Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message that we’re losing Afghanistan

Published on Saturday, September 19, 2009 by The Independent/UK

Everyone Seems to Be Agreeing with Bin Laden These Days

Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message that we’re losing Afghanistan

by Robert Fisk

Obama and Osama are at last participating in the same narrative. For the US president's critics - indeed, for many critics of the West's military occupation of Afghanistan - are beginning to speak in the same language as Obama's (and their) greatest enemy.

There is a growing suspicion in America that Obama has been socked into the heart of the Afghan darkness by ex-Bushie Robert Gates - once more the Secretary of Defense - and by journalist-adored General David Petraeus whose military "surges" appear to be as successful as the Battle of the Bulge in stemming the insurgent tide in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.

No wonder Osama bin Laden decided to address "the American people" this week. "You are waging a hopeless and losing war," he said in his 9/11 eighth anniversary audiotape. "The time has come to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby." There was no more talk of Obama as a "house Negro" although it was his "weakness", bin Laden contended, that prevented him from closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, Muslim fighters would wear down the US-led coalition in Afghanistan "like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed". Funny, that. It's exactly what bin Laden told me personally in Afghanistan - four years before 9/11 and the start of America's 2001 adventure south of the Amu Darya river.

Almost on cue this week came those in North America who agree with Osama - albeit they would never associate themselves with the Evil One, let alone dare question Israel's cheerleading for the Iraqi war. "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," announces Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the senate intelligence committee. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity." And Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, does not believe "there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan".

Colin Kenny, chair of Canada's senate committee on national security and defense, said this week that "what we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling towards a Vietnam ending".

Close your eyes and pretend those last words came from the al-Qa'ida cave. Not difficult to believe, is it? Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message. Afghanistan remains for him the "war of necessity". Send yet more troops, his generals plead. And we are supposed to follow the logic of this nonsense. The Taliban lost in 2001. Then they started winning again. Then we had to preserve Afghan democracy. Then our soldiers had to protect - and die - for a second round of democratic elections. Then they protected - and died - for fraudulent elections. Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Obama assures us. And then the good old German army calls up an air strike - and zaps yet more Afghan civilians.

It is instructive to turn at this moment to the Canadian army, which has in Afghanistan fewer troops than the Brits but who have suffered just as ferociously; their 130th soldier was killed near Kandahar this week. Every three months, the Canadian authorities publish a scorecard on their military "progress" in Afghanistan - a document that is infinitely more honest and detailed than anything put out by the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defense - which proves beyond peradventure (as Enoch Powell would have said) that this is Mission Impossible or, as Toronto's National Post put it in an admirable headline three days' ago, "Operation Sleepwalk". The latest report, revealed this week, proves that Kandahar province is becoming more violent, less stable and less secure - and attacks across the country more frequent - than at any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. There was an "exceptionally high" frequency of attacks this spring compared with 2008.

There was a 108 per cent increase in roadside bombs. Afghans are reporting that they are less satisfied with education and employment levels, primarily because of poor or non-existent security. Canada is now concentrating only on the security of Kandahar city, abandoning any real attempt to control the province.

Canada's army will be leaving Afghanistan in 2011, but so far only five of the 50 schools in its school-building project have been completed. Just 28 more are "under construction". But of Kandahar province's existing 364 schools, 180 have been forced to close. Of progress in "democratic governance" in Kandahar, the Canadian report states that the capacity of the Afghan government is "chronically weak and undermined by widespread corruption". Of "reconciliation" - whatever that means these days - "the onset of the summer fighting season and the concentration of politicians and activists for the August elections discouraged expectations of noteworthy initiatives...".

Even the primary aim of polio eradication - Ottawa's most favored civilian project in Afghanistan - has defeated the Canadian International Development Agency, although this admission is cloaked in truly Blair-like (or Brown-like) mendacity. As the Toronto Star revealed in a serious bit of investigative journalism this week, the aim to "eradicate" polio with the help of UN and World Health Organization money has been quietly changed to the "prevention of transmission" of polio. Instead of measuring the number of children "immunized" against polio, the target was altered to refer only to the number of children "vaccinated". But of course, children have to be vaccinated several times before they are actually immune.

And what do America's Republican hawks - the subject of bin Laden's latest sermon - now say about the Afghan catastrophe? "More troops will not guarantee success in Afghanistan," failed Republican contender and ex-Vietnam vet John McCain told us this week. "But a failure to send them will be a guarantee of failure." How Osama must have chuckled as this preposterous announcement echoed around al-Qa'ida's dark cave.

2009 Independent News and Media.

Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper. He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

Obama Puts Nuclear Abolition Back on Agenda (another plus)

Published on Friday, September 18, 2009 by OneWorld.net

Obama Puts Nuclear Abolition Back on Agenda

by Jeffrey Allen

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama will become the first U.S. president ever to take the gavel at the United Nations Security Council next week, but those lobbying to eliminate the world's nuclear-weapon stockpiles are hoping the session will be historic for its circumstance, not just its pomp.

(Flickr photo by 200MoreMontrealStencils)

What's the Story?

Groups lobbying for the United States, Russia, and other nations to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear arsenals were pleased to hear Obama had chosen to use the high-profile platform to focus the world's attention on nuclear disarmament, but they are hoping he goes beyond theoretical pronouncements and takes tangible steps toward the goal he stated earlier this year of "a world without nuclear weapons."

The California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) presented a five-point plan for Obama's UN session in an email to supporters last week. The group thinks the U.S. president and other Security Council members should pledge never to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict and then set up a UN committee to lay out a roadmap and begin to execute a plan for the elimination of the world's nuclear weapons.

The group would also like to see the Security Council members strengthen the nuclear inspections process and endorse a proposal from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that would launch negotiations on nuclear disarmament and eliminate other weapons of mass destruction.

"It is, of course, not possible for all of this to happen in a single meeting of the members of the UN Security Council, but a bold start could be made," said NAPF president David Krieger. "It is an opportunity ripe with potential for needed change."

The group is urging its supporters to write to Obama ahead of next week's session to press its demands. [» Read the NAPF's full statement to Obama.]

There are some early indications that at least some of Krieger's wishes may come true.

The political news outlet Politico published last week a draft text of a UN resolution Obama is expected submit, which calls for nations that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to begin negotiations to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. The resolution, which is still subject to change, also calls on those nations to negotiate "a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control," and calls on all other states to join in this endeavor. [» Read the entire resolution.]

Obama Has Shifted the Discussion

In a groundbreaking speech in Prague this April, Obama pledged the United States' commitment to abolishing nuclear weapons.

"As a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act," Obama said. "We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

Obama has expressed three major goals on his nuclear agenda: ensuring the security of the 20,000 nuclear weapons currently held around the world, preventing the spread of nuclear material to new countries, and reducing and eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons.

Since the Prague speech, anti-nuclear weapons activists have ramped up their campaigns to support Obama's vision and convince the U.S. Congress to play along.

Physicians for Social Responsibility, an advocacy group rooted in medicine and public health, called on its 25,000 e-activists in June to press Congress to support Obama's goal, noting that Sen. John McCain had recently expressed his support for a nuclear-weapons-free world, but that otherwise, "Congress has, for the most part, responded to [Obama's] bold vision with silence." [» Read the call to action from Physicians for Social Responsibility.]

The Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, which includes over 40 national advocacy groups, is urging its supporters to write to Congress too.

"The U.S. can work with Russia to reduce our stockpiles to 1,000 or fewer nuclear weapons, strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and secure loose nuclear material," the coalition's letter says. [» Read the entire letter to Congress.]

It's still unclear if and when the U.S. Congress will take action to express support for Obama's vision or to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which, if adhered to, would make it significantly harder for nations to develop nuclear weapons. That treaty has been ratified by 35 nations, but still requires the assent of the United States and eight other countries to come into force.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead the U.S. delegation at a separate global conference next week aimed at moving the treaty toward enforcement.

In his speech in April, Obama recognized that the abolition of nuclear weapons would require a coordinated international effort. At major international forums since -- including the U.S.-Russia bilateral talks in July, which resulted in an agreement to reduce each nation's nuclear stockpile to less than 1,700 weapons, and the G-8 meeting of economic superpowers that followed -- other world powers have expressed their readiness to move forward.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon stands at the center of most of the action, and he is optimistic.

"Disarmament is back on the global agenda -- and not a moment too soon," he wrote in an August op-ed in the Washington Times, pointing to recent efforts to negotiate a fissile material treaty and next year's scheduled conference to review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"A groundswell of new international initiatives will soon emerge to move this agenda forward," he added.

© 2009 OneWorld.net

US Census Bureau Confirms Rising Poverty, Falling Incomes, and Growing Numbers of Uninsured

by Stephen Lendman / September 16th, 2009 / Dissident Voice

In early September, the US Census Bureau released its new report titled, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008” showing disturbing data that portends much worse ahead under a president and Congress doing nothing to address it.

In 2008, poverty reached 13.2% of the population, its highest level in 11 years, the result of millions losing jobs during the first year of the gravest economic crisis since the 1930s. For blacks, the figure was nearly double at 24.7%, and 31% of all Americans were impoverished for at least two months between 2004 and 2007, years of economic expansion.

At year-end 2008, even by the Bureau’s conservative measures, 39.8 million people were impoverished, the highest level since 1960, and 17.1 million lived in extreme poverty at below one-half the official threshold. In addition, for the first time since the 1930s, median household income failed to increase over a 10-year period from 1999 – 2008.

The Census Bureau states that it “presents annual estimates of median household income and poverty by state and other smaller geographic units based on data collected in the American Community Survey (ACS)” covering population areas of 20,000 or more. The Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program also produces yearly figures “for states and all counties, as well as population and poverty estimates for school districts.” It uses data from a variety of sources, including surveys, administrative records, inter-censal population estimates, and personal income data published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Critics maintain that official government figures way understate the gravity of today’s crisis, and the Bureau says:

“The official poverty thresholds were developed more than 40 years ago and have been criticized for not taking into account rising (or since the 1970s inflation-adjusted falling) standards of living, expenses such as child care that are necessary to hold a job, variations in medical costs across population groups (that have skyrocketed nationally and are now unaffordable for millions), and geographic differences in the cost of living.”

In addition, income and poverty estimates are pre-tax and exclude non-cash benefits, usually employer-provided. Disposable personal income, after income, payroll, sales, property and other taxes, reveals a far higher poverty level than the Census Bureau reports and a much graver crisis for growing millions as the economic decline deepens.

The Bureau reported that 2008 median (inflation adjusted) household income fell 3.6%, the largest single-year decline on record to the lowest level since 1997 and falling as conditions continue to worsen.

The plight of the poor and impoverished shows up in numerous other reports that paint a darker picture than the Census Bureau and suggest much worse ahead:

* an unprecedented, growing disparity between the very rich and other income groups;

* economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez’s research showing the top 1% of households got two-thirds of the national income growth during the last recovery, a larger share than at any time since the 1920s;

* wages losing ground to inflation;

* millions of children dependent on school lunches for a hot meal;

* the Economic Policy Institute estimates one-quarter of all children living in poverty by year-end 2009;

* the continued erosion of employer and government-provided benefits, including at the state and local levels; the growing uninsured crisis is discussed below;

* greater numbers of households unable to meet expenses, even with two working members;

* added duress from state budget cutbacks;

* record numbers of food stamp recipients;

* persistent and growing hunger and homelessness; and

* job losses and higher unemployment continuing for many more months, with some analysts projecting record high numbers before peaking.

A September 11 story in Time magazine by Kissinger Associates’ Joshua Ramo highlights the problem. Titled, “Jobless in America: Is Double-Digit Unemployment Here to Stay,” it quotes Larry Summers’ remarks last July before the Peterson Institute for International Economics about the disturbing rate of job losses. He suggested something strange was happening, unpredicted by experts:

“I don’t think that anyone fully understands this phenomenon,” he said. Will job losses mount longer than expected? At the “recession’s” end, will low numbers of new ones follow, and will double-digit unemployment persist and remain common?

Without saying it, Summers wondered if America’s economic model was broken and, if so, how to fix it. Or can it be fixed? According to the Peterson Institute’s Jacob Kirkegaard, “It is entirely possible that what started as a cyclical rise in unemployment could end up as an entrenched problem.”

Summers earned his reputation as an employment theorist. He now believes that earlier unemployment views are “importantly wrong. I thought if you could have areas where there was long-term substantial unemployment, then that raised some questions about the functioning of markets.”

In 1986, he wrote an article titled, “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem.” Hysteresis is the Greek word for late, referring to what happens when something snaps and can’t be fixed. It’s an idea economists deplore applying to economies, preferring instead to cite normal business cycle ups and downs. Yet in 1986, Summers argued that Europe’s unemployment might be chronic and persist in times of growth.

Today’s situation is another matter, coming at a time of changing economic landscape, perhaps suggesting that hysteresis is confronting America, and many lost jobs aren’t coming back, especially better paying ones. That’s Kirkegaard’s view in saying growth won’t put Americans back to work, and new jobs created will be of poorer quality than old ones.

So what can be done? Unlike in the 1930s, machines now do much of the work that people did on infrastructure projects. And it’s a lot harder converting white-collar workers to blue-collar ones. Moreover, Summers’ own research concludes that the traditional Western economic model won’t alleviate the jobs crisis. So what will?

Summers won’t say it, but short of a total remake of “free market” economics, likely nothing. And perhaps that’s America’s future: growing millions consigned to a permanent underclass, while an elite few at the top grow richer, until one day “hysteresis” snaps the system in a disruptive convulsion, the old model passes from the scene, and nothing is the same again.

More Evidence of Economic Duress in the Latest Federal Research Report on Consumer Credit

On September 8, the Federal Reserve reported that total consumer credit fell by a record $21.6 billion in July (the sixth consecutive monthly decline) and year-over-year by $2.47 trillion or 10.4%. According to Bernard Baumohl, The Economic Outlook Group’s chief global economist:

“It is one more important sign that consumers are not going to be contributing very much to the economy for the balance of this year and probably for (at least) a good part of next year.” Shrinking credit’s impact on consumption indicates an economy in decline. It shows up in growing poverty, falling incomes, and greater duress for growing millions, sure to be reflected in the Bureau’s 2009 report.

Continued Erosion of Health Care Coverage

In 2008, the Bureau also collected data on health insurance coverage, putting the number of uninsured at 46.3 million last year (15.4% of the population), an increase of 682,000 over 2007. It was the eighth consecutive year that fewer workers got employer-provided coverage, and those with insurance had to pay more of the cost.

Other estimates are far grimmer. Some, including the Congressional Budget Office, place the current uninsured total at about 50 million, and a May 2009 Todd Gilmer/Richard Kronick study estimated that 191,670 more lose coverage monthly, 2.3 million annually at the present rate, and an expected 6.9 million more Americans (over 2007) will lack it by year-end 2010 if the present trend continues.

Add to these the underinsured. According to the American Public Health Association, at least another 25 million are at great risk if they face a serious health problem not covered by their present plan. In addition, Families USA estimates about 90 million Americans had no health insurance during some portion of 2007 or 2008. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reported that over 80% of the uninsured come from working families, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimated that 27% of under aged-65 year old Americans lack coverage.

Still other estimates project up to 60 million uninsured if the commonly reported U-3 unemployment rate hits 10%, and the Urban Institute sees around 66 million without coverage by 2019, given the present trend of rising costs forcing employers increasingly to cut back.

Bureau data show that coverage weakened across most sectors of the population, including full-time workers and the middle class, the result of economic decline and years of employers putting a greater burden on their workforce.

Since at least 2001, the percent of workers with employer-provided insurance has steadily eroded, and it’s the main reason behind growing numbers of uninsured and underinsured. In 2008, 61.9% of the below-age 65 population had job-provided coverage, down from 67% in 2001 and falling due to cost cutting, continued job losses, and the trend to lower-paying ones.

In addition, holding a job no longer guarantees coverage. Plans offered have been greatly eroded, and medical expenses today are the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. America is the world’s only industrialized country denying its citizens universal coverage, yet spends on average more than double what the other 30 OECD countries spend, and delivers less because of unaffordable private insurance and overpriced drugs.

Nothing being debated in Washington addresses this, so whatever legislation emerges will make a dysfunctional system worse with the American public betrayed by “a slick-talking street hustler” — what analyst Bob Chapman calls Obama, or according to James Petras, “the greatest con man in recent history.” Make that plural with Congress under Democrat or Republican leadership because both parties are beholden to the corporate interests that own them and are indifferent to growing public needs.

Since taking office in January, Obama kept reform off the table, made progressive change a nonstarter, and achieved the impossible by governing worse than George Bush on virtually all of his domestic and foreign policies. Along with looting the federal Treasury, wrecking the economy, selling out to Wall Street, and continuing imperial wars, Obamacare is the centerpiece of his failed agenda and a betrayal of the public’s trust.

On September 9, he presented his vision to a joint congressional session, reassuring providers that their interests are secure. Rejecting universal single-payer coverage, he said it “makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.” And while favoring a “public option,” he assured private insurers that it’s not a deal-breaker, guaranteeing that no final plan will include one because enough votes can’t be gotten in the Senate.

Key also is the lowering of costs by:

* cutting hundreds of billions in Medicare and Medicaid benefits as a prelude to eliminating or greatly gutting these programs with perhaps Social Security and other social gains to follow;

* placing caps on what tests and treatments doctors can provide;

* putting “medical expert” gatekeepers in charge of deciding the most cost-effective care, thus preventing doctors from prescribing what’s best for their patients and denying people the right to make their own health care choices if their cost exceeds what Washington will allow;

* taxing so-called “Cadillac” plans (mostly covering state employees, municipal union members, and other working Americans, not just the super-rich) to encourage employers to provide fewer benefits, thus placing a greater burden on workers; forcing everyone to have insurance; and placing a surtax on non-compliers with incomes of between 100 – 300% of the poverty level under the Baucus Senate plan;

* creating a “deficit trigger” to reduce the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending if anticipated savings aren’t met; and

* making everyone more responsible for their own care by forcing them to cover more of the cost in return for less coverage when they need it most.

Numerous details remain hidden from the public, but the goal of Obamacare is clear. It’s a scheme to ration care; charge people more for it; enrich private insurers, PhRMA, and large hospital chains; mandate insurance for everyone; and penalize non-compliers.

It’s up to public outrage to stop it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen, or visit Stephen's website.

This article was posted on Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 at 9:00am and is filed under Activism, Capitalism, Democracy, Economy/Economics, Food/Nutrition, Health/Medical, Human Rights, Obama

State of Play? Why is Obama Still Using Blackwater?

Published on Thursday, September 17, 2009 by The Nation

Why is Obama Still Using Blackwater?

by Jeremy Scahill

Two years ago on September 16, 2007, on a steamy hot Baghdad day with temperatures reaching 100 degrees, a heavily armed Blackwater convoy entered a congested intersection at Nisour Square in the Mansour district of the Iraqi capital. The once-upscale section of Baghdad was still lined with boutiques, cafes and art galleries dating back to better days. The ominous caravan consisted of four large armored vehicles with machine guns mounted on top.

As the Blackwater convoy was entering the square that day, a young Iraqi medical student named Ahmed Hathem Al-Rubaie was driving his mother, Mahasin, in the family's white sedan. As fate would have it, they found themselves stuck near Nisour Square. The family were devout Muslims and were fasting in observance of the holy month of Ramadan.

Ali Khalaf Salman, an Iraqi traffic cop on duty in Nisour Square that day, remembers vividly when the Blackwater convoy entered the intersection, spurring him and his colleagues to scramble to stop traffic. But as the Mambas entered the square, the convoy suddenly made a surprise U-turn and proceeded to drive the wrong way on a one-way street. As Khalaf watched, the convoy came to an abrupt halt. He says a large white man with a mustache, positioned atop the third vehicle in the Blackwater convoy, began to fire his weapon "randomly."

Khalaf looked in the direction of the shots, on Yarmouk Road, and heard a woman screaming, "My son! My son!" The police officer sprinted toward the voice and found a middle-aged woman inside of a vehicle holding a 20-year-old man covered in blood, who had been shot in the forehead. "I tried to help the young man, but his mother was holding him so tight," Khalaf recalled. Another Iraqi policeman, Sarhan Thiab, also ran to the car. "We tried to help him,'' Thiab said. "I saw the left side of his head was destroyed and his mother was crying out: 'My son, my son. Help me, help me.'''

Officer Khalaf recalled looking toward the Blackwater shooters. "I raised my left arm high in the air to try to signal to the convoy to stop the shooting." He says he thought the men would cease fire, given that he was a clearly identified police officer. The young man's body was still in the driver's seat of the automatic vehicle and, as Khalaf and Thiab stood there, it began to roll forward, perhaps as a result of the dead man's foot remaining on the accelerator. Blackwater guards later said they initially opened fire on the vehicle because it was speeding and would not stop, a claim hotly disputed by scores of witnesses. Aerial photos of the scene later showed that the car had not even entered the traffic circle when it was fired upon by Blackwater, while the New York Times reported, "The car in which the first people were killed did not begin to closely approach the Blackwater convoy until the Iraqi driver had been shot in the head and lost control of his vehicle," meaning Blackwater had already shot the man. "I tried to use hand signals to make the Blackwater people understand that the car was moving on its own and we were trying to stop it. We were trying to get the woman out but had to run for cover," Thiab said.

"Don't shoot, please," Khalaf recalled yelling. But as he stood with his hand raised, Khalaf says a gunman from the fourth Blackwater vehicle opened fire on the mother gripping her son and shot her dead before Khalaf's and Thiabs' eyes. "I saw parts of the woman's head flying in front of me, blow up," Thiab said. "They immediately opened heavy fire at us." Within moments, so many shots had been fired at the car from "big machine guns" that Khalaf says it exploded, engulfing the bodies inside in flames, melting their flesh into one. "Each of their four vehicles opened heavy fire in all directions, they shot and killed everyone in cars facing them and people standing on the street," Thiab recalled. "When it was over we were looking around and about fifteen cars had been destroyed, the bodies of the killed were strewn on the pavements and road." When later asked by US investigators why he never fired at the Blackwater men, Khalaf told them, "I am not authorized to shoot, and my job is to look after the traffic."

The victims were later identified as Ahmed Hathem Al-Rubaie and his mother, Mahasin. That attack on Ahmed and Mahasin's vehicle would be the beginning of a fifteen-minute shooting spree that would leave seventeen Iraqis dead and more than twenty wounded.

One of the Blackwater "shooters" that day, Jeremy Ridgeway, later admitted in sworn testimony, that he had killed Mahasin by firing "multiple rounds" into her vehicle and that "there was no attempt to provide reasonable warning."

After Ahmed and Mahasin's vehicle exploded, sustained gunfire rang out in Nisour Square as people fled for their lives. In addition to the Blackwater shooters in the four Mambas, witnesses say gunfire came from Blackwater's Little Bird helicopters. "The helicopters began shooting on the cars," officer Khalaf said. "The helicopters shot and killed the driver of a Volkswagen and wounded a passenger" who escaped by "rolling out of the car into the street," he said. Witnesses described a horrifying scene of indiscriminate shooting by the Blackwater guards. "It was a horror movie," said officer Khalaf. "It was catastrophic," said Zina Fadhil, a 21-year-old pharmacist who survived the attack. "So many innocent people were killed."

Another Iraqi officer on the scene, Hussam Abdul Rahman, said that people who attempted to flee their vehicles were targeted. "Whoever stepped out of his car was shot at immediately," he said.

"I saw women and children jump out of their cars and start to crawl on the road to escape being shot," said Iraqi lawyer Hassan Jabar Salman, who was shot four times in the back during the incident. "But still the firing kept coming and many of them were killed. I saw a boy of about 10 leaping in fear from a minibus--he was shot in the head. His mother was crying out for him. She jumped out after him, and she was killed."

Salman says he was driving behind the Blackwater convoy when it stopped. Witnesses say some sort of explosion had gone off in the distance, too far away to have been perceived as a threat. He said Blackwater guards ordered him to turn his vehicle around and leave the scene. Shortly after, the shooting began. "Why had they opened fire?" he asked. "I do not know. No one--I repeat no one--had fired at them. The foreigners had asked us to go back, and I was going back in my car, so there was no reason for them to shoot." In all, he says, his car was hit twelve times, including the four bullets that pierced his back.

Ridgeway, the Blackwater operative, admitted that he and the other Blackwater operatives "opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians." None of the victims that day "was an insurgent," he said, adding that "many were shot while inside of civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee." Ridgeway said one Iraqi was shot "while standing in the street with his hands up."

Mohammed Abdul Razzaq and his 9-year-old-son, Ali, were in a vehicle immediately behind Ahmed and Mahasin, the first victims that day. "We were six persons in the car--me, my son, my sister and her three sons. The four children were in the back seat." He recalled that the Blackwater forces had "gestured stop, so we all stopped.... It's a secure area so we thought it will be the usual, we would stop for a bit as convoys pass. Shortly after that they opened heavy fire randomly at the cars with no exception." He said his vehicle "was hit by about thirty bullets, everything was damaged, the engine, the windshield the back windshield and the tires.

"When the shooting started, I told everybody to get their heads down. I could hear the children screaming in fear. When the shooting stopped, I raised my head and heard my nephew shouting at me 'Ali is dead, Ali is dead.' "

"My son was sitting behind me," he said. "He was shot in the head and his brains were all over the back of the car." Razzaq remembered, "When I held him, his head was badly wounded, but his heart was still beating. I thought there was a chance and I rushed him to the hospital. The doctor told me that he was clinically dead and the chance of his survival was very slim. One hour later, Ali died." Razzaq, who survived the shooting, later returned to the scene and gathered the pieces of his son's skull and brains with his hands, wrapped them in cloth and took them to be buried in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. "I can still smell the blood, my son's blood, on my fingers," Razzaq said two weeks after his son died.

In all, the melee reportedly lasted about fifteen minutes. In an indication of how out of control the situation quickly became, US officials report that "one or more" Blackwater guards called on their colleagues to stop shooting. The word cease-fire ''was supposedly called out several times,'' a senior official told the New York Times. "They had an on-site difference of opinion." At one point a Blackwater guard allegedly drew his gun on another. "It was a Mexican standoff," said one contractor. According to an Iraqi lawyer who was in the square that day, the Blackwater guard screamed at his colleague, "No! No! No!" The Iraqi lawyer himself was shot in the back as he tried to flee.

As the heavy gunfire died down, witnesses say some sort of smoke bomb was set off in the square, perhaps to give cover for the Blackwater Mambas to leave, a common practice of security convoys. Iraqis also said the Blackwater forces fired shots as they withdrew from the square. "Even as they were withdrawing, they were shooting randomly to clear the traffic," said an Iraqi officer who witnessed the shootings in Nisour Square.

Within hours, Blackwater would become a household name the world over, as word of the massacre spread. Blackwater claimed its forces had been "violently attacked" and "acted lawfully and appropriately" and "heroically defended American lives in a war zone." "The 'civilians' reportedly fired upon by Blackwater professionals were in fact armed enemies." In less than twenty-four hours, the killings at Nisour Square would cause the worst diplomatic crisis to date between Washington and its own puppet regime in Baghdad. Though its forces had been at the center of some of the bloodiest moments of the war, Blackwater had largely existed in the shadows. Four years after Blackwater's first boots hit the ground in Iraq, it was yanked out of the darkness. Nisour Square would send Erik Prince down the fateful path to international infamy.

Jeremy Ridgeway later pled guilty to one count of manslaughter. Five other Blackwater guards have been indicted on manslaughter and other charges for their role at Nisour Square that day. Blackwater forces "fired at innocent Iraqis not because they actually believed that they were in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and actually believed that they had no alternative to the use of deadly force, but rather...because of their hostility toward Iraqis and their grave indifference to the harm that their actions would cause," US prosecutors allege. "The defendants specifically intended to kill or seriously injure the Iraqi civilians that they fired upon at [Nisour] Square." Prosecutors also allege that "defendant Nicholas Slatten made statements that he wanted to kill as many Iraqis as he could as 'payback for 9/11,' and he repeatedly boasted about the number of Iraqis he had shot." Blackwater's owner, Erik Prince, has faced no consequences for the actions of his forces.

Two years to the day after the Nisour Square massacre, Blackwater remains in Iraq, armed and dangerous. As The Nation has reported, the Obama administration recently extended the company's contract there indefinitely. Blackwater has big-money contracts in Afghanistan as well, working for the State Department, the Defense Department and the CIA. As in Iraq, Blackwater forces are alleged to have shot and killed innocent civilians there. We now know that Blackwater was hired as part of the secret CIA assassination program that former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered concealed from Congress and that the company continues to work for the CIA as part of its drone bombing campaign in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A former Blackwater employee, known as John Doe #2, recently alleged in a sworn statement originally obtained by The Nation that Erik Prince, "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life." Prince, the former employee charged, "intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.... Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to 'lay Hajiis out on cardboard.' Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as 'ragheads' or 'hajiis.' "

Another former Blackwater employee, an ex-US Marine, charged in a sworn statement that "Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq." He states that he personally witnessed weapons being "pulled out" from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that "Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince's private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines," adding that Prince "generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade."

Meanwhile, a new lawsuit has been filed against Prince by four Iraqis who claim they were shot by Blackwater operatives a week before Nisour Square on September 9, 2007. According to Susan Burke, the lawyer for the Iraqis who works with the Center for Constitutional Rights, Prince runs the operations of his "heavily armed private army" in Iraq and elsewhere from a twenty-four-hour command center known as the "war room." Burke also alleges that in Iraq "Prince's private army of men went 'night hunting' on more than one occasion. This 'night hunting' entailed Mr. Prince's men, armed with night goggles and riding in Mr. Prince's wholly-owned helicopters after 10 pm over the streets of Baghdad, killing at random."

On the second anniversary of the single worst massacre of Iraqi civilians committed by a private force since the US invasion, President Obama should be forced to explain to the American people and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan why he continues to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to this company and why he permits them to remain on the ground, representing the United States in these countries. At a recent hearing of the bipartisan Wartime Contracting Commission, commissioner Linda Gustitus asserted that in not canceling Blackwater's contracts after Nisour Square, the State Department "helped to send a message to other contractors that you can do a lot and not have your contract terminated."

© 2009 The Nation

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

Obama Is Outsourcing War To Israel

Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.

By BRET STEPHENS

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

CommonDreams.org

09.15.09 - 5:18 PM

Little Obama and Big Bad Beck (In Manure, Yet)

by Abby Zimet

Glenn Beck - 2009 - bull shit and pigment on canvas 48” X 67”

With Obama increasingly straying from the progressive ideals that moved so many young people to work and vote for him, Campus Progress hopes to put him back on track with a helpful lesson in dealing with right-wing bullies who are pushing him around "like kids in a playground." In honor of their "deranged" leader Glenn Beck, artist Michael Murphy has painted a portrait of Beck "in bullshit and pigment on canvas" - really - which is here

"There are two things you absolutely do not want to do when a bully tries to make your life a living hell: you do not want to ignore them and you do not want to give in to their demands."

A Project of Center for American Progress

Obama’s Guide to Dealing with Kindergarten Bullies

September 11th, 2009 by tboggia

On November 4th 2008, young people propelled President Obama to victory with a clear mandate to advance a progressive agenda. Unfortunately things have not been going as well as we would have hoped. Right wing bullies, led by the deranged Glenn Beck, have been relentlessly pushing Obama and congressional Democrats around like kids in a playground. From delaying health care reform to the recent resignations of key progressives in the administration, our new found hopes are rapidly reverting to distant dreams.

It is time for President Obama to start dealing with the bullies who are threatening to take him down. Unfortunately, it seems like he does not yet know how to do this, despite having been an avid comic book reader (and thus a likely victim of bullies) and having sharpened his political mind in Chicago. As someone who has been pushed around a good amount as a kid and having done some pushing around myself, here are some pointers for how President Obama (hereon little Obama) can avoid losing more ground to the likes of Glenn Beck (hereon big bad Beck).

Big bad Beck is a bully through and through. His rocky childhood gave rise to deep paranoia, a bipolar personality, delusions of grandeur, and deep-seated anger at people he perceives to be different than him. He consciously and repeatedly attempts to cause psychological harm to little Obama, mostly by spreading false rumors, making threats, using put-downs and encouraging his base to take up arms. Big bad Beck’s attacks are not just criticisms of little Obama’s pet projects. His attacks are meant to destroy Obama’s spirit, self-esteem, and popularity and to get back at him for winning the elections by a wide margin. It must be said that, as Dr. Gary Namie (author of “The Bully at Work”) says, “Good employers purge bullies, bad ones promote them”. Fox News and talk radio stations are complicit in big bad Beck’s “bullyism” by providing him a bullhorn to spread his slanderous and deranged rumors.

It must be said that big bad Beck’s behavior is perfectly normal for a bully, especially one in the kindergarten playground spanning from New York’s media rooms to Washington D.C.’s halls of power. The unusual aspect of this bullying dynamic is that little Obama is passively taking all the blows. As Kidshealth.com states, “Bullies tend to bully kids who don’t stick up for themselves.”

There are two things you absolutely do not want to do when a bully tries to make your life a living hell: you do not want to ignore them and you do not want to give in to their demands. Unfortunately little Obama did just that and let Beck rant about his green jobs adviser until he felt compelled to resign. Big bad Beck gained strength, resolve, and a more active following and Obama was left wondering who among his administration was going to be targeted next. Now little Obama is not just at the mercy of big bad Beck, but also of every other conservative pundit, blogger, and politician who has been paying attention to how easily little Obama retreats and gives in. It is only a matter of time before his allies will become impatient, disillusioned, and less willing to stand up for their friend. This is a vicious cycle that leads little Obama right where the big bad bullies want him: friendless, cornered, and vulnerable. Needless to say, this is exactly what progressives need to avoid at all costs.

So, how can little Obama stop his descent in this downward spiral? And how can progressives help him? First of all, little Obama needs to gain some self-confidence. Were he a pimply, pudgy middle-school kid, he might want to sign up for a gym membership, but little Obama is all grown up and has vast support from the American people. All he has to do is take a quick glance at any of the polls showing that Americans still overwhelmingly support him, especially when he stands strong on the progressive priorities he campaigned on. Or he could look at polls revealing that young people are less likely to re-elect senators who intend to vote against a climate bill or for health care without public option. If I were little Obama, I’d frame these polls and hang them up in my office alongside the results of the 2008 elections. They should make him think twice before giving in to another conservative talking head or one of their crazy town hall, tea-bagger minions.

Little Obama might also want to enroll in a self-defense class. No, I’m not talking about martial arts here; I’m talking about communications self-defense. Little Obama should review tapes from the previous administration and notice how everyone in the executive branch and congressional leadership stuck to the same talking points, regardless of how absurd or false they were (e.g. “Iraq is a threat to America!”). The Bush administration managed to have a simple and common response on almost every issue that came up and thus shifted the media’s attention to wherever they wanted it. Unlike Bush, little Obama has the truth on his side, so there is not anything wrong with repeating it over and over ad nauseam. If little Obama learned how to defend himself he would be more prepared next time big bad Beck launches another smear attack.

Little Obama needs to keep his friends close, not throw them under the bus as soon as big bad Beck launches his attacks. When bullies are allowed to speak out unchallenged, they gain strength and followers. If little Obama had let his friends speak out against the smears, it would have opened floodgates for more people to stand in support of the truth. Showing bullies that you have more friends than them, thus humiliating them and robbing them of their perceived power, is possibly the strongest tool to stop the attacks. Bullies thrive on the complicit silence of onlookers while the target becomes increasingly isolated.

Thankfully, not all of little Obama’s friends are sitting idly by. An incredible campaign by ColorOfChange.org has successfully weakened big bad Beck by robbing him of 62 of his show’s most generous supporters. They stood up for their bullied friend and achieved some impressive results, but until little Obama learns to stand up for himself and stop giving big bad Beck victories, this barrage of attacks is unlikely to end. The truth is that big bad Beck’s power is an illusion, and the man behind the curtain will be revealed as soon as little Obama shows his power by not letting bullies push him around and by passing bold progressive legislation to set our country straight. The improvements will be visible and bring big bad Beck’s deranged paranoia into the spotlight.

But he can’t do it alone! Now is the time to strike back against Glenn Beck, to let him and his corporate enablers know that young people are still watching and actively organizing to take power away from the bullies and put it back in the tools of our democracy. Young people have overwhelmingly voted for progressive change, and we expect President Obama to deliver. President Obama — will you deliver the change that we elected you to bring about, or are you going to let bullies destroy the dreams of our generation?

Tags: Barack Obama, Glenn Beck
Posted in News |

Obama Adminisatration Wants Surveillance Methods Extended

Published on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 by Reuters

US Justice Dept Wants Surveillance Methods Extended

by Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has asked the U.S. Congress to extend three surveillance techniques for intelligence agencies tracking suspected militants that expire this year, according to a letter to lawmakers.

Approved after the September 11 attacks in 2001 at the request of the Bush administration, techniques such as roving wiretaps and accessing all kinds of personal records drew criticism from civil liberties groups and some lawmakers who said they were unconstitutional and violated privacy rights.

In the letter released on Tuesday, a Justice Department official asked that three of the techniques expiring on December 31 be renewed and said the Obama administration was open to lawmakers' plans to add more privacy protections.

"The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities," Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and the ranking Republican senator, Jeff Sessions.

The committee will hold a hearing next week to discuss the administration's request.

"I am pleased that the Justice Department has signaled its willingness to work with Congress in addressing the expiring provisions," Leahy said. "It is important that Congress and the executive branch work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties."

The Justice Department specifically asked that Congress reauthorize the use of roving wiretaps, permitting authorities to track multiple communications devices owned by an individual since people can switch devices frequently and quickly.

The administration also asked that one particularly controversial intelligence gathering method be reauthorized -- accessing personal records.

That was a point of contention because some feared that even library and bookstore records could be accessed, prompting Congress to try to limit it.

"CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC"

"Many of these instances will be mundane," Weich said, suggesting that requests often are for driver's license records protected by state privacy laws. But he acknowledged others would be more complex and tracking their business activities.

The administration also asked to continue being able to track suspected foreign militants who may be working individually rather than as part of a larger group, much like Zacarias Moussaoui who is serving a life sentence for conspiring with the September 11 hijackers.

While extending controversial Bush policies could annoy President Barack Obama's more liberal backers, the American Civil Liberties Union said the willingness of his administration to enhance privacy protections was a good first step but would depend on the outcome.

"We're cautiously optimistic. There are still changes we'd like to see to these three provisions to protect Americans' privacy," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU.

She said other government surveillance activities that did not expire this year also needed fixing, especially so-called national security letters which were essentially subpoenas for personal records.

The FBI has been roundly criticized for abusing them.

Democratic Senators Richard Durbin and Russ Feingold urged Congress to take up that issue now as well.

"We must take this opportunity to get it right, once and for all," they said in a statement.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)

© 2009 Reuters

Obama Administration Planning to Weaken Copenhagen Climate Deal, Europe Warns

Published on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 by The Guardian/UK

US Planning to Weaken Copenhagen Climate Deal, Europe Warns

Exclusive: Key differences between the US and Europe could undermine a new worldwide treaty on global warming to replace Kyoto, sources say

by David Adam

Europe has clashed with the US Obama administration over climate change in a potentially damaging split that comes ahead of crucial political negotiations on a new global deal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Ban Ki-moon speaks at the Bali climate change conference in 2007. The UN secretary general told the Guardian on Monday that negotiations ahead of Copenhagen had stalled and need to 'get moving'. (Photograph: Adek Berry/AFP)

The Guardian understands that key differences have emerged between the US and Europe over the structure of a new worldwide treaty on global warming. Sources on the European side say the US approach could undermine the new treaty and weaken the world's ability to cut carbon emissions.

The treaty will be negotiated in December at a UN meeting in Copenhagen and is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from a temperature rise of 2C or higher, which the EU considers dangerous.

"If we end up with a weaker framework with less stringent compliance, then that is not so good for the chances of hitting 2C," a source close to the EU negotiating team said.

News of the split comes amid mounting concern that the Copenhagen talks will not make the necessary progress.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN general secretary, told the Guardian last night that negotiations had stalled and need to "get moving".

Ahead of an unprecedented UN climate change summit of almost 100 heads of government in New York next week, Moon said the leaders held in their hands "the future of this entire humanity".

He said: "We are deeply concerned that the negotiation is not making much headway [and] it is absolutely and crucially important for the leaders to demonstrate their political will and leadership."

The dispute between the US and Europe is over the way national carbon reduction targets would be counted. Europe has been pushing to retain structures and systems set up under the Kyoto protocol, the existing global treaty on climate change. US negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design.

The issue is highly sensitive and European officials are reluctant to be seen to openly criticise the Obama administration, which they acknowledge has engaged with climate change in a way that President Bush refused to. But they fear the US move could sink efforts to agree a robust new treaty in Copenhagen.

The US distanced itself from Kyoto under President Bush because it made no demands on China, and the treaty remains political poison in Washington. European negotiators knew the US would be reluctant to embrace Kyoto, but they hoped they would be able to use it as a foundation for a new agreement.

If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a replacement framework, the source added, a delay that could strike a terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. "In Europe we want to build on Kyoto, but the US proposal would in effect kill it off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes time. It could be 2015 or 2016 before something is in place, who knows."

According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), world emissions need to peak by 2015 to give any chance of avoiding a 2C rise.

Europe is unlikely to stand up to the US, the source added. "I am not sure that the EU actually has the guts for a showdown and that may be exactly the problem." The US plan is likely to anger many in the developing world, who are keen to retain Kyoto because of the obligations it makes on rich countries.

Under Kyoto, greenhouse gas reductions are subject to an international system that regulates the calculation of emissions, the purchase of carbon credits and contribution of sectors such as forestry. The US is pushing instead for each country to set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target.

The US is yet to offer full details on how its scheme might work, though a draft "implementing agreement" submitted to the UN by the Obama team in May contained a key clause that emissions reductions would be subject to "conformity with domestic law".

Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being forced to implement international action it does not agree with. Farhana Yamin, an environmental lawyer with the Institute of Development Studies, who worked on Kyoto, said: "It seems a bit backwards. The danger is that the domestic tail starts to wag the international dog."

The move reflects a "prehistoric" level of debate on climate change in the wider US, according to another high-ranking European official, and anxiety in the Obama administration about its ability to get a new global treaty ratified in the US Senate, where it would require a two-thirds majority vote. The US has not ratified a major international environment treaty since 1992 and President Clinton never submitted the Kyoto protocol for approval, after a unaminous Senate vote indicated it would be rejected on economic grounds.

The US proposal for unilateral rule-setting "is all about getting something through the Senate," the source said. "But I don't have the feeling that the US has thought through what it means for the Copenhagen agreement."

The move could open loopholes for countries to meet targets without genuine carbon cuts, they said. Europe is not concerned that the US would exploit such loopholes, but it fears that other countries might.

The US State Department, which handles climate change, would not comment.

Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "There has been a sea change in US attitudes [on climate] and the new president is deeply committed on this issue. But the EU needs to understand the limitations in the US. The reality is that is it impossible for my successor to negotiate something in Copenhagen beyond that which Congress will give the administration in domestic cap-and-trade legislation."

Nigel Purvis, who also worked on the US Kyoto team, said: "It's not welcome news in Europe but the Kyoto architecture shouldn't have any presumed status. Many decisions were taken when the United States was not at the negotiating table. Importing the Kyoto architecture into a new agreement would leave it vulnerable to charges of repackaging."

He denied the US move would weaken the agreement. "It is important for the US to negotiate an agreement it can join, because another agreement that did not involve the United States would set back efforts to protect the climate. Is it weaker to have a system that applies to more countries? I would argue not."

© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited