SOTT FOCUS: Batten down the free-speech hatches, it’s time to bomb Iran

Source: Signs of the Times Editors.

The recent network related attack on SOTT.net known as ARP poisoning which redirected traffic to sites hosting malicious software comes at a curious time. While presidential candidates are pledging allegiance to Israel at AIPAC meetings, the Israeli Prime Minister is ordering Bush to prepare for strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

His warning also comes on the heals of former German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, warning of an impending Israeli strike against Iran:

As a result of misguided American policy, the threat of another military confrontation hangs like a dark cloud over the Middle East. The United States’ enemies have been strengthened, and Iran – despite being branded as a member of the so-called “axis of evil” – has been catapulted into regional hegemony. Iran could never have achieved this on its own, certainly not in such a short time.

A hitherto latent rivalry between Iran and Israel thus has been transformed into an open struggle for dominance in the Middle East. The result has been the emergence of some surprising, if not bizarre, alliances: Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and the American-backed, Shiite-dominated Iraq are facing Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most of the other Sunni Arab states, all of which feel existentially threatened by Iran’s ascendance.

The danger of a major confrontation has been heightened further by a series of factors: persistently high oil prices, which have created new financial and political opportunities for Iran; the possible defeat of the West and its regional allies in proxy wars in Gaza and Lebanon; and the United Nations Security Council’s failure to induce Iran to accept even a temporary freeze of its nuclear program.

…

Anyone following the press in Israel during the anniversary celebrations and listening closely to what was said in Jerusalem did not have to be a prophet to understand that matters are coming to a head. Consider the following:

First, “stop the appeasement!” is a demand raised across the political spectrum in Israel – and what is meant is the nuclear threat emanating from Iran.

Second, while Israel celebrated, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that a life-and-death military confrontation was a distinct possibility.

Third, the outgoing commander of the Israeli Air Force declared that the air force was capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect the country’s security. The destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility last year, and the lack of any international reaction to it, were viewed as an example for the coming action against Iran.

Fourth, the Israeli wish list for US arms deliveries, discussed with the American president, focused mainly on the improvement of the attack capabilities and precision of the Israeli Air Force.

Fifth, diplomatic initiatives and UN sanctions when it comes to Iran are seen as hopelessly ineffective.

And sixth, with the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty about his successor’s policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action is seen as potentially closing.

The last two factors carry special weight. While Israeli military intelligence is on record as saying that Iran is expected to cross the red line on the path to nuclear power between 2010 and 2015 at the earliest, the feeling in Israel is that the political window of opportunity to attack is now, during the last months of Bush’s presidency.

In the meantime, Israel is preparing for its next genocidal assault on Gaza, “nearing the day of reckoning in the Gaza Strip” as Defense Minister Ehud Barak is quoted as saying.

With all the warnings of an impending attack on Iran, the Bush-Israel axis isn’t even going to bother with a coordinated propaganda campaign to rally the masses for the bombing, not with Bush’s historically low job rating. They know it won’t work again this time. So instead they’re just going to try to shut down the dissenting media, launch their attack, control the flow of information and the fascist state apparatus will get the support after the fact. They may be picking on sott.net to see how fast it can recover before moving on to the all bigger sites. Or could this whole thing be a “cover” for something else? Who knows? One thing is for certain, it’s not just the Chinese who can hack into a computer network. Consider this recent exercise to bring down a network.

But they can’t just launch an attack (well, they could). Even the “frightening monster” has its own image of itself to uphold. No, their plans are more devious, but don’t look to the US media to uncover this story. Remember Valerie Plame and the forged Niger documents that the Bush cartel used to justify the invasion of Iraq, where now more than 1 million Iraqis have been killed. The Washington Post thinks the only reason Cheney leaked her identity was nepotism:

The CIA sent Wilson’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to assess reports that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material for weapons there. He concluded that the reports were groundless. Later, when Bush and his aides repeated them anyway, the former envoy accused the president of twisting his findings to justify the invasion.

Prosecutors maintained that administration officials, including Libby, leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity and CIA position to insinuate that the agency had chosen Joseph Wilson for the Niger mission because of nepotism. Defense attorneys said Libby had not sought to deceive investigators but had innocently misremembered what he knew and said about Valerie Wilson because she was insignificant to him.

Unmentioned by the Post’s story (but not surprisingly) is that Valerie Plame was working specifically on Iran as a clandestine CIA officer to counter nuclear proliferation. Her outing caused significant damage to U.S. national security.

One former counterintelligence official described the CIA’s reasons for not seeking Congressional assistance on the matter as follows: “[The CIA Leadership] made a conscious decision not to do a formal inquiry because they knew it might become public,” the source said. “They referred it [to the Justice Department] instead because they believed a criminal investigation was needed.”

The source described the findings of the assessment as showing “significant damage to operational equities.”

…

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to “ten years” in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson’s identity.

So the arm of the CIA directly involved to counter nuclear proliferation in the Middle East has been shut down for ten years. Well, you can’t have a bomb without blue prints.

Alarm about the sale of nuclear know-how follows the disclosure that the Swiss government, allegedly acting under US pressure, secretly destroyed tens of thousands of documents from a massive nuclear smuggling investigation. The information was seized from the home and computers of Urs Tinner, a 43-year-old [S]wiss engineer who has been in custody for almost four years as a key suspect in the nuclear smuggling ring run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani metallurgist who in 2004 admitted leaking nuclear secrets and is under house arrest in Islamabad.

…

While the Swiss government maintains the treasure trove of nuclear intelligence was destroyed for reasons of national security, the Americans may have been involved because Tinner is believed to have also been working for the CIA. Albright said Tinner was recruited by the American agency from 1999-2000.

…

“The Swiss were doing other people’s dirty work,” said an international official familiar with the investigation into the Khan network. “The allegation is that Urs was on the CIA payroll for a very large sum of money.”

Olli Heinonen, deputy director general at the IAEA, has led the investigation into the Khan network for years. Last year his office sought and gained access to the Tinner files and some of his officials were also summoned to witness their destruction.

The Americans were also present, according to the international official. “The Americans were involved in the destruction. They were calling the shots,” he said. The IAEA refused to comment publicly on the case. A former senior IAEA official said: “I am quite astonished. It’s very unusual to see people destroying documents like this. They should be put somewhere very safe.

It now appears that there’s a concerted effort by the Bush/Cheney underworld to have a nuclear bomb go off somewhere and blame it on Iran.

The involvement of the CIA in the black market sale of nuclear secrets was revealed by whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish language translator for the FBI following the 9/11 attacks. According to her:

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.”

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

“If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said.

And what does the US do about nuclear black market whistleblowers?

A senior customs investigator could face prosecution under the Official Secrets Act over suspicions that he exposed how US and British intelligence agencies interfered in his attempts to halt an international nuclear smuggling ring.

Police and officials from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) have searched the home of Atif Amin for evidence that he passed classified information to the American authors of a book about the worldwide nuclear proliferation network.

Amin was in charge of Operation Akin, an investigation into links between British companies and the illegal network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani scientist who helped build that country’s nuclear arsenal.

The investigation is the subject of a book recently published in the US, America and the Islamic Bomb: The Deadly Compromise. Its authors, David Armstrong and Joseph Trento, contend that in 2000 Amin uncovered evidence in Dubai of the Khan network’s involvement in establishing Libya’s nuclear programme but was ordered to drop his inquiries and return home, at the request of the CIA and MI6.

The Libyan programme and the Khan network were not exposed and halted until 2003. The book argues that in the intervening three years the network continued to sell nuclear technology and possibly weapons designs to Iran, North Korea and possibly other countries, under the noses of US and British intelligence.

It quotes a frustrated Amin as telling colleagues: “They knew exactly what was going on all the time. If they’d wanted to, they could have blown the whistle on this long ago.”

Another interestingly timed revelation is that ‘Halliburton sold nuke components to Iran‘. When one examines things a little more closely, it appears that these are only nuclear power reactor components, not weapons, and were sold to a private oil company. However, once the shouting starts, no one will care. It smacks of a trail of recrimination being setup in advance, to be revealed at the right emotionally-loaded moment. One can imagine the reaction: “See? that’s where they got ‘em!”. Of course the revelation would be ‘embarrassing’, but would still coincidentally serve the anti-Iran agenda.

This is rather reminiscent of other mind-boggling ‘mistakes’ in the handling of deadly weaponry, such as when ballistic missile parts were “mistakenly” shipped to Taiwan, or when a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. Perhaps this is the idea, to create the meme of weapons-handling incompetence? In this way Western weapons of mass destruction can be used in a clandestine operation anywhere, whilst being plausibly attributed to whatever faction is desired. In the meantime they can purge the ranks of the disloyal in preparation for the bombing and use these ‘mistakes’ as the publicly stated reasons to do it.

The black ops program to set off a nuclear bomb somewhere in the West and blame it on Iran or some other cartoonish “Axis of Evil” character to justify future wars of aggression is well established and going as planned.

Update: Air Force leadership quits over nuclear (and other) issues

Source: Kristin Roberts, News Daily.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday the Air Force’s top two officials resigned after incidents that raised questions about the security of America’s nuclear weapons and parts.

Defense officials said the two were effectively fired amid mounting strain between the Air Force and the Pentagon over spending priorities and other issues. A senior U.S. defense official tied the decision directly to the findings of an investigation into the U.S. military’s mistaken shipment of fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan.

Gates said Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, the top civilian and military leaders, had submitted their resignations and that he had accepted them.

He told a press briefing that he would recommend replacements for Wynne and Moseley at a later time.

Meanwhile, Gates said former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger would head a senior level task force to “recommend improvements necessary to ensure that the highest levels of accountability and control are maintained in the stewardship of nuclear weapons.”

Both Wynne and Moseley were asked to resign, and both have submitted their resignations, an official said.

The resignations follow a string of embarrassing incidents for the Air Force.

“Over the last several months, you could sense that some change was coming and probably people would be fired,” said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute.

In August 2007, an Air Force bomber mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads flew across the United States. The Air Force fired a commander in response, but lawmakers criticized what they saw as a lack of accountability.

Senior Pentagon officials raised concerns about the issue as recently as last week, said one source familiar with the discussions.

NUCLEAR PROBE WAS CRITICAL OF AIR FORCE

Concern about the security of U.S. nuclear and nuclear-related equipment escalated in March when the Pentagon admitted the erroneous fuse shipment to Taiwan in 2006. The U.S. military never caught that error, which was brought to light by Taiwanese authorities.

Disloyalty purge before the bombing of Iran? Air Force leadership in shake-up

Source: Robert Burns, Associated Press.

U.S. officials are saying that the military and civilian chiefs of the Air Force are resigning.

Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down.

A public announcement was expected later in the day. There was no immediate word on who would be nominated to replace Moseley and Wynne.

The Air Force has endured a number of embarrassing setbacks over the past year. In August, for instance, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. The pilot and crew were unaware they had nuclear arms aboard.

The error was considered so grave that President Bush was quickly informed.

Mainstream News: Bush “misused” Iraq intelligence: Senate report

Why can’t they just say Bush lied? Just tell the truth for once!

As reported in Yahoo “News.”

President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq’s arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that “led the nation to war on false premises,” said the committee’s Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a “partisan exercise.”

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush’s and Cheney’s assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq’s weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

“Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.”

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld’s comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.

“The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship,” the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report “has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise.” They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and “it was the intelligence that was faulty.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we’ve taken measures to fix it.”

PUBLIC SUPPORT

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush’s popularity.

The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration’s record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush’s get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran’s nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration’s handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a “fundamental disdain” for other intelligence agencies.

Confirmation from Senate Intel. Committee (finally): Bush lied about Iraq

Source: America Blog.

This should be a big boost to John McCain’s effort to secure a third term for George Bush.

The Senate Intelligence Committee finally issued its report on prewar intelligence during build up to the Iraq War — and in the very nice language of the U.S. Senate — the report confirms that Bush lied to the American people about the Iraq War:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Republican Senators fought very hard to prevent the release of this intel report back in 2004 to insure Bush’s re-election. And, they wouldn’t release this report back in 2006 to protect their own re-elections. All that delay has resulted in the release of this report in 2008 — leaving John McCain to defend the Bush Iraq war agenda. In some ways, it was worth the wait.

NEW ‘SCARF’ PROPOSED FOR DUNKIN’ DONUTS’ AD

Source: Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic.

Dunkin’ Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachael Ray got herself in trouble with certain segments of the blogging community for wearing what appears to be a keffiyeh in an ad for iced coffee. With the help of resident Atlantic design genius Jason Treat, I propose the following costume change to help Ray avoid any future Middle East-related wardrobe malfunctions:

Of course, this will lead to a boycott of Dunkin’ Donuts across large sections of the Muslim world, but, on the other hand, Jews eat a lot of doughnuts.

Mercury teeth fillings may harm some: U.S. FDA

“May harm”? That’s rich. Hopefully in another twenty years they’ll ban it altogether like they’ve done in Europe. But I’m not holding my breath.

Source: Susan Heavey, Yahoo News.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Silver-colored metal dental fillings contain mercury that may cause health problems in pregnant women, children and fetuses, the Food and Drug Administration said on Wednesday after settling a related lawsuit.

As part of the settlement with several consumer advocacy groups, the FDA agreed to alert consumers about the potential risks on its website and to issue a more specific rule next year for fillings that contain mercury, FDA spokeswoman Peper Long said.

Millions of Americans have the fillings, or amalgams, to patch cavities in their teeth.

“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” the FDA said in a notice on its Web site.

“Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner,” the agency said.

The FDA said it did not recommend that people who currently have mercury fillings get them removed.

The FDA must issue the new rules in July 2009, Long said.

Such a rule could impact makers of metal fillings, which include Dentsply International Inc and Danaher Corp unit Kerr.

The new rule will give the agency “special controls (that) can provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the product,” Long said.

The lawsuit settlement was reached on Monday with several advocacy groups, including Moms Against Mercury, which had sought to have mercury fillings removed from the U.S. market.

While the FDA previously said various studies showed no harm from mercury fillings, some consumer groups contend the fillings can trigger a range of health problems such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. In 2006, an FDA advisory panel of outside experts said most people would not be harmed by them, but said the agency needed more information.

Mercury has been linked to brain and kidney damage at certain levels. Amalgams contain half mercury and half a combination of other metals.

Charles Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups called Consumers for Dental Choice, said the agency’s move represented an about-face. “Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” he said in a statement.

J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. analyst Ipsita Smolinski said the FDA is not likely to outright ban the fillings next year but will probably call for restrictions.

“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski wrote in a research note on Wednesday.

Fewer patients have been opting for mercury fillings in recent years, instead choosing lighter options such as tooth-colored resin composites.

Only 30 percent of fillings given to patients were mercury-filled ones as of 2003, according to the American Dental Association (ADA). Other options include glass cement and porcelain as well as other metals such as gold, but they cost more and are less durable, the group has said.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; editing by Carol Bishopric)

Bernanke’s Attempt to Jawbone or Verbally Manipulate the Markets

Bob Chapman says that gold price suppression is JOB ONE at the Fed—I think there’s a lot of manipulation going on behind the scenes. However, it can only work for so long.

From Mark OByrne’s article, “Gold Continues to Consolidation” in The Market Oracle.

While the dollar rose and gold fell during and after Bernanke’s attempt to talk up the dollar and bolster confidence in the increasingly fragile U.S. economy, no amount of jawboning by Bernanke or anyone else will help rectify the huge fundamental headwinds facing the U.S. economy in the face of a housing crash, huge deficits, huge credit and systemic risks and the increasing reality of stagflation.

Bernanke’s comments follow the now familiar refrain of sanguine complacency and a fear of calling a spade a spade and dealing in financial and economic reality. His comments that the dollar “remains strong and stable” will be seen as odd by some and laughable by more astute market observers.

Gold has a habit of falling when Federal Reserve Chairman speak and this often occurred under Greenspan’s watch in the early stages of the gold bull market. This led some to come to erroneous notions based on very short term market moves. (Short term speculators tend to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs at positive spin by Federal Reserve, Treasury and government spokespeople and other insubstantial twaddle rather than focussing on economic reality). Conspiracy theorists will say that today’s action looked likely to have been the ‘invisible hand’ of the market in the form of the President’s Working Group in Financial Markets – intervening and manipulating the dollar and gold markets in order to attempt to contain inflation and inflation expectations, maintain faith in the dollar and in the U.S. economy. Bernanke’s comments are unlikely to have much of an affect, if any, and if they were to have an affect, we will only know by the close of trade today and in the coming days and weeks.

Again despite all the talk of the dollar surging on Bernanke’s comments, the truth is that the dollar only surged versus the EUR of all the major currencies. While the dollar was up by some 0.65% against the EUR, it is notable that the dollar was actually flat vis a vis GBP and weaker by this amount and more against the CAD, JPY and CHF.

Unfortunately for us all, the U.S. economy will not find redemption in any amount of spin from the new Federal Reserve Chairman or any of the other economic cheerleaders who refuse to deal in economic reality. Indeed, moral hazard and false hope and false sense of security is all that is achieved and the inevitable day of reckoning while postponed will be made all the more painful when it inevitably comes. none.

IRS Made 4.5 BILLION Disclosures of Taxpayer Info to Government Agencies in 2007

Source: TaxProf Blog.

Joint Tax Committee Releases Report on IRS Disclosures of Tax Return Information, 2007

The Joint Committee on Taxation yesterday released Disclosure Report for Public Inspection Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(p)(3)(C) for Calendar Year 2007 (JCX-47-08). Here is the Introduction:

Section 6103(p)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall, within 90 days after the close of each calendar year, furnish to the Joint Committee on Taxation for disclosure to the public a report which provides with respect to each Federal agency and certain other entities the number of: (1) requests for disclosure of returns and return information (as such terms are defined in § 6103(b)); (2) instances in which returns and return information were disclosed pursuant to such requests or otherwise; and (3) taxpayers whose returns, or return information with respect to whom, were disclosed pursuant to such requests. In addition, the report must describe the general purposes for which such requests were made.

Pursuant to § 6103(p)(3)(C), the IRS prepared a disclosure report for public inspection covering calendar year 2007. This document sets forth the report of the IRS.

The report reveals that the IRS made 4.5 billion disclosures of tax return information to federal and state agencies. Here are the Top 5 recipients of taxpayer information:

1. States: 3,056,204,124 disclosures
2. Bureau of Census: 1,168,111,972 disclosures
3. Congressional Committees: 232,647,366 disclosures
4. Medicare Premium Subsidy Adjustment: 35,709,109 disclosures
5. Child Support Enforcement Agencies: 12,788,428 disclosures

CHOICE IN NOVEMBER: NADER VS. TWEEDLE DEE OR TWIDDLE DUM

I don’t know if Nader would make a good president, but the points made about Obama are right on.

By Stephen Lendman, CYRANO’S JOURNAL.

Change we can all believe in. Right! And I have a Brooklyn Bridge I’d like to show you.

Each election cycle, hope springs eternal. Candidates promise change and voters buy it. Intelligent ones. People who know better or should. The current campaign highlights it. A surge is building for Obama, not for what he is. For what people think or hope he is – a populist, progressive, man of the people, a new course for America.

After the final June 3 primaries and “rush of superdelegates,” according to The New York Times, they’re stuck with him. The Times reports that he crossed “over the threshold (to) the 2118 delegates needed to be nominated….” Obama marked the occasion as his chance to “bring a new and better day to America (as) the ‘Democratic’ nominee for president of the United States of America.”

It’s not how John Pilger sees him. In a recent article, he calls him America’s “great liberal hope.” He compares his campaign to Bobby Kennedy’s in 1968 and says: “Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans.” Kennedy spoke of “return(ing) government to the people” and giving “dignity and justice” to the oppressed. “Obama is his echo” with familiar promises of change, charting a new course, sweeping government reforms, addressing people needs, and “ensur(ing) that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists.”

He claims to be an up from the grassroots activist. In fact, he cashed in on opportunism all the way – to the Illinois Senate in 1996. Then after failing to win a US House seat, it was up a notch to the Senate in 2005 after his November 2004 election. He promised hope but delivered betrayal. He’s beholden to power and doesn’t relate well to ordinary constituents who backed him, including his black community base.

If he’s nominated and wins in November, Marc Crispin Miller’s “Fooled Again” will apply but in this case to promises made, then broken. Miller’s book refers to the stolen 2004 presidential election. Kerry won big, Bush remained president, Kerry admitted to the author he knew he’d been had, then disavowed he ever said it in reverse “profile of courage” fashion.

An Obama victory will go Lincoln one better. It’ll prove that the electorate can be fooled “all of the time” – at least enough of them to matter. And that leaves out election fraud in an age when:

• candidates are pre-selected;

• big money owns them;

• independents are shut out;

• the media ignore them;

• they keep people uninformed;

• issues aren’t addressed;

• voter disenfranchisement is rife;

• machines do our voting;

• losers are declared winners; and

• not just for president. It’s democracy American-style, a long-standing tradition, and Chicagoans know it well. They remember an earlier mayor urging people to “vote early and often.” They also recall the pol who “want(ed) to be buried in Chicago (when he died) so (he could) stay active in politics.”

In an age of technological wonders, why not. The Democrat machine is so entrenched, it hasn’t had real opposition since Republican mayor “Big Bill” Thompson lost to Democrat Anton Cermak in 1931. And the Daleys (father and son) practically own the office it’s controlled for 40 of the last 53 years with no visible contender in sight and a new generation upcoming.

The only man truly WORTH voting for, assuming that our votes did count, which is a mighty iffy proposition.

On the national level, it’s just as bad – a one party state according to Gore Vidal: the Property or Monied Party with two wings. Ralph Nader calls them a “two-party (twiddle dee v. twiddle dum) dictatorship.” So do others, yet most people buy the rhetoric and ignore the evidence. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. Democrats are interchangeable with Republicans. Differences between them are minor. Not a dime’s worth to matter. Whoever wins in November, the outcome is certain. Voters again will lose. They’ll get the best democracy money can buy but none of it earmarked for them.

Wars of aggression won’t end. Repressive laws won’t be repealed. Corruption will stay deeply embedded. Privatizing everything will be de rigueur. Monied interests will be hugely rewarded. Militarizing and annexing the continent will go forward. Voter interests will go largely unaddressed. And promises made will again prove empty. Here’s a sampling from the Nader-Gonzales ‘08 web site. It mentions “Twelve Issues that Matter for 2008,” where the candidates stand on them, and Nader, Obama/Clinton and McCain columns showing “on” or “off” the table:

• National health insurance: Nader on; the others off; Nader favors a single-payer, government-funded, “private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public insurance system;” the need is critical at a time health care costs are soaring; many can’t afford them; millions are uninsured; millions more underinsured; and Democrats and Republicans are dismissive and beholden to providers that fund them;

• Wasteful military spending: Nader on; the others off; America spends more on defense and security than all other nations combined – a conservatively estimated annual $1.1 trillion with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and miscellaneous related allocations included at a time the country has no visible enemies; it threatens world security and the nation by heading it for fiscal insolvency or worse;

• No to nuclear power and yes to solar: Nader on; the others off; Nader opposes Big Oil subsidies and ones for nuclear, electric, coal mining and biofuel interests; he advocates a sustainable energy policy that includes renewables like wind and solar;

• Corporate crime and welfare: Nader on; the others off; the issue – hundreds of billions to corporate coffers; taxpayers fund them; hundreds of thousands “injured and sickened each year by preventable corporate-bred violence;” unsafe products; medical negligence; harmful pollution; public corruption and financial fraud; politicians ignore it; so will the three leading contenders; ordinary people are acutely affected;

• Open presidential debates: Nader on; the others off; independents are shut out; free, fair, and open elections aren’t possible; real democracy is denied; big money assures it; the criminal class is empowered; and people are left out;

• A carbon pollution tax: Nader on; the others off; he fears the planet is overheating; calls the danger great; greenhouse gases must be curbed; and making them more expensive is how;

• Changing Middle East policy; ending two illegal wars; Palestinian repression as well: Nader on; the others off; he proposes rapidly withdrawing troops from Iraq; setting a six month timetable; resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equitably; ending the Gaza siege; supporting a two-state solution; and being forthrightly committed to Middle East peace;

• Impeaching Bush/Cheney: Nader on, the others off; he cites constitutional law experts saying the president and vice-president are guilty of at least “five categories” of “high crimes and misdemeanors;” they should be impeached and removed from office; Congress is responsible; failing to act affronts the Constitution, international law and citizenry;

• Repealing anti-labor Taft-Hartley law: Nader on; the others off; it harmed workers for 60 years; it undermined the landmark Wagner Act of 1935 that guaranteed labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management for the first time ever; those rights no longer exist; restoring them is essential;

• Enacting a Wall Street securities speculation tax: Nader on; the others off; speculation is rampant; multi-trillions of dollars are involved; public welfare is harmed; instability increased; the economy damaged; and “free market” deregulation allows it; it favors wealth over people;

• Ending ballot access abstructionism: Nader on; the others off; he favors “one federal standard for federal ballot access” in all states; it must be simple and fair to all candidates; efforts to exclude independents must be stopped; current laws obstruct democratic governance; they further disenfranchise voters; and

• Ending corporate personhood; the Supreme Court granted it in 1886; it gave corporations the same constitutional rights as people and allowed them to grow to their present size and dominance: Nader on; the others off.

Nader’s site states that “these twelve issues represent the tip of the political iceberg.” But they show how big money controls both parties. Without change, democratic governance is impossible, and that, for Nader (in a May 31 Wall Street Journal interview), is today’s “central” political issue – “the domination of corporations over our elections, and over so many things where commercial values used to be verboten -commercializing childhood….universities (nearly everything). What’s happened in the last 25 years is an overwhelming swarm of commercial supremacy (and) Obama has bought into that.”

Obama’s Record – The Measure of the Man

He preaches change but supports the status quo. He’s beholden to power as a stealth DLC member that’s essential for any Democrat aspirant. It makes him gallingly disingenuous, deceitful to voters, and “safe” for corporate supporters who back him. He says individual donors supply most of his funding, that he gets none of it from lobbyists, and that they won’t crowd out working Americans if he’s elected.

In fact, big money owns him. He raises over $1 million a day. Wall Street lords love him. So do corporate law firms; other finance, insurance and real estate interests; the health industry; communications and electronics firms; various other businesses; and the Center for Responsive Politics reports that his top five donors are corporate lobbyists – the same ones he claims to take no money from.

He preaches opposition to NAFTA and wants it renegotiated. It’s a “charade” says Nader. “There’s no way he’ll touch NAFTA or WTO.” His health care plan puts insurance companies in charge and lets Big Pharma price-gouge consumers. He’s beholden to corporate interests. “If he wins, his appointments will give “lobbies and PACs (what they) want.” He knows how Washington works; was fully briefed to be sure; and he “made his peace with that.” He’s a political animal like the others. Big money is comforted, and why not. No one gets top Washington jobs unless they’re “safe.” For president, it’s practically a blood oath, and Obama qualifies.

Nader dissects his record. He’s party line all the way, not a “transforming leader,” and his running mate, Matt Gonzales, goes further. He calls his voting record “uninspired.” Appalling would be more descriptive. While still in the Illinois legislature, he opposed the Iraq war. Then as a 2004 US Senate candidate, he switched and claimed “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s….” When elected, he proved it. He supported every defense budget and war supplemental and as president will “expand and modernize the military.” He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her falsifying justification for war. There’s more. He:

• supports Homeland Security funding; like the Patriot Act, it centralizes unprecendented military and law enforcement authority under the executive; it subverts constitutional rights and furthers global dominance in the name of “national security;” it created the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) that functions like a national Gestapo;

• backed reauthorizing the Patriot Act in July 2005 with its police state provisions;

• campaigned in 2006 for Joe Lieberman against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont;

• supports permanent occupation of Iraq; stops just short of saying it; refuses to back a timetable for withdrawal; and wants to add 100,000 combat troops to the military;

• caved to Israeli Lobby pressure; receptive to attacking Iran, removing Hugo Chavez, but says he’ll talk to them first; then maybe not; he’s double standard on most issues – rhetoric to voters; assurances to backers;

• in a May 23 speech, showed deference to Miami’s Cuban exile community; one source described him as “electrifying;” a year ago he supported ending the embargo; no longer unless Cuba becomes a willing client state;

• voted with Republicans for the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); it gives federal courts jurisdiction over fairer state ones for many class-action lawsuits over $5 million; corporations wanted it; Obama obliged;

• equivocates on controversial issues like “No Child Left Behind;” it’s a corporate scheme to privatize education and end a 373 year tradition; he says the law “demoralizes our teachers (but) the goals of this law were the right ones” – translation: he supports ending public education;

• opposed an amendment capping credit card interest rates at 30%; it was wholly inadequate but would have set a precedent to lower them further;

• acted so much like Republicans, he’s one of them on most issues:

• supporting medical providers in wrongful injury cases;

• letting mining companies strip mine everything; practically steal government lands to do it; and cheat taxpayers out of public revenues;

• voted for the Bush administration’s 2005 Energy Policy Act in spite of criticizing it in campaign rhetoric; it was drafted in secret; provides huge industry subsidies; $6 billion to Big Oil and Gas; and a cornucopia of other industry handouts;

• backs nuclear power; loose industry regulation; $12 billion in subsidies; and numerous other benefits to promote a dangerous technology;

• harmful biofuels production and other agribusiness interests, including multi-billion dollar subsidies;

• opposes universal single-payer national health care, the hundreds of billions it would save, and the huge need for it among tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured;

• claims opposition to NAFTA, but campaigned in 2004 for more deals like it;

• voted against a 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill amendment; it would have disfavored offshoring jobs by stopping companies doing business abroad from denying workers organizing rights, minimum wages, and other protections;

• assured AIPAC he’s uncompromisingly pro-Israel; supports continued annual funding; and backed off from earlier promises about a just end to the conflict;

• supports the death penalty and brutish prison-industrial complex; it affects his people mostly in the world’s largest gulag;

• voted for repressive immigration legislation; it enhances border security; (selectively) penalizes employers; deploys National Guard troops to the border; and imprisons and deports undocumented workers without due process;

• voted to confirm Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, and Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security – a deplorable roguish threesome;

• voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 but supports kangaroo court military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees;

• appointed billionaire Penny Pritzker as his campaign finance chairperson; she and her family were involved in predatory lending schemes, including subprime ones; she also served on the Board of the failed Pritzker family-owned Superior Bank in Hinsdale, IL; because of poor lending practices, sloppy bookkeeping and likely fraud, it cost the FDIC $700 million and depositors $65 million;

• equivocates but his rhetoric and body language are clear; he supports the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959); it’s called the “thought crimes” act; it passed the House overwhelmingly last October and awaits final resolution in the Senate;

• firmly opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney, and

• on June 1 matched John Kerry with his own reverse “profile of courage” act; he resigned from Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ; it followed “controversy” over Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s nobility; he spoke truths too “uncomfortable” for Obama to embrace; he demurred at first and now is firm; political opportunism outweighs righteousness as prime time campaign 2008 approaches;

This is the same JFK/RFK incarnate, a fresh new face, the “great liberal hope,” the smooth-talking campaigner who understands who butters his bread. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. Never for Nader, and it’s why he’s disdained. He’s beholden to people, not entrenched interests; the rarest of political candidates – an anti-politician who says what he means and means what he says and has lifetime achievements to prove it. From his web site:

– one of the 20th century’s 100 Most Influential Americans according to Time magazine;

– over four decades of public service; organized millions of citizens; and formed over 100 public interest groups;

– from his 1965 “Unsafe at Any Speed” book (the first of many plus numerous articles), he helped “create a framework of laws, regulatory agencies, and federal standards that have improved the quality of life for two generations of Americans;”

– he was instrumental in enacting OSHA, the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act;

– in 1969, he founded the Center for Study of Responsive Law; staffed mostly by students, they became known as “Nader’s Raiders” – activists on numerous consumer issues;

– he also founded the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Clean Water Action Project, Disability Rights Center, Pension Rights Center, Project for Corporate Responsibility, and Multinational Monitor on corporate practices internationally;

– for the last decade, he’s been in three presidential races for a common purpose – to empower people over privilege; and

– his achievements are impressive – safer cars, healthier food, cleaner air and water, and safer work environments; yet he’s only scratched the surface and at age 74 keeps working for the public interest and social justice.

He’s what everyone in government should be, but few ever are. It’s why he’s shut out, largely ignored, even insulted like the Journal did on May 31. Disdainfully, it called him a “spoiler” despite its half opinion page interview – but for its low readership Saturday edition with a disparaging dour (somewhat threatening) image to highlight it.

He’s denied participation in presidential debates, and in 2000 was threatened with arrest and expelled from the grounds for even showing up. He’s kept off ballots, and in 2004 filed suit. He charged the DNC with conspiring to keep him from taking votes from John Kerry and trying to bankrupt his campaign by suing to deny him ballot entry in 18 states. It’s how independent candidates are treated when they’re prominent figures like Nader. It reflects the sorry state of democracy and tyranny of a “two-party dictatorship;” of money over people; of empowered interests over public service; of the common good nowhere in sight. It’s a process begging for change, the heart of Nader’s activism, and reason he’s running – to spread the word at the most perilous time in world history. If not here, where? If not now, when? If not him or others like him, who?

Stephen Lendman, a Senior Contributing Editor to Cyrano’s Journal Online and its Chief Book Editor, is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are archived for easy listening.