Rep. DeFazio: Fire “Timmy” Geithner + Larry Summers

Rep. Peter DeFazio called for the firing of President Barack Obama’s top two economic aides on Wednesday for pursuing a recovery plan skewed too heavily towards Wall Street’s favor.

The Oregon Democrat told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz that he was dismayed with the administration’s lack of focus on job creation and insisted it was time to dismiss both White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary “Timmy Geithner.”

“We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street — we reclaim some of the unspent [TARP] funds, we reclaim some of the funds that are being paid back, which will not be paid back in full, and we use it to put people back to work. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a tried and true way to put people back to work,” said DeFazio.

“Unfortunately, the President has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don’t like that idea,” he added. “They want to keep the TARP money either to continue to bail out Wall Street…or to pay down the deficit. That’s absurd.”

Asked specifically whether Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio replied: “No.

“Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal,” he added, “and Goldman and others who got their bets paid off in full…with taxpayer money through AIG. We channeled the money through them. Geithner would not answer my question when I said, ‘Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counter-party?’ He would not answer that question.”

DeFazio said that among he and others in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, there was a growing consensus that Geithner needed to be removed. He added that some lawmakers were “considering questions regarding him and other economic advisers” — though a petition calling for the Treasury Secretary’s removal had not been drafted, he said.

“[Obama] is being failed by his economic team,” DeFazio concluded. “We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans.”

Continue reading: HUFFINGTON POST

Reid: Lieberman could lose his chairmanship

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) could be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee after the next election, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said.

Speaking to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann on Friday, Reid suggested the former Democrat, who lost to a left-wing primary challenger in 2006 and has now endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the presidency, is not guaranteed to keep his prestigious chairmanship.

Olbermann asked Reid if there was “anything that he could do that would make you move to take his leadership position away on Homeland Security.” The majority leader responded: “Yes, of course,” but did not elaborate.

Democratic aides cautioned not to read too closely into Reid’s comments, saying stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship remained a very unlikely scenario.

“Sen. Lieberman votes with Democrats 85 or 90 percent of the time, except when it comes to Iraq and some national security issues,” Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, said.

(Continue reading: The Hill)

Howard Dean On Fox News Sunday: Your Coverage Is “Shockingly Biased”

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday this morning, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said that Fox’s news coverage has at times been “shockingly biased, and I think that’s wrong and I just say so right up front.” Dean also said he agreed with the netroots campaign to boycott the Democratic debates on the network.

Host Chris Wallace tried to get Dean to bash MoveOn and Daily Kos, saying they were “using words about you guys showing up here as weak, idiotic, stupid. How do you respond to the left wing?”

(Continue reading: Huffington Post)

Clinton: US would attack and “obliterate” Iran

Clinton’s poll day threat to Iran

The state’s voter demographics are presumed to favour Mrs Clinton   Hillary Clinton has issued a stark warning to Iran, as Democrats in Pennsylvania vote to choose between her and Barack Obama to run for president. She said the US would attack, and could “obliterate” Iran, if it launched a nuclear strike on Israel. Mrs Clinton has been playing up foreign affairs and leadership as she tries to make up ground in the Democratic race. She leads polls in Pennsylvania, the largest remaining state, but analysts say her hopes depend on a big victory. In response, Mr Obama said: “Using words like ‘obliterate’ – it doesn’t actually produce good results, and so I’m not interested in sabre-rattling.” He said only that Iran should know he would respond “forcefully” to an attack on any US ally. (Continue reading: BBC News)

On Eve of Primary, Clinton Ad Invokes bin Laden

The six-week Pennsylvania primary drew to a contentious finish Monday as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked images of Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden in a television advertisement that questioned Senator Barack Obama’s ability to lead in a crisis.

 

As she sought to spark a comeback in the Democratic nominating contest, Mrs. Clinton warned voters not to “take a leap of faith or have any guesswork” when they cast ballots Tuesday.

The Obama campaign accused her of employing “the politics of fear.”

With 158 pledged delegates at stake in Pennsylvania, the largest state remaining on the party’s primary calendar, the candidates raced from Scranton to Pittsburgh to Philadelphia — and a smattering of suburbs along the way — to rally their supporters and win over a dwindling lot of undecided voters.

While Mr. Obama spent nearly twice as much on television advertising in the state as Mrs. Clinton in the final days of the race, she broadcast a new commercial that used historic images from critical moments in the country’s past to ask voters whom they could trust in the White House. It did not mention Mr. Obama, but closed with “Who do you think has what it takes?”

(Continue reading: New York Times)

 

The Left Has Lost Its Way

The failure of the American left is a failure of nerve. It has been neutralized and rendered ineffectual as a political force because of its refusal to hold fast on core issues, from universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans, to the steadfast protection of workers’ rights, to an immediate withdrawal from the failed occupation of Iraq to a fight against a militarized economy that is hollowing the country out from the inside.

Let the politicians compromise. This is their job. It is not ours. If the left wants to regain influence in the nation’s political life, it must be willing to walk away from the Democratic Party, even if Barack Obama is the nominee, and back progressive, third-party candidates until the Democrats feel enough heat to adopt our agenda. We must be willing to say no. If not, we become slaves.

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos

Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,

It’s hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, “a shameful night for the U.S. media.” It’s hard because — like many other Americans — I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it’s hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that “media criticism” — especially when it’s one journalist speaking to another — tends to be a genteel, collegial thing, but there’s no genteel way to say this.

With your performance tonight — your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane “issue” questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters – you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it’s even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to “export democracy,” and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, “no thank you.” Because that was no way to promote democracy.

(Continue reading: Philadelphia Daily News)

The Man Who Would Be Bush

Are Americans unusually stupid or is it something our president put in the water? ? As millions surrender their homes and sacrifice other standards of our nation’s economic and political reputation to the caprice of the Bush-Cheney imperium, a majority of voters tell pollsters that they might vote for a candidate who promises more of the same.

Assuming that likely voters are not now thinking of yet another Republican president simply because John McCain is the only white guy left standing—an excuse as pathetic in its logic as the decision four years ago to return two Texas oil hustlers to the White House because they were not Massachusetts liberals—must mean that tens of millions of Americans have taken leave of their senses.

If not the white-guy syndrome, why would even a shocking minority of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters say they prefer McCain to the other Democrat? How otherwise to explain the nation’s widespread bipartisan rejection of the Bush presidency and yet a willingness to let McCain continue in that vein?

To be sure, as a senator, McCain has exhibited flashes of independence on behalf of taxpayers, as in his support of campaign-finance reform in which he partnered with Democrat Russ Feingold. McCain’s investigations of the military-industrial complex’s shameless exploitation of terrorism fears set a high standard, as in exposing the air-tanker scandal that dispatched a Boeing exec and a former Pentagon employee to prison. But his political ambition is showing. Although he previously harshly criticized the enormous waste in the Iraq occupation, today, as a presidential candidate, he opens the door to a hundred years of taxpayer dollars tossed down the drain in Iraq. The man who was tortured now hugs a leader who authorized the same.

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

Carter answers questions from Haaretz Editor-in-Chief

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter fields questions from Haaretz Editor-in-Chief David Landau during an international Internet conference hosted by TheMarker.  Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, brokered a peace treaty in 1979 between Israel and Egypt – the first such deal between Israel and an Arab neighbor. Carter is currently on a visit to the region that will also take him to the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.  (Continue reading and hear the interview: Haaretz)

Carter and Gore to ask Clinton to step down

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.

Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.
Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.
“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”

An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.

Obama has an almost unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates, and is closing the gap with Clinton in her last stronghold, Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22.

(Continue reading: Scotsman)

Petraeus, Crocker, McCain, Clinton, Obama and…

Challenging The Spin

Who in the Senate swallowed Petraeus’s Iraq spin and who challenged it? It took a Democrat who is not running for President to speak the full truth.

 

Sure, Arizona Senator John McCain’s campaign may still be selling him as some kind of “maverick” or “independent thinker” — and most of the media may still be buying that ridiculous line.

But when it comes to the fundamental foreign policy issue of the 2008 race – whether to continue the war in Iraq, and at what cost – McCain’s a yes man.

When Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. general in charge of spinning the Iraq quagmire as something other than a quagmire, and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, the U.S. diplomat charged with similar responsibilities, appeared before Congress, McCain greeted them the on-bended-knee position he has adopted since he decided that he would rather be the Republican nominee for president than a serious member of the U.S Congress.

Declaring with as straight a face as he could muster success in Iraq was “within reach,” McCain explained to Petraeus and Crocker that they would get no advice or counsel from this senator.

“Our goal — my goal — is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops, and I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine,” McCain told his task masters. “But I also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces regardless of the consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership.”

Apparently confusing “moral leadership” with the denial of reality, McCain declared against all evidence that, “Success, the establishment of peaceful, democratic state, the defeat of terrorism — this success is within reach. Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq. We must choose to succeed.”

To describe McCain’s comments at the Petraeus-Crocker hearing as “meaningless” would be an insult to meaninglessness. He added nothing to the discussion except cheerleading, and he sent the general and the ambassador back to Iraq without the benefit of the experience and insights of a member of Congress whose background could have been of value.

McCain’s decision to go AWOL was as embarrassing as it was disappointing.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama both made more of an effort to live up to their responsibilities as senators.

As someone who voted with McCain to get into the mess that is Iraq, Clinton acknowledged reality when she told Petraeus and Crocker that it was “time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops” from Iraq.

Clinton was still a little soft when she said, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced results that have been promised time and time again.”

But at least she was on the side of realism — even if she arrived there late in the game.

Obama, who had the foresight to oppose authorizing President Bush to go to war, was at least as sound as Clinton Tuesday.

“The most important issue is still the one that was asked in September which is how has this war made us safer and at what point do we know that there is success so we can start bringing our troops home,” the Democratic contender explained before the hearing.

“My belief is that we are not in a situation where staying another 10, 15 or 20 years is going to change the fundamentals on the ground,” explained Obama, who added that, “What we have not seen is the Iraqi government using the space that was created not only by our troops but by the standdown of the militias in places like Basra, to use that to move forward on a political agenda that could actually bring stability.”

So, as a senator, McCain failed the test Tuesday. But which Democrat offered the strongest challenge to the Petraeus-Crocker spin?

Clinton? Obama?

No, Russ Feingold.

The Democratic senator from Wisconsin, who is not running for president but probably should be, continued to take his job as a senator more seriously than any of his colleagues.

Feingold told Petraeus and Crocker: I hope you won’t take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face – not “are we winning or losing in Iraq?” but “are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?”

Like many Americans, I am gravely concerned by how bogged down we are in Iraq. Our huge, open-ended military presence there is not only undermining our ability to respond to the global threat posed by al Qaeda, but it is also creating greater regional instability, serving as a disincentive for Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, straining our military, and piling up debt for future generations to repay.

I am pleased that violence in parts of the country has declined, but as the increase in violence in Mosul and recent events in Basra and now Baghdad indicate, long-term prospects for reconciliation appear to be just as shaky as they were before the surge. In fact, the drop in violence could have serious costs, as it is partly attributable to the deals we have struck with local militias, all of which could make national reconciliation that much more difficult.

We need to redeploy our troops from Iraq and I am disappointed that you are calling for a halt in troop reductions, General Petraeus, because the presence of about 140,000 troops in Iraq will exacerbate the conflict, not stabilize it, and it will certainly not contribute to our overall national security. Some have suggested that we should stay in Iraq until reconciliation occurs. They have it backwards — our departure is likely to force factions to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally create a viable power-sharing agreement.

If we redeploy, Iraq will no longer be the “‘cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world,” as the Intelligence Community so clearly stated. Iran, as well as Turkey, Syria, and other regional actors, will have to decide if Iraqi instability is really in their interests once we are no longer on the hook. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will be able to adequately address what must be our top priority – the threat posed by al Qaeda around the globe, and particularly its safe haven in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Nothing could be clearer than the need to refocus all our instruments of national power to combat this threat.

Redeployment does not mean abandoning Iraq. We must work for a peaceful outcome in that country. But if we continue to leave our military caught up in the sectarian divisions that consume Iraq, we will be doing so at grave risk to Iraq’s progress, the region’s stability, and our own national security.

Source: The Nation

‘The Savageness of Man’

Forty years ago today, Robert Kennedy informed a crowd gathered in the center of Indianapolis that Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot. The improvised but powerful speech that followed is widely credited for keeping the peace in that community. Indianapolis was one of the few big cities in America that did not erupt into violence that night.

Loyalty to My Country

By Bill Richardson

My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation — particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack — driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.

I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton’s wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

As for Mr. Carville’s assertions that I did not return President Clinton’s calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

The writer is governor of New Mexico and a former Democratic candidate for president.

//washington post//

Many Arabs fear McCain would continue Bush policy

Arabs keen to see the end of George W. Bush’s presidency fear that a win for likely Republican candidate John McCain will bring little change to U.S. policies they blame for destabilizing the Middle East.

For Arab politicians who have gained from U.S. policy in countries including Iraq and Lebanon, continuity may be a good thing.

But Bush’s many critics in the Arab world worry that McCain will continue current U.S. policies, which they fault for unleashing chaos in Iraq and providing unflinching support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq until it is more stable, setting him at odds with Democratic rivals who want to withdraw from a country which has been wracked by violence since U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein five years ago.

During a Middle East tour this month, McCain’s statements on Israel also sounded alarm bells for Arabs who have long criticized Washington for not exercising enough pressure on the Jewish state to withdraw from occupied Arab land.

“The first time McCain started to catch attention was when he visited … Israel and committed himself to recognizing Jerusalem (as its capital) and not pressuring Israel,” Mohamed al-Sayed Said of Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies told Reuters in Cairo.

“This confirms the natural inclination of Arabs to think that whatever the next administration is, it will be a tool of the Israelis.”

But while Arabs see little difference between candidates when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict — with all repeatedly committing themselves to Israel’s interests and security — Iraq is seen as a different story.

IRAQ

The 2003 U.S.-led invasion, which was opposed by Washington’s Arab allies including Egypt, empowered Shia factions such as the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council — a group with longstanding ties to Shia Iran.

Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, a cleric and senior member of the group, said a McCain presidency would be a good thing. “I believe it is a positive matter if the Republican candidate wins in the coming election. We know now how the Republicans think.”

“McCain is so close to the Bush administration and they both adopted the same policy.”

McCain, speaking during a visit to close U.S. ally Jordan, said that a premature withdrawal from Iraq would enhance Iran and Sunni Islamist militant group al Qaeda — both foes of America — and endanger the region.

But Mudhafer al-Aani, a senior member of the largest Sunni bloc in Iraq’s parliament, urged a correction of “the great mistakes of the administration.”

“McCain’s statements on the U.S. presence in Iraq represent the same policy as the current president’s,” he said.

An Iranian political analyst, who declined to be identified, said that while the authorities were publicly keeping their distance from the U.S. election campaign, their preference appeared to be for Democratic candidate Barak Obama.

“I guess they look at McCain as some sort of continuity of the present situation. I can’t say for sure, but from their positions, I gather they will not like a repetition of Republican rule,” the analyst said.

“McCain has confirmed the American intention to keep American troops in Iraq. This is something that is against the wish of Iran. They want the Americans to be gone, and the issue to be sorted our regionally, in which Iran will play a big part,” the analyst said.

Syrian political commentator Thabet Salem said McCain’s pro-Israeli stance and comments against Syria, as well as a commitment to keep U.S. troops in Iraq could lead to more Middle East instability.

“McCain has exhibited little willingness to depart from the foreign policy of the neocons, which encourages spread of fundamentalism and terrorism,” he said.

//reuters//

China blasts Dalai Lama, Pelosi on Tibet

China accused the Dalai Lama on Sunday of stoking Tibetan unrest to sabotage the Beijing Olympics and also berated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying she is ignoring the truth about Tibet.

This month’s violence in Tibet and neighboring provinces has turned into a public relations disaster for China ahead of the August Olympics, which it had been hoping to use to bolster its international image.

The Chinese government said through official media that formerly restive areas were under control and accused the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, of trying to harm China’s image ahead of the summer games.

“The Dalai clique is scheming to take the Beijing Olympics hostage to force the Chinese government to make concessions to Tibet independence,” said the People’s Daily, the main mouthpiece of the Communist Party.

The Tibetan spiritual leader called the accusations against him “baseless,” asserting that he supported China’s hosting of the summer games.

“I always support (that) the Olympics should … take place in Beijing … so that more than 1 billion human beings, that means Chinese, they feel proud of it,” he said Sunday in New Delhi, India.

Pelosi’s visit to the Dalai Lama in Dharmsala, India, on Friday was the first by a major foreign official since the protests broke out. The Democratic leader said if people don’t speak out against China’s oppression in Tibet, “we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world.”

China’s official Xinhua New Agency published commentary Sunday accusing Pelosi of ignoring the violence caused by the Tibetan rioters.

“‘Human rights police’ like Pelosi are habitually bad tempered and ungenerous when it comes to China, refusing to check their facts and find out the truth of the case,” it said.

“Her views are like so many other politicians and western media. Beneath the double standards lies their intention to serve the interest groups behind them, who want to contain or smear China,” it said.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said Sunday that Pelosi condemns the Chinese government’s crackdown in Tibet and calls on it “to begin a substantive dialogue and to allow journalists and independent monitors into Tibet to find out the truth.”

China’s reported death toll from the protests in the Tibetan capital Lhasa earlier this month is 22. Tibet’s exiled government says 99 Tibetans have been killed.

Xinhua said Sunday that 94 people had been injured in four counties and one city in Gansu province in riots on March 15-16. The report also said 19 rioters had surrendered in Gannan, a prefecture in Gansu, but it did not give any details.

Despite the media restrictions imposed by the Chinese government, some information was leaking out. An American backpacker who traveled to Chengdu, the capital of western Sichuan province, said he had seen soldiers or paramilitary troops in Deqen in northwest Yunnan province, which borders Tibet.

“What was an empty parking lot by the library was full of military trucks and people practicing with shields. I saw hundreds of soldiers,” said the backpacker, who would give only his first name, Ralpha.

There have been no reported protests in Yunnan.

Monks at the Gedan Song Zan Monastery outside of Zhongdian in northwest Yunnan prayed Sunday for peace and an end to the recent unrest among ethnic Tibetan populations in China. The monks, who characterized themselves as both Tibetan and Chinese, said they felt that the upheaval and riots had helped no one.

The government has insisted that stability has returned to the troubled areas. State broadcaster China Central Television said Sunday that electricity and telecommunications had been restored in Lhasa.

The official lighting of the Olympic torch is set for Monday in Greece, and some 1,000 police will surround Ancient Olympia to keep away pro-Tibetan protesters from the ceremony. The torch is scheduled to travel through 20 countries before the Beijing Olympics open on Aug. 8.

One of Thailand’s six torchbearers withdrew Sunday in protest. Environmentalist Narisa Chakrabongse said in an open letter that she decided against taking part in the relay to “send a strong message to China that the world community could not accept its actions.”

Meanwhile, a group hosting the Dalai Lama’s visit to Germany May 14-20 said Sunday that the trip was still scheduled to take place. The trip is to include meetings between the Dalai Lama and various German state leaders.

//associated press//