The Economist: Russia's President "I am doing fine"

Vladimir Putin seemed a fit, relaxed and happy 60 year old, as he addressed this year's meeting of the Valdai club of mostly foreign economic experts over dinner at the Novo Ogaryovo presidential villa outside Moscow on October 25th. He had the air of a man with few worries either about his own position as president of Russia or about his country's future. His most dramatic comments came in response to questions about the Pussy Riot verdicts, handing down jail terms to two young women who allegedly desecrated an Orthodox church altar in the spring. He was unapologetic. In his typical earthy language he denounced the women for practicing group sex, public sex with a woman who was nine months pregnant and for undermining morality. He also drew an analogy with the California maker of an anti Muslim film who is in jail. In this Mr Putin was reflecting broader views of Russian officials who spoke at this year's Valdai conference in St Petersburg and Moscow. Most dismissed both the Pussy Rioters and the Moscow opposition street protesters as elitist, unrepresentative and easily dispersed. Mr Putin echoed officials who argued that Russia was merely applying its own laws, and who even claimed that the police were softer than those who had been dealing with protesters in the streets of Athens or Madrid. The continuing euro crisis offered Mr Putin yet another reason for complacency. He was careful not to blame anyone and also to insist that Russia wanted Europe to resolve its problems, but with half an eye to his own country's Eurasian union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, he deplored the folly of moving to monetary union too fast, and with too many members that were not ready. As for Russia itself, the overwhelming message from this year's Valdai was that things were OK!! At one point Mr Putin even said that "I am doing fine."     

Wayne Barrett: Romney, Cheney, Rove, Franks Raise the White Flag on Iraq

Dick Cheney was scheduled to appear at a $15,000 a head Beverly Hills luncheon fundraiser for Mitt Romney on Monday, giving him a chance to watch the foreign policy debate that night from Hollywood. It would have been a fitting place for Cheney to hear his old fighting buddy from the Vietnam deferment trenches, Mitt Romney, auditioning for president, declare: "We don't want another Iraq. We don't want another Afghanistan. That's not the right course for us." Apparently, our warrior veep is the forgiving type, because he, Glenn Beck and Josh Romney made a joint appearance at a gala Texas fundraiser on Thursday night. Praised by Romney for his "wisdom and judgment" earlier this year, Cheney even threw a $4 million bash for Mitt at his Jackson Hole, Wyoming home in July, where reporters in attendance were told that no photos of the two together could be taken. Like every other neo-con soldier in my dreams vet on Romney's national security and foreign policy advisory committee, the ex veep is apparently not taking all the peace pablum, Romney served up at the final debate too seriously. Neither is Karl Rove, who once headed the White House Iraq Group and now runs American Crossroads, the ultimate Romney superpac. The night before the debate, Rove appeared at Duke University to tussle with Howard Dean about an array of issues, with Rove still pushing the value of "boots on the ground" to counter terror. Peter Wehner, who ran Rove's Office of Strategic Initiatives and said as late as 2008 that he didn't "see any reason why you'd get away" from the "working" Iraq war policies, is now the senior adviser to the Romney campaign who blogs on its website. Wehner, regarded as "the intellectual" of the Bush White House, is the only person to get special thanks from Romney in the acknowledgements of his 2012 book, "No Apology," and from Rove in his 2010 memoir "Courage and Consequence," where Wehner is described as a "trusted former colleague" who "helped craft every chapter and every episode."  

Noam Chomsky: America Acts Like It Owns the World!

In a recent speech, Professor Chomsky examined topics largely ignored or glossed over during the campaign, from China to the Arab Spring, to global warming and the nuclear threat posed by Israel versus Iran. He spoke last month at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst at an event sponsored by the Center for Popular Economics. His talk was titled "Who Owns the World?" Democracy Now! transcribed Chomsky's talk. When I was thinking about these remarks, I had two topics in mind, couldn't decide between them, actually pretty obvious ones. One topic is, what are the most important issues that we face? The second topic is, what issues are not being treated seriously, or at all, in the quadrennial frenzy now underway called an election? But I realized that there's no problem, its not a hard choice, they're the same topic, and there are reasons for it, which are very significant in themselves. I'd like to return to that in a moment, but first a few words on the background, beginning with the announced title, "Who Owns the World?" Actually, a good answer to this was given years ago by Adam Smith, someone we're supposed to worship but not read. He was a little subversive when you read him sometimes. He was referring to the most powerful country of the world in his day and, of course, the country that interested him, namely, England, and he pointed out that in England the principal architects of policy are those who own the country, the merchants and manufacturers in his day, and he said they make sure to design policy so that their own interests are most peculiarly attended to. Their interests are served by policy, however grievous the impact on others, including the people of England. But he was an old fashioned conservative with moral principles, so he added the victims of England, the victims of the "savage injustice of the Europeans," particularly in India.

Dirk Adriaensens: Crimes Against Humanity, Iraq's Mass Graves

On 22 October 2012, Shafaq, an Iraqi News Agency, reports: An official security source revealed on Monday that a mass grave was found in Sada area on the outskirts of Sadr City, belonging to the staff of the Department of missions of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research who disappeared in 2006. A security force found 16 bodies buried in a mass grave in Sadr City in Baghdad belonging to the staff of the Department of Missions of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research who disappeared in 2006. A security force found 16 bodies buried in a mass grave in Sadr City in Baghdad, belonging to employees of the Department of Missions of the Ministry of Higher Education. The available intelligence reports that the bodies belong to employees of the Department of Missions of the Ministry of Higher Education. The available intelligence reports that the bodies belong to employees of the Department of Missions who were abducted in 2006 and buried in a mass grave. The competent authorities are conducting DNA tests on the bodies to make sure of their identities and inform their families. On Tuesday 14 November 2006, paramilitary gunmen in the uniforms of Iraqi National Police commandos raided a building belonging to the Ministry of Education in Baghdad's Karrada district, and arrested around 100 members of staff from two departments and around 50 visitors, according to lists compiled by the Minister of Education. The raid took place in broad daylight, 1km from the Green Zone, in an area that contained several high security compounds, including the department where passports are issued. According to a BBC correspondent, the Karrada area, occupying an isthmus in the River Tigris, is well protected with a heavy presence of Iraqi troops  and several checkpoints. The paramilitary force, estimated at between at least 50 and 100 arrived in a fleet of some 20-30 camouflage pickup trucks of the kind employed by the Interior Ministry, and rapidly established a cordon of the area.

BAHM SADIQ: Former Financial Adviser To Muammar Gaddafi of Libya!v

The crisis in Libya after the death of Muammar Gaddafi was a global event. Many families lost a lot, and are still losing more on a daily basis. Contracts by Muammar Gaddafi included BP's US$900M Libyan oil exploration contract in 2007, shares in Juventus Football Club, Eni: The Italian Oil Giant, and Pearson: the parent company of Penguin and Financial Times. Some money was made from investments in numerous financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and the Carlyle Group . In order to ensure that all the family's assets are not frozen in the event of dethronement from power as the result of the crisis, the late Leader, instructed that the funds be deposited in a sealed box with the security firm, ostensibly to divert attention in view of the huge sums of money involved. The sealed box contained the sum of US $40.7 Million. The death of Muammar Gaddafi provided a unique opportunity for me to claim the funds which were deposited in my name to conceal the true identity of the real owner. All the documents relating to this deposit are with me as the late leader was too preoccupied on how to contain the fast spreading crisis, then and by act of commission or omission, failed to ask for the documents before his death. No other person knew about this deposit. I am now moving the sealed box US $40.7 Million out of the security corporation in Switzerland for onward deposit in your nominated personal or company's bank account. I guarantee that the transaction is risk free, since it will be done legally. On completion of the transaction, you will receive 40% of the funds for my participation, while the remaining 60% shall be for your help. Mr. Ibrahim M Sadiq

Paul Craig Roberts: Police State USA!!!!

In "Amerika", as opposed in my former home country of Germany, there will Never be a "Real Debate". God help them if Obama and Romney ever had to participate in a real debate about a real issue at the Oxford Union. They would be massacred. The "debates" revealed that not only the candidates, but also the entire country is completely tuned out to every real problem and dangerous development. For example, you would never know that US citizens can now be imprisoned and executed without due process. All that is required to terminate the liberty and life of an American citizen by his own government is an unaccountable decision somewhere in the executive branch. No doubt that Americans, if they think of this at all, believe that it will happen to terrorists who deserve it. But as no evidence or due process is required, how would we know that it will only happen to terrorists? Can we really trust a government that has started wars in 7 countries on the basis of falsehoods? If the US government will lie about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to invade a country, why won't it lie about who is a terrorist? America needs a debate about how we can made more safe by removing the Constitution, are we ruled by Caesar? The Founding Fathers did not think we could trust a Caesar with our safety. What has changed that we can now trust a Caesar? It we are under such a terrorist threat that the Constitution has to be suspended or replaced by unaccountable executive action, how come all the alleged terrorist cases are sting operations organized by the FBI? In eleven years, there has not been a single case in which the "terrorist" had the initiative! In the eleven years since 9/11, acts of domestic terrorism have been miniscule, if they even exist. What justified the enormous and expensive Department of Homeland Security?

Julie Levesque: Who Will Win the Elections?

"The Republicrats!" There is no democracy in the United States. American political life is dominated by one party with two heads, often called the Republicrats! Republicans and Democrats agree on core issues, and only argue on technicalities. Obama, who was portrayed as a peaceful savior in the last presidential elections, has demonstrated during his four years in office that he is not much different from his predecessor. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama's "war record" is worse than that of George W Bush. The civil rights of Americans have shrunk further in the last four years, and President Obama has shown that he is closer to Wall Street than to Main Street. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are more of the same, on key issues as Glen Ford explains: To any objective observer, the consensus that exists between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the fundamental issues of war and peace, Wall Street dominance of American life, and fiscal austerity, has been made crystal clear in the two debates. In the absence of effective popular resistance to the duopoly of money, the economic and social crisis fails to create a corresponding political crisis for the rulers. As a result, there is nothing important for them to debate. But how are Presidential debates regulated? The history of the Commission on Presidential Debates sheds light on how and why other parties are excluded from the political debate, and kept away from the public's eyes and ears: The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements, including moderators, debate format and even participants. The result is a travesty riddled with sterile, non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear.