Iraq war inquiry ‘will not be a whitewash’ claims Sir John Chilcot

Sir John Chilcot, the chairman of the public inquiry into the Iraq war, will start holding hearings this week  Photo: AP

“Free to do what they will.”

The inquiry into events surrounding the Iraq war will not produce a report that is a “whitewash”, Sir John Chilcot, the man in charge of it, has insisted.

Telegraph | Nov 23, 2009

Sir John denied that his background in the heart of the establishment would compromise his independence.

“All five members of the committee, myself included, are now completely independent, from different perspectives and different bodies of experience,” he said.

“You can’t make up a body like this from people who have no experience of the workings of government from the inside. When you set up an independent inquiry of this sort, you set the members of it free to do what they will.

“Our determination is to do not merely a thorough job, but one which is frank and will bear public scrutiny.”

Challenged over claims that the report could be a whitewash, Sir John told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It won’t be, but the judgment over whether people think it is will lie with how it is read when it comes out.”

His comments come after the deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq towards their American allies was revealed in classified Government documents leaked to The Daily Telegraph.

In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.”

Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors.

At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand – of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping” operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.

A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to The Daily Telegraph.

The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship.

Elder Bush sees ‘ugliness’ in attacks on Obama

U.S. President Barack Obama is introduced to speak by former President George H.W. Bush at the Points of Light forum at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas October 16, 2009. Reuters Pictures

AP | Oct 19, 2009

COLLEGE STATION, Texas — Former President George H.W. Bush doesn’t like the “ugliness” President Barack Obama has faced since taking office, but he thinks it’s no worse than his son experienced and is not about Obama being black.

Bush, who was hosting Obama at a volunteerism forum here Friday, said the tone of the criticism “crosses the line of civility.”

“To the degree it turns off one student or young person from serving, that’s bad,” Bush said in an interview with CBS News Radio at his presidential library. “It should not happen.”

President Barack Obama greets students as he is introduced by former President George H.W. Bush (not shown) at the start of the Points of Light Institute forum at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, Friday, Oct. 16, 2009. AP Photo

But Bush stressed that conservatives aren’t the only ones to blame. Liberal pundits heaped similar scorn on his son, former President George W. Bush.

“They just hammered him mercilessly — and I think obscenely — a lot of the time,” he said.

Former President Jimmy Carter recently asserted that much of the bitterness aimed at Obama stemmed from his being the nation’s first black president.

Obama disagreed.

The elder Bush said, “You might find some racists out there but I don’t think the attacks per se have to do that he’s an African-American.”

Bush, who turned 85 in June, said presidents throughout history have suffered at the hands of critics.

“I’m reluctant to say it’s a whole new thing in politics — this ugliness,” he said. “I mean you go back to Grover Cleveland … It was terrible the things that people said.”

Glenn Beck Warns of ‘Reichstag Event’

Glenn Beck Exclusive: Warns of ‘Reichstag Event’

Newsmax | Sep 29, 2009

Media phenomenon Glenn Beck recently sat down with Newsmax for an exclusive interview offering his take on everything from President Obama, to the threat to talk radio and even a worry that our Constitutional government may disappear after a “Reichstag” event takes place.

The candid, wide-ranging interview appears in the October issue of Newsmax magazine, and is included in the special report “Glenn Beck Wants You!” that takes an in-depth look at the TV host whose Fox News show has been breaking ratings records since it burst on the scene in January.

Beck, who is also thriving on the radio, in bookstores and on the comedy circuit, sat down with Newsmax magazine’s Editor in Chief Christopher Ruddy and voiced his concerns about a coming attack on talk radio.

But his real worry is that many Washington elitists really don’t like our form of government and want to see it abolished.

“I fear a Reichstag moment,” he said, referring to the 1933 burning of Germany’s parliament building in Berlin that the Nazis blamed on communists and Hitler used as an excuse to suspend constitutional liberties and consolidate power.

“God forbid, another 9/11. Something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced.”

Beck has also been a fierce critic of President Obama. Still, he said he’s open to a meeting with Obama. Beck doesn’t believe the president “necessarily would” speak directly to him, adding: “I don’t know very many politicians that speak directly.”

Beck also talked to Newsmax about his critics, his best-selling book “Common Sense,” his condemnation of George W. Bush’s presidency, government control of the media and “the only thing that will save this country.”

Lawmakers would curb Federal Reserve’s power, not expand it

“There’s nobody more sick and tired of bailouts than me,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. He reiterated his belief that the central bank was best suited for supervising large financial institutions that pose a risk to the economy. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press / October 1, 2009)

Fed chief Ben Bernanke, appearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday, faced skeptics as he backed the Obama administration plan for an oversight panel that would enhance the central bank’s authority.

Los Angeles Times | Oct 2, 2009

By Jim Puzzanghera

Reporting from Washington

The Federal Reserve has dramatically expanded its role in the economy over the last 18 months, and the Obama administration has proposed enhancing that authority as part of an overhaul of financial regulations.

But many members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans — are seeking to curtail the central bank’s authority instead of expand it.

Worried about the increased power of the complex and mysterious Fed, and upset it did not do more to prevent the deep recession, Capitol Hill has focused its anger over the financial crisis and its aftermath on the central bank. The Fed finds itself at the center of a collision of traditional political concerns — conservatives’ fears of heavy-handed government intervention in free markets, and liberals’ complaints of regulators who favor corporate executives over average Americans.

More than two-thirds of the House of Representatives has signed on to a bill that would subject the central bank to increased congressional oversight through expanded audits. A key senator wants to strip the Fed of its authority to regulate banks. And the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee wants to rein in the Fed’s emergency lending power, which it used to help engineer the sale of Bear Stearns Cos. and bail out American International Group Inc.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke defended the central bank during a congressional hearing Thursday. He reiterated his belief that the Fed was best suited for taking on the major new role the administration had proposed for it — supervising large financial institutions that pose a risk to the entire economy.

But Bernanke also acknowledged the criticism of the Fed’s actions during the financial crisis, saying he shared congressional frustration.

“There’s nobody more sick and tired of bailouts than me,” Bernanke said.

Still, he appears to be fighting an uphill battle for increased power as Congress works to finish the regulatory overhaul this year.

“There just aren’t a lot of cheerleaders here for expanding the authority of the Federal Reserve,” said Kirstin Brost, a spokeswoman for the Senate Banking Committee.

The Obama administration wants to add to the Fed’s portfolio by giving it the task of supervising large financial firms, such as investment banks, that currently fall outside government banking regulation. That increased power would be offset somewhat by the administration’s proposal to take away the Fed’s authority to write and enforce consumer protection rules for financial products. That power would go to a new consumer agency.

Although the Fed still could end up securing new authority, Bernanke has his hands full just trying to keep his agency from losing power, said Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst with Concept Capital’s Washington Research Group.

“The Fed is running into unprecedented opposition on Capitol Hill,” he said.

“In the Senate, there’s open hostility toward any expansion of the Federal Reserve’s authority. And in the House, you certainly have Republicans looking to focus the Fed solely on monetary policy and strip it of any larger role in financial regulation.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told Bernanke on Thursday that the panel “will be putting some limitations” on the Fed’s powers. Among those would be increasing congressional authority to audit the Fed and creating the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The Federal Reserve is largely known for its often cryptic pronouncements on the economy and its pivotal role in setting interest rates. But the central bank also is a sizable government agency with about 2,100 employees that is a key player in regulating the financial sector. With 12 regional operations, the Fed is also responsible for supervising key parts of the banking system, including bank holding companies, and drafting consumer protection rules.

Critics have complained that the Fed faltered on all fronts leading up to the crisis. Years of low interest rates helped fuel the housing bubble, and lax oversight of financial institutions allowed consumers and banks to engage in increasingly risky behavior.

“If you look at the record here of the failure of the regulatory bodies . . . all roads seem to lead to the Federal Reserve,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.).

The Fed is being hit from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

Liberals have sharply criticized it for taking 14 years — from 1994 to 2008 — to adopt rules to protect consumers from unscrupulous mortgage lending. The Obama administration has hammered the Fed on that point as well, a major reason it has proposed shifting consumer protection powers from the Fed and other regulators to the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Bernanke has acknowledged the Fed’s failures on consumer protection, which took place largely before he became chairman in 2006, but opposes creation of the agency. Still, he realizes damage has been done to the Fed’s reputation in that area.

“I think the issue is essentially the confidence that Congress has in our focus going forward,” he said.

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) didn’t show much confidence, chiding Bernanke for devoting little of his opening remarks at Thursday’s hearing to consumer protection and for later referring to “the minutiae of consumer law.”

At the same time, conservatives have strongly opposed the Fed’s interventions in the economy, which they said have put trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk by vastly expanding the central bank’s lending authority to bail out companies and back other commercial transactions to keep credit flowing.

House Republicans want to scale back the Fed’s power so the bank focuses on monetary policy. And many have opposed the administration’s proposal to give the Fed the new role of supervising large financial institutions, such as AIG, that are not traditional banks but pose a risk to the economy if they fail.

“I’m not alone with my concerns about the Fed as a systemic regulator,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.). Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has similar concerns, as do others on his panel. In fact, Dodd has proposed stripping the Fed of all of its bank oversight functions as part of his plan for creating a single banking regulatory agency.

Former Fed Gov. Alice M. Rivlin also said it would be a mistake to increase the Fed’s regulatory powers because it would distract from the central bank’s monetary policy role.

“Do we want to augment the regulatory authority of the Fed? . . . My answer is no,” said Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “My sense is many people would be nervous about that augmentation.”

Bernanke tried to allay some congressional concerns Thursday. He endorsed the administration’s proposed creation of an oversight council of regulators to monitor the entire economy for risks, such as that of too many banks overextending themselves with credit-default swaps. But he did not go as far as some wanted.

Some lawmakers have said the proposed Financial Services Oversight Council — not the Fed — should have the additional task of supervising large financial firms that are not banks. The council would be headed by the Treasury secretary and include the Fed chairman and other regulators.

Bernanke, however, was steadfast in saying the Fed should supervise those large firms.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said the Fed was less revered on Capitol Hill after the crisis, but there still was a worry that failing to follow its advice could lead to more trouble for the struggling economy.

“The Fed is very powerful, and it comes chiefly from fear and awe,” he said.

“I think there’s more fear and less awe than there used to be.”

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is ‘rotting away’ — and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it

The “War on Terror” was “made up”, Vidal says. “The whole thing was PR, just like ‘weapons of mass destruction’.

London Times | Sep 30, 2009

A conversation with Gore Vidal unfolds at his pace. He answers questions imperiously, occasionally playfully, with a piercing, lethal dryness. He is 83 and in a wheelchair (a result of hypothermia suffered in the war, his left knee is made of titanium). But he can walk (“Of course I can”) and after a recent performance of Mother Courage at London’s National Theatre he stood to deliver an anti-war speech to the audience.

How was his friend Fiona Shaw in the title role? “Very good.” Where did they meet? Silence. The US? “Well, it wasn’t Russia.” What’s he writing at the moment? “It’s a little boring to talk about. Most writers seem to do little else but talk about themselves and their work, in majestic terms.” He means self-glorifying? “You’ve stumbled on the phrase,” he says, regally enough. “Continue to use it.”

Vidal is sitting in the Connaught Hotel in Mayfair, where he has been coming to stay for 60 years. He is wearing a brown suit jacket, brown jumper, tracksuit bottoms; his white hair twirled into a Tintin-esque quiff and with his hooded eyes, delicate yet craggy features and arch expression, he looks like Quentin Crisp, but accessorised with a low, lugubrious growl rather than camp lisp.

He points to an apartment opposite the hotel where Churchill stayed during the Second World War, as Downing Street was “getting hammered by the Nazis. The crowds would cheer him from the street, he knew great PR.” In a flash, this memory reminds you of the swathe of history Vidal has experienced with great intimacy: he was friends with JFK, fought in the war, his father Gene, an Olympic decathlete and aeronautics teacher, founded TWA among other airlines and had a relationship with Amelia Earhart. (Vidal first flew and landed a plane when he was 10.) He was a screenwriter for MGM in the dying days of the studio system, toyed with being a politician, he has written 24 novels and is hailed as one of the world’s greatest essayists.

He has crossed every boundary, I say. “Crashed many barriers,” he corrects me.

Last year he famously switched allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama during the Democratic nomination process for president. Now, he reveals, he regrets his change of heart. How’s Obama doing? “Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism.” America should leave Afghanistan, he says. “We’ve failed in every other aspect of our effort of conquering the Middle East or whatever you want to call it.” The “War on Terror” was “made up”, Vidal says. “The whole thing was PR, just like ‘weapons of mass destruction’. It has wrecked the airline business, which my father founded in the 1930s. He’d be cutting his wrists. Now when you fly you’re both scared to death and bored to death, a most disagreeable combination.”

His voice strengthens. “One thing I have hated all my life are LIARS [he says that with bristling anger] and I live in a nation of them. It was not always the case. I don’t demand honour, that can be lies too. I don’t say there was a golden age, but there was an age of general intelligence. We had a watchdog, the media.” The media is too supine? “Would that it was. They’re busy preparing us for an Iranian war.” He retains some optimism about Obama “because he doesn’t lie. We know the fool from Arizona [as he calls John McCain] is a liar. We never got the real story of how McCain crashed his plane [in 1967 near Hanoi, North Vietnam] and was held captive.”

Vidal originally became pro-Obama because he grew up in “a black city” (meaning Washington), as well as being impressed by Obama’s intelligence. “But he believes the generals. Even Bush knew the way to win a general was to give him another star. Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it’s a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word ‘conservative’ you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They’re not, they’re fascists.”

Full Story

Bill Clinton claims ‘rightwing conspiracy’ behind attacks on Obama

Former US president cites conservative activists and media personalities among those behind aggressive campaign against current leader

guardian.co.uk | Sep 27, 2009

by Daniel Nasaw in Washington

Former US President Bill Clinton claimed today that the “vast rightwing conspiracy” that hounded him and nearly drove him from office has set its sights on Barack Obama.

The former president was referring to the web of politicians, media personalities, various internet groups and grassroots conservative activists who have opposed the new president at every turn.

Clinton, the last Democrat to hold the White House before Obama, referred to the term first used by Hillary Clinton in 1998, when she defended Clinton against the Monica Lewinsky scandal that threatened to topple Clinton’s presidency.

She described as a “vast rightwing conspiracy” the forces led by special prosecutor Ken Starr, who spent millions of dollars and several years building a case against Clinton in connection with a failed land deal in Arkansas. The investigation ultimately led to Clinton’s impeachment and trial in the Senate over the Lewinsky affair. He was acquitted.

Asked yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press whether there was still a rightwing conspiracy, Clinton replied: “You bet. Sure it is. It’s not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it’s as virulent as it was.”

Clinton said that the conspiracy has focused on Obama and, “their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail”.

Clinton’s remarks came after Jimmy Carter, another Democratic former president, said that racism motivates much of the animosity against Obama.

In recent months, legions of furious conservatives, spurred on by some of the same media personalities who led the charge against Clinton, have waged a vicious campaign against Obama, accusing him of being a socialist, a fascist, and a foreign agent out to destroy America. The opposition has become most agitated by his effort to reform the US healthcare system.

Earlier this month, hundreds of thousands of conservatives held a massive anti-Obama rally in Washington. The protesters, who were almost entirely white, carried signs denouncing Obama as a Nazi, a lump of human waste and the Joker from Batman.

Some claimed that Obama was not an American citizen, believing he was born in Kenya or Indonesia. In at least three instances, conservative protesters have turned up at anti-Obama rallies carrying guns. Threats against the president’s life are up 400% from those against former president George W Bush, according to a book by Ronald Kessler.

Many in the Republican party ranks are uncomfortable with the vitriol aimed at Obama. But party leaders have purged most of the moderates from the national leadership, and the rightwingers in power believe the party stands to benefit from a fired-up base.

Meanwhile, the party lacks a strong leader, leaving conservatives to take their cues from radio talk show hosts and others who are not accountable to voters and who do not have to follow up their rhetoric with actual governance.

Clinton said that while the animosity may hurt Obama’s poll numbers, it is not good for the Republicans in the long term. “Fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America,” he said.

________
Related

‘Vast right-wing conspiracy’ leader’s paper backs Clinton

Hillary denies any Bush-Clinton Dynasty

Bill Clinton rewrites history on support for Iraq war

Murdoch becomes an Obama convert

Murdoch brokered secret truce between Obama and Fox News

Saudis, Blackwater among Clinton foundation donors

Laura Bush defends Michelle Obama, praises Hillary’s grit

G-20 opponents, police clash on Pittsburgh streets

Pittsburgh police in riot gear redeploy after confrontations with protestors near the Strip District in Pittsburgh, Thursday Sept. 24, 2009. Hundreds of demonstrators marched in protest of the G20, which is expected to begin in Pittsburgh on Thursday. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma)

AP | Sep 24, 2009

By DANIEL LOVERING and MICHAEL RUBINKAM

PITTSBURGH — Police fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke at marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins and throwing rocks.

The afternoon march turned chaotic at just about the time that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived for a meeting with leaders of the world’s major economies.

The clashes began after hundreds of protesters, many advocating against capitalism, tried to march from an outlying neighborhood toward the convention center where the summit is being held.

The protesters banged on drums and chanted “Ain’t no power like the power of the people, ’cause the power of the people don’t stop.”

The marchers included small groups of self-described anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black flags. Others wore helmets and safety goggles.

One banner read, “No borders, no banks,” another, “No hope in capitalism.” A few minutes into the march, protesters unfurled a large banner reading “NO BAILOUT NO CAPITALISM” with an encircled “A,” a recognized sign of anarchists.

The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly. They played an announcement over a loudspeaker ordering people to leave and then police in riot gear moved in to break it up. Authorities also used a crowd-control device that emits a deafening siren-like noise, making it uncomfortable for protesters to remain in the area.

Protesters split into smaller groups. Some rolled large metal trash bins toward police, and a man in a black hooded sweat shirt threw rocks at a police car, breaking the front windshield. Protesters broke windows in a few businesses, including a bank branch, a Boston Market restaurant and a BMW dealership.

Officers fired pepper spray and smoke at the protesters and set off a flash-bang grenade. Some of those exposed to the pepper spray coughed and complained that their eyes were watering and stinging.

Police were planning a news conference to discuss their response. Officers were seen taking away a handful of protesters in cuffs.

About an hour after the clashes started, the police and protesters were at a standoff. Police sealed off main thoroughfares to downtown.

Twenty-one-year-old Stephon Boatwright, of Syracuse, N.Y., wore a mask of English anarchist Guy Fawkes and yelled at a line of riot police. He then sat cross-legged near the officers, telling them to let the protesters through and to join their cause.

“You’re actively suppressing us. I know you want to move,” Boatwright yelled, to applause from the protesters gathered around him.

Protesters complained that the march had been peaceful and that police were trampling on their right to assemble.

“We were barely even protesting,” said T.J. Amick, 22, of Pittsburgh. “Then all of a sudden, they come up and tell us we’re gathered illegally and start using force, start banging their shields, start telling us we’re going to be arrested and tear gassed. … We haven’t broken any laws.”

Bret Hatch, 26, of Green Bay, Wis., was carrying an American flag and a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

“This is ridiculous. We have constitutional rights to free speech,” he said.

The National Lawyer’s Guild, a liberal legal-aid group, said one of its observers, a second year law student, was among those arrested. Its representatives were stationed among the protesters, wearing green hats.

“I think he was totally acting according to the law. I don’t think he was provoking anyone at all,” said Joel Kupferman, a member of the guild. “It’s really upsetting because he’s here to serve, to make sure everyone else can be protected. … It’s a sign that they are out of control.”

The march had begun at a city park, where an activist from New York City, dressed in a white suit with a preacher’s collar, started it off with a speech through a bullhorn.

“They are not operating on Earth time. … They are accommodating the devil,” he said. “To love democracy and to love the earth is to be a radical now.”

The activist, Billy Talen, travels the country preaching against consumerism. He initially identified himself as “the Rev. Billy from the Church of Life After Shopping.”

Later Thursday, hundreds of protesters, including a handful of anarchists, massed near the Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Garden where the G-20 summit was beginning with a welcome ceremony.

“Tell me what a police state looks like. This is what a police state looks like!” the protesters chanted as several hundred riot police blocked them from getting any closer.

Dignitaries arrived in waves throughout the day, entering a city under heavy security. Police and National Guard troops guarded many downtown intersections, and a maze of tall metal fences and concrete barriers shunted cars and pedestrians.

The G-20 ends late Friday afternoon after a day of meetings at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center.

Obama Extends Bush 9/11 National Emergency

NewsRoom | Sep 10, 2009

U.S. President Barack Obama has extended the state of emergency put in place by President George W. Bush following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue.

President Obama says consistent with this provision, he has sent a notice to the Federal Register stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue for an additional year.

He said the terrorist threat that led to President Bush declaring a national emergency on September 14, 2001 continues, and for this reason it is necessary to continue the national emergency in effect after September 14, 2009.

“Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States,” the President said.

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority and required the President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used. It also provided Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated authority being sought.

In a paper prepared for Congress a specialist in American National Government, Harold C. Relyea, said Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation.

Mr Relyea said when the President formally declares a national emergency, he may “seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

However he says there are limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers.

“With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion,” he wrote.

Pelosi at 9/11 Ceremony: ‘In the Tragedy, We Found Unity’

Pelosi at 9/11 Ceremony: ‘In the Tragedy, We Found Unity; In the Ashes, We Rallied Around a Common Cause’

PRNewswire | Sep 9, 2009

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Members of Congress held a Congressional Remembrance Ceremony in Statuary Hall in the Capitol this afternoon to remember the eighth anniversary of September 11 and pay tribute to the victims. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:

“Just a few moments ago, we unveiled a plaque in the heart of the U.S. Capitol to commemorate some of the heroes of 9/11: the men and women of United Airlines Flight 93.

“Their families are standing by our side today, and I ask all of my colleagues to take a moment to recognize these mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, for keeping the memory of those heroes alive.

[Applause.]

“It is indeed a humbling experience, as it always is, when we tread on the sacred ground of 9/11. For those of us who are engaged in a profession that is based on words and speaking, we find our inadequacies, because words are not adequate to express the gratitude, the respect, the debt that we have to all of these families.

“Now we gather to honor all of the heroes of that fateful day eight years ago:

the firefighters and first responders and rescue workers and all who perished trying to save others. We remember those who refused to leave their co-workers behind; whose lives were cut short during the unforgettable horror of that clear morning. We recall our men and women in uniform abroad, fighting for our values, protecting our nation, making enormous sacrifices — they and their families — so our children can know safety and security. And of course, we honor those who lost their lives on September 11.

“It is in their names that we mark this day. It is in their memory that we pledge to never forget this unspeakable tragedy. It is their silenced voices
that guide us, that inspire us, that echo in our hearts each time we stand in the Capitol and sing the words of ‘God Bless America.’

“Bound by clear memories of destruction and despair, Americans forgot about our differences and embraced our shared heritage. In the tragedy, we found unity. In the ashes, we rallied around a common cause. In fallen towers, we located the strength to carry on. In the darkness of that day, we saw the light of a brighter future.

“We express our deepest sympathy to the families of the victims, who remain the conscience of our efforts to keep the memories of the fallen alive.

“And so today we do this gathered inside because of the threat of rain. But as we did many years ago, in September of 2001, we will close by singing ‘God Bless America’ because God truly did bless America in the lives and the courage of the heroes of 9/11.

“We recommit ourselves to help our courageous first responders treat health needs that linger to this day and provide them with the resources they need to respond to future emergencies.

“May God bless the memories of all of the heroes of 9/11. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

“And now, let us have a moment of silence in memory of all who were lost on 9/11.”

Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin

An extraordinary etching of a young Adolf Hilter playing chess against Vladimir Lenin has come to light. The art work is by Hilter’s Jewish art teacher Emma Lowenstramm who witnessed the game Photo: BNPS

A picture of a young Adolf Hitler apparently playing chess against Vladimir Lenin 100 years ago has come to light.

Telegraph | Sep 3, 2009

The image is said to have been created in Vienna by Hitler’s art teacher, Emma Lowenstramm, and is signed on the reverse by the two dictators.

Hitler was a jobbing artist in the city in 1909 and Lenin was in exile and the house where they allegedly played the game belonged to a prominent Jewish family.

Winston Churchill returns to the Government In the run-up to the Second World War the Jewish family fled and gave many of their possessions, including the etching and chess set, to their housekeeper.

Now their housekeeper’s great-great grandson is selling the image and the chess set at auction. Both items have a pre-sale estimate of £40,000.

The unnamed vendor is confident the items are genuine after his father spent a lifetime attempting to prove their authenticity.

He compiled a 300-page forensic document that included tests on the paper, the signatures and research on those involved.

Experts, however, have questioned its authenticity especially the identification of Lenin who they say might have been confused with one of his associates.

When the etching was made, Hitler was 20 and Lenin was twice his age and the house was where politicos went to discuss things.

The etching is thought to be one of five and shows Hitler – playing with the white pieces – sitting by a window, with Lenin opposite him in half shadow.

It is titled “A Chess Game: Lenin with Hitler – Vienna 1909″.

It raises tantalising questions about what the two men who helped shape the world in the 20th century might have spoken of.

Lenin was already a highly influential Russian figure who in 1907 went into exile once more after the revolution was crushed by Tsarist authorities.

Richard Westwood-Brookes, who is selling the items, said: “This just sounds too good to be true, but the vendor’s father spent a lifetime proving it.

“He compiled a 300 page document and spent a great deal of money engaging experts to examine the etching.

“The signatures in pencil on the reverse are said to have an 80 per cent chance of being genuine, and there is proof that Emma Lowenstramm did exist.

“The circumstantial evidence is very good on top of the paper having been tested.

“Hitler was a painter in 1909 and his Jewish teacher Emma Lowenstramm was the person who made the etching.

“There is some suggestion that when he came to power Hitler protected her and she died from natural causes in 1941.

“At the time, Vienna was a hotbed of political intrigue and the house where this game took place belonged to a prominent Jewish family.

“Lenin at the time was moving around Europe in exile and writing “Materialism and Empirio-criticism”.

“His movements are hazy and it is known that he did play chess and later he certainly wore wigs as a disguise.

“It is also known that Lenin was a German agent and the house was where people went to exchange political views.

“The chess set is clearly the same chess set as that in the etching. It is a box chess set that folds out and the pieces are identifiable – particularly the kings and bishops.

“To my knowledge there are five etchings of this image, but this has the signatures of both men and the artist.

“The provenance is that it has come through the family of the housekeeper who was given it when the Jewish family fled in the late 1930s.

“The family is based in Hanover and it is the great great grandson of the housekeeper who is selling it.

“On all sorts of levels it is an extremely valuable artefact. Even as just an allegorical picture it shows the men playing chess possibly for the world.”

Historian Helen Rappaport, who has just written a book called “Conspirator: Lenin in Exile”, said the etching was probably a “glorious piece of fantasy”.

She said: “In 1909 Lenin was in France and there is no evidence that he was in Vienna.

“In October he went to Liege in Belgium and in November he went to Brussels. He would have visited Vienna before and after that year.

“He liked the place and went there because he travelled around Europe on trains, but he wouldn’t have been there long enough to meet a young Hitler.

“He was also as bald as a bat by 1894 with just hair on the sides of his head.

“And when in exile he was not known as Lenin and instead used a number of aliases.

“The person believed to be Lenin in the etching may well have been one of his revolutionary or Bolshevik associates who was misidentified.

“It may even have been an Austrian socialist with whom he associated in the Second International.

“The Germans did fund the Bolsheviks and gave them millions of marks for the revolutionary effort, but Lenin was not a German sympathiser.

“Although this is totally spurious it is wonderful to bring these two great megalomaniacs together.

“It makes sense retrospectively and the history of art is full of retrospective meetings between people.”

The items are to be sold at Mullock’s auction house in Ludlow, Shropshire, on October 1.