Happy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102461.html

Paul Likely Won't Attend RNC
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1328160.aspx

Ron Paul Nation: the other convention in town
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/02/ron-paul-nation-the-other-convention-in-town/
___________________