At Least 20 Afghan Civilians Killed in US Air Raid

August 22, 2008

Antiwar.com | August 21, 2008

Early Thursday, the United States reported having killed 30 insurgents in an attack in the Afghan province of Laghman. While it was unclear if the attack was directly related to the killing of 10 French soldiers earlier this week in a nearby ambush, top coalition spokeswoman Lt. Col. Nielson-Green claimed to be certain that they were ‘at a minimum complicit’, though she also insisted that it ‘doesn’t matter if they were or weren’t involved’.

The official story was thrown into disarray, however, when provincial officials began reporting that many of those killed in the air strikes were civilians. While the US denied any knowledge of any non-combatant deaths, al-Jazeera quotes an Afghan politician as saying that at least 20 of the 30 “insurgents” killed were actually civilians. A surgeon reported that 20 others were wounded in the attack, mostly women and children.

The US regularly denies Afghan reports of civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes, as with the bombing of a wedding party last month, in which the US military initially announced killed several insurgents. When reports arose that civilians were killed it was dismissed as “militant propaganda”, but an official Afghan inquiry later showed that the strike killed 47 civilians, 39 of whom were women and children, and not a single one had any links with the Taliban or al-Qaeda. It was only three weeks later that NATO announced its own inquiry into the matter, prefaced with NATO spokesman Mark Laity’s comment “If we don’t drop a bomb, they (the Taliban) win”.

compiled by Jason Ditz

Small states wary of nuclear deal for India

August 22, 2008

Glenn Kessler in Washington

Pact … Mr Bush and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.
Pact . . . Mr Bush and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh.
Photo: AP

Advertisement

A BUSH Administration proposal to exempt India from restrictions on nuclear trade has aroused scepticism from several members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, according to diplomats, making it increasingly unlikely a deal will be reached in two-day meetings that begin today in Vienna.

India and the US have lobbied the group for approval of a landmark civil nuclear deal. But the conference, which governs trade in reactors and uranium, operates by consensus, which allows even small nations to block or amend significantly any agreement.

India has warned nations that a failure to support the deal could harm their ties with India. Although previously undecided countries such as Canada, Japan and Australia have recently signalled they will support the deal – which President George Bush considers part of his foreign-policy legacy – a few nations, including New Zealand and Ireland, have expressed private and public concerns about the proposal.

“We’ve raised questions throughout the process, particularly in relation to the implications to the non-proliferation treaty,” said an Irish diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He acknowledged it was an important document for the US and India and that said talks were continuing.

Last month Condoleezza Rice made the first visit to NZ by a US secretary of state in nine years, in part to lobby for the deal.

But the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, recently said: “It would be no secret that we would like to see more conditionalities around the agreement.” She added that her nation was pursuing the matter diplomatically with like-minded countries.

More than 150 non-government organisations and non-proliferation experts from 24 countries last week sent a letter to conference members appealing for significant conditions to be placed on India, such as promising to terminate trade if New Delhi resumed nuclear testing.

US officials said they increasingly believed an agreement would not be reached this week. Instead, a second meeting probably would be needed next month, leaving little time for final approval by US Congress during this session.

The Hyde Act, which the US passed in 2006 giving preliminary approval to the US-India pact, requires that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to consider the deal. But Congress cannot take up the agreement until the conference approves it, and politicians plan to adjourn for the year on September 26.

India is one of a handful of countries that have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. After India conducted a nuclear test in 1974, the US pushed to create the conference to close loopholes that had allowed India to advance its weapons program through supposedly peaceful nuclear co-operation. The controls have been so effective that India’s use of nuclear power has been severely limited.

The Washington Post

U.S.-India nuclear deal a non-proliferation disaster

August 22, 2008
Countries like Canada must stand up to Bush and say this is a bad deal with dire consequences
The Toronto Star, Aug 21, 2008 04:30 AM

This week a select group of countries, Canada among them, will vote on a proposed nuclear deal between the U.S. and India that could lead to the further spread of nuclear weapons. With limited attention paid to this issue at home, indications are that Canada may be on the verge of making a grave mistake by supporting this deal. But this doesn’t have to be the case.

If Canada were to courageously stand against this deal, it wouldn’t be alone. Austria, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland all expressed concern last month.

Today and tomorrow, the 45 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group – the alliance of countries that seeks to control trade in “dual-use” nuclear fuel, materials and technology – will be asked to consider the Bush administration’s proposal to exempt India from having to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a condition of receiving nuclear technology and fuel.

The NPT is signed by 189 countries and has three key pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. To be implemented, the U.S.-India nuclear deal requires approval by the Indian parliament, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the U.S. Congress.

So far, India and the IAEA have approved it.

If the U.S. wins exemption for India, the deal would be a non-proliferation disaster. It would be a Bush legacy the world could do without. The deal will lead to greater nuclear proliferation.

Treaties like the NPT, meant to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, have been unravelling. There are four nuclear weapons states that do not belong to the NPT: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – the first state to actually quit the NPT while announcing its intention to develop nuclear weapons. Negotiations are still ongoing on compensating North Korea for agreeing to relinquish its nuclear weapons program.

Supporters of the U.S.-India nuclear deal argue that this bilateral agreement will help thwart the spread of nuclear weapons because it places 14 of India’s 22 reactors under IAEA monitoring. However, this deal allows India to continue thumbing its nose at the only legal, multilateral non-proliferation treaty the globe has, since it will not require India to join the NPT.

Additionally, unlike 178 other countries, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons, and continues to produce reactor grade material and expand its nuclear arsenal via the remaining reactors not available to the IAEA for inspection. In fact, the deal guarantees India an uninterrupted supply of fuel without obligating it to sign the test ban treaty.

Organizations and experts, including the Rideau Institute, are raising the alarm. An Aug. 15 letter sent to all 45 foreign ministers of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, including David Emerson, by more than 150 NGOs and experts from 24 countries, noted that, “this deal, if approved, would give India rights and privileges of civil nuclear trade that have been reserved only for members in good standing under the NPT. It creates a dangerous distinction between `good’ proliferators and `bad’ proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community with regard to NPT norms.”

This special deal for India has not gone unnoticed by its rivals, Pakistan and China.

Adding fuel to the fire, Iran, which is a member of the NPT – unlike India – points to the deal as an example of the dangerous “good-bad” double standard. It is livid at the hypocrisy, pointing out that Israel is probably quietly lobbying for its own special deal. Iran has a right to have a civil nuclear program, but there are ample reasons to distrust its intentions. The U.S.-India nuclear deal does make a diplomatic solution even more difficult to achieve.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, cautioned that, “There is serious concern that the United States has taken this step with the intention to create a precedent and pave the way for Israel to continue its clandestine [nuclear] weapons activities.” In other words, the U.S.-India deal will embolden other countries to undermine the NPT as well. And with the 2010 review conference of the NPT looming, there is much at skate.

Canada has options. This week at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting, Canada could coalesce with Austria, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland, and demand that India signs two treaties – the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, which stipulates that India halt production of reactor grade material, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – as a precondition for their support of the U.S.-India deal. Who knows, other countries may also be emboldened to stand up and say this is a bad deal with awful consequences. No one country has to be alone in standing up to George Bush.

Alternatively, these countries could ask for more time to study the proposed exemption. Such a delay would spell the end of the deal because the U.S. Congress cannot consider and vote on the deal until the Nuclear Suppliers Group approves it. If this agreement doesn’t land back in Washington by late September, it could not be approved during the remaining lifespan of Bush’s administration, effectively killing the deal.

However, if Canada were to support the U.S. on this deal, it would be abandoning its long-standing position as a strong supporter of nuclear non-proliferation, and instead, be supporting Bush’s legacy of undermining the most effective mechanism we have to avoid the spread of nuclear weapons in the world.

Here’s hoping this Bush legacy doesn’t come to fruition.

Anthony Salloum is the program director of the Rideau Institute, which serves as the global secretariat to Abolition 2000, a network of more than 2,000 organizations working for a global treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

MIDEAST: A Civil War in the Making

August 22, 2008

Analysis by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani | Inter-Press Service

CAIRO, Aug 22 – Recent weeks have seen the worst fighting between rival Palestinian movements Fatah and Hamas since the latter’s takeover of the Gaza Strip last summer. Hamas accuses the “treasonous faction” within Fatah — which worked with U.S. military intelligence in last year’s failed bid to destroy the resistance group — of instigating the violence.

“Hamas’s accusations are understandable,” Abdelaziz Shadi, political science professor and coordinator of the Israeli studies programme at Cairo University told IPS. “Instability in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip would be in Fatah’s interests.”

In the 14 months since Hamas seized control of Gaza from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) in a pre-emptive coup, after winning elections in 2006, mutual animosity has been largely confined to a war of words. In recent weeks, however, the dispute between the two movements — which now head rival governments in Gaza and Ramallah — escalated into open conflict.

On Jul. 25, a bomb went off on a crowded beach in the Gaza Strip, killing five major figures in Hamas’s military wing and a six-year-old girl. Hamas, currently party to a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian resistance factions, accused elements of Fatah of carrying out the attack.

Despite official denials by Fatah, Hamas security forces in Gaza carried out a territory-wide campaign of arrests of Fatah personnel suspected of involvement. Fatah retaliated in the West Bank by detaining scores of Hamas-affiliated activists, along with a number of civic leaders not associated with the resistance group.

After human rights groups condemned the arrests — in both territories — as “politically-motivated”, the majority of detainees from both sides were soon released.

Fatah is usually described by the western media as “moderate” because it supports negotiations with Israel, held regularly since last November’s Annapolis summit in the U.S. Hamas, meanwhile, often described as “extremist”, maintains a policy of armed resistance to the Israeli occupation, noting that negotiations have so far failed to achieve a single breakthrough worth mentioning.

The inter-Palestinian rivalry took a drastic turn for the worse on Aug. 2, when fighting erupted between Hamas security forces and members of the prominent Helles clan in Gaza City’s al-Shejaeya district. According to Hamas security officials, certain pro-Fatah members of the clan were suspected of involvement in the Jul. 25 beach bombing.

After a 48-hour-long battle that left 11 dead and much of the neighbourhood in ruins, Hamas security personnel reportedly detained dozens of Helles members for questioning. In an unprecedented development, an estimated 180 clan members — fleeing Hamas security forces — sought refuge in Israel.

“The situation has become so grave that partisans of Fatah actually fled to Israel for protection,” said Shadi.

Following an appeal by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli authorities eventually took in the Fatah men — but not before making them undress before television cameras.

“Israel publicly humiliated its own agents,” Magdi Hussein, political analyst and secretary-general of Egypt’s frozen Labour Party, told IPS. He described the episode as “more proof that cooperation with Israel can only lead to degradation and loss.”

The Helles members were later reportedly transported through Israel before being permitted to enter the Fatah-run West Bank.

According to local analysts, Hamas’s claims of Fatah complicity in attempts to destabilise Gaza are not easily dismissed.

“Hamas’s accusations are not without foundation,” Hussein said. “When news of the beach blast was initially broadcast on PA television in Ramallah, it was accompanied by triumphant music and patriotic anthems as if it were a victory.”

Continued . . .

Middle East: Israel’s chief negotiator rules out peace with Palestinians in 2008

August 22, 2008

The Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said yesterday it was unlikely a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would be reached this year and warned that pressure to hurry negotiations could lead to violence.

Livni, 50, the chief Israeli negotiator for the current talks with the Palestinians, is the favourite to replace Ehud Olmert as prime minister when the ruling Kadima party holds leadership elections next month.

The latest peace process, launched in Annapolis in the US in November, was originally intended to produce an agreement by the end of this year.

“I think that any attempt to bridge gaps that maybe it’s premature to bridge, or to reach something that is not the comprehensive agreement that we want to reach, can lead to doing it wrong just because of the pressure,” she told a news conference in Jerusalem. “This can lead to clashes, this can lead to misunderstandings, this can lead to violence as we faced after Camp David 2000 and the circumstances in a way are similar.”

In the months after the failure of the Camp David talks in 2000, the second Palestinian uprising, or intifada, broke out. Since then more than 4,800 Palestinians and more than 1,000 Israelis have been killed in the conflict.

Livni said all the issues of dispute between Israel and the Palestinians were up for discussion, but she gave no indication of what, if anything, had so far been agreed in months of discussions between the two sides. However, she ruled out any prospect of a right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel and said refugees would return to live in the future Palestinian state.

Talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders have been under way for several months, but there has been no sign that any concrete agreements have been reached, even in private.

Although Livni is expected to win the Kadima leadership next month, it is not yet clear if she will be able to form a coalition government.

She said she would like to try to lead a coalition, or to form a unity government. She said that would be decided by other coalition parties.

If she fails to form a coalition there would be early general elections. Recent polls have suggested the rightwing opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, of the Likud party, would win. However, a poll in yesterday’s Ha’aretz newspaper put Livni and Netanyahu as equal frontrunners.

Olmert, the current prime minister and Kadima leader, has promised to step down after the primary election next month. He is still being questioned in a series of corruption investigations.

Musharraf may seek sanctuary in UK

August 21, 2008

Press TV, Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:23:29 GMT

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf may seek sanctuary in Britain amid reports that London intervened to ensure a safe exit for him.

Reports have been circulating in recent days that President Pervez Musharraf will seek sanctuary in Britain, the Press TV correspondent in London reported on Thursday.

There are also rumors that the British government had encouraged the Pakistani government to reach a deal with Musharraf to resign in return for immunity.

The British Foreign Office denies the allegations but an official told our correspondent that should Musharraf choose to reside in Britain, there would be no obstacles.

Dilip Hiro, an expert in South Asia said any country that gives sanctuary to Musharraf would face difficulties because that country should pay millions of dollars for his safety.

The last time Musharraf came to the UK, protestors were angry with him over violating democracy in the elections.

Musharraf resigned on Monday after a televised speech, during which he defended his performance as president.

Do Native Americans Have First Amendment Rights?

August 21, 2008

by: Leslie Thatcher, t r u t h o u t | Interview

photo
The San Francisco Peaks are visible from many parts of the Southwest’s Four Corners and have been sacred to at least 13 recognized Native American tribes for at least as long as Europeans have been in the country. Northern Arizona University Professor Miguel Vasquez described the argument that only a part of the Peaks are affected by the planned spraying of up to 1.5 million gallons a day of effluent for snowmaking as “equivalent to saying it’s O.K. to piss in St. Peter’s as long as you only do it in one corner.” (Photo: Calvin Johnson / Save the Peaks Coalition)

Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage “a compelling government interest.”

The San Francisco Peaks of Northern Arizona “are sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes … and this religious significance is of centuries duration.”(1) In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey’s Peak, the highest and – to the tribes – most holy of the San Francisco Peaks. That decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court ruled for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that “using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow on the most sacred mountain of southwestern Indian tribes does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (‘RFRA’). It also holds that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act (‘NEPA’) that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent.”(2)

On August 18, Leslie Thatcher, of Truthout, spoke with the Navajo Nation’s lead attorney in the case, Howard Shanker, who is also running in the Democratic primary for Arizona Congressional District One, the seat currently held by retiring Representative Rick Renzi (R-Arizona), presently under indictment for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, and other charges related to an Arizona land deal.

Continued . . .

US, Poland Sign Missile Shield Deal

August 21, 2008

CommonDreams.org

WARSAWÂ – Poland and the United States on Wednesday signed a deal to deploy part of a US missile shield on Polish territory in the face of deep Russian anger.

“This will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea,” US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said before she signed the accord with Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

The signing comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and NATO, and Russia over the conflict with pro-Western Georgia.

But Rice again sought to fend off criticism.

“It is defensive and is not aimed at anyone,” she said.

“It is nonetheless a system that establishes firmly again, and reaffirms, our cooperation and relationship with Poland. It will deepen our defence cooperation and it will deepen our ability to deal with threats.”

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the deal “achieved the basic aims that mean Poland and the United States are more secure”.

Washington plans to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland plus a radar facility in the neighbouring Czech Republic between 2011 and 2013.

Both hosts are NATO members since 1999 and the missile shield will complete a system already in place in the United States, Greenland and Britain.

Russia has rejected the US argument that the shield, which was endorsed by all 26 NATO member states earlier this year, is meant to fend off potential missile attacks by what Washington calls “rogue states”.

Moscow claims the timing of the deal is further proof the system is aimed at Russia — a suggestion rejected by Washington.

Moscow had already dubbed the shield a security threat designed to undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

“We will be forced to respond to this adequately. The EU and US have been warned,” Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last month as the missile talks moved to a close.

Last week, Russia’s General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said Poland was making itself a target “100 percent”.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski hit back in a televised address Tuesday, saying his country would not give in to threats.

“No one can dictate to Poland what it should do. That’s in the past,” Kaczynski said.

“Our neighbours should now understand that our nation will never give in, nor allow itself to be intimidated,” he added.

Kaczynski did not name Russia directly, but his mention of the “past” was a clear reference to Poland’s post-World War II decades as a Soviet satellite.

“No one should be afraid of (the shield), if they have good intentions towards us or the rest of the West,” Kaczynski said.

Warsaw and Prague have had rocky relations with Moscow since they broke free from the Soviet bloc in 1989, and ties have worsened since they joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004.

To try to calm Moscow’s ire, Poland has repeatedly offered to allow Russian inspections of the missile facilities.

US and Polish negotiators signed a preliminary deal in Warsaw last Thursday, capping 15 months of negotiations.

Talks had ground on until the United States accepted Poland’s demands for extra security guarantees to offset the potential risks of hosting a base — not specifically from Russia — including a Patriot missile air-defence system and boosted military ties.

The missile plan foresees the deployment of several hundred US troops in Poland to service the shield facility as well as the Patriot missiles, which will gradually be turned over to the Poles once they have been trained to use them.

Washington and Prague sealed the radar deal in July.

Both accords must still be ratified by Polish and Czech parliaments.

© 2008 Agence France Presse

US and Iraq ‘agree on troops deal’

August 21, 2008
Al Jazeera, August 21, 2008

The White House has repeatedly resisted any timetable for withdrawing US troops [EPA]

The United States and Iraq have reportedly agreed to a draft deal to give US troops a legal basis to stay in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires in December.

A senior US military official told The Associated Press that Washington had signed off on a draft agreement on reducing the American military presence in Iraq but that the deal was not final and was subject to approval by Iraqi leaders.

However, the US state department told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that any report of an agreement was “premature”.

The White House said that negotiations were still taking place.

“Discussions are ongoing with the Iraqis to finalise a bilateral agreement,” Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said.

“We are working to complete the agreement, but it is not final yet.”

Contentious issues

Al Jazeera’s Tom Ackerman said that with Iraqis facing provincial elections in the next few months, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, will be facing pressure at home not to concede anything that will affect Iraqi sovereignty and to ensure a firm end date for US troop withdrawal is set.

But Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, Iraq’s negotiator on the deal, told the Reuters news agency that the draft reportedly agreed to does not give a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq nor say if US troops will be subject to Iraqi law.

At present around 144,000 US troops are stationed in Iraq, but Iraqi officials have said they would like any future deal to limit the US presence on Iraqi streets by mid-2009 and withdraw all troops by 2010 or 2011.

The US government has said repeatedly that it will not seek permanent bases in Iraq.

However, it has also resisted setting any timetable for the withdrawal of troops, although last month the US government began referring to “time horizons” and “aspirational goals” for such a withdrawal.

Issues such as a timeline for withdrawing troops, their immunity from Iraqi law and the status of prisoners held by US forces have all caused repeated delays to a deal.

In May this year scores of protests against any such deal erupted in the capital, Baghdad, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia leader.

Alongside the possible draft deal is a parallel agreement, known as a strategic framework agreement, which covers a range of political, economic and security relationships between the US and Iraq, that The Associated Press said had also been agreed to.

POLITICS-US: Anti-Obama Echo Chamber in Full Swing

August 21, 2008

By Bill Berkowitz | Inter Press Service


OAKLAND, California, Aug 20 – Right-wing groups are stepping up their campaign against Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, with two new books on the best-seller lists, another on the verge of publication, and a full-length documentary that will premiere during the party conventions later this month.

Jerome Corsi, a veteran of the 2004 Swiftboating campaign that helped sink the candidacy of the Democratic Party’s John Kerry, had his book “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality” debut at No. 1 on the New York Times hardcover nonfiction best-seller list on Sunday. Aug. 17 — although the list’s editors noted that some bookstores have reported receiving bulk orders.

“The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate” by David Freddoso is currently ranked at number five. And another Obama-bashing tome, expected sometime next month, is tentatively titled “Obama Unmasked,” and is written by Floyd Brown — the creator of 1988’s infamous Willie Horton television advertisement that helped put the kybosh on the presidential hopes of the Democrat’s Michael Dukakis.

Now, on Aug. 24, the eve of the Democratic Party’s convention in Denver, “Hype: The Obama Effect” — a full-length documentary that attacks everything about the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee — will be premiering at the Regal Pavilions 15 in the host city. The free showing is being sponsored by Citizens United and Chairman Dick Wadhams of the Colorado Republican Committee.

(The Regal Entertainment Group, which own Regal theaters, is the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world — it operates nearly 20 percent of all indoor screens in the U.S. The chain is owned by Philip Anschutz, an oil magnate, media mogul, and long-time contributor to conservative political causes.)

The film, through interviews with a host of Republican Party supporters, criticises Obama’s political positions, mocks the so-called cult of personality that many critics claim embodies his campaign, casts doubts about his judgment, and questions his character.

“While ‘Hype’ may not generate large box office receipts, it is sure to become another prong in the right-wing attack machine,” Mike Reynolds, a longtime investigative reporter covering politics and religion, told IPS. “[Citizens United head David] Bossie might be hopeful that as the campaign moves forward, some right-wing websites might offer the film as a premium as they have for the books.”

“In order to get regular voters to go see the movie, it will have to garner media buzz on the cable television news networks, like the anti-Obama books have,” Reynolds said. “Looking at both the television advertisement for the film and its five-minute trailer, it’s clear that neither Bossie nor Alan Peterson, the film’s director, have chops; they’re no Michael Moore.”

During the 2004 presidential campaign, one of the earliest attacks against the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate Senator John Kerry — predating by several months the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth mega-attack on the candidate’s military record — was spearheaded by Floyd Brown’s group, Citizens United, a long-time conservative enterprise.

The ad became one of George W. Bush’s major themes: Based on Mastercard’s famous ad campaign, the spot cataloged the cost of Kerry’s expensive taste in clothes and his ownership of properties worth millions of dollars. It ended with “Another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he’s a man of the people? Priceless.”

The goal of the Citizens United advertisement was to make Kerry look like an elitist; a premise that Bush advisor Karl Rove and the campaign of the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, has revived again this year. These days, in addition to the Obama-is-an-elitist message, he is also being defined by McCain as an empty suit — a “celebrity” who is out of touch with regular folks.

In June of this year, Rove — now a roving right-wing commentator with the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal and other mainstream media platforms — pulled the snob card from the deck. Speaking at a country club, Rove likened Obama, to “the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

In other words, Obama, the first African American to run for the presidency, is oddly enough being tagged as an elitist who is out of step with the U.S. public.

Bossie, who co-produced “Hype: The Obama Effect”, which was directed and written by Alan Peterson — who also directed “Fahrenhype 9/11,” a response to Michael Moore’s award-winning documentary “Fahrenheit 911” — recognises that the film will likely have a very limited — if any — run in theaters and he intends to market it via mail-order sales on the Citizen United website, and through other DVD outlets.

“Bossie is a political hatchet man whose career is based on smears and attacking Democrats,” John Stauber, the executive director of the Centre for Media and Democracy, told IPS. “His Obama documentary will provide plenty of footage for use on the internet and in commercials, but I doubt that in and of itself that “Hype” will make much difference in the campaign.”

“I assume that the overall theme of Obama as ‘socialist agent disguised as cult hero’ must be resonating in the political marketing surveys of the Bossie-types and the McCain operatives, or they would switch to something more effective,” Stauber added.

“Going back to the days when he was unremitting in his attacks against Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bossie’s forte has never been accuracy,” Reynolds said. “It has been bloodletting. And in that regard, if ‘Hype’ gets any traction at all, it is likely to be viewed as the political counterpart of [the horror movie franchise] Saw V, due to be released just before the election.”

*Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His column “Conservative Watch” documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the U.S. Right.