08.01.09 -- Lost for Words

Taj Mahal, Agra, India
-----------------
Saturday,
August 1, 2009
Puzzle by Martin Ashwood-Smith, edited by Will Shortz
This is one of those crosswords that starts and ends leaving the solver lost for words, which is both plaint and praise!

People in the puzzle --
AGEE (43D. Posthumous Pulitzer winner of 1958); BEN (20A. “A friend to call my own,” per a Michael Jackson hit); GILES (25A. Patron saint of hermits); HAYES (22A. “Far From Heaven” director Todd); JAFFE (39A. “Class Reunion” novelist, 1979); JAMES DEAN (9D. “Being an actor is the loneliest thing in the world” speaker); JANICE (39D. One of the Sopranos); JERRY LEWIS (3D. Big name in slapstick); JESSES (9A. Jackson and others); JULIETTE (32D. Girl Scouts founder Low); NED (23D. Satirist Ward); NOSFERATU (30D. Title vampire of film); TOUGH GUY (1D. Bruiser); UGARTE (47A. Black marketeer in “Casablanca”); WATTERSON (29A. Creator of a comic strip duo named after a theologian and a philosopher) and SON OF ZORRO (1947 western serial film).
Other, eight- and nine-letter entries -- ALA CARTE (51A. Like some menus); APPRAISES (2D. Rates);
DIERESES (34D. Diphthong dividers); EVICTORS (10D. They remove letters); GENEROUS (53A. Not at all tight); OPEN DATE (15A. Hole that’s not filled); RIVIERAS (48A. Bygone Buicks); SITUATION (35A. One may be out of control); TAJ MAHAL (1A. Final resting place built in the 17th century); UPROOTED (17A. Like exiles); WEAK-KNEED (29D. Cowardly).
Seven -- CAREENS (42A. Pitches); 24D. CATBIRD seat;
JERBOAS (32A. Desert rodents); PARDONS (26A. Sentences may end with them); PARTIES (26D. Voting booth information); PARTOOK (21D. Had some); PECKING (21A. Reaction to chicken feed); 38A. British Columbia’s SELKIRK Mountains; SICKENS (11D. Repulses); TEHERAN (36D. Mehrabad Airport setting).
Six -- ADOBES (5D. Building blocks); AVIATE (16A. Demonstrate banking skill); LEANED (52A. Pitched); LEGATE (50A. Emissary); MICRON (18A. Distance light travels in 3.3 femtoseconds);
PANZER (41A. Tank type).
The remains -- ATEN and ETON, CAN, CASTE, COSI, CULL, EAR, FAN, FILE, GRR, HATES, HIKED, LED, NOD, ORE, PAVAN, RAG and RAGA, SARI, SENG, USED,
YEW (31A. Fine-grained wood).
By the way, there‘s a Bollywood film of the romance of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and his favorite wife, titled of course --
TAJ MAHAL!
------------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 19. Sound sometimes followed by an attack; 24. Queens or soldiers; 28. Car category; 33. Indication of a green light; 37. So, in Salerno; 40. Boosted; 45. Summer turn-on?; 46. It might hold gold. Down: 4. 6 letters; 6. Is repulsed by; 7. Rate ___ (be deemed flawless); 8. Skippered; 12. Attire around the 1-Across; 13. Royal educator; 14. Hong Kong’s Hang ___ Index; 37. Film holder; 41. Stately old court dance; 42. Get the best of; 43. Posthumous Pulitzer winner of 1958; 44. Ravi Shankar played it at Woodstock; 45. Do a taxing task?; 48. Low-grade paper; 49. It may pop on a plane.

Ethiopia-gate: The aid-to-arms diversion scandal in the Horn of Africa


Ethiopia, one of the world’s poorest countries has Africa’s largest, best-equipped army. Ethiopia is the largest recipient of aid in sub-Saharan Africa, receiving up to 90 percent some years. Ethiopia, with millions starving and tens of millions more just surviving, has spent at least $20 billion on its military since 1999.

Ethiopia’s chief economic advisor estimated that by 2001 Ethiopia had already spent $3 billion on the Eritrean invasion.

Ethiopia has at least a million troops under arms, dwarfing the other armies in Africa. When I say best equipped, I am speaking of at least 15 armored divisions (10,000 soldiers to a division with each division including a tank brigade, a heavy artillery brigade, a heavy machine gun brigade and an anti-aircraft-artillery brigade).

I am referring to an army that in 2000 invaded its former colony, Eritrea, in a two-month long war that saw the Ethiopian government release a figure of 123,000 dead for the conflict. Being that for every one soldier killed you must expect three wounded, about 500,000 killed or wounded in a war that remains almost completely unknown to most of the world is pretty covert.

When it comes time to add up the total cost of Ethiopia-gate one cannot only include the Western “aid” that was diverted to arms purchases, mainly from Russia and Bulgaria, even North Korea. You also have to include all the so-called “loans” given to Ethiopia by the likes of the World Bank, IMF, EU, etc. Ethiopia has received tens of billions of dollars in “loans” this past decade, almost all of which have been or are scheduled to be “forgiven.” So much for “debt forgiveness” helping Africa.

And all of this while famine stalks the land, few if any have clean drinking water or know a full stomach let alone have electricity, schools or medical care. Tuberculosis and even polio remain endemic and AIDS kills an untold number every year.

Yet try and find something putting all of this together in one article in the Western media and you will search in vain. Since 1999, even finding out basic information on Ethiopian arms purchases has become nearly impossible. Of course, Yemen, Ethiopia’s neighbor and another one of the poorest countries in the world, is reported to be buying billions of dollars in arms, though even this story has disappeared from the media.

When you do put it all together, adding one of the poorest countries in the world, recipient of a lot of Western cash in the form of aid and loans, with an enormous, well-equipped army and you come up with Ethiopia-gate, the aid to arms diversion scandal in the Horn of Africa. Why? Because the West needs someone to do its dirty work in East Africa and Ethiopia was chosen to be its local enforcer, its cop on the beat some may say. Yesterday it was the invasion of Eritrea, today the invasion of Somalia.

Of course, knowingly allowing all this aid and loans from Western governments and financial institutions to not go to the starving children it was claimed to be appropriated for violates innumerable laws. Maybe this is why Ethiopia-gate remains the worlds number one covert military operation.

Stay tuned to Onelinejournal.com for more news from the Horn of Africa that the so-called “free press in the West” refuses to cover.

Thomas C. Mountain, the last white man living in Eritrea, was in a former life, educator, activist and alternative medicine practitioner in the USA. Email thomascmountain at yahoo.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4969.shtml

How Taxpayers Continue to Fund War Crimes


By Chris Dorsey

The illegal wars of aggression and subsequent war crimes committed by the US government and the institutions that control it are now being led by Obama and the Democratic Congress. The recent 106 billion dollar war supplemental received yea votes from all Democratic members of Congress from Virginia. As a result, more of our hard-earned money will be spent killing and terrorizing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because of the policies of both the Republican and Democratic executive and legislative branches of our government, we, the US tax payers, have paid for the murders of more than one million human beings -- not to mention the torture that both parties carried out. All these facts make clear that the United States government and the institutions that run it are the most terrorist entities on the planet. Our government, the Federal Reserve Bank and the Pentagon are full of terrorist fugitives from justice.

The amoral sociopaths from the Republican and Democratic parties continue to fund these illegal wars of aggression because they prostitute themselves out to members of the military industrial complex like Northrop Grumman. Self-proclaimed anti-war congressman Bobby Scott, who joined the ranks of US government war criminals by voting for the 106 billion dollar war supplemental, seems to come through for his biggest campaign donor, Northrop Grumman, when they need him.

Speaking of Northrop Grumman’s ho’s, I spoke to DNC Chair and Virginia governor Tim Kaine at the Byrd House farmers’ market in Richmond, VA. It was difficult to get through Kaine’s hangers-on and security, but when I did, I asked him if there was any reason why Lem Stewart was fired as head of the Virginia Information Technologies Agency besides informing the Board that Northrop Grumman was overcharging the tax payers and being in breach of contract with the Commonwealth. He replied that Stewart’s contract had expired and he was working month-to-month. I then asked Tim if he was saying the information written in the Richmond Times Dispatch article by Jeff Shapiro and Olympia Meola was erroneous. He stated that he did not read it. I said the Northrop Grumman contract was bad from the beginning and that the reason this charter member of the military industrial complex controls the IT infrastructure of state agencies was because they gave Kaine a lot of money -- over $76,000 to Tim’s campaigns. I further stated that he was beholden to the multi-national energy and arms industries. Kaine did not respond and began walking off. As he was leaving, I shouted “you know it is true Tim!” Since this discussion, more evidence of Northrop Grumman’s theft of tax dollars and incompetence is mounting. (see: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/site_elements/tags/tag/vita/)

Republicans and Democrats alike are bought and paid for by the multi-national banking, arms and energy industries -- not to mention the food and insurance conglomerates. They, without conscience, commit tyranny against the citizens of all countries, including this one. Our government, and the entities that control it, act in a terrorist fashion. The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans, the leadership in the pentagon and the Bush and Obama regimes have committed war crimes. Using the US Constitution and international law as a measuring stick, they are fugitives from justice.

Many high ranking Federal Reserve, corporate and government officials have committed treason. They care nothing about average Americans and feed their endless lust for money and power through manipulation and murder. Using the Constitution and international law as our tools, the American people and the justice-seeking people of the world need to dismantle the current criminal power structure.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44887

07.31.09 -- SWOON

The Abduction (Rapture) of Psyche by
William Bouguereau, 1895
-----------------
Friday,
July 31, 2009
Puzzle by Mike Nothnagel, edited by Will Shortz
DEAD TO RIGHTS (5D. Red-handed), IRISH WHISKEY (21D. Mayo sauce?), FREE-THROW LINE (46A. Where a fouled player might go) and WITHIN EAR-SHOT (22A. Relatively close) are the main entries of this Friday crossword, which has been lavishly described in partial quarters with words such as “delicious, fun, great, ingenuous, poetic, rare, sparkle, wonderful, zingy” -- oh you cruciverbalists!
THERE’S MORE (13A. “I’m not done yet!”) heads a group of ten-letter entries including
SALMA HAYEK (17A. Oscar-nominated portrayer of Frida Kahlo), BAZOOKA JOE (56A. Comics character with a “gang”), OPEN SESAME (60A. Passage enabler), and nine-letter HELD WATER (3D. Wasn’t full of holes), LEYDEN JAR (32D. It might store an electric charge) and its’ clue-mate EELS (24D. They might store electric charges) creating an image of an odd fishbowl.
SWOON (44D. Become rapturous) and ELATE (48D. Make rapturous) along with GAZE (33D. It might be piercing) provide emotion for the puzzle’s remarks which include 1A. “IT HAD better be!”, 2D. “Not THAT!”, I PASS (21A. What a player may mean by knocking on the table), EEK (8D. Cry of surprise) and two quotes from the Bard, 11D. “… love’s shadows ARE SO rich in joy!”: Romeo and 58D. “My baby at my breast,” in Shakespeare (ASP).
Other -- BRONZED (41D. Like many beachgoers), 43D. Single-CELLED, CHAIRS (43A. Heads up),
DOYENNE (6D. Helen Thomas in the White House press corps, e.g.), ELAPSE (9D. March on), ONESIE (28A. Baby shower gift), SCHMEAR (37A. Roll top?), SITARS (29A. Band members with long necks?), SPECIAL (35A. Something not on the menu), SWAYZE (42A. Early TV news commentator famous for doing Timex ads).
Five-letter --
ALAMO (26A. Subject of the 1955 film “The Last Command”); ASICS (25D. Nike rival); FJORD (46D. Product of glacial erosion); HIDES (45A. Makes scarce); JELLS (50A. Crystallizes); 12D. LEAST of all; MARIO (15D. Plumber seen in an arcade); REPAY (47D. Square things); SARAH (30D. Fast Eddie’s girlfriend in “The Hustler”); TORAH (10D. It contains 613 mitzvoth); YPRES (63A. City in 1917 headlines).
Short stuff -- APE, AREA and ARES, ARM, ASSN, BOW, DARE, DIE and DYED, ELIS, ETAL, GRAB, HOME, IMAC, IRE, ITSY, LAIR, LEES and LEOS, LGA, LIPO, LORE, MAIN, NHL, NOES, NOR, OPAL, RATE, SHAH, WED, YTD.
All together now, swoon!
-----------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 6. Factory staple; 9. Abbr. in a “works cited” list; 16. It’s passed on; 18. Discipline; 19. Financial statement abbr.; 20. Reason to make a prank call, maybe; 31. Many students on “Gilmore Girls”; 32. It’s 11 miles NNW of JFK; 39. Certain correlative; 40. Really appeal to; 51. Passage blockers; 52. Stars participate in it: Abbr.; 55. Pendant option; 59. Not be a nobody; 61. Not dyed; 62. Bond. Down: 1. Minute, informally; 4. The Adriatic vis-à-vis the Mediterranean; 7. Boiling point?; 14. Onetime C.I.A.-backed foreign leader; 23. Computer debut of 1998; 26. Part of M.P.A.A.: Abbr.; 27. Slimming option, for short; 34. Vultures were sacred to him; 36. Refuge; 38. Cardinal; 49. Independent, noble types, it’s said; 53. Typist’s position; 54. Remains; 56. It comes after the last number; 57. Troglodyte.

07.31.09 -- Four-Letter Words

Marquee Letters, Olympia Film Society
-----------------
Thursday,
July 30, 2009
Puzzle by Ashish Vengsarkar, edited by Will Shortz
FOUR-LETTER WORDS (16A. Profanities [and a hint to this puzzle’s anomalies]) and REPEAT OFFENDERS (51A. Record holders? [and a punny hint to this puzzle’s anomalies]) -- along with EEEE (1A. Facility), e.g., ease; QQQQ (8A Signals), cues; IIII (19A. Peer group?), eyes; TTTT (20A. Razz), tease; BBBB (47A. Garden sights), bees; OOOO (49A. Is behind), owes; GGGG (61A. “Man oh man!”), geez or jeeze; YYYY (63A. Hip), wise -- are the interrelated entries of this Thursday crossword.
Other entries of length include ANCESTORS (43A. Some people in a tree); FACE OFFS (36D. Starts of some sporting events);
GANGSTER (40A. Blood, e.g.); GETS THERE (28A. Arrives); MATINEES (5D. Show types); ONE TO TEN (32A. Scale range).

Mid-size -- ARBORS (43D. Pergolas); DROIDS (38A. Many “Star Wars” fighters);
EERIEST (4D. Like H.P. Lovecraft among all popular writers?); EIGHTHS (17D. Some musical notes); ICEBERG (39D. Big chip off the old block?); JANE DOE (33D. Courtroom identification); JIGGLE (33A. Do what Jell-O does); MEGATON (26D. Nuclear unit) ; QUOTING (8D. Offering, as a price); SELLERS (27D. Merchants); SENORAS (21D. They may have niños and niñas); STEP OUT (22D. Exit); YVETTE (7D. Actress Mimieux of “Where the Boys Are”).
Five-letter -- ABDUL (60A. “American Idol” judge); ARCED (45A. Wasn’t straight); CUT IT (15A. Perform acceptably); GNATS (23A. Buzzers); GOODS (28D. Stuff on a shelf); INERT (58A. Sluggish);
MEDEA (12A. Jiltee of myth); REARS (31D. Cans); SAUCY (42A. Forward); SINGS (30D. Squeals); SNEER (30A. Mean mien); TOADY (29D. Kowtower).
Three-letter -- ABT, AHS, ALA, ALI,
ARN (24D. Royal son of the comics), ATT, ATV, BAT, EDU, EDY, EEO, EMF, ENG, FAN, FEY, GNC, IMS, MAY, ONA, ONS, OOP (34A. Alley of Moo), PEG, QID, QTR, QTS, REF, RIG, RTS, RUY, SLY, SSE, STE, SYS.
-----------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 5. <-- What this is, on a calendar); 14. Yamaha offering, in brief; 21. Liverpool-to-Portsmouth dir.; 25. Some exchanges, quickly; 34. Alley of Moo; 35. Patient responses; 36. Geisha’s accessory; 37. Like; 44. Division of an office bldg.; 46. Carry-___; 59. Whistle blower; 62. ___ admin (computer techie). Down: 1. Voltaic cell meas.; 2. Abbr. in a help-wanted ad; 3. E-mail address ending; 6. Part of a 2005 SBC merger; 9. 12 or 15 min.; 10. Rx abbr.; 11. Peck parts: Abbr.; 13. Iranian supreme leader ___; 15. 100 lbs.; 18. Football linemen: Abbr.; 24. Royal son of the comics; 40. Health supplement chain; 45. Dance grp. At the Met; 48. It goes over a plate; 50. ___ leash; 51. Horse and buggy; 52. Official lang. of Barbados; 53. Part of a violin; 54. Hardly macho; 55. Actress Williams of the 1960s-’70s; 56. ___ Lopez (chess opening); 57. On the ___.

The defeat siren is sounding for Blair's vainglorious jihad in Afghanistan


By Simon Jenkins

The take-hold-and-build strategy is mere pastiche imperialism. All wars end in talking, as must this US vendetta in Afghanistan.

Fact is at last fighting fantasy in Afghanistan. Fact is that Tony Blair's vainglorious jihad against the Pashtun insurgency is not succeeding, and British commanders, diplomats and politicians know it. After three years of "inkspots", hearts-and-minds and take-hold-and-build, that battle-weary siren of defeat, talking to the enemy, is back onstage.

While on Monday the prime minister was greeting Operation Panther's Claw with a parody of Lady Thatcher's triumphalism, "Rejoice, just rejoice", the deputy chief of the defence staff, Lieutenant-General Simon Mayall, was bizarrely declaring that the current Afghan war was "not against the Taliban".

Other British ministers suddenly went anthropological. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, professes to detect not just good Taliban and bad Taliban but "three tiers" of Taliban. His colleague, the development secretary, Douglas Alexander, has newfound friends in the "moderate Pashtun", allegedly eager to do something called "renunciate violence". The defence minister, Bill Rammell, wants to "peel away the footsoldiers" and rebuild trust in government institutions.

This awayday at the school of oriental studies cannot conceal the fact that we have been here for years. The one thing you know (and the enemy knows) about a named military operation is that it ends, which is one thing counter-insurgency can never do. All talk of talking to the Taliban forgets that Americans were talking to the Taliban before 9/11. Indeed, they spent a fortune training and arming them against Russia. Britain's first Helmand offensive in 2006 concluded that the Taliban would not be beaten and was followed by talking and a "cessation of hostilities", involving a series of local deals with (good) Taliban and a joint withdrawal agreement. It was later regarded as a disaster.

Advocates of such a strategy are scrupulous to plead cases where it seems to have worked. The first British commander in Helmand, General Sir David Richards, insisted that he was merely repeating the Malayan inkspot strategy, apparently unaware that Pashtun were no more akin to Malays than they were to Geordies.

Now we are told by Miliband "the lessons of Northern Ireland" should be applied to Helmand. For years, Ulster secretaries refused to talk to Sinn Féin "until the men of violence lay down their guns". Yet eventually there were talks and they duly laid down their guns. Now that Johnny Taliban has had a right drubbing, the Foreign Office implies, if he promises to stop shooting at us he should be offered a loya jirga a dozen cows and honorary membership of the Travellers Club. Then we can go home.

The comparison is false. Sinn Féin never laid down its guns before talking. Had it done so, it would have split and continued to be worsted at the ballot box by the government's preferred Catholic party, the non-violent SDLP. Sinn Féin fought on and, though it did not win a united Ireland, its use of violence was effective. The SDLP was all but wiped out and Sinn Féin emerged as the voice of nationalist Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin leaders were in government and enjoying a de facto veto over its decisions. Whitehall can rewrite history, but Northern Ireland showed violence works.

Anyway, Afghanistan is not Ireland. Britain is not the sovereign power in Kabul, nor is the Taliban a single political entity. Its disparate warlords and commanders owe allegiance to different factions under the Pashtunwali umbrella. The one thing that unites them is anger at the British ending their tolerated domination of southern Afghanistan in 2006 and a desire to rid the country of westerners. That is not negotiable.

Any reader of Ahmed Rashid's study of the Taliban will attest that the movement is little more than a religious banditry, motivated by tribe, war, pride, money and Allah, roughly in that order. After Mullah Omar took power in Kabul in the mid-1990s, the one moderating force was the exigences of that power. Taliban leaders were forced to co-operate with the Northern Alliance, treat with the CIA on drugs, and appease its Pakistani and Saudi sponsors. Younger bloods were also unhappy at hosting Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida Arabs.

All scope to manipulate that leverage after 9/11 was swept away by the foolish 2001 invasion. Lines that might have been put out to "moderates", even after the invasion, were abandoned in favour of what amounted to an Anglo-American war of eternal occupation. The drone bombing of Pashtun villages is said by intelligence reports to have wiped out roughly half the established Taliban leadership, mostly those with whom the west might now be "talking".

Each assassination brings a hothead to command, eager to prove his anti-Nato spurs and less inclined to negotiate. Each recruits dozens of fighters and provokes a furious revenge. The drone killings are directly counter-productive to Miliband's stated policy, yet he supports them. It makes no more sense than Gordon Brown's belief they have something to do with "terror on Britain's streets".

Any dispassionate observer returning from Afghanistan reports the same message. This is not working. People do not want their hearts and minds bribed or their infrastructure rebuilt. The money just gets stolen. They want their poppy crop left in peace and they want to know which sheikh or Taliban warlord will rule their lives a year from now. After years of being bombed, bankrupted and betrayed, they wonder who can offer them security. The answer is neither the British nor the regime in Kabul.

When Britain ruled the adjacent Punjab, its power was based on a large land army and the belief that it would never leave. It sent out its brightest and best. They stayed, and those who collaborated with them prospered. Today those who collaborate are murdered and night letters are pinned to their doors.

Everyone knows that the British will go but the Taliban will stay. That is why the strategy of take, hold and build is mere pastiche imperialism. It relies on the palpable nonsense that the Afghan army, a drugged militia of little competence and less loyalty, will fight and defeat its Pashtun cousins. It will not.

All wars end in talking, even if the conversation is usually brief and one-sided. Such will be any deal with the Taliban, good or bad. As the Canadians and most Europeans have realised, Afghanistan is essentially a war of American vendetta, and the more stupid for it. Yes, it will end in talk, but how many more must die first?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/28/afghanistan-war-talks-taliban

Afghanistan: Training Ground for War on Russia



NATO Trains Finland, Sweden For Conflict With Russia

by Rick Rozoff

A Swedish newspaper reported on July 24 that approximately 50 troops from the country serving under NATO in the so-called International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had engaged in a fierce firefight in Northern Afghanistan and had killed three and wounded two attackers.

The report detailed that the Swedish troops were traveling in armored vehicles and "later received reinforcements from several soldiers in a Combat Vehicle 90." [1]

The world has become so inured to war around the world and seemingly without end that Swedish soldiers engaging in deadly combat as part of a belligerent force for the first time since the early 1800s - and that in another continent thousands of kilometers from their homeland - has passed virtually without notice.

A Finnish news story of the preceding day, possibly about the same incident but not necessarily, reported that "A Finnish-Swedish patrol, part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), came under fire in northern Afghanistan" on July 23rd. [2]

Three days before that a Swedish commander in the north of Afghanistan, where Finnish and Swedish troops are in charge of ISAF operations in four provinces, acknowledged that "During the last three months, six serious incidents have occurred in our area." [3]

The same source revealed that in the upcoming weeks Swedish troop numbers are to be increased from 390 to 500.

The Svenska Dagbladet reported that over a twelve week period attacks on Swedish-Finnish forces in the area have doubled and that seven attacks preceded the deadly firefight described earlier. "In April, a Norwegian officer was killed by a suicide bomber in a province under Swedish-Finnish control, and several vehicles have been attacked along Mazar-i-Sharif's main road since." [4]

Like Sweden, Finland has also increased troop deployments to Afghanistan lately, ostensibly to provide security for next month's elections but, given the escalation of fighting in the nation's north, certainly to remain there for the duration of NATO's South Asian deployment, one which a German official recently stated would last eighteen years from 2001 onward. In early July Finland dispatched 70 more troops to join the 100 already stationed in Mazar-i-Sharif, the capital of Balkh Province bordering Kunduz where German troops are waging an almost two week long military offensive.

Last month Finnish forces in the area were attacked twice and a rocket attack struck close to Finnish barracks in the capital of Kabul.

Troops from the other Scandinavian nations have fared even worse. Three Danish soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in Helmand on June 17, bringing the country's death toll to 26. Norway has lost four soldiers.

To illustrate the integration of Finland and Sweden military forces in Afghanistan and under NATO control in general, in late June it was announced that Sweden was purchasing 113 armored vehicles from Finland. Approximately 1,200 of the Finnish-made vehicles "have been ordered by other customers and [they are] currently used operationally in Finland, Poland, Slovenia and Croatia, for example in operations in Afghanistan." [5]

NATO Deployment In Afghanistan "Improves Readiness For Defense Of Finland"

Last month a major Finnish daily newspaper in a feature called "Afghanistan: Now it's Finland's war, too" contained this striking revelation:

"[F]rom the point of view of the Finnish Defence Forces, there is still another important reason for the Afghanistan operation: it improves readiness for the defence of Finland."

The Finnish source quoted the former commander of the nation's troops in Afghanistan, Ari Mattola, as saying, "This is a unique situation for us, in that we will get to train part of our wartime forces. That part will get to operate as close to wartime conditions as is possible." [6]

Comparable claims about the Afghan war being the training ground for military action on their borders - and that can only mean in relation to Russia - have been made by defense and military officials in the Baltic states, Poland and Georgia.

Early this month Finnish Defense Minister Jyri Hakamies divulged that he would further drag his nation into NATO's plans for a drive east aimed against Russia and is paraphrased as asserting that "NATO had approached Finland with an opportunity to take part in cyber warfare training and the country should accept NATO's offer." [7]

NATO's Article 5: Cyber Warfare And Nuclear Weapons

On June 15 US President Barack Obama and Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves met at the White House with American National Security Adviser James Jones, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and discussed cyber security - which is to say, as the Finnish Defense Minister more honestly called it, cyber warfare. The Estonian president, raised in the United States and a former Radio Free Europe employee, "thanked the United States for its assistance in establishing the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center in the Estonian capital of Tallinn...." [8]

The head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Kevin Chilton, indicated this May what US and NATO cyber warfare plans might include when he said that "the White House retains the option to respond with physical force - potentially even using nuclear weapons - if a foreign entity conducts a disabling cyber attack against U.S. computer networks...." [9]

The NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania authorized the establishment of the Alliance's cyber warfare center in Estonia in 2008 and last month the Pentagon complemented that initiative by approving a unified U.S. Cyber Command.

For two years American and NATO officials have spoken bluntly about invoking NATO's Article 5 war clause, used for the invasion of Afghanistan and the buildup to that of Iraq, in response to alleged Russian cyber attacks.

Encirclement Of Russia: Finland Offers NATO 237,000 Troops, 1,300 Kilometer Border

This January Finland released a Security and Defense Policy Report which stated that "Finland regards NATO as the most important military security cooperation organisation", and that "there will continue to be a strong case for considering Finland's membership of NATO in the future". [10]

Mandatory weapons interoperability is a key component of full NATO membership and in April the Finnish Defense Ministry announced "the team of Norwegian Kongsberg and US Raytheon has been selected to fulfill Finland's future Medium Range Air Defense Missile System (MRADMS) requirements....The new NATO-compliant anti-aircraft missile system will replace the Russian-made BUK systems purchased in 1996 that will be taken out of service. The key reason for giving up the Russian systems is their lack of compatibility and interoperability with NATO systems...." [11]

The Helsinki Times of July 23 quoted Finnish Russian experts Esa Seppanen and Ilmari Susiluoto on Russian responses to what is now an all but certain development: Finland's joining NATO and providing the Alliance a new 1,300-kilometer border with the nation that has always been NATO's main target.

The two scholars are quoted as saying that "Russia is concerned about Finland's NATO option. It will not remain passive if Finland becomes a member."

The article also says that "NATO is marketed in Finland as a global peacekeeper. However, the Russians see it as a territorial threat specifically aimed at them" and "Russia fears that NATO membership would bring NATO's military structures to Finnish soil.

"NATO's expansion in the Nordic countries would finish off the military-political stability of the entire region. The Baltic Sea would become 'NATO's sea,' with the exception of Kaliningrad and the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland." [12]

In addition to securing NATO's encirclement of Russia from the Barents to the Baltic to the Blacks Seas, an article titled "Finland Rearms," in reference to the Finnish government recently agreeing to boost military spending to 2% of its budget - a standard NATO demand - says "By raising their spending, Finland pulls more of its weight in the alliance and thus is more likely to get a favorable response to any future requests for defense aid. Finland is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace program, and, with their new emphasis on added security, are likely to grow a closer relationship in the future.

With Finland in NATO the bloc would gain an additional "237,000 troops, beefed up with the latest infantry weapons and heavy armor...." [13]

Finland, Sweden Forced Into NATO And Overseas Wars Against Will Of The People

In a recent newspaper interview the Finnish Speaker of the Parliament Sauli Niinisto spoke of the surreptitious campaign underway - indeed almost completed - to pull his nation into an expanding worldwide military alliance despite its citizens not only being opposed to but not even aware of it.

He characterized the process in this manner: "The logic of silent agreements has been brought very far in thinking in which closer Finnish participation in NATO is seen to bring us security points from the United States and NATO." [14]

Niinisto listed several instances of how NATO is transitioning Finland into full membership without public debate or cognizance. Referring to the purchase of NATO interoperable fighter jets, he said that "It was a silent preliminary contract involving confidence that more supplies would come later."

He also cited Finland's participation in NATO's international Rapid Response Force as well as in the European Union's Nordic Battlegroups. More will be said later about the integration of the EU and NATO in global deployments and strike forces but this (not so) hypothetical observation by the Finnish Speaker offers an initial insight:

"All European defence activities are always under the NATO umbrella. What if the EU could be collectively a NATO member? What would Finland do then? Would Finland secede? The EU now seeks to act as a collective in all organisations. Why would security policy be a big exception?" [15]

An identical campaign, covert and concerted, in being conducted in Sweden, where as in Finland polls regularly register a majority of citizens opposed to NATO accession, and is being addressed and combated by the Sptoppa smyganslutningen till NATO/Stop surreptitious accession to NATO, whose web address is: http://www.stoppanato.se

European Union, NATO Symbiosis: Global Battlegroups And War In The Caucasus

Mention has already been made of the European Union Battlegroups and on July 21 Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels - to "address the North Atlantic Council on the priorities of the Swedish EU Presidency" [16] - further endorsed the project and "expressed his support here [Brussels] for the EU's battlegroup concept, under which about 1,500 troops from three or more countries are on standby on a six-month rotation."

The article the preceding is taken from added "Bildt, whose country holds the six-month rotating EU presidency...said there was 'huge demand' for Europe in the world and that the best way for the EU to improve its crisis management capability, of which battlegroups are a part, is by implementing the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

"He said they must remain ready to be deployed within 10 days."

As to where such deployments may occur in the future, "Bildt also hopes to secure backing from fellow EU foreign ministers early next week for a one-year extension to the EU's peace monitoring mission in Georgia" and "says he will insist on the mission's right to monitor the situation in the two regions [Abkhazia and South Ossetia]...." [17]

He was referring to re-deploying European Union monitors - including troops - to the borders of Georgia with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where in the latter case a war erupted last August after a Georgian assault and a Russian response. Bildt and the EU in fact don't consider that there are national borders connecting the three states but that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are part of Georgia. Russia, which has recognized the independence of both, disagrees and as such opposes EU troops returning to the area, where Abkhazia has accused them of collaborating with the Georgian government of Mikhail Saakashvili in launching attacks on its territory.

What Bildt is actually advocating is something substantially more serious and fraught with the danger of a conflict far worse than the war of last August.

The Chairman of the Georgian Parliamentary Commission on Defense and Security, Givi Targamadze, said on July 21 "The deoccupation [regarding Russian troops] of this territory [Abkhazia and South Ossetia], but not the presence of the observation mission in an expanded format, is important for us. However, U.S troops' participation in the mission will be a step forward." [18]

That is, the EU will insinuate itself into South Caucasus conflict zones and US troops will be inside the Trojan Horse. If that scenario evolves, troops from the world's two major nuclear powers can face off against each other in the next war.

Three days after visiting NATO Headquarters Bildt was in Afghanistan, during the exact moment the battle described at the beginning of this article occurred, to meet with US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and to visit an ISAF European Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).

Regarding the effective merger of EU and NATO international security and military missions and how the EU is being employed to hasten NATO's absorption of nations like Sweden and Finland, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who will turn his post over to former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen this week, in early July "expressed frustration...over the lack of progress in NATO's relationship with the European Union" and said:

"I will leave my office in three weeks' time frankly disappointed that a true strategic partnership that makes such eminent sense for both organisations (NATO and the EU) has still not come about.

"I am convinced that if ... North America and Europe are to defend their values and interests and solve [common] challenges, then we will need to do a much better job of combining the complementary assets of NATO and the EU. We should work together where necessary, not just where we can.

"Our missions, our geographical areas of interest, our capabilities...are increasingly overlapping, not to speak of our memberships. Our definition of the security challenges and the means to tackle them is also increasingly a shared one." [19]

Scheffer added "NATO-EU relations will be an important part of the
alliance's new Strategic Concept, which serves as guidelines for all actions," a subject doubtlessly addressed with Bildt, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, two weeks later. [20]

Applying NATO's War Clause Globally

At the same press conference the NATO chief said "I hope the new Strategic Concept will finally lay to rest the notion that there is any distinction between security at home and security abroad. Globalization has abolished the protection that borders or geographical isolation from crisis areas used to provide." [21]

Significantly, Scheffer affirmed that NATO's Article 5 mutual military assistance provision can "apply outside NATO territory as much as inside." [22]

To the South Caucasus, for example.

Four previous articles in this series have addressed NATO's plans to absorb Finland and Sweden as full members [23] and US and NATO plans to confront Russia in what the Alliance calls the High North, the Arctic Ocean and by extension the Baltic Sea. [24]

Scandinavian Nations Move Military Into Arctic Circle

Sweden's and Finland's Scandinavian neighbors Denmark and Norway, both NATO members, have recently joined the battle for the Arctic.

Last month Norway revealed that it was moving it Operational Command Headquarters from the south of the nation at Stavanger north to Reitan outside Bodo, "thus making Norway the first country to move its military command leadership to the Arctic." [25]

Last year "Norway's government decided to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 jets at a cost of 18 billion crowns ($2.81 billion), rating them better than rival Swedish Saab's Gripen at tasks such as surveillance of the vast Arctic north." [26]

A few days after the Norway's announcement that it was shifting its military command headquarters to the Arctic the Danish government said that increasing competition for resources and more importantly military advantage in the Arctic "will change the region's geostrategic significance and thus entail more tasks for the Danish Armed Forces".

Because "The risk of confrontation in the Arctic seems to be growing," Denmark plans to "set up a joint-service Arctic Command and is considering expanding the military base at Thule in northern Greenland, which was a vital link in US defences during the Cold War" and "create an Arctic Response Force, using existing Danish military capabilities that are adapted for Arctic operations." [27]

Copenhagen itself has no direct claim to the Arctic but is using Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both effectively colonies, for a military buildup that can only be aimed against Russian claims in the region.

An article titled "Danish militarization of Arctic" adds these details:

"The higher focus on the Arctic is part of the Danish defence plan for the period 2010-2014 approved by Parliament, the Folketinget, on 24 June.

"Denmark [is also considering applying] fighter jets in monitoring operations and sovereignty protection at and around Greenland. The country might also consider to give the Thule Base a more central role in cooperation with partner countries." [28]

The partners in question are fellow NATO members and Arctic claimants the United States, Canada and Norway.

From August 6 to 28 Canada will conduct its major annual Arctic military exercise, Operation NANOOK, with "land, sea and air forces operating in the Baffin Island region." [29] This year Canadian special forces will join the war games. "Col. Michael Day, commanding officer of Canada's Special Operations Forces Command, said units such as the Special Operations Regiment and Joint Task Force 2 have rarely been involved in northern military exercises." [30]

Arctic: Russia's Last Stand Against Missile Shield First Strike Threat

Two previous articles [31] have examined the fact that the Arctic Circle is the only spot on the planet where Russian nuclear deterrent and retaliation capacities can be based in order to evade potential US and NATO missile shield-linked first strikes.

Earlier this month former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev appeared on Russian television and warned that "missile defense installations in Europe are a threat to Russia" and "are aimed at creating a situation that makes it possible for NATO to be first to launch a nuclear strike while staying under the shield." [32]

On June 30th the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen was in Poland where Washington intends to install interceptor missiles and "said he was hopeful Washington and Warsaw could wrap up talks on a deal tied to a anti-missile plan opposed by Russia....[33]

On July 13-14 Russia carried out test launches of two Sineva intercontinental ballistic missiles and "The United States was reportedly unable to detect the presence of Russian strategic submarines in the area before they launched the missiles."

As a government official said of the tests, "Russian submarines not only fired ballistic missiles while submerged, they also did it from under ice floe near the North Pole, which proves that the Russian Navy has retained the capability of moving under Arctic ice and striking targets while undetected." [34]

At the beginning of this month NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer officiated over a change of command for the Alliance's top military commander, swearing in Admiral James Stavridis. The latter's comments at the event included:

"With me are over seventy thousand shipmates - military and civilian - in three continents from the populated plains and coasts of Europe to the bright blue of the Mediterranean Sea; from the high mountain passes of Afghanistan to the distant Arctic Circle." [35]

The simultaneous and coordinated US and NATO military buildup in the Arctic Ocean, the Baltic Sea and the Barents Sea are moving the line of confrontation with Russia ever closer. With Finland's and Sweden's integration into NATO the armed forces of both nations will have something far more formidable and dangerous to contend with than firefights in Northern Afghanistan.

Notes

1) The Local, July 24, 2009
2) NewsRoom Finland, July 23, 2009
3) Stockholm News, July 20, 2009
4) Radio Sweden, July 20, 2008
5) Swedish Wire, June 26, 2009
6) Helsingin Sanomat, June 19, 2009
7) Xinhua News Agency, July 3, 2009
8) Government Security Information, June 17, 2009
9) Global Security, May 12, 2009
10) Defense Professionals, June 25, 2009
11) Ibid
12) Helsinki Times, July 23, 2009
13) Strategy Page, June 29, 2009
14) Helsingin Sanomat, June 16, 2009
15) Ibid
16) Trend News Agency, July 21, 2009
17) Defense News, July 22, 2009
18) Trend News Agency, July 22, 2009
19) Trend News Agency, July 7, 2009
20) Ibid
21) Xinhua News Agency, July 7, 2009
22) Ibid
23) End of Scandinavian Neutrality: NATO's Militarization Of Europe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/38611
24) Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO's War Plans For The High North
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/40045

NATO's, Pentagon's New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37104

Canada: Battle Line In East-West Conflict Over The Arctic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/39795

25) Barents Observer, June 2, 2009
26) Reuters, June 22, 2009
27) BBC News, July 16, 2009
28) Barents Observer, July 16, 2009
29) National Defence and the Canadian Forces, July 10, 2009
30) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, July 8, 2009
31) NATO's, Pentagon's New Strategic Battleground: The Arctic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37104

Canada: Battle Line In East-West Conflict Over The Arctic
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/39795
32) Russia Today, July 2, 2009
33) Agence France-Presse, June 30, 2009
34) Russian Information Agency Novosti, July 15, 2009
35) NATO International, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe,
July 2, 2009

Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Change in the SOFA



By David Swanson

In November 2008, then President George W. Bush and then Puppet Nouri al-Maliki negotiated an unprecedented, unconstitutional treaty to "legalize" three more years of war in a manner not unlike the "legalization" of invasions, detentions, torture, and warrantless spying by secret decree of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice.

This treaty was public, but it was not called a treaty. Instead Bush presented it as a "Status of Forces Agreement" or SOFA, even though it went far beyond what any other SOFA had previously done. The U.S. Constitution requires that two-thirds of senators present consent to any treaty. A certain Senator Barack Obama favored upholding that requirement. Another senator by the name of Joe Biden introduced a bill (S. 3433) that, had it been brought to a vote and passed, would have cut off any money for U.S. operations in Iraq authorized only by an unconstitutional treaty.

The U.S. media barely told Americans the treaty was happening at all, never called it a treaty, and whited out the opposition from senators. Americans followed the treaty's progress in Iraq via bloggers like Raed Jarrar who translated Arabic translations of English documents back into English. (Jarrar should be publishing an update on the situation this week, so watch for it!) The Iraqi media covered the story well, and the Iraqi Parliament insisted on the right to vote the treaty up or down, no matter what Bush and Maliki called it. The parliament approved the treaty only on condition that the Iraqi people be allowed to vote it up or down in a referendum to be held no later than July 2009. If you haven't heard about this, or have succumbed to the collective amnesia, even the New York Times admitted this occurrence in a buried half a sentence on November 27, 2008:

"Approved Thursday along with the security pact were a nonbinding resolution that included a commitment to address longstanding grievances of minority blocs in the Parliament as well as a law requiring a referendum on the pact to be held in July 2009."

The treaty was actually called "An agreement regarding the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq and regulating the U.S. activities during its temporary presence, between the United States and the Iraqi government." It required that U.S. troops be out of all cities and localities by June 2009, and that US forces entirely leave all of Iraq by the end of 2011. The peace movement in the United States could not be persuaded to lift a finger to challenge the unconstitutionality of the treaty, because many feared any treaty actually approved by the U.S. Senate would be worse. In vain, some of us argued that this treaty was not legal and therefore could simply be ignored or revised, that it in fact had no more legal weight than the promises of then President elect Barack Obama, who was promising something arguably better than the treaty.

That this treaty worsened expectations even while being celebrated as an "end to the war" is illustrated by an action taken by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). The AFSC had created a graphic that many pro-peace websites had posted. It counted down the days to withdrawal from Iraq based on Obama's often repeated (though hedged and qualified) promise to end the occupation in 16 months. Once the treaty was created, AFSC silently altered its widget to count the days to the end of 2011.

While a complete withdrawal is certainly better than Obama's promised incomplete withdrawal, even the incomplete withdrawal is not now happening. Any moment for accountability has been pushed off to the end of 2011, and there is no reason to expect a complete withdrawal to have been made by then.

On June 9, 2009, the New York Times reported that Iraq was moving ahead with holding the referendum required by the end of July 2009. Otherwise, the U.S. media has gone silent. And since July 9th the Times has too. An occasional wire service story, such as this one from Reuters, has suggested the referendum might not be held or might be pushed off until January 2010. To understand what this would mean, it's important to recall that from the very start most observers interpreted the prospect of a referendum as allowing the ending of the occupation one year after the referendum. The treaty claims, in its text, to be valid through one year following any date on which it is declared invalid. (Imagine getting your health insurance company to agree to such terms!) There has never been any doubt that the Iraqi public would vote the treaty down if permitted to, so a vote this week would be interpreted as requiring an end to the occupation a year from now, but a vote in January would require ending the occupation in January 2011. Majorities of the following groups have long told pollsters they want the "democracy"-imposing occupation ended: Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, Americans.

In January 2009, the U.N. fig leaf for an illegal occupation expired. It was replaced only by this absurd treaty. But the treaty itself was violated from the start. For eight months, the United States has failed to comply with its part of the bargain. The treaty regulates the behavior of U.S. forces in Iraq, but their compliance with its terms has been weak. And from the beginning, top US commanders have openly said they intend to remain beyond 2011. When required to exit localities last month, the United States re-labeled troops as "non-combat," redrew urban boundaries, stationed forces around cities, and simply failed to comply, continuing patrols in blatant violation of the agreement. Read Dahr Jamail's report here.

While American "journalists" might perhaps be forgiven for forgetting to ever ask Obama about the looming deadline for a referendum in Iraq, last week's press conference in Washington, D.C., with Maliki might have offered such an opportunity. Yet, as far as I have been able to learn, not even the progressive reporters in the room breathed a word about it. Instead they asked Maliki about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq beyond 2011 and then congratulated themselves for "making news" when he replied essentially that he'd be happy to see that happen. The New York Times has just published an article with this headline: "Iraq Can't Defend Its Skies by Pullout Date, U.S. Says."

I asked independent reporter Dahr Jamail what he was hearing from Iraq, and he told me:

"From what I can tell, the referendum has not been canceled. This surprises me, because if/when it does happen, the vote will overwhelmingly be to reject the SOFA. Thus, I'm watching the situation closely, to see if it does indeed happen, and if so, how will the US react to the inevitable results...but also to see if it's fixed, and then what happens in Iraq in the wake of that. Either way, there is nothing to indicate a real US withdrawal from Iraq, ever. So this begs the question, how will the US Government spin the referendum, if/when it happens. Yet, we're already seeing Gates openly discuss the US use of Iraqi air space beyond 2011, and Maliki already making gestures towards a US presence in Iraq post-2011."

The problem is obvious. If the referendum is honest and verifiable, the occupation has to end in a year rather than never. If it's rigged and the Iraqis protest, the US media might have a hard time condemning them while celebrating similar protests next-door in Iran. If the referendum is never held, and the Iraqis allow that, and the US media never mentions it, who's harmed? I mean, who in the power structure in Washington, D.C., is harmed? I'm not much into gambling, but you can guess what my prediction is here. My desire is to see Iraqis and Americans prove me wrong.

It's not as if the SOFA has been forgotten. Maliki is using it to justify crimes, incidents noticed even by the Washington Post. "It's our territory and it's our right to enter, to impose Iraqi law on everybody," defence ministry spokesman General Mohammed Askari told Al-Arabiya television, regarding a new assault. "They have to submit to the law, and to Iraqi sovereignty. The SOFA authorizes us to do what we did."

And what have we done? We've sat on our sofas while a so-called SOFA eliminated the requirement that our congress approve treaties and wiped out any remnant of the congressional power to begin and end wars. We've set an international precedent whereby wars of aggression are justified through treaties made with puppet governments installed by the invaders. We've proactively torn up Obama's promise to have (at least "combat") troops out in 16 months, so that he didn't have to. We've allowed violations of the treaty to pass unnoticed and announcements of intent to prolong the occupation further to go unchallenged. We've effectively made the occupation of Iraq permanent by allowing George W. Bush to play us all for fools from the comfort of his Dallas mansion, and by imagining that electing someone else to take his place had anything to do with our peace movement.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44831

07.29.09 -- Teams

Wednesday,
July 29, 2009
Puzzle by Tim Wescott, edited by Will Shortz
Six long entries, each containing consecutive circles spelling out the name of various Major League Baseball teams seems to be the losing game of today’s crossword -- Astro, MAKES A STRO NG CASE (17A. Argue forcibly); Ray, CROP SPRAYER (28A. Presticide spreader, e.g.); Twin, SHORT-WINDED (48A. Terse); Giant, NORWEGIAN THRONE (61A. Where Olaf I or Olaf II sat); Ranger, ORANGE RINDS (11D. Juicer remnants); Met, COME TO TERMS (24D. Shake hands). That leaves 24 teams in the cold. There are other references to sports in the crossword, but most are unrelated to baseball. What?
Continuing on, entries of mid-size include ARE TOO (23D. “Am not!” response); BRONCO (26D. It’s most useful when it’s broken); GARRET (19D. “La Boheme” setting); HEDGED (49D. Counterbalanced, as bets); INCHES (50D. What some races are won by); NESSIE (40D. Storied monster informally); NOLTES (33D. Actor Nick and family); ONE-SIDED (55A. Like a
Möbius strip) and ONSIDE (34d. Like some football kicks); RENEGE (9D. Bridge no-no); SCHULZ (22D. Charles who created Peppermint Patty); STAINS (5D. Discolorations); TIE A KNOT (21A. Finish lacing up); YEASTY (31D. Like bread dough or beer).
Five-letter -- ARBOR (30D. Shady retreat); 52D. AS WAS the custom (traditionally); EASES (68A. Moves gingerly); ENRON (37A. Name in 2001 bankruptcy news); INLET (14A. Sheltered water); JAILS (1A. Clinks) and TAILS (42A. “Call it!” call); LOTTE (43A. Lehmann of opera); SICKO (10D. 2007 Michael Moore documentary); SOAPY (18D. Needing a rinse); SQUAT (71A. Like Yogi Berra, physically); TWIST (45D. Dance for Chubby Checker); UTENN (39A. Knoxville sch.).
Short stuff -- AFAR, ANA, ANET, ANTI, ART, ATOI, COST, DANK and DEKE, EIRE, ENO, ERNE, EST, FORT, GROG, HEMI, ILK, IRAQ, IRMA, IRON, JIM, LEER, NAAN, NAB, NBA and NEA, NORA, ONIT, OSU, PINT, RIO, ROTE, SAC, SCI, SOSA and SOSO, SSE, TASE and TASS, YIN, YORE, ZOO.
------------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 6. Way out; 10. Baseball star in Senate steroid hearings; 15. Repetitive routine; 16. It may be pumped; 20. South American cruise stop; 22. ___ fly (run producer); 25. Catch red-handed; 27. Royal Navy drink of old; 32. Brian of ambient music; 35. Prefix with sphere; 36. Arthurian times, say; 41. Grizzlies’ org.; 44. Damage, so to speak; 46. Con man?; 47. Chaotic place; 51. “Don’t ___ me, bro!”; 53. Dark half of a Chinese circle; 54. G.P.S. heading; 59. Class with the periodic table on the wall, often: Abbr.; 66. “___ la Douce” (1963 film); 67. Fish-eating raptor; 69. Cold war propaganda disseminator; 70. Rink fake. Down: 1. Huck’s raft mate; 2. Bibliophile’s suffix; 3. Sort; 4. Loung lizard’s look; 6. Works in a gallery; 7. Snow structure; 8. Yours, in Tours; 12. Eh; 13. Work without ___ (be daring); 29. Blood drive donation; 38. Tandoor-baked bread; 55. “Get ___!” (“Stop procrastinating!”); 56. “The Thin Man” detective; 57. Mayo’s land; 58. Dungeonlike; 60. Modern home of ancient Ur; 62. Alumna bio word; 63. Columbus sch.; 64. Teachers org.; 65. 1970s self-improvement program.

07.28.09 -- Now You're Talking!

Eternal Scream by Josh Sommers
-----------------
Tuesday,
July 28, 2009
Puzzle by Tony Orbach, edited by Will Shortz
Now you’re talking! This Tuesday crossword is filled with conversation. Going from the positive to the negative outlook, WITHOUT QUESTION (17A. “Sure thing”), IN ALL LIKELIHOOD (28A. “Chances are good”), MAYBE YES MAYBE NO (35A. “It could go either way”), NOT LOOKING SO HOT (43A. “Doubtful!”) and AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN (56A. “Forget it!”) are the main interrelated entries of this lively puzzle.
MUM (1A. Tight-lipped) is not the word for the rest of the crossword either with entries including a GASP (8D. Shocked reaction); a MOAN (27D. Haunted house sound); WEPT (66A. Had a bawl); AYE (61D. Floor vote); 33A. “I AM I Said” (Neil Diamond hit); I DO (57D. Words said after “ … so help you God?“); MOI (10D. “You don’t mean ME?!“); 46A. “Movin’ ON UP” (The Jeffersons” theme); three entries clued as “Stat!”, e.g., PDQ, ASAP, NOW, all in all somewhat MOODY (65A. Apt to pout) and with a bit of IRE (64A. Ill temper).

MOTHRA (3D. Insect monster of Japanese film) stars among the crossword's creatures with a ROLE (26D. Thing to play) in the puzzle which include an AGT (9D. F.B.I. worker: Abbr.); AHAB (25D Melville’s obsessed captain); 6D. Amazon ANT (aggressive insect); an AWOL (36D. Whom an M.P. hunts); a COUPLE (54A. Counselor’s clients, perhaps) and the 34A. DALAI Lama; EARL (19D. Banjoist Scruggs); FONDA (14A. Jane of “Monster-in-Law”); HIPPIE (47D. Cheech or Chong persona); KENNY (45D. “South Park” boy); LORI (22A. Loughlin of “90210”); MOWGLI (1D. “The Jungle Book” hero); NEO (58D. Keanu’s “The Matrix” role); OGLERS (48D. Gawking sorts); the ever-present ONO (13A. Lennon’s second wife); SON (12D. Sequel title starter, sometimes); TSAR (23A. Bygone despot); and the YETI (37D. Hulking Himalayan of legend).

Other -- AGOGO (16A. Disco-era suffix); AURAE (15D. Surrounding glows); GAMES (8A. Seven-up and crazy eights); G SHARP (20A. Note in an E major scale); IDEAL (62A. Perfect) and IDYLS (31D. Pastoral poems); LIE TO (29D. More than deceive); SKI SUIT (24D. Attire on the slopes); SWEET (41A. Like dessert wines); UNISON (2D. Oneness); YOYOS (63A. Fluctuates wildly).
Short stuff -- AFOR, AIG and AIM and ARM, BELT, CHOP, DIO (32D. God, in Roma); EGO, EST, HAIL, LAY, LIT, MSN, MTNS, NIGH, OAST and OSSO, RAP, SETS, SOUP, TAD, TIME, UGLY, USN, UTIL.
Finally, there’s THE NET (49D. Where one might see “OMG” or TTYL”) -- I knew OMG, but not the “talk/type/talk to you later” abbreviation, so…
From TokyoMonster.com, TTYL!
------------------
For today’s cartoon, go to
The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery.

Remaining clues -- Across: 21. Word before sheet or music; 25. Outfielder’s asset; 42. Water co., e.g.; 50. Turned on; 51. Studio constructions; 52. Close by; 53. Gitmo mil. Branch; 67. Ballpark fig. Down: 4. Get an ___ effort; 5. Borscht, e.g.; 11. Self-esteem; 18. Precipitation that may be the size of golf balls; 23. The so-called fourth dimension; 30. Put down; 35. AOL alternative; 38. Asteroid area, e.g.; 39. Range units: Abbr.; 40. Bailed-out co. in the news; 44. ___ buco; 53. Hideous; 54. Dojo blow; 55. Brewery dryer; 56. Deadeye’s skill; 59. Wee bit.