Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline

More News You NEVER
Hear on The News !

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.


The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.[1] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.


The 1,680 kilometres (1,040 mi) pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India.


The pipeline will be 1,420 millimetres (56 in) in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm.[3] The initial capacity will be 27 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually of which 2 bcm will be provided to Afghanistan and 12.5 bcm to both Pakistan and India. Later the capacity will increase to 33 bcm.[4] Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline.[3] The pipeline is expected to be operational by 2014.[5]

The cost of the pipeline is estimated cost at US$7.6 billion.[2] The project is to be financed by the Asian Development Bank.

Special thanks to Wiki

Looks like there's more to Afghanistan than just terrorists, corruption and heroin...THERE'S OIL !!!

Click B4B

To return to Main Page

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

'Yes We KLAN' Rally In D.C.
This Is One SICK GROUP !

Return To B4B Main Page CLICK
WATCH: Whitney On Oprah
In Case You Missed It !
Both Days



Saturday, August 22, 2009

Truth About Our 'Founding Fathers'

Racists, Sexists; Not worthy of all the Praise !

From: Can't Hold My Tongue

The term founding fathers has come to be associated with honor and glory in US society. They are referred to most often when one is lamenting this or that deviation the nation has taken from an earlier, truer, more righteous path established by the Founders. Almost always, I hear this rhetorical device, “the Founders” emanate from the mouths of whites in the US. The evoking of “the Founders” stands as yet another plank of evidence of the pathological nature of our national insanity. The myth of “the Founders” is most easily exposed simply by looking at a few of amendments to the Constitution for which they are so highly and incessantly praised and adored.

The main Federalists, James Madison, Andrew Hamilton and John Jay are heavily credited for providing the basis for what many consider to be a great system of governance, that existing in the US. Mentioned far less is how the Federalists had to be pressured by the anti-Federalists to include what is now known as the Bill of Rights. The Federalists didn’t want it in. Freedom of speech (1st amendment), the right to a speedy trial (6th amendment), the right to a gun (2nd amendment), decree that Africans are human (13th and 15th amendments). The Founding Fathers didn’t see fit for these things to be a part of the Constitution, hence the need to amend it, to add to it later. Look at all the amendments.

I agree that it was indeed wise to include an amendment feature, but the very things that had to be amended communicate volumes about just who the Founders were and what their interests were. They didn’t allow women or non-whites to be a part of the democracy they continually bragged about (and that continues to be bragged about). They created this thing called ‘America’ but then stated essentially that women and non-whites were not Americans. These groups subsequently had to fight for the right to be Americans. They had to fight for the right to reverse their situation created by the Founders. Women and non-whites being a majority of the population, most of the country had to spend years in struggle reversing the situation of exclusion written into law by the Founding Fathers.

If you talk to your average white guy you’ll find extolling the virtues of the Founders, he’ll explain to you that although those were problems the things he finds exciting and in fact extraordinary are all the other things. The fact that a majority of the population was excluded, is but a footnote to him, an ancillary concern. This is instructive as it illustrates how, even after literally centuries of so-called ‘progress’, the mindset of the Founders, those elites, still exists within the average white male in the United States.

Indeed, anyone that finds it within himself to extol the virtue of the Founders inherently sidelines the value of the lives of women and non-whites generally. History allows me to say that without hesitation. We know that the Founders were racists, were sexists, that many of them were enslavers. Knowing all of this, many in the US make it clear that they see these problems as minor. And thus the reality of the problems of today are made clear. The racist, sexist mindset of the Founders continues to resonate throughout US society; culturally, politically. Though progress has been made, it is the citizens of this country with the mindset of the ‘the Founders’ that have, throughout the years, have not advanced progress but instead formed the principle resistance to that progress.


B4B NOTE: Beware of folks who constantly rant that they want things the way the Founding Fathers wanted things to be. This, in many cases is code word for support of the ills and extreme negativity that has plagued our country for centuries.

Return B4B Main Site

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Despite Internet Frenzy,

President Obama Still Firm

on Public Option Plan

Administration Official: "Sebelius Misspoke."

By Marc Ambinder

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.

A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.

"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.

Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.

"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said.

This has been a refrain the White House has used for weeks, but not until Saturday did Mr. Obama voice it so explicitly.

The perception that the White House had backed away from the public plan has roiled many prominent Democrats, who took to their blogs, and to Twitter, to protest.

Friday, July 17, 2009

From Media Matters:

Charting a misleading course on health care

(BKA Health Care Lies of Right Wing Media)

Nothing sends media conservatives off the deep end quite like the issue of health care reform. This week was certainly no exception.

This Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News' Glenn Beck blew up on a caller who dared to challenge his unyielding, misleading war against health care reform. After patronizing the angry caller for several minutes, Beck "los[t]" his "mind," screaming at the caller: "Get off my phone you little pinhead!" Since then, the disturbing exchange has been burning uphighlighted the clip as an example of how conservative "anger" has "intensified." Capping things off, Beck's screaming fit spawned a hilarious YouTube user-generated remix titled: "Glenn Beck 'Get Off My Phone' Radio Freak Out (Twilight Vampire Metal Remix)." YouTube and is currently ranked the #5 video overall with more than 350,000 views. MSNBC's David Shuster and Tamron Hall even

Coverage of health care, though, has been anything but funny of late.

This week, the Drudge Report, Fox News Channel, Fox Business and CNBC's The Kudlow Report ran with a chart released by congressional Republicans that day - just one day after House Democrats introduced their health care reform bill -- that purported to show "the complex health care reform proposal by Democratic congressional leaders." The release from Rep. Kevin Brady (TX) about the chart, titled "BAFFLING FLOW CHART; Public Gets Peek at Complicated Bureaucracy in Democratic Health Care Plan," stated that the chart "depicts how the health care system would be organized at the national level if the Democrats' plan became law. These new levels of bureaucracy, agencies, organization and programs will all be put directly between the patient and their health care."

Fox News' Sean Hannity hosted Bill O'Reilly ambush-producer-extraordinaire Griff Jenkins, who described the chart as "Candyland," noting that "whatever it is, it's a lot of government between you and your doctor," while syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, also on Fox, touted the chart by saying it makes the health care bill "look like an absurd Rube Goldberg device."

The conservative media's promotion of the House Republican chart harkens back to the media attention devoted in 1994 to a similar misleading chart -- distributed by the office of then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter -- that then-Senate Republican leader Bob Dole claimed illustrated "what the health care bureaucracy would look like under" President Clinton's health care reform plan.

It really was a textbook example of how the right-wing noise machine operates. Media Mattersproduced a chart of its own documenting the media's web of misinformation on the subject, illustrating the disturbingly common pattern of conservative spin making its way from a Republican politician's press release to the Drudge Report to Fox News and other outlets on the right. Additionally, I discussed the subject as a guest on MSNBC Live noting, in part, that the conservative movement has been using the media to attack health care reform efforts for more than 70 years.

Not to be left out in the world of insane health care claims, an editorial by the conservative Investor's Business Daily actually claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The claim is false, of course, but that didn't stop Rush Limbaugh, the Media Research Center or a host of other media conservatives from advancing the delusional line of attack on reform.

B4B Main Page

Monday, July 13, 2009

NAACP Doesn't Care About
Black People !

Must Read article By: Jill Tubman
Jack and Jill Politics

Forgive me for cribbin’ Kayne but: The NAACP Convention has begun and color me bored. It’s great that a black president is going to speak in front of one of America’s largest and oldest black institution. Hooray. Yet, I’ve now had the chance to interact with the NAACP’s new leadership up close and have also been observing from afar. Between you and me, I’m unimpressed. I actually had begun to have some glimmers of hope that the NAACP could turn around and once more be a relevant and powerful organization that lives up to its name: a real National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Instead it appears destined to remain the bloated, toothless, shuffling, irrelevant, obsolete, corporate-sponsored and paid-to-do-nothing organization it has sadly become in the post-civil rights era.

(Read Complete Article)

Sunday, July 12, 2009

My Congressman,
Dennis Kucinich Fighting for
We The People

Report: Cheney ordered CIA

to hide info from Congress

By Scott Shane
The New York Times

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency's director, Leon Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Panetta, who ended the program when he learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the CIA informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, an allegation Panetta denied.

The law requires the president to ensure the intelligence committees "are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity." But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be conducted "to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters."

Not "fully operational"

In addition, for covert-action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

Democrats in Congress, who contend the covert action provision was abused to cover up programs under Bush, are seeking to change the law to permit the full committees to be briefed on more matters.

President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if the changes go too far.

A spokesman for the intelligence agency, Paul Gimigliano, declined Saturday to comment on the report of Cheney's role.

"It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing," Gimigliano said. "When a CIA unit brought this matter to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect."

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for George Tenet, who was director of central intelligence when the unidentified program began, declined to comment Saturday, noting the program remains classified.

Intelligence and congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the CIA interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities.

They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the CIA shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place sporadically from 2001 until this year.

"Because this program never went fully operational and hadn't been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial," one intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity. "That's worth remembering amid all the drama."

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remain secret. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity they felt should have been disclosed.

Secret program

In the eight years of his vice presidency, Cheney was the Bush administration's most vehement defender of the secrecy of government activities, particularly in the intelligence arena. He went to the Supreme Court to keep secret the advisers to his task force on energy and won.

A report released on Friday by the inspectors general of five agencies about the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program makes clear Cheney's former chief of staff, David Addington, had to approve every government official who was told about the program. The report said "the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program" frustrated FBI agents who were assigned to follow up on tips it turned up.

High-level NSA officials who were responsible for ensuring the surveillance program was legal, including the agency's inspector general and general counsel, were not permitted by Cheney's office to read the Justice Department opinion that found the eavesdropping legal, several officials said.

Addington could not be reached for comment Saturday.

Questions over the adequacy and truthfulness of the CIA's briefings for Congress date back to the creation of the intelligence oversight committees in the 1970s after disclosures of agency assassination and mind-control programs and other abuses. But complaints increased in the Bush years, when the CIA and other intelligence agencies took the major role in pursuing al-Qaida.

The use of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, for instance, was first described to a handful of lawmakers in September 2002.

Pelosi and CIA officials have disagreed about what she was told, but in any case, the briefing occurred after a terrorism suspect, Abu Zubaydah, had been waterboarded 83 times.


Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the House intelligence committee, wrote Friday to the chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, to demand an investigation of the unidentified program and why Congress was not told of it. Aides said Reyes was reviewing the matter.

"There's been a history of difficulty in getting the CIA to tell us what they should," said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Tacoma. "We will absolutely be held accountable for anything the agency does."

Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the committee's top Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program because it was not fully operational. But he said that, in general, the agency has not been as forthcoming as the law requires.

"We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need," Hoekstra said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Seymour Hersh: Reports About 'Cheney's Secret Executive Assassination Squad'

B4B Main

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Panetta Tells Lawmakers CIA Misled Congress

July 9 (Bloomberg) -- Six Democrats on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said that CIA Director Leon Panetta told lawmakers the agency has misled Congress since 2001 about "significant actions."

In a letter to Panetta, the six legislators said he had "recently" testified that "top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress" and "misled members" from 2001 until this week. (complete article)

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Truth About
Mousavi of Iran
"Never Liked Nor Trusted Americans"

By Pierre Tristam (

Mir-Hossein Mousavi is the reformists’ leading candidate and challenger to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Iranian presidential election. Mousavi is not well known. But to call him a liberal is likely an overstatement. As Iran’s prime minister during the Iranian Revolution’s most formative years (1981-1989) he was a hard-liner closely allied with then-president Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, and a “firm radical,” as The Economist described him in 1988. Still, Mousavi’s 20-year absence from Iranian politics and his recent emphasis on moderation has the West, and young Iranians, beguiled.

Mousavi’s Youth, and American "Student" Days:

Mir-Hossein Mousavi was born Sept. 29, 1941, in Khameneh, in the Iranian northwest panhandle province of East Azarbaijan. He was trained as an architect and a town planner. His early years under the shah of Iran are obscure, but he told a New York Times reporter in 1981 that three years earlier, when the shah was still in power, Mousavi had visited the United States on a student visa—to organize opposition to the shah. Mousavi returned to the United States in 1981, as foreign minister (a post he held five months), to address the United Nations General Assembly.

Defending the Taking of American Hostages:

In that 1981 interview, Mousavi defended the taking and holding of American hostages by Iranian militants for 444 days as serving the revolution’s purpose. “It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution,” following the overthrow of the shah, he said. “It was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity. After this, we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years.” The seizure also ended for good any pro-American leanings in Iran, he said. He became prime minister in November 1981 at age 39.

Mousavi, Radical Prime Minister, 1981-1988:

In October August 1984, the Iranian parliament voted 163-21 to ratify his nomination as prime minister. He had Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s endorsement. A year later, opposition to his policies increased significantly as reflected in a ratification vote of 162-73.

Mousavi’s reputation for radicalism was undiminished. When he introduced his cabinet in 1985, he boasted that his interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, was a religious conservative who’d built his reputation while building Hezbollah, the Party of God, in Lebanon.

Mousavi’s parliamentary followers supported continuing terrorist operations in Lebanon.At the end of the Iran-Iraq war in August 1988, when Ali Rafsanjani, the speaker of Iran’s parliament at the time (and the current head of the powerful Assembly of Experts) suggested that Iran should accept some western help with reconstruction, Mousavi disagreed, claiming the move would betray the ideals of the revolution.

Mousavi consistently favored state controls over the economy rather than free-market policies. Iran’s business class doesn’t like him. He had also opposed ending the Iran-Iraq war, claiming that "a large portion of the masses" were indignant over the cease-fire.

Mousavi and the Iran-Contra Affairs:

Mir Hussein Mousavi had a direct role in the arms-for-hostages scandal known as the Iran-Contra affairs that involved secret negotiations between the Reagan administration and the Iranian regime to secure the release of American hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. (Read more about the Iran-Contra affairs.) Mousavi worked closely with Khamenei, the president at the time, bargaining for 504 high-powered TOW anti-tank missiles (for use in the Iran-Iraq war, in which the United States supported Iran’s enemy) while promising to release hostages in September 1985.

Mousavi’s Anti-Americanism:

Mousavi neither liked nor trusted Americans. He led Iran’s boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics to protest U.S. foreign policy from Central American to the Middle East. He opposed warming relations with the U.S. The arms-for-hostages dealings soured his impressions further. “Iran has friendly relations with many countries,” Mousavi said on Iranian radio on Nov. 5, 1986, “but negotiations with the United States in light of its crimes against the Islamic Revolution will never take place.” Of course, Mousavi was covering up (as the Reagan administration did) what had become public.

Obscurity After 1989, then Resurgence:

When Ali Rafsanjani was elected president in 1989, a post he held until 1997, one of his earliest moves was to oust Mousavi and other hard-liners from government (the prime minister’s position had been scrapped by a constitutional amendment, but Rafsanjani did not invite Mousavi to be part of his government). From that point on, until 2008, Mousavi was out of the public eye. It’s not clear why Mousavi left public life after 1989, the year Khomeini died. But his absence was almost total. He returned to architecture and teaching, and was an adviser to President Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005).

Mousavi on a Nuclear Iran:

Mousavi, like all other major Iranian politicians, is opposed to suspending the country’s nuclear-enrichment program. He does not equate nuclear enrichment with a nuclear weapons program, however, and seeks to pursue dialogue with the West from that principle. “I consider détente the principle to build confidence between Iran and other countries,” he told the Financial Times. “I think the recent discourse, which differentiates between nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a good one. The more this differentiation is emphasized, the greater the possibility of détente.”

Reformer or Chameleon? :

References to Mousavi as a “reformer” and a “moderate” have been oddly reflexive in the Western press, and particularly the American press. The characterizations are at best premature, and likely outright fabrications—unless Mousavi himself has disassembled his ideology and reconstructed it of more moderate parts.

That seems unlikely.

Mousavi's more patrician tone and sharper intellect distance him from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and seduce a young generation that never knew his radicalism and apologies for terror and bloodshed. But his policies and ideology, his faithfulness to the Islamic revolution, his economic policies, and his anti-Americanism are all of a piece with Ahmadinejad’s. His election to the Iranian presidency may signal a change in tone, but not a change in policies.

B4B NOTE: Amazing that these facts about Mousavi are NEVER discussed in our manipulative media. Wish they had scrutinized the validity of when Bush stole the election of 2000 the way they're scrutinizing Iran's validity.