On November 21, 2005, US Department of Justice officials convened in the Russell Senate Office building for a presentation about this indirect terrorism generator and how US nonprofit money laundering could be stopped under existing criminal statutes.

However since 2005 the leadership of the US Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service and Terrorism and Financial Intelligence units have repeatedly rebuffed requests for investigation and related inquiries. For three years the Department of Justice Counterterrorism Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and New York based US Attorneys have formally refused to show investigatory interest in these publicly substantiated money laundering allegations. More

The government has gone easy on the AIPAC defendants, and their former employers. An apparent attempt was made by some in the Justice Department to indict not only Rosen and Weissman, but AIPAC itself. This was quashed by the chief prosecutor, Paul J. McNulty—who has since gone on to graze in greener pastures—and the case was limited from the outset: only Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman were charged.

As Grant F. Smith shows in his recent book, AIPAC's organizational forerunner as Israel's Capitol Hill amen corner—the AZC, American Zionist Council—was financed almost entirely by overseas sources, i.e. Israel, and yet was not required to register as an agent of a foreign government. Particularly fascinating is his original research into the findings of Senator J. William Fulbright, remembered today as an acerbic critic of the Vietnam war, who investigated and uncovered financial conduits running from Israeli government agencies to AIPAC in its AZC incarnation.

Everybody knows AIPAC is indeed an agent of a foreign government, i.e. the Israelis. What most don't know, however, is that, unlike all others, it is exempt from complying with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This immunity—the legal genesis of which Grant traces in his fascinating account—created an opening for the Israeli government and its various overseas agencies to act with impunity within our borders...More

Six decades ago Americans working as registered Israeli foreign agents launched New York, Washington and Los Angeles "Israel Office of Information (IOI)" branches. Newly declassified records document IOI actions that forever changed foreign government lobbying on Capitol Hill. The 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was strictly enforced at that time to shield the US Congress and American citizens from the effects of foreign propaganda and stealth lobbying. FARA required biannual disclosure of all propaganda activities on behalf of foreign principals to the DOJ. Beleaguered by reporting requirements and citations for deficient declarations, IOI director Isaiah L. Kenen coordinated shifting Israel lobbying away from FARA oversight, as he later noted in his book Israel's Defense Line... More

The U.S. Treasury Department will seriously consider the most prominent features of Islamic banking, a necessary step before attempting to effectively tap regional capital.  If successful, it could help address the financial crisis still coursing through the arteries of the global economy which has baffled a full spectrum of economic experts. The action represents a fundamental shift in perceptions about Islamic banking in the wake of efforts to stabilize financial flows during the global financial upheaval, forcing American officials to consider in depth principles that underpin Islamic banking while leaving behind caustic rhetoric linking this type of exchange with terrorism...

Daniel Best, an economic analyst with the Reuters news agency says a large number of Middle Eastern investors are reluctant to invest in U.S. financial markets after the attacks of September 11, 2001... They feared being unjustly linked to the activities of radical Islamic groups. Grant Smith, supervisor of the IRmep, an American research group focused on policy and bilateral US-Middle East economic development stressed the important principle of reciprocity between the Gulf and American investors,  "Regional investors have not yet forgotten the U.S. reaction to the Dubai Ports World proposal to invest and manage port facilities, which was nullified on the basis of vitriol and unfounded accusations."

"Sovereign wealth stock and investment funds are among the fastest growing sectors in the Islamic financial system.  If American government officials expect to tap their potential they first need to align themselves to basic precepts which underlie Islamic banking: high moral principles. At the present time, rebuilding confidence and returning to bilateral relations based on higher ethical standards are first steps toward improving capital flows."

RFI: In Iraq thousands of supporters of the influential cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gathered to demonstrate against the according being negotiated between Washington and Iraq that would extend the presence of US troops beyond its current mandate which expires at the end of the year.  The opposition believes this accord will perpetuate the US occupation.  Others insist that the government is becoming a puppet of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  This pact is not only polemical in Iraq, but also in the United States.  That's the opinion of Grant Smith, director of the IRmep in Washington DC.

Grant Smith: It is as controversial in the United States as it is in Iraq, particularly between the presidential candidates.  On this side of the Atlantic, the campaign of Barak Obama has apparently advised Iraq not to sign any agreement approved only by the administration before regime change in Washington.  In Baghdad, it is being seen as yet another extension of the right of foreign troops over the right of civilians, after so many problems particularly with unaccountable private military contractors and military tactics which have unfortunately wounded and killed many innocents .  I am very doubtful that the Bush administration will be able to sign, in their waning months, an accord of such a long duration, of such a concrete nature, that would impact and limit to such a degree the freedom of movement of an incoming administration.  Supplement early draft US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement [PDF]

Blankfort:  ...we see it yesterday in the debates playing out...

Smith: Right, everyone is reading from the script.  And, of course, some of the things you'd actually need to discuss within the context of all of this effort to demonize and portray Iran now as an immanent threat to the United States, some of the key factors you would have to discuss go right back to this period (the formation of AIPAC).  Well, what about Israel's nuclear weapons?  What about the fact that Jimmy Carter is the first former president to confirm that yes, in fact they do have their own arsenal?  An arsenal which, by the way, many of the same people around these earlier lobbies were active in financing and diverting attention from?  How can you have a discussion about regional non-proliferation if you don't even acknowledge the fact that this country has its own substantial arsenal?  The fact you can't be open or discuss any of these things is making the debate and making the presidential discussion of regional policy "other worldly" to say the least. Audio Download (MP3)

,,,The facilitating strategy for financing and supporting Israel in the United States was and continues to be media manipulation and denying relevant venues to dissenters.  Recognizing the influence of the corporate media, the Lobby executed a comprehensive public relations campaign in the 1960s funded by Israeli money involving "cultivation of editors" and public relations professionals, funding elite university professors, book publishing and grassroots local media pressure groups spread across the United States. This short but amazing 1962-1963 public relations document is reprinted in the appendix. Its many vestiges are still clearly visible in US mainstream media today... More

AIPAC and its associated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), were instrumental in lobbying the president for the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence unit early in 2004. The Israel lobby also vetted Stuart Levey who President Bush approved to lead the new unit. TFI claims to be "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats." However its actions--and more important, inactions--reveal it to be a sharp-edged tool forged principally to serve the Israel lobby.

TFI has taken no actions to undercut one nexus of money laundering in the Middle East unveiled in 2005 by Israeli prosecutor Talia Sasson and exposed by USA Today. Even mainstream print outlets such as Reuters continue to wonder aloud why US tax exemptions are offered for illegal overseas activities. Although Stuart Levey has made multiple official visits to Jerusalem to liaise with Israeli government officials, when formally asked under a Freedom of Information Act request to reveal how TFI was tackling the reported $50-$60 billion laundered from the US through Israel and into illegal West Bank settlements, TFI politely demurred.  TFI claims that Levey's US-taxpayer-funded missions to Israel must be kept secret from the American public in order to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act, which ironically is an anti-money-laundering law. This is not to say that TFI is a black box to everyone. Invited guests and members of WINEP have received many intimate briefings from TFI officials and consultants--possibly more than the entire US Congress. More

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden publicly chastised the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Wednesday. Accused of not backing AIPAC sponsored legislation, Biden told reporters, "They think they know the Senate better than I do. They don't know the Senate better than I do...AIPAC does not speak for the State of Israel."

The outspoken Senator Biden, often compared to president John F. Kennedy, is wrong. Newly declassified documents reveal that before his death, JFK's most pressing concerns were registering the Israel lobby as foreign government agents and inspections of the Israeli nuclear weapons program.

Isaiah L. Kenen worked as the registered foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Affairs in New York until he established what would become AIPAC in 1951. In his words, Kenen left because "Israelis began looking for a lobbyist to promote the necessary legislation...would I leave the Israeli delegation for six months to lobby for aid on Capitol Hill?" More

RFI: The White House has just revealed details about an accord to withdraw US troops from Iraq by the year 2011.
This information was released by an Iraqi negotiator who revealed the two countries had advanced negotiations including a clause that withdrawal would be accelerated, This is conditioned upon the posture of the next president of the United States, which will be determined at the voting box this fall. Grant Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy based in Washington DC with this analysis:

Grant Smith: Iraq's Maliki has always expressed a desire to define a US troop withdrawal. From the standpoint of Republicans, news of a definitive US troop withdrawal is good news for their efforts to retake the White House in fall. According to recent polls, a majority of American voters want the troops out. What needs to be examined with care are residual forces, and US military capabilities and how they might continue to be situated in "super bases" that are scattered throughout Iraq. On the Democratic side, Obama's main policy until now has been withdrawing from Iraq to resituate US forces in Afghanistan. Both candidates campaign within the so-called "War on Terror" issue framework. If the troop withdrawal is real, this means Obama's and McCain's major Middle East policy strategies, if not tactics, are now essentially identical.

The question as to whether withdrawal is simply a campaign-driven public relations effort or a bilateral agreement that will be enforced and verified is open.  We believe this is simply campaign driven rhetoric. [Editor's Note: in past news media appearances, IRmep has predicted that US troops will be stationed in Iraq for the next three decades] Update Draft US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement [PDF]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 -- More than one thousand documents released under Freedom of Information Act filings reveal details of a secret battle that raged between founders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and top US law enforcement officials. The new book "America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government" reproduces and analyzes these files and their troubling implications for rule of law in the United States. "America's Defense Line" also reveals stunning details of a preferential deal engineered within the highest levels of the US Department of Justice over the course of three years and implemented in 1965 -- but kept secret from the American public until today. Old documents and new analysis from the Center for Policy and Law Enforcement raise many questions about the upcoming October 2008 AIPAC espionage trial.  More

In 2005, Col. Lawrence Franklin was indicted alongside two executives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Franklin later pled guilty to passing AIPAC a classified presidential directive and other secrets concerning America's Iran policy. AIPAC then allegedly forwarded the highly sensitive information to Israeli government officials and selected members of Washington's media establishment. This covert leaking appears to be just one of many AIPAC programs designed to encourage tougher U.S. policies toward Iran, from financial boycotts to naval blockades and possibly even military strikes.

It hasn't worked out very well for Franklin. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Curiously, Franklin remains free pending the outcome of the repeatedly postponed criminal trial against AIPAC's Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. On Oct. 28, 2008, the prosecution is scheduled to appeal the ruling judge's order that it prove the alleged leaks harmed the United States. This is a far tougher standard of proof than the Espionage Act actually requires. Nevertheless, observers and critics hope the trial will provide insight into Middle East policy formulation, but there is diminished reason for this hope. A passel of musty documents from an earlier, long-secret Department of Justice attempt to hold the Israel lobby accountable was declassified on June 10, 2008. The files reveal that stalling tactics, and most critically, regime change in Washington, provide ample opportunity for the Israel lobby to subvert due process.  More

Signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was our very first FTA.  Nearly a quarter century of trade flowing under the agreement reveals a number of negative, yet entirely predictable outcomes.

Adjusted for inflation the agreement has delivered a $62.65 billion dollar cumulative American trade deficit with Israel.  Trade, roughly at parity before the agreement was penned, shifted in favor of Israeli exports to the US by the early 1990s.  This imbalance accelerated after the post 9/11 economic downturn. It is likely to be permanent.  Net losses follow unfavorable terms embedded in the treaty at the insistence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lead organization of Israel's lobby in the United States. 

The selection of Israel for the first agreement made little sense outside of AIPAC, important trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and even Colombia had much more to offer the US in terms of comparative advantage. However, AIPAC successfully pushed Israel to the front of the line.   It also worked to ban US agricultural exports, a key component of subsequent FTAs, from the agreement.  US manufacturing industries suffered similar strictures.  More

RFI: The United Status surprised many around the world when it announced that a high level official of the US State Department will for the first time attend international negotiations with Iran this coming weekend.

The Under Secretary of State William Burns will attend, along with top European Union diplomat Javier Solana, a planned meeting with the principal Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili Saturday in Geneva.

The objective of these contacts, other participants include France, Great Britain, Germany, Russia and China, is that Iran abandon its nuclear program which the West charges is for making atomic weapons.

Until now Washington rejected directly attending talks while Iran engaged in uranium enrichment. The participation of Burns represents a change. A change which has diverse explanations, according to Grant Smith, Director of the IRmep, a center of independent analysis headquartered in Washington.

RFI: How large and significant is this change. Does it represent a change in policy or a change in White House strategy?

Grant Smith: It is a forced change. We've seen Iran become very explicit about responding to threats: they will not accept a limited attack or an air raid, without burning down the entire region. They are now militarily committed to suspending all traffic in the Gulf. So it is now very clear that there is no way to incrementally raise the pressure on Iran with limited military strikes.

So Bush has two real options. Authorize a massive military attack comprised of forces much larger than he committed to Iraq, or return to the negotiating table. At this moment, they are opening maneuvering room, again for the first time, for the diplomatic option. It is because they have no other options. If they don't want to see petroleum reach a thousand dollars per barrel and see refining and transport infrastructure in the Gulf destroyed then they basically must sit down and talk.   More

The popular perception of the recently skyrocketing oil price is that there is an oil shortage in global energy markets. The perceived shortage is generally blamed on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries (OPEC) for "insufficient" production, or on countries like China and India for their increased demand for energy, or on both.

This perception is reinforced, indeed, largely shaped, by the Bush administration and its neoconservative handlers who are eager to deflect attention away from war and geopolitical turbulence as driving forces behind the skyrocketing energy prices. more

"I should add that I would resent anyone, George W. Bush or Shelly Rubin, telling me whom I can talk to and whom I can't talk to. I hope that we haven't reached that stage yet in our democracy.

There is, however, one small problem with one of Harriman's sources, Shelly Rubin, who is now head of the Jewish Defense League. Rubin is the widow of Irv Rubin, one of the founders of the JDL, which has been described by the FBI as a "violent extremist Jewish organization." One needs only to Google the Jewish Defense League for a list of the crimes it has committed within the United States, including being suspected by the FBI in the murder of one of my staff members - Alex Odeh - in Orange County, California. Her husband, Irv Rubin, was in jail when he died, charged with plotting to blow up a mosque in California, as well as an office of Congressman Darrell Issa. Asking Rubin about me would be very much like asking the Mafia if the FBI is being too tough on them." more

Bush administration fiscal and monetary policies have caused the value of the US dollar to plunge. This has driven international petroleum producers to seek options for trading their crude in more stable currencies, driving down demand for artificial dollar reserves. Skittish international investors are seeking safer and more responsible financial havens for investment.   Although generally underreported in the United States, the plunging value the dollar means Americans are suffering disproportionately from war induced inflation.  Over the past five years they've faced average yearly petroleum cost increases of 29% even as Congress passed subsidies spurring demand for the domestic manufacture of highly fuel inefficient vehicles.  Europeans experienced a more manageable 19% average annual petroleum price increase and more options created by heavy EU investment in non-automotive centric transportation infrastructure.

"No bombs Possible.  Meanwhile, many asked whether the Israel reactor could really produce sufficient plutonium, a nuclear weapon component, to construct a bomb.   Science editor William L Laurence of the New York Times deflated these reports, on Dec. 25, when he wrote that 'the plutonium produced in a small nuclear reactor of 24,000 thermal kilowatts is very minute indeed...and 'completely useless for bomb material.'  The basic facts, if fully understood, would make it clear why only great industrial nations, particularly the United States and Soviet Russia, can be full-fledged members of the 'atomic club.'"

Disclosures by Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu revealed that the reactor would ultimately be cooled and configured to operate at 120-150 megawatts, capable of producing enough enriched materials for up to 12 nuclear bombs per year. In March of 1968, the Mossad surreptitiously acquired 24 tons of uranium ore from West Germany, ostensibly bound for an Italian company, but illicitly diverted by sea to Israel. By 1969, Israel had quietly emerged as a full blown nuclear power. By 1979 the Israelis even tested a low yield nuclear artillery shell, which was detected by an American spy satellite despite the cloudy conditions. Not until 2008 would a former US president confirm for the first time that Israel had developed an arsenal of 150 nuclear weapons.  Isaiah Kenen and the Israel lobby prevailed with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. US and Israeli officials would neither confirm nor deny the existence of Israeli nukes.  Kenen received over $38,000 from Israel to publish the Near East Report during this critical period.  Jimmy Carter broke with self-censorship last month.  Americans must now ask what other damaging policies have been institutionalized at great cost to American interests.

In a January 2006 report on the future of petroleum, IRmep made several predictions based on supply, and more importantly, demand side factors driving higher prices.  Now a university economics case study, the report predicted that:

1. Congressionally mandated tax subsidies spurring artificial SUV and pickup truck sales to end users who did not need their capacity attributes would dramatically shift the gasoline demand curve;

2. The US Energy Information Administration "underestimated future petroleum prices" and should be ignored.  The EIA's rosy scenario of petroleum prices rising gradually to $65 by 2030 was driving dangerously unrealistic vehicle manufacturing in the US;

3. Top tier think tank policy preoccupation with national oil entities, blinkered supply perspectives, and terrorism continue to be as valueless to average Americans as their public relations campaign and policies for war in Iraq launched between 1996 and 2002.

During a speech to a meeting of the American Jewish Committee on April 29, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced an important new doctrine for classifying and prosecuting terrorists:

"When Israel was besieged by terror in 2001 and 2002, it was the United States that insisted that Israel had the right to defend itself. When people used to say, and we now forget that they did, "Well, you see, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter," it was the United States that said: No, that is wrong. No, the intentional murder of innocent people is wrong, and you cannot hug Hezbollah and Hamas and say that you are fighting al-Qaida."

Until Rice's clarification, the US has not been consistent in defining that terrorists also operate within the sphere of allies or groups the US generally does not prosecute.  The new "Rice Doctrine" is a welcome advance but faces an early test - the long delayed extradition of three terrorists who attacked US State Department facilities in Eqypt.

A key State Department role in the world is public diplomacy.  In 1953 the United States Information Agency was established to expand the cultural and educational exchange of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.  In the summer of 1954, Israel conducted a covert false-flag operation in Egypt code named "Operation Susannah." Israeli agents trained by the IDF launched terrorist bombing attacks against U.S. -, British-, and Egyptian-owned targets in Egypt.  US Information Service libraries in Alexandria and Cairo were targeted.

The event was covered up by the Israeli government for decades, but the new Rice doctrine clearly applies.  The US must now seek the extradition of Marcelle Ninio, Robert Dassa and Meir Zafran for prosecution as terrorists.  In 2005 Israel gave them military ranks in recognition of their "service to the state". However, as the last surviving members of the Operation Susannah terror attacks, their prosecution in the US will be an important first test of the Rice doctrine. 

See also William James Martin's "Condoleezza Rice:The Secretary who came in from the Cold War"

Israel, rather than Iran or Al Qaeda, is perceived as the looming threat to the Arab world according to a recently released opinion poll conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  Despite long term neoconservative rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration that the region "hates the US for its values" statistically significant findings of this 2008 poll suggest that policy is driving growing distrust and opposition to both the US and Israel in the region.  What confusion does exist in the Arab world is whether hidden objectives truly driving regional policies originate in Washington or Tel Aviv.

RFI:  The president of the United Status, George W. Bush, suspended the withdrawal of troops from Iraq that was scheduled for this summer. He was supporting the chief of command in Iraq General David Petraeus who recommended the suspension due to incremental violence in the past weeks.

According to Grant Smith, director of Research at IRmep, no one should expect significant changes to the policy of the United States in Iraq in the next eight months before Bush leaves office.

Grant Smith:  Since the beginning there have been no admissions of errors, and no admissions of the need for strategic reconsiderations. Every single US military leader who has presented opposition or disagreement has been fired.  Bush is sending a very clear signal to the world and to US citizens that he's decided to let the next administration deal with the US military occupation of Iraq. 

RFI: President George Bush defends the military invasion of Iraq and affirms that the war for liberty will be won...

Segment of George Bush: ...War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing the war in Iraq.... 

RFI Translation: Bush...So now they are saying that the war is costing too much...we have heard exaggerations about the costs of this war.  No one will dispute that this war has had a high cost in lives and treasure.  But these costs are necessary when we consider the costs of  a strategic victory of our enemies in Iraq....

RFI: Bush affirms that the invasion in 2003 was a sound decision, and that it is a battle America can and should win.   The president's legacy now rests on the outcome of the war on Iraq which started five years ago tomorrow.  This speech may be one of the last George Bush makes about Iraq as president.   Let's turn to comments about the president's speech to Grant Smith of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, DC.

Grant Smith: He is desperately trying to avoid any discussion or measurements made based upon his pretexts for the US invasion of Iraq.   He also wants to solidify a larger base of support around the concept that the war on Saddam Hussein in 2003 was the correct decision.  This is now contrasted against the position of Democratic Party  candidates, in particular Barack Obama, who is saying that it was a mistake to invade, and that mistake is affecting the US economy in a very negative way, underneath the broader sentiment that all of the stated reasons for invading were never legitimate. 

It [Bush's speech] was predictable.  It was basically the same old justification roped to the tired and simplistic rhetoric that there is some sort of massive global "war on terror" in the world and that Iraq formed some kind of front.  In terms of public opinion in the US, there's not only much credulity in this, but few even pay much attention any more to this type of speech.  Voters are turning toward fall elections in which, for the first time ever, they'll have a true referendum on the entire Iraq war, its costs and its consequences.

Todd Feinburg: The Todd Feinburg Show, Grant Smith is here.  He's the director of Research at IRmep, located in Washington DC.  His book is Foreign Agents, going after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for violating, Grant believes, and his organization believes, the laws that control this sort of lobbying by foreign influenced entities.  And it sounds like you're really, it's another alarm Grant, in the long series of complaints that the US government has fallen prey to special interests without being balanced out by what the best interest of the US is, i.e. the following our laws and doing things the way they are supposed to be done here.  Is that a fair assessment?
Grant Smith: Yeah, I think it is.  And it falls into a very important area of policy obviously because we are talking about matters of life and death.  To have an organization of this size and influence be so intransparent is problematic.
Todd Feinburg:  How is it intransparent...how is it opaque?  Doesn't it have to report?  Like any other organization would....?
Grant Smith: Very minimal reporting for some of the financial aspects of how many donations, what were the overall expenditures, salaries of the directors, but those are not important.  What would be interesting would be the specific activities lobbying for the Iraq war.  What are specific activities across the United States generating support for military strikes on Iran.  Those are items of extreme importance that if it were registered under FARA it would have to disclose... 

The plunging US economy and drastic efforts by the Bush administration to stimulate consumption through a $145 billion package raise an important question, "how did we get into such dire economic straits?"

In the year 2000 neoconservative ideologues called for a major overhaul of US military strategy in their policy paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses".  This followed their 1998 call for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq on "weapons of mass destruction" pretexts.  The overall economic implications have been disastrous.  Core goals for the incoming Bush administration mandated by PNAC advisors included securing forward military bases in the Middle East and increasing military spending from 3% to 4% of GDP (absent some catalyzing "Pearl Harbor" type event). 

9/11 and the subsequent "Global War on Terror" have provided their pretext for a radical increase in US military spending to finance US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and hostile posturing toward Iran.  This resource misallocation has reverberated throughout the entire economy, cutting off investment in growth industries and overall middle class American wealth creation.  While it is highly debatable whether the administration's ground wars in the Middle East have increased American security, the long term economic impact of run-away military spending no longer carries any mystery:

• Military spending (cited from the OMB financial statements) will consume 6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008, double the level of the 1990's.

• Military spending will have grown on average 13.36% per year (2001-2008) while the US economy has only grown 2.24% per year.

• Tax revenues collected from individuals increased 6% per year over the last five years, while tax revenues from businesses have grown 23% per year to pay for increased military spending; this still has not been enough to close the yawning budget deficit.

• Military spending will contribute to a US budget deficit of $10 trillion by 2010 (if not sooner) double the 1997 deficit. 

• Mismanagement and malfeasance (including corrupted mortgage markets) and military industrial resource misallocation has hobbled the US economy to a forecast rate of only 1.2% GDP growth in 2008, a quarter the growth level of the year 1999.

This is the end result of the "Global War on Terror" and policies of the "New American Century".  Louder and even more vacuous calls to "support the troops" and other red herring can no longer hide the massive damage wrought upon American households and businesses.

RFI: President George Bush will begin a series of meetings in the Middle East. We are joined by Grant Smith of the IRmep in Washington:

Grant Smith: The objective is to underscore some reinitiating of a peace process, and that there are expectations of the Palestinians and Israelis.  President Bush signaled, almost for the first time, to the Israelis that their illegal colonies are not acceptable and he started to generate real pressure that we've not seen for most of his years as president.

Equally, the scheduled visit to Palestinian territories gives added legitimacy to the idea that in some fashion it must become part of a viable state for Palestinians, a positive move.

An FBI translator under gag order, Sibel Edmonds, has charged that former Ambassador Marc Grossman participated in a money laundering and international nuclear arms secrets smuggling ring, according to the London Times.  Grossman was the former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, assistant secretary of state for European affairs during the Clinton administration and undersecretary of state for political affairs between 2001-2005. Grossman is now vice chairman of The Cohen Group, a Washington DC based consulting firm founded by former Clinton secretary of defense, William S. Cohen.

Sibel Edmonds has been placed under an unprecedented gag order by a federal judge, ostensibly to protect US "state secrets".  Congress has refused to allow Edmonds to testify in public, and mainstream US broadcast news outlets have not yet taken her up on her offer to divulge details on yet another ring of alleged rogue foreign agents committing crimes on US soil and abroad.

Continue (Year 2007 Research and Events)