In Geneva, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki condemned "unjustified propaganda" about its program.

"Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and has never diverted towards prohibited activities," Mottaki told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament.

But, he added, Iran is willing to continue talks with the IAEA.

"We are willing to continue with negotiations and also continue with our sincere and constructive cooperation with the agency," Mottaki told reporters. "Our cooperation with the agency will continue."

He is a living museum of corruption, and in a way it is altogether too bad that he is about to disappear from public scrutiny. In a hilariously tardy attempt to attend to his moral self-image, lately he has been repackaging himself as a fallen prophet, a humbled super-Jew who was guilty only of going too far to serve God. He was the "softest touch in town," he has said, a sucker for causes who "incorrectly didn't follow the mitzvah of giving away at most twenty percent." Then he shows up a few weeks before sentencing with his cock wedged in the mouth of an adoring Vanity Fair reporter, claiming with a straight face that his problems came from trying to "save the world."

Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.

The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

It's apparently really easy to change the aims and justify the war crimes of a 1000 year old war.  I wonder how well the Nazi pope could spin a 60 year old war?  Maybe then everyone would think his participation in the Nazi Youth was for a "noble aim" too.

Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi Moghaddam accused U.S. and British intelligence services of encouraging Iranian rebels to attack people, the official Iranian news agency reported.

Rebels posing as policemen and soldiers stopped people and killed them on a road in Sistan-Baluchestan province, which borders Pakistan and Afghanistan, the agency quoted Moghaddam as saying."

"Moghaddam said the police had information indicating that U.S. and British intelligence agents had met representatives of rebels, but he gave no details.

“It appears that a plan to create instability and religious hatred, similar to the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Sammara (in Iraq), is being pursued here,” the news agency quoted Moghaddam as saying."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11872808/

It looks like the money appropriated to spread the seeds of democracy in Iran is being used effectively.  I'm sure the best way to convince the people of Iran to oust their elected leader would be to have rebel groups dress up like police officers and kill scores of people.  That seems like a fool proof plan.  I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong.

Even if you do not buy that the US is having rebels attack Iranian people, do you not think the over publicized fact that we are spending millions of dollars over there to stir up dissent to overthrow the government may have the effect of looking that way to the Iranians?  If it is just an isolated group of drug runners like the author suggests, it doesn't make a difference if the Iranian people think we are behind it.  By continuing our animosity towards the Iranians, we help create these situations of paranoia among the Iranian people.  If we had a foreign policy of diplomacy and not aggression, do you think this would ever be an issue? 

The number of Americans in arrears on their home loans rose to 4.7% in the fourth quarter, highest level since mid-2003.

Name: Nicholas Pisano
Hometown: Destin, FL

Old Navy guy here.  I just returned from interviewing and meeting returnees and refugees from the devastated part of the United States on no one's mind formerly known as the City of New Orleans (and environs) but more on that at another time. I write in response to John from Vermont, Major Bob and the good Master Chief.  As a retired senior Navy officer I have some direct experience with military topics.  My continued involvement comes in many ways. Most significantly my son recently left the Marine Corps and was in both the Afghanistan invasion and the drive into Baghdad.  My son-in-law served in Iraq as a "ground pounder" in the Army, having been called up from the Guard.  He's an inactive reserve member and is being called up again to the end of his obligation to be sent back to Iraq. 

Military members are like everyone else, especially a professional military in times like this one, in which national survival is not at stake.  I can hear the howls now-but I challenge anyone to tell me how a well-financed terrorist organization of a couple of thousand members can threaten the nation to such an extent that an extraordinary and unprecedented consolidation of power in the executive and the violation of political rights and civil liberties (apart from the lies, corruption and abuse of power that seem to go hand-in-hand with these other actions) are necessary compared to, say, the Cold War where we faced the old Soviet Union with its sophisticated intelligence infrastructure, modern military and nuclear weapons that could (and we did come to the brink) wipe us off the map in a matter of minutes?  Or how it compares to World War II where both Japan and Germany-two of the largest economies and military powers in the world at the time-were dedicated to our destruction and waged total war against us?

This is a fake war manufactured by cowards to hide their insecurities and to make money. Nor do military members have the inside track on virtue or truth (which should be self-evident). Only in fascist countries is the military held to a higher level of respect or position than a citizen. When I served I was doing a job. It was one that I felt required the highest ethical and moral conduct since the authority given me as a senior officer was quite weighty: one that flowed from the laws of the land. It is a necessary discipline because we all are only people-other citizens---and possess the same weaknesses, which-apart from all of the other stupidities to which one can become susceptible-includes the ability to be corrupted by power. There are military people who try to do the right thing, who obey the laws of the land, are professional and compassionate-like Major Bob and the Master Chief.  But there are also those who commit crimes, abuse their authority and lead reprehensible lives.  This is aside from the run-of-the-mill idealists, bootlickers, politicians, opportunists and careerists. Like the society that creates it, the military is generally representative of that society in terms of human frailties and virtues.

These common sense observations should go without saying, but a mystique seems to have grown around our military placing its members beyond criticism, especially convenient to those who would use it for questionable ends.  The members of certain political and economic classes have aligned themselves with the military and, as a result, have through that alignment attempted to appropriate this mystique for their own gain.  Some military members have been all too happy to oblige, further compromising their own legitimacy.  Thus I think it is time to talk about the military tradition concerning the concept of accountability that seems to have been forgotten.

To the general public (and to the non-Sea Services) this is often and sadly a hard concept to grasp, but it is a necessary one for those who are given responsibility for decisions that can make the difference between life and death.  After all, the sea is unforgiving.  One who is given unique authority over others who falls short of what it takes needs to be removed from doing any more harm than he or she may have already caused. You can delegate responsibility to someone to achieve a particular goal but you, as a Commissioned Officer (or a President), cannot escape the judgment of accountability. For example, when you are given the "con" on a U.S. Navy ship, you are accountable for everything that happens during your watch.  No special pleading about conditions that may have existed before your assumption of that position will save you from harsh judgment should you run the ship aground, hazard your vessel unnecessarily or collide with another vessel. You voluntarily took the con and are expected to understand all important conditions prior to assuming command. Without accountability power lacks legitimacy and we are left with official lawlessness and despotism. The Master Chief, of all the writers, should know better and is being disingenuous when he shifts blame for 9/11 and other lapses of judgment and offenses committed by this Administration to previous ones.  I fault the 9/11 Commission for the same dishonesty.  The 9/11 attack, the cooked evidence for the Iraq invasion, the Katrina debacle, the abuse of power in domestic spying involving hundreds of thousands of Americans with no connection to al-Qaeda, the widespread corruption involving billions of dollars in misappropriated funds all occurred on the watch of this President. Some of these involved unforgivable acts of omission and others were acts of commission involving the abuse of power.

No one forced George W. Bush to be President. He pursued that office and insisted on taking it even when all indications were that such a claim lacked democratic legitimacy. He sought it a second time through artifice and ruthlessness, cynically knowing that the perspective of time and discovery would be too late to stop him from continuing to pursue these acts.  The judgment of the President's acts will play out in the political sphere, but there is another concern that I believe it is imperative that we understand.  That is, it is time for this standing and institutionalized volunteer military-which increasingly is being manipulated and used as a pawn by economic and political elites through a presumptuous executive branch-be brought back into the fold of democratic government through reform before it is too late and we suddenly realize that we have reason to fear it.

Q You noted a while ago the American tradition of welcoming immigrants. Many thousands of those immigrants, of course, have come from Iraq over the years, have become citizens. Can you confirm that this administration has undertaken a policy of targeting American citizens of Iraqi descent for special surveillance or other action in the run-up to potential war against Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, I'm aware of the news reports that your question is based on. And I'm not going to get into the accuracy of those news reports that are based on intelligence matters because, as you know, we don't speak about -- we don't discuss intelligence matters from the podium.

So without discussing any particular reports, I would go back and emphasize that we are going to do everything we can to protect the American people, but do so in a way that respects our Constitution, protects people's rights and is based on the law, and within the law. Yes, go ahead.

Q Well, if I may follow-up on that. It is not intelligence, it is a policy that would segregate certain American citizens for special treatment by law enforcement. And essentially, the President's answer is, trust me with your liberties. Which is fine, he seems like a trustworthy guy. But that's not the way the system works. The founding fathers set it up so the President is not the final arbiter of liberty. And one of the ways of checking potential abuses of power is the free flow of information. So I ask you, do Iraqi citizens -- American citizens of Iraqi descent have a right to know whether or not they're being targeted?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me make a couple of points. One, everything we do must and will be within the rule of law and within our Constitution. Everything we do will be consistent with the Constitution.

Q But how will we know?

MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on -- hold on. Let me make a few points. The war on terrorism came to our shores on September 11th in a very vivid and tragic way. Al Qaeda was responsible. We also know that there are sympathizers out there who also want to harm America. And that's why I made the point that the President's highest priority is the protection of the American people, and that we're going to do everything we can to continue protecting the American people. But we will do so consistent with our Constitution.

The FBI has investigative guidelines that are based on the law. They must adhere to the law and the Constitution. And when it comes to what you referenced, such as surveillance, searches and seizures, there are strict legal requirements regarding surveillance and searches and seizures -- requirements that are based on the Constitution and based on applicable law. And that includes the requirement that agents must obtain court orders. So the point I made that we are going to do everything consistent with the Constitution and with the law is based on those comments.

If, according to recent testimony by Atty. Gen. Gonzales, statements from the President himself, and press reports, the NSA wiretapping program had been authorized shortly after 9/11, or by some reports, before 9/11, then McClellan's statement on 11-18-2002 that the FBI and other law enforcement investigators were obtaining court orders to authorize their surveillance was a BIG FAT LIE!!!  Can we write the President and get this jack-ass fired for lying to the press on this and other occasions?  Do you really think he would  care?  I would just like to remind everyone that a free press, and a fair and open government is kind of a requirement for democracy.  If these things are not safeguarded by the will and actions of the people, we are all in danger of losing the freedoms we so loudly claim to love. 

Thanks to Fred for the link to the transcript.  I don't think that was what he intended me to find in it, but it was an interesting lie.  I'm sure you would find more instances of this kind of garbage if you had the stomach to sift through the old press briefings.  By the way, since he was lying about the court orders, I think it may be an even more frightening proposition that Iraqi Americans were being specifically targeted BEFORE the start of the war.  At least in WWII, the government waited until the war with Japan had actually started before they rounded up all of the Japanese Americans and shipped them off to concentration camps.  These bastards didn't even wait till the start of the war.  They were illegally spying on American citizens with racial bias before the war even started.  Bastards.