Click here to view this media Tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said Sunday that it was going to be “hard” to watch President Barack Obama give a speech on job creation to a joint session of Congress, calling it “pandering.” “I’m so tired of his speeches, it’s going to be hard for me to watch,” the South Carolina senator told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “I’m, frankly, very tired of speeches,” DeMint repeated on ABC. “I don’t want to be disrespectful to the president… I don’t think the president is going to come out with things that are really going to create jobs. I’m afraid it’s just pandering to his base. But if he’ll send a written proposal, I’ll give it every chance. But I’m not interested in his speech right now.”
Continue reading …Given the way most media members treated former Vice President Dick Cheney during his book tour last week, CNN's Howard Kurtz asked an absolutely perfect question on Sunday's “Reliable Sources.” “Would liberal pundits be satisfied with anything other than Cheney confessing to war crimes?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, CNN: I'll just take this moment to say that — and this is the difference, I think, between television and print — in “TIME” magazine there's a good piece by Barton Gellman on the Cheney book in which he pointed out this famous scene where Bush administration officials went to Attorney General Ashcroft while he was in intensive care in the hospital and tried to get him to sign off on a surveillance program, that there was a lot of facts to contradict that, including in George Bush's own book. But when you look at those television interviews and you listen to the chatter, Jim Geraghty, would liberal pundits be satisfied with anything other than Cheney confessing to war crimes? JIM GERAGHTY, NATIONAL REVIEW: I am rather skeptical of that. Actually, some in the press, in particular those working for MSNBC, wouldn't be satisfied until Cheney was executed irrespective of him confessing to or being found guilty of war crimes. But why quibble?
Continue reading …Helios involved in discussions about ‘potential opportunities in London’ with officials from the health department A German company has been in talks to take over NHS hospitals, the first tangible evidence that foreign multinationals will be able to run state-owned acute services, a market worth £8bn, the Guardian can reveal. On the eve of the last Commons vote on the government’s bill before it heads to the Lords this week, freedom of information requests reveal a series of meetings focused on “potential opportunities in London” between officials from the Department of Health, the NHS, the management consultant McKinsey and one of the largest German private hospital chains, Helios. Once EU competition law applies to the health service there would be no barrier to handing over the running of NHS hospitals to non-British firms. Helios has a record of turning around failing hospitals, largely by cutting staff or wage levels. Local politicians have accused it of being motivated more by revenues than by patient care. The news came as key Lib Dems broke cover with a series of amendments designed to defang the government’s radical pro-market health bill. The vote has the potential to cause a major rift between the coalition partners and comes before a crunch meeting between Nick Clegg and his parliamentary party. The Lib Dem leader will seek to persuade potential rebels that there cannot be any more changes to the bill. Sources close to Clegg said the leadership had already “used up a lot of political capital” by halting and then recasting the bill earlier this year. “We expect MPs to vote with the government. Otherwise we won’t last very long [in power].” Evan Harris, a former Lib Dem MP and grassroots activist, warned the leadership it risked a revolt over the issue. He said the amendments showed “the bill in its current form does not have Lib Dem support and unless the necessary concessions are made it will fare extremely badly at the party conference and in the Lords”. Key rebels – such as the Lib Dem MP Andrew George and John Pugh, co-chairman of the Lib Dem backbench health committee – have tabled a dozen changes to the bill, almost all seeking to roll back the “competition and choice” agenda of the health secretary, Andrew Lansley. George calls for the restoration of the health secretary’s “duty to provide or secure” services, to elevate GPs’ duties to tackle health inequalities above those that promote choice, remove “all references to promoting competition directly or indirectly” from the remit of the regulator Monitor and to keep the cap limiting the proportion of total income hospitals can earn from the paying sick. George said: “We are on the slippery slope in the direction of a US-style insurance system and have to stop patient choice being used a crowbar to lever in the marketisation of the NHS.” Pugh’s amendments would also close a loophole that would allow private companies to “wholly or mainly” run the new GP commissioning groups set up to buy treatments for patients. However, there is evidence that market reforms are taking root. Documents obtained by campaigners at Spinwatch show the Department of Health secretly plans to hand over the running of up to 20 NHS hospitals to foreign firms, despite the prime minister’s pledge that there will be “no privatisation of the NHS”. In the papers McKinsey warned the department not to bundle off all the hospitals to the private sector at once – and instead start “from a mindset [of] one at a time”. The consultants told officials to be mindful of the “various political constraints” associated with privatisation. The documents lay bare what “international hospital provider groups” consider as a minimum for running NHS hospitals. “International players can do an initiative if [£]500 million revenue [is] on the table.” They also need to have “a free hand on staff management”. The NHS would be allowed to “keep real estate and pensions”. So far the department has only given approval for one NHS hospital, Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire, to be handed over to a private company, Circle Health, which is backed by two Tory donors – financiers Paul Ruddock and Crispin Odey. Another three hospital trusts, Trafford Healthcare NHS trust, the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital and the Whiston hospital in St Helens have publicly said they would consider a private takeover. The Department of Health identified 32 NHS trusts that were “underperforming”, raising the prospect of private firms being put in charge of £8bn of NHS money. Helios’s plans were revealed in a meeting last December where McKinsey organised a workshop at NHS London’s offices. Attending were Ian Dalton, head of provider development at the department of health, Ruth Carnall, chief executive of NHS London, and Helios’ representatives.The workshop was to discuss “how international hospital provider groups may help to tackle the performance improvement of UK hospitals”. The agenda details a discussion with Helios over “potential opportunities in London”. The company gave a presentation on “what an international player would suggest”. Helios was given an update on the “situation for NHS hospitals” and the “specific situation in London”. The meeting also included discussions on “requirements for policy”. The workshop was held a month before Lansley published his NHS bill. Just after the bill was published a representative from McKinsey was invited to the department to talk about the Helios bid. John Healey, Labour’s health spokesman, called on Lib Dems to “join with Labour this week to put a stop to David Cameron’s damaging plans for the NHS”. He said it looked like there was “a well-worked secret plan for privatising hospitals”. “Cameron promises one thing on NHS privatisation in public, while at the same time his government attends secret meetings with those ready to take advantage of the prime minister’s market-driven plans for our health service.” NHS Health Health policy Liberal Democrats House of Commons Healthcare industry Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Extra police will be posted outside schools and tube stations until half term to counter pupil crime, especially mobile phone theft Around 1,000 police and community support officers will protect children travelling to and from London schools against robbery, Scotland Yard said. Pupils starting secondary school will be given special attention, with officers outside schools, around tube stations and on buses until half-term on 21 October. There were 15,766 muggings in the capital between April and last month, with more than a third of victims aged between 10 and 19, and 8,200 mobile phones reported stolen. Police said that robberies in which mobile phones are taken from young people leaving school increase at this time of year. Ian McPherson, the Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, said: “We take street crime very seriously – being robbed can be a traumatic experience, and so tackling it is a key priority for us.” He added: “I’d like to remind Londoners that street robbery is still relatively lower than in previous years, including 2006 when robbery was at peak levels.” Crime Police London Schools guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Youth, 17, will appear in court on Monday charged with assault and violent disorder when rioters pretended to help student A 17-year-old has been charged with assaulting a Malaysian student during the London riots. The youth is accused of assaulting Ashraf Rossli on 8 August. He is due to appear at Thames magistrates court on Monday charged with GBH against the student, robbery, burglary and violent disorder. Rossli was taken to hospital with a broken jaw after being set upon by attackers less than a month after he arrived in Britain. Members of the public donated thousands of pounds to a fund set up for him after footage of the attack was posted on YouTube, but he indicated he intended to give at least some of it away, saying: “I think there’s a lot of other victims that need help as well.” A man has already appeared in court accused of robbing Rossli. Reece Donovan, 21, is accused of stealing a portable Sony PlayStation and Nokia mobile phone from the student. Donovan appeared at Wood Green crown court for a preliminary hearing on 19 August. He was remanded in custody and will next appear at the same court on 10 October for a plea and case management hearing. UK riots Crime guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Youth, 17, will appear in court on Monday charged with assault and violent disorder when rioters pretended to help student A 17-year-old has been charged with assaulting a Malaysian student during the London riots. The youth is accused of assaulting Ashraf Rossli on 8 August. He is due to appear at Thames magistrates court on Monday charged with GBH against the student, robbery, burglary and violent disorder. Rossli was taken to hospital with a broken jaw after being set upon by attackers less than a month after he arrived in Britain. Members of the public donated thousands of pounds to a fund set up for him after footage of the attack was posted on YouTube, but he indicated he intended to give at least some of it away, saying: “I think there’s a lot of other victims that need help as well.” A man has already appeared in court accused of robbing Rossli. Reece Donovan, 21, is accused of stealing a portable Sony PlayStation and Nokia mobile phone from the student. Donovan appeared at Wood Green crown court for a preliminary hearing on 19 August. He was remanded in custody and will next appear at the same court on 10 October for a plea and case management hearing. UK riots Crime guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ex-chancellor says ‘residual loyalty’ stopped the plot to overthrown former prime minister Alistair Darling has acknowledged that it might have been right to try to depose Gordon Brown when he was prime minister, but said he had been held back by “residual loyalty”. Darling, who was Brown’s chancellor, described a “chaotic” time in government, with the cabinet riven by bitter disagreements at “the very top” which he said prevented the Labour party from being able to steer the UK through the financial crisis and hampered the party’s chances at the 2010 election. There was, he writes in his memoirs, a “permanent air of chaos and crisis” at the heart of government. In the book, serialised in the Sunday Times, Darling reveals he held a meeting with David Miliband in 2009 shortly after the destabilising cabinet resignation of James Purnell to discuss “getting rid” of Brown. At the time, Darling was blocking Brown’s desire to move him from his post and replace him with Ed Balls. In the meeting, Miliband and Darling decided a coup was inconceivable, while the departure of Purnell protected him from sacking. In an interview on BBC1′s Sunday AM programme Darling admitted that “perhaps” senior Labour politicians should have “done something” about Brown’s leadership, but said he was held back by a longstanding friendship. “If you want to criticise us collectively perhaps we should have done something but … I’m afraid, for me, despite everything and if Gordon’s listening to this he may find it difficult to believe, but I had a residual loyalty which I found it difficult to overcome. We go back a long, long way. This whole thing was very unpleasant.” Brown appointed Darling chancellor when he became prime minister in 2007. In his memoir, Darling describes Brown’s government as a “fairly brutal regime, and many of us fell foul of it”, whose behaviour was “sometimes appalling”. Darling gave an interview to the Guardian in 2008 detailing his views on the severity of the economic crisis, and at the time he described the ensuing anonymous briefing against him by Brownites as the “forces of hell”. On Sunday he said they had “left a mark” on him and that it was “deeply unpleasant”. “What is so debilitating is when your own lot are doing it to you. It’s not exactly new in politics but it left a mark on me that you really can’t erase.” Darling said that he and Brown were so divided over economic policy that it damaged the party going into the 2010 election. He went on to say that the Labour government of which he was part could have “charted a political way through” the problems that were thrown up by the banking meltdown and subsequent recession. “We could have come through this. We didn’t because there was a disagreement at the very top.” They disagreed over the depth of the crisis, with the prime minister insistent that the economy would recover after six months, while Darling says he believed it would take longer. Darling’s aides let it be known at the time that this was what he thought. Now Darling has revealed Brown thought his position wrong and based on misleading advice. “You need to be united at the top but you also need a credible economic policy,” Darling said. “If you don’t have a credible economic policy you are simply not at the races, and our problem was it was so blindingly obvious to the outside world that the two of us – Gordon and myself – were at odds that it really hampered us when it came to the election in 2010.” In his book, he writes: “No one wanted to acknowledge that we were heading for an extremely serious downturn … I was condemned for having said no more than was true.” He claims he was forced to present a budget that “simply lacked credibility”, and reveals that the 2009 budget was unwritten 48 hours before its presentation. In particular he singles out Brownite allies Balls and Yvette Cooper for resisting spending cuts, while Brown refused to increase VAT. The Tories have seized on his remarks, saying they showed that Labour’s current economic plan – Ed Miliband’s leadership is still signed up to Darling’s plan of halving the deficit over the course of this parliament – was not credible. Darling intends the book, Back from the Brink, to be a document of his role grappling with the financial crisis in 2008. He writes that he personally ordered the rescue plan for the banks in 2008, for which Brown has since taken the credit. At the time, Darling was concerned Brown’s allies would derail it. Darling writes that No 10 nearly jeopardised the whole bailout of the banks by opening their own negotiations: “Some of his advisers had opened up a separate channel to the banks. It was clear some of the senior bankers had a direct line to No 10. Any attempt to talk to Gordon about this parallel operation was met with brusque dismissal: it wasn’t happening. “In the aftermath of this crisis there have been many who have claimed authorship of what proved to be a highly successful plan … it really doesn’t matter who thought of the scheme first. What matters is that it worked. What I know is that the Treasury, the Bank and the FSA [Financial Services Authority] started this work … under my instruction.” On the reluctance of the governor of the Bank of England to save the banks for fear of moral hazard, Darling writes: “I was so desperate that I asked the Treasury to advise me as to whether we could order the bank to take action.” He reveals that Brown told him his appointment as chancellor was “only for a year or so”. In 2009 Brown told him he would be moved. Darling said he would leave the government if that happened. Purnell’s sudden resignation ensured it was impossible to move Darling at all. Darling also revealed that his caricature as a “bearded Trot” by the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock was a case of mistaken identity – Kinnock had confused him with the bearded Labour councillor John Mulvey. “I’ve become less leftwing than I was, but I was never a Trot,” Darling told the Sunday Times. Gordon and me – by Alistair Darling on his relationship with the Brownites “Damian McBride was no fan of mine – he clearly disapproved of Gordon’s decision to appoint me as chancellor. He used to look at me like the butler who resented the fact that his master had married someone he didn’t approve of. I’m not sure that he ever spoke to me. He would give me a curt nod, nothing more.” Darling on Brown “Richard Crossman in his diaries observes that political friendships should be cool and detached. I am afraid he is probably right. By now, ours was lacking in both qualities.” How to give a speech – Brown-style “I vividly remember a speech Gordon made while we were in opposition, the famous ‘neoclassical endogenous growth theory’ speech. He started speaking as the second half was still being written. Halfway through, a hand appeared from behind a curtain and handed him the rest of the speech. This exemplifies Gordon’s approach to working on such matters.” Alistair Darling Gordon Brown David Miliband Labour Politics Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A secret CIA document shows that British and Libyans worked together to arrange the removal of a terror suspect to Tripoli Evidence that British intelligence agencies mounted their own “rendition” operation in collaboration with Muammar Gaddafi’s security services has emerged with the discovery of a cache of Libyan government papers in an abandoned office building in Tripoli. A secret CIA document found among the haul shows that the British and Libyans worked together to arrange for a terrorism suspect to be removed from Hong Kong to Tripoli – along with his wife and children – despite the risk that they would be tortured. The wording of the document suggests the CIA was not involved in the planning of the rendition operation, but was eager to become engaged during its execution and offered financial support. Other papers found in the building suggest MI6 enjoyed a far closer working relationship with Gaddafi’s intelligence agencies than has been publicly known, and was involved in a number of US-led operations that also resulted in Islamists being consigned to Gaddafi’s prisons. On Sunday, one of the victims, Abdul Hakim Belhaj – now commander of the anti-Gaddafi militia in Tripoli – demanded an apology form London and Washington and said he was considering suing over his rendition to Tripoli and subsequent torture. For several years, senior MI5 and MI6 officers have sought to deny that their agencies have been guilty even of complicity in the rendition operations mounted by the US after 9/11, and the subsequent torture of the victims. The discovery of the papers suggests that on one occasion, at least, the British ran their own “rendition to torture” operation. The victim was named by the CIA as Abu Munthir. He is thought to have been a man who used this nom de guerre while living in the UK, where he is said to have encouraged a group of British Muslims to mount a bomb attack on an unspecified target in the south-east of England. The plotters were under surveillance by MI5 and counterterrorism detectives at the time that Abu Munthir was detained in Hong Kong in March 2004 before being sent to Libya. While five members of the gang were jailed for life after a trial at the Old Bailey, and a sixth received a 10-year sentence in Canada, the fate of Abu Munthir and his family remains unknown. The papers were discovered by staff of Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, in the unmarked offices of Libya’s external security agency. A number of the documents detail meetings between the British and Libyans during the period of rapprochement that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when Gaddafi was being persuaded to abandon his nuclear weapons programme. The fact that MI6 and Libyan intelligence enjoyed a close relationship at this time is known: the Secret Intelligence Service made no secret of its role in the successful WMD negotiations, and when Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa defected last March, MI6 organised the flight. The papers show that Sir Mark Allen, the former head of counterterrorism at MI6, played a key role in nurturing this relationship. The documents also show that British intelligence agencies provided intelligence reports on individuals of interest to Tripoli, helped the Libyans identify at least one organisation using particular telephone numbers in the UK, and were intimately involved in a number of US operations that saw Islamist terrorist suspects rendered to Libya. Since the ousting of Gaddafi it has become apparent that the regime’s enemies were tortured routinely while imprisoned , and at least one rendition victim, Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, later died in what the Libyans claimed was a suicide. The CIA fax that details the UK-Libya rendition operation is potentially the most damning for the UK authorities, however. It was sent to Tripoli on 23 March 2003 and marked SECRET/US ONLY/EXCEPT LIBYA. “Our service has become aware that last weekend LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] deputy Emir Abu Munthir and his spouse and children were being held in Hong Kong detention for immigration/passport violations,” it says. “We are also aware that your service had been co-operating with the British to effect Abu Munthir’s removal to Tripoli, and that you had an aircraft available for this purpose in the Maldives.” The fax goes on to explain that although Hong Kong had no wish to see a Libyan aircraft land on its territory, “to enable you to assume control of Abu Munthir and his family”, the operation would work if the Libyans were to charter an aircraft registered in a third country, and that the US would assist with the cost. The Hong Kong authorities were also insisting that the Libyans offer an assurance that the family’s human rights would be respected, but human rights groups would say that such assurances were worthless. Whitehall officials on Sunday defended the actions of the intelligence agencies and their links with Libya, saying this was “ministerially authorised government policy”. They said there were genuine fears some Libyan dissidents living in the UK posed a potential threat to national security, because of the group’s links to Islamic extremists. They were cut in 2009. MI5 and MI6 have continued to maintain they have not been complicit in torture and rendition despite the emergence of a growing body of evidence to the contrary. For example, the last Labour government tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the high court disclosing evidence that MI5 knew Binyam Mohamed was being tortured in Pakistan before an officer was sent to interrogate Also, a secret telegram signed by Jack Straw while he was foreign secretary, which was disclosed in a second court case, showed that the government had decided a number of British nationals should be sent to Guantánamo Bay, but only after MI5 had interrogated them in Afghanistan. him. Despite this, the agencies have continued to insist they were guilty only of being “slow to detect the emerging pattern” of rendition by the US, a defence that was accepted by the intelligence and security committee, the Westminster body that was established to offer political oversight of the agencies. The secret CIA fax is the first sign that the British went much further than being merely complicit, and were directly involved in rendition to a country where the victim could expect to be tortured. Abu Munthir was thought to be the link man between a group of British jihadists, whom he had met in Luton, and Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, who has been accused of being a senior figure in al-Qaida. A month after Abu Munthir’s detention in Hong Kong and removal to Tripoli, 18 men were arrested in police raids across the south of England. Two other men were arrested in New York and Ottawa and several were seized in Pakistan. It was alleged at a trial at the Old Bailey that Abu Munthir had encouraged members of the group to mount attacks in the UK, rather than wage jihad in Afghanistan. One of those held in Pakistan was Salahuddin Amin, then 29, from Luton, who was questioned 13 times by MI5 officers in between being tortured by agents of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). He was shown a photograph of Abu Munthir, and told that he too was in detention.The secret interrogation policy that MI5 and MI6 officers were instructed to follow during such operations was disclosed by the Guardian last month. Amin was later deported to the UK and is one of the men now serving life sentences. The questioning of Amin by the ISI, under torture, appears to have been co-ordinated with the questioning of other suspects held by Scotland Yard at Paddington Green police station in west London. It now appears that it was also co-ordinated with the questioning – quite possibly also under torture – of Abu Munthir in Tripoli. Libya Muammar Gaddafi MI6 Arab and Middle East unrest CIA rendition CIA Middle East Africa Global terrorism US foreign policy United States MI5 Ian Cobain Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …According to the Associated Press's Steve Peoples in a Saturday evening report, presidential candidate Rick Perry, speaking at a private reception in New Hampshire (which begs the question of whether Peoples was even there), told those attending: “I don't support a fence on the border.”
Continue reading …US politician tells Tea Party rally the president is adrift and accuses some of her rivals of ‘crony capitalism’ Sarah Palin spent the Labour Day holiday weekend fuelling speculation she may yet run for president, blasting Barack Obama and Republican rivals on the latest stops on her bus tour of key election states. As the crowd braved driving rain at a Tea Party rally in Indianola, Iowa, on Saturday Palin attacked the “crony capitalism” she said was destroying the US and a “permanent political class” that reinforced it. But she stopped short of answering the big question about whether the purpose of her tour was a run at the White House or an increase in book sales. On Monday Palin will speak in Manchester, New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary vote for presidential candidates. Palin has said she will announce by the end of this month whether she will join the race for the White House in 2012. Palin’s latest push comes days before the official Republican candidates hold their next televised debate. This is the second Republican candidate debate and the first since Rick Perry, Texas governor and a Tea Party favourite, joined the race. In Iowa 2,000 people travelled to a muddy field to hear Palin attack Obama. “Barack Obama promised to cut the deficit in half. Instead he turned around and tripled it,” she said. “Barack Obama is adrift. He doesn’t make sense. “Who wants to win the future by investing in harebrained ideas [like] solar panels and really fast trains?” The ideas were “nonstarters”, she said. “All aboard Obama’s bullet train to bankruptcy,” she added. But she also made digs at her potential Republican rivals. Obama was set to raise a billion dollars for his reelection campaign, she said, but Republican candidates “also raise mammoth amounts of cash”. “We need to ask them too, what, if anything, do their donors expect from their investments,” Palin said. “Our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar thank-you notes to campaign backers.” Perry, seen as the frontrunner in the Republican race, is a career politician who has been accused of using his position to help his donors. “There is a name for this,” Palin said. “It’s called corporate crony capitalism. It’s not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts … and influence peddling and corporate welfare.” Sarah Palin United States Republicans US politics Tea Party movement Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …