OAS revokes Cuba expulsion after 47 years

SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras (AP) — The Organization of American States voted Wednesday to revoke the 1962 measure suspending communist Cuba, overturning a landmark of the Cold War in the hemisphere.

"The Cold War has ended this day in San Pedro Sula," said Honduran President Manuel Zelaya immediately following the announcement. "We begin a new era of fraternity and tolerance."

The action doesn't mean Cuba will return to the 34-member body that helps coordinate policies and mediates disputes throughout the Americas.

Cuban officials have repeatedly insisted they have no interest in returning to an organization they consider a tool of the United States.

If Cuba changes its mind, the agreement calls for "a process of dialogue" in line with the OAS' "practices, proposals and principles" — a veiled allusion to agreements on human rights and democracy.

"This is a moment of rejoicing for all of Latin America," Ecuador's Foreign Minister Fander Falconi told reporters after the session.

The decision was taken by consensus, meaning the United States accepted it, though Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had lobbied personally for requiring Cuba to make democratic reforms and improve respect for human rights.

Read more...

Video: Clinton thumps Rohrabacher

April 23: Today's Super Snazzy Awesome Number

12.

That's how much Clinton's primary win cut into Barack Obama's delegate lead. After the slash and burn campaign tactics that resembled the worst in Karl Rove's playbook, 12 is all Sen. Clinton gets.

The struggle over Pennsylvania and the number 12, as the New York Times put it in an editorial today, "was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it."

The editorial continues:

"It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

CPUSA Nat'l Cmte. March 29 – Report on the Peace Movement

Judith LeBlanc, who is a member of the national board of the CPUSA, delivered her report on the peace movement and the 2008 elections.

She argued that it was the people's movement – not the media or the Democratic Party – that have transformed the attitudes about the ultra right and the war in the recent years. "On the ground, people know the truth," she said. Seven years of organizing by the labor movement, the peace movement, and the various movements and communities against the Bush administration and the war have paid off and voters are ready for a big change.

She added that with regard to Iraq, the war can't wait until 2009. The peace movement has to continue the fight to end the war.

LeBlanc linked the war to the elections and the defeat of McCain and the Republicans. "In the peace movement, it is strategic to win and win big, and to have that victory interpreted as a result of the efforts of the antiwar movement," she argued. It will increase pressure on the majority in Congress and the next president to bring the war to an end.

The peace movement has developed two levels of struggle: one, direct involvement in the campaigns of anti-war candidates as a step in the struggle to end the war; two, continue to mobilize the antiwar movement to become involved in defeating McCain in November.

United for Peace and Justice, the country's largest antiwar coalition, plans to build a voter engagement project that will help educate voters on McCain's plans to expand war and to focus efforts on winning in the general election.

Some efforts by peace activists have begun to argue that "Obama is for peace" and have taken to highlight differences between McCain, Clinton, and Obama. Some in the peace movement have begun to make the argument that Obama is the best of the three. Many in the peace movement say "Obama is the candidate who would go the furtherest on foreign policy and Iraq," LeBlanc suggested.

LeBlanc furthered urged the antiwar movement's continued efforts to respond to the unfolding crisis happening in Iraq now with the collapse of the surge and Bush's apparent glee at recent military failures there. Bush is eager to expand the occupation and combat operations.

The peace movement must continue to push to end the funding for the war, LeBlanc said, and she noted that both Obama and Clinton voted to end war funding in the 2007 session of Congress.

LeBlanc argued for the Communist Party to develop a multifaceted effort that at the same time seeks to win the best antiwar candidates in the 2008 elections, but also to work within the peace movement to raise the discussion about how funding for the war saps resources for communities. Additionally, she stated, participating and leading political discussions about connecting war and the economy and health care and more to the elections helps to build the Communist Party.

As a result people will see that the Communist Party has both a vision and concept of winning the unity of the people but also that it has a strategic concept for winning peace and social progress, LeBlanc concluded.

Notes on the Main Political Report, Nat'l Cmte. CPUSA, Mar. 29-30

Sam Webb delivered the main political report, which is a collaborative speech produced and commented on by many party leaders. Here are some notes. The full speech will be available in a few days at cpusa.org.

American voters have confounded pundits and political predicters have set the stage for a political victory in November for the people's movement.

The election and empowerment of a people's government would remove barriers to social progress by checking the power of monopoly capital and militarism.

The people's movement is seeking a leader that will appeal to our better selves and unify our movement.

Democratic primaries signal a huge upsurge with record-breaking turnout and enthusiasm.

"The high octane of this upsurge is simply breathtaking," he said.

Webb rejected the notion that the primaries are sidelining issues for the sake of personalities.

"This is anything but an issueless campaign," he said. Contrasting it with 2004, Webb recalled that the war on terror took up all of the conversation in the past.

"It should be celebrated as a great democratic achievement, " he said in reference to the the nature of the campaign, that Clinton and Obama are the leading candidates.

Webb predicted the outcome would bring enormous change that puts people's need before warmaking, sleaze and policies that put profits before peoples need.

Such an outcome is possible regardless of whether or not Clinton or Obama wins.

The main dilemma of the left is to not be left behind in this upsurge, he said. If we are not engaged in this struggle to advance the people's movement, we will be left behind.

The Democratic campaigns and the possibility for change have eroded disillusionment and apathy.

Independent involvement is part of the upsurge, and people are inspired by the possibility that this election will result in real changes and improvements in their daily lives.

The US left generally rejects out of hand the electoral politics of the Democratic Party resulting in the failure to recognize the importance of daily events and the significance of the upsurge. We don't follow this path, Webb said.

In 2007 we, the CPUSA, said the presidential elections could set into motion a process of social progress, Webb added. But, we didn't anticipate the full impact of this upsurge, however.

Webb spoke to the role of youth voters in the upsurge. In comparing the youth presence today to the past, Webb said it is of a qualitative different magnitude.

Webb talked about the fact that the nature of the support for the both candidates shows that working class voters will vote for a woman and an African American candidate. Neither would have been swept to the place they are now with support from either women or Black voters alone.

To say that Clinton has garnered the vast majority of the working class vote is simply wrong, he said. Black voters are overwhelming working class. The working class has divided its vote between the two. Trade union voters have given a slight edge to Clinton, but Obama has polled well and has won important endorsements.

On the issue of demographics, "we should stay away form easy and static explanations," he said.

Whites vote for Obama because of his stance on the war, his ability to unify the country, his personal appeal, his youthfulness, his stance on issues and so forth.

Some men may be inclined to be so motivated by sexism that would never vote for Clinton, but most men haven't followed this pattern and have voted for Obama for many other reasons.

White voters who have backed Clinton have not simply done so out of racial motives. They have supported her for experience and her stance on issues.

The point is that there are many different reasons that workers have cast their support in one direction or the other and cannot be simply reduced to race, gender, or other simplistic demographic categories repeated in the mainstream media.

Obama's candidacy is unique in all of this. It is transformational and new. It has brought new forces into the process and built new organizational forms.

"What makes it different is that it has the feel of a movement," Webb said. Obama speaks to people's desires and inspires them.

"He is a fresh voice on the political scene. His courage and astuteness are obvious," Webb said.

His desire to over come racial and religious and national and other divisions "strikes a deeply responsive chord far and wide."

"His ability to articulate a vision, speak to people's hopes, and use his platform to educate millions is refreshing, Webb said.

While he shares many policy ideas with Clinton, his capacity to speak to people and to build unity is more impressive.

For her part, Clinton would likely govern to the left of her husband, and she would be a formidable opponent for McCain.

Rhetorically posing a common question on the left, Webb asked, what about Obama's backing from Wall Street and leading elements in the Democratic Party?

The answers to these questions, while crucial, don't tell us about what his presidency will look like.

While class and class struggle shouldn't be set aside, the character of an Obama presidency cannot be solely determined by questions about the nature of the capitalist backing of his candidacy.

Webb cited historical examples. Frederick Douglass would not have backed Lincoln's candidacy, if he had allowed narrow political questions about abolition to govern his decision to do so.

William Z. Foster would not have tacitly backed Roosevelt and the New Deal if he had allowed narrow questions about FDR's class background to determine his view on this matter.

We have a chance to sweep the Republicans from power in a landslide. "It is an altogether new page in American politics," Webb said.

Webb rejected the ongoing presence of racism in the campaign, but praised the general sense that millions of working class voters have also done so already.

"The struggle against racism and sexism in all of its ideological forms is in as much in the interest of white workers as it is in the interest of female workers and and workers of color," Webb said.

We should reject the notion of the racial or gender progress as a zero sum game. Advances in equality do not come at the expense of white or male or native-born workers.

Webb discussed the role of a racial subtext injected by Bill Clinton and others in the Clinton campaign. "Concerns about unity seem to have been cast aside," Webb noted, in her drive to an inevitable coronation in August. Webb referred to her campaign's fear about Obama's religious background, his patriotism and his racial identity.

Both campaigns should insist on ending this kind of campaigning or what appears to be a solid chance at victory could vanish, Webb said. Only a united movement can lead to a victory in November.

Likewise, Webb continued, Hillary-bashing in sexist terms also diminishes the unity of the movement.

Webb described Obama's speech on race as courageous and brilliant and lauded him for taking an opportunity to talk about a difficult subject that has rarely been addressed by a national figure.

Webb suggested that smearing Obama is done out of fear by sections of the ruling class and the right-wing and some right-wing Democrats that his candidacy represents a diminishment of their power in ruling circles.

They lose sleep over fear that a people's movement will inspire the emergence of a new New Deal.

Webb went on to discuss the deepening economic and financial crisis. He linked Republican policies of the last thirty years and the ongoing decline of US capitalism and imperialism.

What is needed is a broad and ambitious program off housing relief, urban investment ,environmental clean up and more.

A favorable outcome of this election will give working people power to prevent capitalists from shifting the burden of this recession onto the backs of workers.

Equally the war must end. Resources for the war would've have been better spent on needs at home.

"Too much blood and treasure has been lost. It's time to bring the troops home," Webb said.

All peace minded people should unify and defeat McCain.

Obama isn't a "left" candidate and isn't going to embrace "left" issues. The aim of this election is to defeat the right. As such the goal is to elect a Democratic president strengthen Democratic majorities in Congress. This won't constitute a victory only for the Democratic Party but one for the whole working class and for people around the world.

"The day after the election won't matter if we don't win the day of the election," Webb said.

Left and progressive forces are too small to drive the debate and pressure from the left. Thus we should join the conversation that is already taking place and participate in that manner. Our main task is to expose McCain and contrast his views on a host of issues with the Democratic nominee.

The left's goal should not be to influence candidates but to influence the ideas and thought patterns of the people.

Three ideological questions:

1) Labor-led people's movement: How not to diminish the role of the movements of other core forces (movement for equality of the nationally and racially oppressed, Women's movement, and so on)? How can we avoid a unnecessarily narrow views on these questions in order to avoid given the appearance that we see other core forces as "add-ons" or footnotes in the movement?

2) Class: How do we clarify a notion of the working class to that promote the unity of the class? Not simply reducibly to trade unionists or productive workers. Our view should be wide-angled but with the notion that there are strategic sectors, but that our aim is to unite the whole class.

3) What is the relationship between unity and struggle? Clarify the relationship between participating in struggle and deepening ideological and practical activity to advance the struggle.

A quick look at the Nevada caucus results

By Teresa Albano, People's Weekly World, www.pww.org

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses today by about a 5 percent margin over Barack Obama. (Almost 51 percent went for Clinton and just over 45 percent for Obama with 90 percent of the precincts reporting). John Edwards came in a distant third with less than 4 percent of the vote.

Billed as the "first test in the West," the Nevada date was moved up this year in order to bring early attention to western issues. It's also been called the "Latino Iowa" and the first sample of the Mexican American and Latino vote.

The big story was the Democratic turnout, which topped 100,000, smashing all predictions, according to Reno Gazette Journal blogger Anjeanette Damon. The Republican turnout also topped expectations. Mitt Romney, the only GOP candidate to campaign in Nevada, won.

For all you Midwesterners, Southerners and Easterners: Western issues include water, Native American rights, land use, environment and the role of the federal government.

In Nevada, whether Yucca Mountain will be the receptacle for the nation's nuclear waste is a specific issue for the state. As far as I know, all the Democratic candidates are against dumping the toxins there.

But some critics contend that outside of Yucca Mountain, the "western issues" were not addressed.

Then there are two issues in Nevada that are national issues as well: the housing crisis and immigration. Immigration — and especially the anti-immigrant crackdown and rhetoric that has been coming out of the Republicans and right wing — has roiled a large section of the Mexican American and Latino vote away from the GOP. Latinos make up a sizeable percentage of the Nevada population and voters.

Clinton has consistently polled double-digits ahead of Obama among Latino voters. She has her husband's presidency, name recognition and numerous well-known Latino figures behind her, among them United Farm Worker co-founder Dolores Huerta. As a law student and child advocate, Clinton did a lot of work on issues affecting children of farmworkers. She has a national profile that has translated to strong showing in the polls against her main rival, Obama, who doesn't have such a strong national reputation, or the Democratic Party infrastructure ties that Clinton has.

Women, especially those 55 and over, favor Clinton, while it seems that younger women have gravitated to the Obama campaign.

Obama went into Nevada with a deficit and gave Clinton a good run for her money. He garnered the very important endorsements of the culinary workers union, the state's largest with 60,000 members and a large Latino membership, and the state SEIU, another organizing powerhouse. He has also begun to pick up endorsements from Latino leaders, such as the personal endorsement by Maria Elena Durazo, the head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Obama's and Clinton's stands on immigration are similar: they are for legalization, family reunification and "border security" — something that has become a way to try to blunt (or appease?) the right-wing anti-immigrant forces as well as to acknowledge the crime that does happen at the border by human and drug traffickers from many countries, including the U.S.

Obama's campaign has a lot of catching up to do in the West, especially if he wants to take the delegate-rich state of California. Its primary, along with 21 other states, is Feb. 5 — known as Super Tuesday.

With Las Vegas being the fastest-growing union city in the country, and the overall explosion of growth in the region, many people bought homes in the area, often with subprime mortgages. Now Nevada is an epicenter of foreclosures, with the accompanying decline in housing prices.

One frequent visitor to North Las Vegas told me, "You see lots of for-sale signs. It's really eerie."

The Nevada campaign saw a lot of political wrangling and even some dirty tricks. The state teachers association, which backed Clinton, sued over caucuses being held in casinos because they said it gave casino workers, whose union backed Obama, an "unfair advantage." The teachers lost their suit. Clinton alleged the union was "strong arming" its members to go with Obama.

Clinton also went after Obama's position on raising the income cap on Social Security, calling it a "tax hike." Now only the first $90,000 of income gets taxed for Social Security. Progressives have long advocated lifting that cap since wealthier people don't pay their fair share. The increased money flowing into Social Security could raise benefits for all, and do other positive things.

Obama was forced to fire back at the Clinton campaign for distorting his stances. This has put his campaign on the defensive, and most people get turned off by such political wrangling.

Unidentified persons also made calls attacking Obama and using his middle name, Hussein, over and over again.

Interestingly enough, Obama won several northern Nevada counties, but did not win Clark County where Las Vegas is. Yet Obama won the "battle" at the Caesar's Palace caucus by a delegate. Apparently it was evenly split with some casino workers going with Clinton despite their union's endorsement of Obama, and steelworkers from a nearby work site also caucusing for Clinton. (The steelworkers union has endorsed Edwards, so I don't know if this is an indication that they are now throwing their support to Clinton.)

But in the end, after much reported shouting between the red t-shirted Obama supporters and the white t-shirted Clinton supporters, Obama won that casino caucus. But Clinton won the strip.

And now it's on to South Carolina.

--
Teresa Albano
Editor
People's Weekly World/Nuestro Mundo
3339 S. Halsted
Chicago IL 60608
www.pww.org
talbano@pww.org
Journalists interpret the world in various ways, the point is to change it.

Lowdown on Michigan Primary Results

By Joel Wendland

Of Michigan's more than 7,141,000 registered voters, only about 1,470,000 went to the polls, or about 20% voter turnout. TV people talked about it being snowy and cold, but it really wasn't so bad. It was worse in Iowa for the caucus, as I understand it.

Sen. Clinton won the most votes on the Democratic side, as only she and Kucinich were on the ballot. She did not campaign here; only Kucinich did. So for the most part this was an uncontested election.

Yet Clinton garnered nearly as many votes as the Republican front-runner.

Interestingly, "uncommitted" Democrats scored about 40% suggesting some dissatisfaction with Clinton's candidacy and somewhat embarrassing for her, but not a national news story to be sure. Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) went "uncommitted," and three of the states other biggest counties – Wayne County (Detroit), Kent County (Grand Rapids), and Oakland County (Detroit suburbs) – edged for Clinton by slim majorities, suggesting that she has a lot of work to do to convince Michigan voters – both Black and white.

Exit polls indicated that African Americans would have voted for Obama by more than 7 to 3 if he had campaigned in the state.

Hold on, though, Michigan. Clinton did very well in the debate in Las Vegas. I especially enjoyed her line about Bush's "pathetic" attempts to beg lower oil prices out of OPEC. Her strongest qualities are her sharp anti-ultra right programs and her detailed plans for tackling the looming economic crisis. She has also come a long way on the war.

For the third straight primary/caucus, the big story, however, has to do with turnout. Even though the Republicans came here and pretended they cared about jobs (offering no solutions like fair trade, union rights, ending Bush tax breaks to companies who move out of town and country a la DeVos' Amway, etc.), they couldn't get Michigan voters excited about Republican ideas or four more years of a Republican presidency.

In states where Democrats contested the elections and debated the issues and talked about bringing the troops home from the war, about change, about universal health care and creating jobs, about ending our dependence on oil, about workers' rights, people came out in icy weather in Iowa and balmy weather in New Hampshire.

Clintons Play the Race Card

By Joe Sims

Why did Obama lose yesterday’s New Hampshire primary? In the opinion of the editor’s of none other than the New York Times, major consideration has to be given to the injection of racism into the campaign by none other than Hillary and Bill Clinton themselves. In its lead editorial, the Times wrote that Senator Clinton ran an “angry campaign" in New Hampshire and:

“polls showed that voters noticed. She won narrowly, but came perilously close to injecting racial tension into what should have been — and still should be — an uplifting contest between the first major woman candidate and the first major African-American candidate.”

For the centrist NYT to say “perilously close” in reality means that it actually occurred – so much so that it was cause for alarm. The editorial continues:

“In the days before the voting, Mrs. Clinton and her team were so intent on talking about how big a change a woman president would be — and it surely would — that some of her surrogates even suggested that it would be a more valuable change than an African-American president…In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”

Clinton has been all along not-so-subtly suggesting that Senator Obama is not up to the task of being president, not “experienced enough” in the New York senator’s words. In essence, Clinton is arguing that Obama is not “qualified.” Now where have we heard that before?

The Times editors saw it this way:

“It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced.”

If Mrs. Clinton “pulled back” her husband, in the opinion of the Times went way over the line. They wrote:

“Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.”

A conclusion that the Clinton's engaged in racially charged campaigning in New Hampshire seems unavoidable. Whether it was deliberate or unconscious isn't important. What is important is that it helped turn the election in their favor. In this regard, any discussion of the “Bradley effect” in the New Hampshire primary must consider the added influence of the Clinton’s role. (The Bradley effect is named for the late Tom Bradley who ran for governor of California and lost narrowly after being well ahead in the polls). It wasn’t that voters just made up their minds at the last minute, they were pushed in a certain direction by the Clinton couple themselves.

One should not be surprised by the Clinton’s ploys. After all it was Bill Clinton himself who traveled to a Rainbow Coalition meeting in Washington during his first campaign and attacked a young rapper “Sista Souljah” to prove he wasn’t “pandering” to the Black vote. It was also Clinton who traveled back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of young mentally disabled African American man. It was the same Clinton who went to a Black church and chastised African Americans for behaving with “reckless abandonment” and loose morals.

In all likelihood several factors combined to produce the New Hampshire vote: the swing of undecided women voters; strong union support for Clinton and an effective get-out-the vote effort, and the playing of the race card by the Clinton’s themselves.

Obama Wins Major International Union Endorsement

By Joel Wendland

Earlier today, reports the New York Times, Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of UNITE HERE, a union of hotel workers, restaurant workers, and garment workers with a national worker membership of about 460,000 and about 400,000 retirees.

While Obama's first international endorsement doesn't measure up numerically to the unions who have lined up with Sen. Clinton, this particular union will be crucial in the Nevada caucus set for the 19th. Culinary Local 226 is the largest union in Las Vegas (60,000 members) and is affiliated with UNITE HERE.

The union's international president Bruce Raynor told the Times that his union sided with Obama because of the union's dispute with Mark Penn, Clinton's lead political strategist. Penn heads a PR firm that represented Cintas Corporation.

Cintas fought UNITE HERE's efforts to organize its thousands of janitorial workers. You can read Political Affairs' coverage of the Cintas fight here, by Joelle Fishman.

Cintas openly threatened immigrant workers with deportation if they joined the union. Cintas was cited hundreds of times for violating safety and health laws, and for refusing to protect workers from unsafe conditions. Read more here...

Cintas also aggressively fought to break unions in plants it bought, and UNITE HERE filed dozens of grievances for violations of labor laws against the company (such as these). Cintas owner Richard T. Farmer has given Republicans like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, George W. Bush, and numerous other ultra-right PACs well over $1 million dollars.

For union members this is an issue of solidarity. Clinton's relationship to Penn has long been an issue, but now it has cost her union support and could cost her a key caucus. She should know better.

Updates on Blackwater, or Gunslinger Capitalism in the Old West or New Middle East

By Norman Markowitz

The CEO of Blackwater, a thirty eight year old former Navy Seal cum private security company Yuppie with a young Oliver North face and a great Hollywood name, Erik Prince, testified before a house panel looking into his company's alleged abuses coverups and crimes in Iraq today and essentially denied everything. His company "fires," "fines" and keeps its contract, he said. It disciplines irresponsible employees and is not really responsible for their acts.

It doesn't cover up crimes, get criminals out of the country, (all of that is false information) but works for the common good. Representative Henry Waxman of California, Progressive Democrat, and chair of the invstigating panel, mentioned that the State Department's deal with Blackwater was obviously working out very well for Blackwater, (which has received in excess of 800 million over the last few years) but Congress was questioning its value for the American taxpayer.

Other Democrats pointed to the evidence of reckless unprovoked shootings, cover ups, but the CEO kept on message, called all the information inaccurate and, as if imbued with the spirit of the the late Tricky Dick Nixon, "stonewalled" it.

But he wasn't doing too well. Dan Burton, right-wing Republican from Indiana (those with decent attention spans will remember that he was one of the leaders of the Clinton impeachment in the House even though a tawdry sex scandal was discovered about him as the farce went on) warned the other committee members not to make up their minds too soon before all the facts are in. He had no quarrel with the investigation, Burton went on to say, but everything would be "thoroughly investigated in Iraq by Iraqies and American officials" (for someone who refused to believe that either Bill Clinton had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky or that his own indiscretions in that area were anyting but minor and insignificant nearly a decade ago, Burton has become conveniently gullible today).

If a fare right Republican like Burton is in that kind of retreat and a CEO who is a former Navy Seal with an Oliver North face and a general Hollywood look can't pull an Oliver North before a congressional Ccmmittee and even pretend to get away with it, things are continuing to go from bad to worse for the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, Condi Rice, realizing that the State Department is heavily implicated in all of this (my view anyway) is calling for a "probing, comprehensive unvarnished investigation" of security contractors work
with the State Department in the Iraq-Afghanistan war zones (this reminds me of Louis, the Vichy Police Prefect in the classic film Casablanca announcing that he is shocked, shocked, that gambling was going on in Rick's Cafe while he has his winnings picked up.)

But the "unvarnished" investigation quickly took on a coating when Richard Griffin, an Assistant Secretary of State denied Waxman's specific charges that the State Department had worked to cover up up a Blackwater guard"s violent crime and ,when asked if that guard was being prosecuted, had the effrontery to reply that this was a matter for the Justice Department since "they are the prosecutors." For the State Department and Bush administration, "staying the course" and "passing the buck" appear to be one and the same.

Finally, there is some good news. The Senate voted 92-3 to establish an Independent Commission to investigate private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, which means that even most of the ultra-right Republicans realize that the scandal is so great and the corruption and crime so huge that they are jumping ship. But the Bush administration is threatening vetoes (which if such a vote holds would be easily over-ridden) because of the expansion of federal hate crimes legislation involved. (I guess the Bush administration fears the dangerous precedent of adding punishments for racist comments and other racist activities connected to violent crimes committed against foreigners by U.S. citizens in occupied countries, either in recruiting the individuals who will do such things without compunction or perhaps in the possible domino effect of such legislation on U.S. state and local hate crime precedents, which right-wing Republicans have traditionally either opposed or sought to ignore and table in legislatures.)

Even though it would be difficult to make all of this up if it were not happening, the investigation appears to be going well and deserves to be supported by all progressives as one facet of the interconnected campaign to end the four year U.S. occupation of Iraq and the seven year Bush administration right-wing Republican occupation of the United States.