Enemies Who Believe ‘Things’

Bush Says We Better Beware of Enemies Because "They Believe Things"
8/31/2006
The Rude Pundit
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/bush-says-we-better-beware-of-enemies.html

It was one of those head-shaking, goddamned stupid statements that just makes you wanna disappear into a Bolivian village and tear up your guts with coca leaf moonshine and overcooked wild pig until you're so doubled over and shitting out your stomach lining that you don't give a fuck about anything but the sweet, slick kiss of death to take away the pain. Here's the President yesterday at a campaign dinner for Tennessee Republicans: "We face an enemy that has an ideology; they believe things." You got that? We're not facing a bunch of blank slates lashing out at all tabulas not rasa. They actually believe "things." What sorts of things, you may ask? George W. Bush has the answer: "The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think."

Now, a cynical person might respond, "Oh, really? So they don't think that it's okay to hold people without charge or access to genuine legal processes, to torture them to get any information no matter how outdated or worthless, to lie to their people about the progress of a war, to use force to impose an ideology on the population?" You get the idea.

A sarcastic person might say, "So, like they shit on plates and eat their dinners out of toilets? They marry their goats and milk their women? They call fucking their females 'jacking off' and yanking one out 'fucking'? They sit inside their televisions and watch the outside world through the screens? They screech words of love and whisper their curses?"

See, while the White House amps up the 9/11 rhetoric in the coming days (Bush mentioned it no less than five times in his speech; Cheney brought the 9/11 noise about a dozen times in his speech Tuesday at Offut Air Force Base), they're also amping up the demonizing propaganda: each of these things is like the other - al-Qaeda, Iraq, and, coming soon, Iran. There's no room for differentiation. Call it the Elision of Evil, the Axis of Yadda-Yadda-Yadda. When you're up against an ideology - when you're fighting theory and thought instead of people and nations - you don't have to worry about the niceties of reality like the lives of actual embodied people who bleed. You only need to worry about point A and point Z. B through Y are for non-believers. You only need to offer your own contrapuntal ideology.

And what is the ideology we're offering? Sure, sure, it's "hope" and "freedom" and all those gosh-darn-Miss-America's-pretty type words. But Bush lets you know who's in on it and who's out: "The United States of America must understand that freedom is universal, that there is an Almighty, and the great gift of that Almighty to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free." You get that? The USA "must understand...that there is an Almighty." And that Almighty has, through its great and magical Almightiness, given every little non-almighty one of us a present. So, one might ask, like, does that mean, absent belief in an Almighty (or absent an Almighty altogether), we don't desire freedom? Atheism equals slavery? (And this doesn't even start to get into the clusterfuck of "what Almighty are you talkin' 'bout, Georgie?")

So our job, then, see, if we are capable of understanding the Almighty in the way the President apparently does, is only to reveal to all people of the world the gift of the Almighty. You might call it "evangelizing" democracy. It's not war, you see. We're just putting the missles into missionary work.

(For real fun, since the administration is doing its damndest to cast this war as a worthy successor to World War II, check out the vast array of details in FDR's fireside chat from two years into that war. Notice how he at least acted as if the people he was talking to were adults. Notice how he talks about fighting to stop "aggression." Oh, and by the way, now that we're all into the "Islamic fascist" name-calling, just so we can evoke WWII, let us remember that Mussolini actually founded the "Fascist Party" in Italy. When we fought fascists in the 1940s, it was because we were fighting people who called themselves by that name.)

A Majority In Search Of Leadership

by Mary Pitt


A staggering number of Americans are totally discouraged by the political actions of both parties as Congress continues to rubber-stamp the recommendations of the Bush administration. People are leaving the party line in droves in their search for more progressive and democratic principles and are in rebellion against the growing similarity to police state tactics and controls of our everyday life as social programs are withdrawn and the people are left without the traditional supports for the poor, the elderly, and the handicapped. We watch, aghast, as the Constitution is trashed, elections are left in question, and the standard of living of the working class descends into near-poverty while the wealthy continue to increase their income and influence.

Only one thing is lacking among these people and that is a cohesive leadership. There have been some who could have headed this movement but they are not so inclined. Howard Dean is safe and snug in the bosom of the Democratic party as are the others who made such a valiant try for the presidency in 2004, only to be disappointed by the actions of the party machinery in nominating John Kerry. There was some hope that at least one of those candidates would leave the party and continue the fight for the right, but we were disappointed. Without such leadership, we have found ourselves divided by issues that have arisen as the result of the actions or failure to act of both parties.

First of these divisive issues to come to the fore was the illegal immigration situation. This has created a large schism among the people who differ between wanting strict enforcement of border control and those who prefer to allow immigrants to cross at will and to have all the entitlements of residency that are available to citizens. The second difference arrived as the result of the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Historically, the American citizens of Jewish extraction have been liberal, being critical participants in the civil rights movement of the sixties and many other liberal causes. However, it is a tenet of their religion that they are in sympathy with Israel as a matter of faith regardless of the reason for the actions of that government. Having no real consensus on these issues could become a distracting force in gaining progress on the more serious Constitutional issues on which we must concentrate in future elections.

For the Congressional elections of 2006, we are reconciled to having no choice but to work for those candidates, largely Democratic, who agree with us that the Iraq War was a war of choice, should never have happened, and should be brought to an end as quickly as possible while continuing to assist the Iraqi people in establishing a government of their choice. While this must be our first objective, the recovery of our democratic form of government and individual freedoms, leading to the reinstatement of the decimated social programs is also of vital importance.

However, if we are to prevail, we must look to the presidential election of 2008 and, for that, we must all pull together without the conflict over these policy problems that have been thrown up before us. We need a way to unite, to all gather together, establish policy planks, and choose a leader or leaders who will represent us in that race. It is no longer enough to grit our teeth and vote for the lesser of two evils. We must allow ourselves the privilege of choosing between the good and the not-so-good again. In order to do that, we must find a way to roll into one entity the Veterans Party, the Green Party, the Neither Party, and all the other small parties that have been charging forth against the against the enemies of democracy, leaderless and rudderless. When this subject is broached among progressives, we are told that "it is too soon", that anyone who steps out in front of the movement at this time will be thoroughly trashed long before November, 2008. And so we blunder along, against this and against that, with minor "leaders" in each little splinter party, none of national stature and almost none with any name familiarity among the "sheeple" who are not really politically aware but simply growing restive.

We need some names! Not one, but several people who can bring name familiarity and influence to bear on out behalf. We need someone to bring us all together into one voting bloc, agreed on the primary issues with which must we must deal first; who has name-and face-familiarity enough to have credibility with the people; and who has sufficient resources and courage to be able to turn loose of the party money-teat and to trust "their lives and their fortunes" to God and the will of the American people as did the true heroes of our history. The those of us who truly love our country and want it to return to its once lustrous position as an example to the world as to how a multiracial and multi-faith people can live together in brotherhood must do out part. First, we must agree on those issues which are most important to us; then we must work and, probably, sacrifice to access sufficient funding to put forth our party plank. With the multi-national corporations and their treasuries against us, it will be a super-human effort, but it can be done short of violence.

As we search our personal genealogy, we see the names of heroes from the past who left their homelands in search of freedom, casting their lot in the New World, and establishing here their dream of a nation. Some came to a wilderness and some to Ellis Island. Some fled religious persecution and others were refugees from war. Some bravely stood and signed the Declaration of Independence while others raised their hands and swore allegiance to their new homeland. What happened? Has the blood of these heroes grown so cold, so diluted by the "good life", so convinced that the poor deserve to be so and that the old should simply die and get it over with, so convinced that all international problems can be solved by war and destruction that there is nobody of national stature who will accept the challenge to lead the people back to their rightful place as determiners of their own destiny?

If there is nobody anywhere in this vast country with that kind of intelligence and courage, the progressive movement will just be a footnote to the history of a once-great nation where we will be depicted as a fractured group of lib-lefty-internet crazies who had the temerity to think that they could make a difference in changing the world for the better and saving democracy.

We are the deciders!

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada

Statement on Behalf of Lt. Ehren Watada
By Francis A. Boyle
August 23, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle08232006.html

Fort Lewis Soldier Says He'll Refuse To Go To Iraq
June 6, 2006

One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death.

Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. They are getting prosecuted for protesting against illegal U.S. military interventions and war crimes around the world. First Lieutenant Ehren Watada is America's equivalent to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov, Wei Jingsheng, Aung San Suu Kyi, and others. He is the archetypal American Hero whom we should be bringing into our schools and teaching our children to emulate, not those wholesale purveyors of gratuitous violence and bloodshed adulated by the U.S. government, America's power elite, the mainstream corporate news media, and its interlocked entertainment industry.

In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany.

As a consequence, American citizens and soldiers such as Lieutenant Watada possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism.

If not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War.

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU

for more: http://www.thankyoult.org/

Is it ‘Islamic’ Fascists or Freedom-Fascists?

by Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)
yaminz@yahoo.co.uk
London, UK
8/21/06


Like most ‘ism’, Fascism was founded in Europe and it was practiced by Europe. So what has Fascism got to do with Islam? Absolutely nothing, because Fascism is inexorably linked to extreme nationalism, which is clearly forbidden by Islam, and therefore, Islamic-Fascism is an oxymoron and impossible for it to exist.

According to the fascist ethos of ‘guilty until proven innocent’, Bush issued the guilty verdict of: “Islamic Fascists”, even before the suspects in custody had a chance to reach the court and state their case. They are 22 British Muslims of Pakistani descent and 2 British converts to Islam; all stand accused of a plot to blow up ten aircraft in mid-flight over the Atlantic. The media (CNN-FOX-MSNBC) was already reporting “Terror in the Air” as if something had already happened, while ignoring the real “Terror in the air” that was being delivered by Israel to the Lebanese civilians. I wonder what kind of fascist was Timothy McVeigh, who did the atrocity against the people in Okalahoma.

The British authorities described the plot as an attempted murder on an unimaginable scale, as if it involved 10 nuclear weapons instead of 10 civilian aircrafts. Why is it unimaginable? Ten planes with an average load of 300 people makes it around 3000, like another 9/11. Now imagine this, multiply that figure by 100, you have rivers of blood from Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, to Lebanon. Of course, they have no problem imagining this, as the value of Muslim lives is not the same as Western civilians; - this is the real FASCISM. Because the exaltation of one race/nation, results in relegating other races/nations to an inferior status, they become expendable for the causes of the master race. So, killing the inferior races/nations in large number is simply collateral damages, makes it sound almost legal, while any retaliation from the victims is described as violent, terrorist and even fascists.

George Bush is perhaps irate as to why Blair did not follow his example of incarcerating the “Islamic Fascists” in Camp-X-Ray style and then lecture the Islamic world about human rights, the rule of law and democracy! But surely, incarceration is exactly what the fascist do, probably one of its defining features. Wait, I think I understand the ‘logic’ of Bush: you have to become a fascist to fight those, whom you consider to be fascist in the first place.

Bush is not alone in depicting his fascist behaviour with stupidity and hypocrisy - recently the European commissioner of Internal Affairs, Franco Fratini demanded that Muslims should respect other people’s religion. Good grief, did he mean that Muslims should start by drawing derogatory cartoons of historical Christian and Jewish figures (as the Muslims are not allow to mock the Prophet Jesus, Moses, David etc) to show ‘respect’, as the Muslims have been shown ‘respect’? Does he want us to produce nasty novels and films that are anti-Christian and anti-Jewish under the banner of free speech? Does he want the Muslims to invent equivalent terms for “sand-nigger”, “rag-head” and “towel-head”? Is that the kind of respect Franco Fratini is referring to?

He also had the chutzpah to demand that Muslims should “respect the right of life”, when clearly the Muslim civilians have been the largest victim of Western and Israeli terrorism for decades. Can anybody deny this fact? Of course what Franco means is that Muslims should show restraint and preferably turn the other cheek in the face of such an onslaught, as Western lives are worth more than the lives of Muslims. Such overt racism is a clear example of fascism.

Judging from Bush’s level of education and his past comments, it is doubtful that he understands the meaning of either term: Islam and Fascism. Calling Muslims fascists is another example of how Muslims are demonised by ideologies/ideas that are alien to the Islamic civilisation but ironically such ideologies/ideas are rooted in Western civilisation. Finding historical figures and events within the Islamic history that can be equated to the era of the Nazis is impossible.

The violent track record of the Nazis is a cyclical phenomenon that is found within European history, but very few would admit to it. One can go back to the blood-thirsty medieval Crusades of Christian Europe, then came the era of secular European colonisation from the 15th century onwards that annihilated millions of people. Finally we have the high-tech genocides by the US and Europe that has made the 20th century the bloodiest in human history. Naturally, unable to find real Islamic demons, Bush and his cohorts resorts to demonising Muslims with their demons of the past and present.

Since Islam and Fascism is an oxymoron, this only leaves the followers the Islam, the Muslims. It would only be fair to label the Muslims as Fascists, once they have managed to acquire the track record of Fascist like states, but then they would no longer be Muslims in any case. Listed below are some examples of fascist states and if the Muslims managed to replicate these, then they would qualify to be called Muslim-Fascists (not Islamic-Fascists):

· When the Muslim nations invade and kill over 100,000 innocent civilians based on lies, then you can then call them fascists.
· When the Muslim nations have killed 500,000 children by applying economic sanctions then call them fascists.
· When the Muslim soldiers (Mujahideen) gang rape 14 year old girls and then burn their bodies, then call them fascists. Ask yourself, would you trust your young daughters with such degenerate US marines or the noble Mujahideen who have never carried out such vile acts? Can you honestly answer this question?
· When the Muslim soldiers sodomise little boys in front of their father, and rape little girls in front of her family members, and call such activities as “softening up prisoners” or “letting off some steam”, then you may call them fascists.
· When the Muslim soldiers behead thousands using high-tech weapons, not just a few using the low-tech weapons of knife then bestow upon the Muslims the title of fascists.
· When the Muslim soldiers slowly behead people to their deaths using napalm, phosphorus and other similar nasty weapons then call them fascists.
· When the Muslims nuke cities of a country killing 100,000 plus civilians that is on the verge of surrendering then call them fascists.
· When the Muslims annihilate entire population of a country, like the Native Americans or the Aboriginal of Australia then call them fascists.
· When the Muslims build gas chambers and concentration camps killing thousands then call them fascists.
· When the Muslim mob wearing white hoods, lynch and hang certain racial groups then call them fascists.
· When the Muslims starts to demonise a community systematically, as prelude to mass-murder and genocide, then you may call them fascists.
· When the Muslims deprive the poorer countries of its natural resources and economic wealth, through the instrument of loans and imposition of dictatorships then you can call them fascists.

All nation states are dormant fascist states, as they depict extreme forms of nationalism it becomes an active fascist state. We get a glimpse of this amongst football hooligans when they start to exhibit nationalism/patriotism by defaming the opponents using racial slur. If one is truly opposed to fascism, then one should start by abolishing nation states. A nation state is a pre-cursor to fascism and this is why even certain Muslim states depict fascist behaviour towards its citizens. The regimes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Uzbekistan are some examples of regimes that are violent as fascists.

According to Islam, the identity of a Muslim is not defined by race; it is defined by adhering to certain set of ideas. You cannot cross the boundaries of race but you can adopt a certain set of ideas and convictions to become a Muslim, regardless of your racial origin. Therefore, the distinction between Islam and Fascism is as clear as the distinction between Islam and democracy, freedom, nationalism, capitalism etc.

However, the Zionist dominated media continues to try and depict Muslims as Fascists. For example, they insinuate that Hitler was aided by Muslims because of their alleged hatred of Jews and their natural inclination towards fascism, where as the truth is: some Muslim movements sought Hitler’s help to free themselves from British colonialism, after suffering from the betrayal of Sykes-Picot. At this rate, with the help of FOX-TV, Hitler will eventually become a Turk and his Mein Kampf is an exegesis of the Quran! Mussolini will be transformed into a Libyan, with his followers in black-shirts and a turban! The fascist axe will turn into a crescent shaped sword.

The world faces a real danger from the fanatical fascists that promotes genocide and mass murder in the name of freedom and democracy. Beneath their call for this ideology is their material interest, making greater profit, securing market and raw materials. These are freedom-fascist, democratic-fascists, capitalist-fascists, Zionist-fascists, neo-con-fascist, they all have the same root and the same mission, kill millions call it liberation, when the victims retaliate label them as fascists, terrorists etc. Fact is, the Muslims are numerically the biggest victim and any retaliation from them is described as fascist or terrorists.

Bush's Arab Dream Palace

Is it Narcissism?
by Juan Cole
Informed Comment
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/bushs-arab-dream-palace-is-it.html

Bush said again on Monday that he would keep US troops in Iraq until 2009 and argued that for the US to withdraw would send a bad message to reformers in the region. He said he is concerned about that talk of civil war in Iraq and seemed to admit that he isn't very happy most of the time about the way things are going, but added that he doesn't expect to be joyous in wartime. He admitted again that Saddam Hussein did not "order" 9/11, but went on to again link Baathist Iraq to the threat of terrorism against the US, an unproven charge.

I am not a psychiatrist and don't play one on t.v., so treat what follows as political satire please, and nothing more.

But what strikes me about Bush's Monday appearance is how consistent it is with what I understand of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Let's look at it this way:

'1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).'

Bush is not content to be the most powerful man in the world. He thinks he is on a mission from God, and has decided that he is going to "reform" the Middle East, and turn Middle Easterners into something else. He is the Great Transformer of these other peoples' lives. The reason he has to stay in Iraq until the end of his presidency (it is all about him) is that he cannot admit that he did not succeed in being the great Transformer of the Middle East, that in fact he screwed up the Middle East royally. Because such an admission of any slightest mistake, much less a major series of failures, would fatally threaten his sense of grandiosity. Thus, he can't pull troops out of Iraq not because of practical military considerations, but because it would send the wrong signal to regional "reformers," i.e. Bush's mini-me's, the people fulfilling his sense of grandiosity.

Nobody else is in the picture here, just Bush. He doesn't ask any sacrifice from the US public for the war, as Bill Maher and others have noted. The heroics are his alone. The rest of us should go shopping (so as not to interfere with his self-image as Atlas of the Middle East.)

' 2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. '

Bush suffers from T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") syndrome. Lawrence, despite polite denials, clearly thought that he led the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I and wrote:

' All men dream: but not equally, Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did. I meant to make a new nation, to restore a lost influence, to give twenty millions of Semites the foundations on which to build an inspired dream-palace of their national thoughts. So high an aim called out the inherent nobility of their minds, and made them play a generous part in events: but when we won, it was charged against me that the British petrol royalties in Mesopotamia were become dubious, and French Colonial policy ruined in the Levant. '

Bush, like Lawrence before him, imagines that he is inspiring a people to accomplish things they couldn't do without him. (That is why he can't admit that the Lebanese have been having elections for decades, and has to pretend it all started with him.) And all he gets for his inspired Transformation of others' lives is carping about the expected oil contracts in Iraq not being there. There is even prickliness from the French. Lawrence might have sympathized.

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement.

He is the Decider. He doesn't need Security Council resolutions to start wars. He doesn't need warrants for wire taps. He is entitled. He is the War President (never mind that he chose to go to war in Iraq and so made himself into the war president, and that the war presidency would be over with by now if he were any good at it.)

6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends.
7. Lacks empathy'

Bush only "worries" that eventually there may be a civil war in Iraq. He doesn't admit that he made a whole country of 25 million people into guinea pigs, and that as a result 3,000 are dying a month in civil war violence of the most brutal kind. '

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes. '

Saying that he can understand that having over 2600 of our troops come home in body bags and over 8,000 come home seriously wounded, with limbs gone or brain or spinal damage, is a cause of "anxiety" to the American "psyche" is patronizing. He knows better about why this has to be. The inferior people are a little upset, but that is because they don't understand that he is the Transformer. What they're upset about is just the side effect of the Transformation. They don't believe. They can't see the Transformation before their eyes. They are inferior.

rainbow

now this is a rainbow

shop-dropping the Home Depot

it’s fun, it’s convenient, and you can do it anyplace you go.
take a look.
http://tmars.iwarp.com/guerrilla_campaign/shopdrop/shopdrop060820.html

Mad Dog On A Leash

By Sheila Samples

"We should prepare to go on the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai."~~David Ben-Gurion, May 1948

I have been stunned by many things on the US political scene since I was jerked violently awake on Nov. 22, 1963. However, one thing that simply flew under the cuckoo's nest of my awareness was the total influence on our Congress; the control of our media, our courts, our universities, our entire society -- even our religion -- by the state of Israel. I had no idea.

I've learned a lot about both Israel and the United States in the last five years -- most of which I fervently wish I didn't know. I learned very quickly in the wake of 9-11 that the neoconservatives in the US claim an ideological right -- the Zionists in Israel a theological right -- to do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want, and those who question their increasingly bloody aggression are labeled "anti-American" or "anti-Semitic." Those who protest are ostracized from both religious and patriotic society (not to be confused with "civilized" society) and are immediately bombarded with ridicule and vicious ad hominems. Some receive death threats. Some receive death.

I learned that there is a vast difference between Jews, or people of Israel, and the warmongering Zionists who control the state of Israel, just as there is between most American citizens and the cowardly neo-fascist chickenhawks who control the United States. The people of both regimes cry out against the barbaric genocide and ethnic cleansing perpetrated in their name -- they shriek, they march in protest, but the world media pushed the "mute" button long ago, and no sound emerges from the weeping masses.

As these two "democracies" force their way across the Middle East, it's as if Charles Manson is stalking the innocent with a mad dog on a leash. Neither can be reasoned with, and no living creature in their path is safe. But it is easy to tell where they've been, because the landscape is littered with rotting corpses of innocent men, women and children, with mass graves and displaced millions fleeing for their lives.

From the Frying Pan...

The current conflict raging in the Middle East has less to do with self-defense or protecting the homeland than with zionist politics, Christo-fascist talking points and corporate media spin. It is a war of extermination -- a carefully planned crusade for world dominion, and it has been simmering on US and Israeli back burners for decades.

Every writer addressing this subject since George Bush was fraudently installed in the White House has pleaded with Americans to pay attention to the plan, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" penned by Dick Cheney while he was defense secretary, by Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush, which calls for seizing the world's resources and establishing permanent military bases throughout the Middle East. That plan was immediately put in place and is being relentlessly carried out.

Ninety pages too formidable? Okay, try the September 2002 "National Security Strategy of the United States of America," whose 35 pages puts in place a barbaric pre-emptive war policy that destroys 230 years of honor, dignity, decency -- and democracy. This manifesto was also written by Cheney and Wolfowitz, and is a direct result of behind-the-scenes input from then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell.

In his article, "Dick Cheney's Song of America," David Armstrong writes, "In early 1992, as Powell and Cheney campaigned to win congressional support for their augmented Base Force plan, a new logic entered into their appeals. The United States, Powell told members of the House Armed Services Committee, required "sufficient power" to "deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage." To emphasize the point, he (Powell) cast the United States in the role of street thug. "I want to be the bully on the block," he said, implanting in the mind of potential opponents that "there is no future in trying to challenge the armed forces of the United States."

Armstrong's article is 11 easy-to-read, eye-opening pages and was entered into the Congressional Record by Rep. John Larson (D-CT) in Oct. 10, 2002 -- one month after Cheney's National Security Strategy was released.

If you're wondering what these homework assignments have to do with what's going on in Lebanon, Israel and Gaza today, take a look at "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a document written in 1996 by neoconservatives Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser, among others, for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. No more Mr. Good Guy when dealing with the Palestinians, "A Clean Break" calls for a hot pursuit policy -- in effect, a familiar smoke 'em out, get 'em on the run and chase 'em clean out of the realm. Those who choose to stay and fight for their land will die. It's their choice.

"Clean Break," although the Likudnik game plan, was written by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) power-mad neocons, who fantasized that Israel could seize the "strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," and suggested that after these wars, which would all be successful, of course -- Israel could reshape "the strategic balance in the Middle East" by attacking Saudi Arabia and Egypt. "Clean Break" is a mere six pages, and is a Zionist's wet dream...

Into The Fire...

They can't stop now. They wouldn't, even if they could. The neo-cons' thirst for blood has reached unquenchable proportions. No one has worked more feverishly for total Middle East war than the Weekly Standard's ghoulishly grinning editor, Bill Kristol, who wrote in his July 24 "It's Our War" that Hezbollah is intent on wiping Israel off the map for Iran, and now is the time to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Why wait?" Kristol asked. "Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."

Then there's Dick Cheney, the madman who pulls the levers, who is chillingly indifferent to suffering and -- being bloodless himself -- doesn't see what all the fuss is about. Cheney's plans go beyond just controlling the world's resources; he knows he won't be here much longer, so he's desperate to seize all the riches, if you will, and take them with him. In this administration, Cheney is the "go to" guy for arrogant, barbaric murder.

According to journalist Seymour Hersh, whose article, "Watching Lebanon," will be published in the Aug. 21 issue of the New Yorker, Israeli officials came to Washington earlier this summer "to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear."

Hersh writes that "Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council." After getting Cheney's blessing, Hersh said he was told, "persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board."

And evangelical Zionists, such as Pat Robertson, who are lusting for Armeggedan, at last see an opportunity to rid the Holy Land of the Palestinians. Only after a crusade wherein the entire Middle East explodes in a tsunami of blood --only then will Robertson be swept up in glory, leaving the rest of us below to choke to death on depleted uranium dust and to drown in the blood of the innocent.

Those of you who don't know Robertson are, well, damn lucky. Robertson makes Charles Manson look like a pussy. As far back as 1985, Robertson told his brain-dead followers that God wants all Palestinians exterminated. "God told the Israelites to kill them all -- men, women and children -- to destroy them," Robertson said.

What are we to think of that? Robertson, God's most vocal confidant, says Palestinians are an abomination -- a contagion for which there is no cure and whose only function is to "cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth." He explained it was "more merciful" to kill Palestinians sooner rather than later because if they continue to reproduce, Israel will be burdened with having more to kill in the future. According to Robertson, the only way to look at such mass extinction is, "God, in love, took away a small number so that He might not have to take away a large number."

Last, but not least, we have Israel's militant leaders -- and America's Decider, George Bush. The Zionists are very good at what they do, whether blowing things apart with US bombs and missiles or crushing everything in their path with US bulldozers. But don't take my word for it. In his book, "You Gentiles," Maurice Samuels (p.155) wrote, "We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own."

One has only to stumble through the ruins of Sabra, Shatilla, Jenin, Gaza and Qana -- to recall the torture, assassinations, collective punishment of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, denying sustenance to those dying of thirst and hunger -- to realize that Israel is the "cod piece" of the Middle East. The Zionists who control it make Charles Manson's mad dog look like a pussy.

And, what of George Bush -- what part is he playing in all of this? It is incomprehensible to believe he is in charge of, even aware of, anything. In recent weeks, I have watched Bush, the man at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth, run and hide, blather and bumble his way thorugh fund-raising speeches, make an ass of himself at the G8 Summit gathering in Russia, crudely grope another world leader, and refuse to discuss anything more serious than "slicing the pig."

Two weeks into the Lebanon crisis, wherein "Condi," as Bush crudely calls this nation's Secretary of State, lurched around the Middle East and was sent home empty-handed -- twice -- he was finally backed into a corner and asked about the bombs dropping on Lebanon and the Hezbollah rockets raining down on Israel. Bush responded inanely that Israel was merely exercising its right to defend itself," before launching into his familiar, Texas-style "Remember the 9-11 Alamo..."

Are We Done Yet?

These widely different factions have divergent goals but they need each other to achieve them, and their eyes are riveted on a single prize -- Iran. This oil-rich nation must be brought to its knees before the neo-cons can have their New World Order, before Cheney can control the world's resources, before Israel can have its final solution in the Holy Land, before Bush can spread freedom and democracy and death and rid the world of yet another safe haven for plotters and planners and evil terrorists.... Iran is all that is standing between true believers and their ascension into Heaven. The same people who lied us into the Iraq war are telling the same lies about Iran -- the WMDs are now nuclear bombs, and no UN resolution, no US Congress, no US media will stop the madness.

They will have their war, knowing full well that an assault on a nation fully capable of retaliation will sign the death warrants of millions of innocents as well as of every US service member on the ground in the Middle East. Unfortunately, such losses carry little weight with all but a handful of the members of the US Congress and the majority of the American people who blindly support Zionist Israel and who advocate ethnic cleansing as a final solution to the problems of the Middle East.

Edward Said, the late Palestinian-American theorist, wrote one month before the Iraq invasion, "We cannot in any way lend our silence to a policy of war that the White House has openly announced will include three to five hundred cruise missiles a day (800 of them during the first 48 hours of the war) raining down on the civilian population of Baghdad in order to produce "Shock and Awe", or even a human cataclysm that will produce ... a Hiroshima-style effect on the Iraqi people... What sort of God would want this to be a formulated and announced policy for His people? And what sort of God would claim that this was going to bring democracy and freedom to the people not only of Iraq but to the rest of the Middle East?"

Said pleaded with the American people to speak out before it's too late. "Who knows what more evil will be done in the name of Good?" Said asked. "Every one of us must raise our voices, and march in protest, now and again and again. We need creative thinking and bold action to stave off the nightmares planned by a docile, professionalised staff in places like Washington and Tel Aviv and Baghdad. For if what they have in mind is what they call "greater security" then words have no meaning at all in the ordinary sense...The question is, how long can they keep getting away with it?"

How long, indeed. Look around. They have come for the others. Only we the people remain, and most of us are blind to our shame, our national disgrace. If we do not raise our voices now and again and again, we will be done. Then, God help us, we will realize -- too late -- that we are all Charles Mansons now.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net.

© 2006 Sheila Samples

in the “Armed Madhouse”

So Osama Walks Into To This Bar, See?
by Greg Palast
Monday August 14, 2006

So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says...

But wait a minute. I'd better shut my mouth. The sign here in the airport says, "Security is no joking matter." But if security's no joking matter, why does this guy dressed in a high-school marching band outfit tell me to dump my Frappuccino and take off my shoes? All I can say is, Thank the Lord the "shoe bomber" didn't carry Semtex in his underpants.

Today's a RED and ORANGE ALERT day. How odd. They just caught the British guys with the chemistry sets. But when these guys were about to blow up airliners, the USA was on YELLOW alert. That's a "lowered" threat notice.

According to the press office from the Department of Homeland Security, lowered-threat Yellow means that there were no special inspections of passengers or cargo. Isn't it nice of Mr. Bush to alert Osama when half our security forces are given the day off? Hmm. I asked an Israeli security expert why his nation doesn't use these pretty color codes.

He asked me if, when I woke up, I checked the day's terror color.

"I can't say I ever have. I mean, who would?"

He smiled. "The terrorists."

America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won't be monitored. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on George Bush's team.

There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.

1. God is on Osama's side.
2. George is on Osama's side.
3. Fear sells better than sex.

A gold star if you picked #3.

The Fear Factory

I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.

That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places." To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's.

Am I saying there's no danger, no threat? Sure there is: 46 million Americans don't have health insurance. IBM is legally stealing from its employees' pension plan and United Airlines has dumped its pensions altogether. Four-million three-hundred thousand Americans were injured, made sick or killed by their jobs last year. TXU Corporation is right now building four monster-sized power plants in Texas that will burn skuzzy gunk called "lignite." The filth it will pour into the sky will snuff a heck of a lot more Americans than some goofy group of fanatics with bottles of hydrogen peroxide.

But Americans don't ask for real protection from what's killing us. The War on Terror is the Weapon of Mass Distraction. Instead of demanding health insurance, we have 59 million of our fellow citizens pooping in their pants with fear of Al Qaeda, waddling to the polls, crying, "Georgie save us!"

And what does he give us? In my own small town, the federal government has paid for loading an SUV with .50 caliber machine guns to watch for an Al Qaeda attack at the dock of the ferry that takes tourists to the Indian casino in Connecticut. The casino dock is my town's officially designated "Critical Asset and Vulnerability Infrastructure Point (CAVIP)." (To find the most vulnerable points to attack in the USA, Al Qaeda can download a list from the Department of Homeland Security -- no kidding.)

But that's not all. Bush is protecting us from English hijackers with a fearsome anti-terrorist tool: the Virginia-class submarine. The V-boat was originally meant to hunt Soviet subs. But there are no more Soviet subs. So, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have "refitted" these Cold War dinosaurs with new torpedoes redesigned to carry counter-terror commandoes. That's right: when we find Osama's beach house, we can shoot our boys right up under his picnic table and take him out. These Marines-in-a-tube injector boats cost $2.5 billion each -- and our President's ordered half a dozen new ones.

Lynn Cheney, the Veep's wife, still takes in compensation from Lockheed as a former board member. I'm sure that has nothing to do with this multi-billion dollar "anti-terror" contract.

Fear sells better than sex. Fear is the sales pitch for many lucrative products: from billion-dollar sailor injectors to one very lucrative war in Mesopotamia (a third of a trillion dollars doled out, no audits, no questions asked).

Better than toothpaste that makes our teeth whiter than white, this stuff will make us safer than safe. It's political junk food, the cheap filling in the flashy tube. What we don't get is safety from the real dangers: a life-threatening health-care system, lung-murdering pollution production and a trade deficit with China that's reducing mid-America to coolie status. Protecting us from these true threats would take a slice of the profits of the Lockheeds, the Exxons and the rest of the owning class.

War on Terror is class war by other means -- to keep you from asking for real protection from true menace, the landlords of our nation give you fake protection from manufactured dangers. And they remind you to be afraid every time you fly to see Aunt Millie and have to give up your hemorrhoid ointment to the underpaid guy in the bell-hop suit with a security badge.

Oh, hey, you never got the punch line.
So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says, "Well, George, what are you serving today?" and Bush says, "Fear," and Osama shouts, "Fear for everybody!" and George pours it on for the crowd. Then the presidential bartender says, "Hey, who's buying?" and Osama points a thumb at the crowd sucking down their brew. "They are," he says. And the two of them share a quiet laugh.

Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War" from which this is adapted. www.GregPalast.com

Is Bush Trying to Dodge the Gallows?

Could George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and maybe Alberto Gonzales all end up sucking poison gas?
by Dave Lindorff
Friday, July 28, 2006
http://thiscantbehappening.net/2006.07.01_arch.html#1153922445405


That, apparently, is a concern now being taken seriously by Attorney General Gonzales, who is quietly working with senior White House officials and friendly members of Congress to do what murderous dictators in Chile, Argentina and other bloodthirsty regimes have done as their future in office began to look uncertain: pass laws exempting them from prosecution for murder.

At issue is a growing legal threat of the president and other top administration officials facing prosecution for violations of the U.S. War Crimes statutes, which since 1996 have made violation of Geneva Conventions adopted by the U.S. violations of American law, too.

Gonzales knows the seriousness of this threat. As he warned the president, in a January, 25, 2002 "Memorandum to the President" (published in full in the appendix of Barbara Olshansky's and my new book, The Case for Impeachment), "It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section [the US War Crimes law]." In another part of that same memo, Gonzales notes that the statute "prohibits the commission of a `war crime'" by any U.S. official, with a war crime being defined as "any grave breach of" the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War or of the Geneva Convention's Article 3. That article extends protection to combatants in other than official wars or formal armies. Gonzales, in that memo, also pointedly notes that the punishments for such violations, under U.S. law, in the event that mistreated captives die in custody, "include the death penalty."

What has the White House, and Bush's mob attorney, Gonzales, worried is the decision last month by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamden v. Rumsfeld, which expressly established that the president has "violated" the Geneva Convention's Article 3 by arbitrarily deciding that captives in the so-called War on Terror and in Afghanistan, and held in Guantanamo, would not be considered POWs, and would not be accorded protection from torture or access to the courts as required under the Geneva Convention. This determination by a 5-3 majority of the US Supreme Court could easily provide the basis for the very "unwarranted" prosecution Gonzales warned about.

Of course, the president could not be indicted for this offense while in office. The Constitution provides a protection against that. But he could be indicted once his term ends. Meanwhile, other administration personnel, including the vice president, have no such protection against indictment even while in office.

The very fact that Gonzales, according to a report in today's Washington Post, has been "quietly approaching" Republican members of Congress about passing legislation exempting Americans involved in the "terrorism fight" from war crimes prosecution suggests how worried Bush and his subordinates really are.

It's interesting how this has become the tactic of choice for the criminals in the White House. When Bush was caught violating the clear provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by authorizing spying by the National Security Agency on Americans' communications without a warrant, the administration went to Congress to seek legislation retroactively authorizing the crime. Since the president was exposed as having summarily and unconstitutionally invalidated some 800 laws passed by Congress through the use of what he calls "signing statements," an astonishing breach of the separation of powers, the administration has been seeking a new law in Congress that would in effect grant that power to presidents, again retroactively. Now Bush is apparently hoping to get the same compliant Republican-led House and Senate to backdate a law exempting him and his cohorts from punishment under the War Crimes statute--a law, ironically, passed almost without objection by both houses of a Republican-led Congress in 1996.

Of course, this attempt at a legal dodge might not work. Not only could a future prosecutor seek to have such a law ruled illegal itself (after all, the U.S. is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, making them legally binding anyhow), but because the U.S. is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture in any form, the president and his subordinates could also be charged as war criminals by other nations--particularly if it were determined that the U.S. was unwilling or legally unable to prosecute.

That could make things a little claustrophobic for administration personnel once they leave office.

No doubt Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et all would like to continue their world travels once they leave government "service." For one thing, there's lots of money to be made on the international speaking circuit. Lots more can be made by doing international business consulting. But if there were a threat of arrest and prosecution by prosecutors in countries like Spain, Germany or Canada, such travels would pose a huge risk. Similar fears have kept former National Security Director and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger pretty much housebound since a near detention in Paris on war crimes charges a few years back.

Gonzales' anxious behind-the-scenes scuttling about in the halls of Congress in an effort to save his boss's neck also suggests that the White House is getting anxious about the November election. After all, if they thought they had a secure grip on Congress through November 2008, why the sudden rush to get a bill through undermining the War Crimes statute now? Maybe Bush is afraid that if he waits until November, he'll be dealing with a Democratic House and/or Senate, which would be unlikely to grant him such legal protection.

There is a delicious irony in watching this law-and-order, let-'em-fry president and his tough-guy VP, attorney general and defense secretary, resorting to the same kind of dodgy legal tactics that they accuse convicted killers (and terrorists) of using in an attempt to avoid the gallows.

Chances are their strategy will work, at least in the U.S. But at least it's entertaining to watch.

A nicely timed plot

Quite conveniant. What is still truly amazing is that there are still people who take what they’re told by the bushistas at face value. Here’s some cynicism for you. You could say that I’m looking at this with a jaundiced eye.

What it reminds me of is the Miami plot with a bit more details added, since lessons have been learned. We are told yesterday that Lamont’s win in Connecticut, that’s in the US, is a win for the terrorists. And, hot on those heels, is this. It’s all just a little too pat for me.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, people are being killed. But that fact has been pushed off the front page. The people dying in Darfur in Sudan rarely even rate a mention. And what was on the US news tonight? How inconvenianced air travelers are because of this latest plot twist. And the sheep lap it up. But what the hell, Indianapolis Colts at St. Louis Rams on FOX tonight, so the Americans won’t be able to spend much time thinking about that other stuff. And if American football is not your style, there’s always “Big Brother” on the CBS network.

Well, hold onto your hats folks. The next three months are going to be some fear flogging times. And if that doesn’t work, the republicans aren’t above popping off an incident in the US. Remember, they can’t afford to lose the US Congress. They are too steeped in blood, corruption, and perversion to allow any sort of a real investigation to be turning over any stones.


No dead Lebanese children on TV today
by Craig Murray
August 10, 2006
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/no_dead_lebanes.html


George Bush is just following John Reid in ensuring any trials following today's arrests are irretrievably prejudiced.

It is a fact that only the closest Blair circle bothers to deny, that if young British Muslims are turning to terrorism, it is the Blair-Bush foreign policy of war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine that has driven them to it. The majority of British people share their outrage at our foreign policy. That is not to condone the response of irrational violence. Terrorism is plain wrong. But it is Blair who has, through his evangelical embrace of the neo-con foreign agenda, massively increased any current threat of terrorism to the UK.

But let us do what none of the 24 hour news channels are doing; draw breath and count up to ten. What has actually happened so far?

There have been, reportedly, 21 people arrested. There have been no terrorist attacks, no explosions. US sources are reported as saying that explosive devices have been found, but no news from the Police as yet.

I am reminded of the Forest Gate arrests and the notorious "Chemical weapon vest" which was threatening London and required 270 policemen and a four mile air exclusion zone to deal with. The media was shoving that out just as uncritically as it is shoving out this air attack, even though it made no sense. Anyone who knows anything about weapons knows that for a chemical weapon you want maximum dispersal - the last thing you are going to do is wrap it in fabric around a human body. And why the air exclusion zone? Were they going to throw the vest at a passing jet? The media never did ask any of those questions.

Similarly, I recall the famous ricin plot, where again police and the professional pundits said millions could have been killed. In the event, of course, it turned out there was no ricin and no plot.

And I remember Jean Charles De Menezes, the "suicide bomber", with his "bulky jacket", with "wires sticking out", who "leapt" the ticket barriers and "raced" onto the tube. All lies.

So I am waiting with a little healthy scepticism to see the truth of this "al-Qaida plot" bringing "Mass murder on an unprecedented scale".

Of course, it helps New Labour look Churchillian, and explains why Israel had to be supported in the ethnic cleansing of South Lebanon, part of the "Arc of extremism". it is interesting that the timing of these arrests exactly today, after "months" of surveillance, was determined by the Prime Minister - the CO in COBRA, the operational command, stands for Cabinet Office.

The political timing could not have been more convenient - a junior minister had resigned over arms to Israel, and the backbench rebellion demanding a recall of parliament over Lebanon will now be containable in the name of standing together in the War on Terror. And the news agenda has been seismically shifted. The public mood is instantly tilted from sympathy for the people of Lebanon, leading to questioning of the War on Terror, to renewed fear that "Islamic fascists" are planning to kill us all.

So to recap: Blair's crazed foreign policy has made us a genuine potential target for terrorist attack. The government manipulates and spins that threat to political advantage.

We wait for the court system to show whether this was a real attempted attack and, if so, it was genuinely operational rather than political to move against it today. But the police' and security services' record of lies does not inspire confidence.


Terrorism: you can get it in a can.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/terrorism-you-can-get-it-in-can.html

It's past midday and the BBC have found nothing else to talk about yet, except for the weather (ominous banks of apocalyptic clouds rolling across a nihilistic sky toward an Islamofascist sun). Literally, all other programming has been suspended. Pundits with no opinion are being begged to find one, quickly. Arrests here, searches there, endless queues of disgruntled tourists and business travellers looking pissed off. Endless speculation is compounded by the suggestion that the fact that there is speculation goes to show how chaotic the situation is. We are then told that there is some suggestion that there were liquid explosives to be hidden in fizzy drinks cans and smuggled aboard planes.

Terrorism is insidious. It gets into everything. Spectacles. Mobile phones. Baby milk. It gets under your skin. Feel your body for any suspicious lumps. I confidently expect The Sun to inform us tomorrow that the alleged plot involved red-green chewing gum that one mashes together to get an explosion "just like in Sky's movie spectacular Mission Impossible, to be shown tomorrow night at 9pm".

Terrorism is great crisis television. John Reid MP makes a statement that not only restates what has already been said countless times, but has a ridiculously staged, ham-actor feel: 'I would like to thank the Great British public, the repository of our best surveillance; I would like to thank visitors for their patience; I would like to thank the security services; we are not complacent and that's why we have exaggerated the threat level in this case'. He then throws it open to the press for questions, adding "just give us yer name, rank and serial number". The Sun asks if this is the biggest threat since World War II as Reid claimed yesterday, and if it was a problem with an extremist wing of Muslims and if therefore Muslims have done enough. Now we know what to look forward to: "and you march for these people?"

The narcissism is astounding. Lebanon is actually being terrorised by Israel, Iraq is actually being terrorised by America, and this merciless, cruel, sadistic, reckless destruction is easily subsumed into the fabric of daily life - the first allegation of a threat of a potential attack in Britain at some unspecified point in the future, and suddenly we are encouraged to luxuriate in the fantasy prospect of annihilation. Knowing full well that the building next door is not about to be flattened under several tonnes of explosives, we are encouraged to pretend it's World War II and evince the stoicism of Blitz survivors. The Blitzkrieg is upon Beirut, but we are supposed to imagine that little Nazis are flying over our heads. Don't be complacent. Look out your windows. Keep an eye out. Don't forget to cast a nervous glance over your shoulder. Take notes. Tell the government everything. Root out the evil within. Question your own motives. Telephone the terrorist hotline if you suspect yourself of possessing the slightest nihilistic impulse. Oh - and do try to go about your daily life as normal.

Nice one, George

by Terry Jones
August 4, 2006 09:54 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/terry_jones/2006/08/armageddonists_of_the_world_un.html


Those of us who have long been supporters of Armageddon have naturally been greatly cheered by way the president of the United States has been embracing our cause. Our desire to bring chaos, death and destruction to a greater swathe of humanity has, in the past, often been frustrated by peacemakers and do-gooders of all shades of the political spectrum.

For too long, our aspirations have been derided and criticised. In fact, to be blunt, for more than two millennia we have had to put up with opprobrium and vilification, but now all that will be a thing of the past, for in George Bush we have found an ally - indeed, we have found a leader. A man who is prepared to place himself at the head of the forces of destruction and misery, and who is unafraid of the opinion of the rest of the world.

George Bush has finally put Armageddon firmly on the political agenda, and it is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future.

This means that we Armageddonists need keep to the shadows no longer. Bush and his colleagues in the White House have given us credibility and respectability. They have made our goal their goal, and death, disease, war and famine are now the most likely fate for more people in the Middle East than we Armageddonists had ever dared to hope for.

What is also particularly gratifying - after this long wait - is that George could not have chosen a better spot on Earth for the "End of Things" to begin, nor a more appropriate agent than Israel to get the ball rolling.

After all "Armageddon" is a Hebrew word. It has come to signify "the end of times" or the arrival of catastrophic events, involving huge loss of life. In its origins, however, Har-Mageddon meant simply "the mountain of Megiddo" - Megiddo being a site in Israel close to the border with Lebanon.

It is certainly a place that has seen a lot of catastrophe in its time. Although there has not been a city at Megiddo for over 2,000 years, there are, nevertheless the remains of more than 20 different cities on the site, dating from 3,000 BC. That's an awful lot of human death and destruction.

So it's the perfect place for George to unleash the horsemen of the Apocalypse, and, as Armageddonists, we applaud him. The current assault on Lebanese civilians is sure to swell the ranks of would-be terrorists beyond even our wildest dreams, spreading the violence and mayhem not only throughout the Middle East but into the homelands of America and Britain.

As for the country of Lebanon itself, we Armageddonists predict that, like Iraq, it will sink into a morass of sectarian violence that will fill morgues of the future that have not yet been built. But more than that, we Armegeddonists confidently look forward to chaos and havoc quickly getting out of hand and beyond the control of those who started the conflict. It's all part of the fun.So Armageddonists of the world! Let us unite in praise of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Let us thank these men for bringing our dreams of violence and disorder to fruition.

Let us hope that whatever half-baked notions fill what passes for their minds, they will continue on this irreversible path to perdition from which the whole world recoils, but seems powerless to stop.

Bob Ney (R-OH), idiot

Ney Successor on Course for Legal Showdown
By Paul Kiel - August 9, 2006, 3:58 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001308.php

Democrats in Ohio might challenge the candidacy of Rep. Bob Ney's (R-OH) chosen successor based on at least two different statutes, a spokesman for the Ohio Democrats told me today.

Republicans are still determining whether state Sen. Joy Padgett might be disqualified from running based on what's called the "sore loser" statute in Ohio law. The law prevents a candidate from running in a general election after losing a primary. Padgett ran for lieutenant governor earlier this year.

But there's yet another statute that might prevent Padgett from running. A year-old statute prevents Ohioans from running for both state and federal office in the same year. "Ironically," the Columbus Dispatch notes, "Republicans slipped that restriction into the state budget bill last year — apparently to prevent Democratic U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland from running both for re-election and governor this year."

Ohio Republicans have said that they'll seek a ruling from Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's office on the "sore loser" statute; Blackwell spokesman James Lee told me that they hadn't received the letter requesting a ruling yet. Such a ruling wouldn't necessarily be conclusive, however. The determination whether to certify Padgett as a candidate is up to the Tuscaraws County Board of Elections in Ney's district. The board is composed of two Republicans and two Democrats; Blackwell's office is the tie breaker (Blackwell is a Republican). The board has until September 8th to certify a candidate.

Earlier this year, a former Republican named Charles Morrison was blocked by another county board from running as an independent against Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) under the "sore loser" statute. He's filed a motion in federal court to overrule the board's determination, which was made with Blackwell's deciding vote.

If the Republicans push ahead with Padgett, there are bound to be bumps in the road ahead. Spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party Brian Rothenberg told me that the Democrats hadn't determined yet whether they will challenge Padgett's nomination (after all, she hasn't even officially been nominated yet). But lawyers there are studying the relevant statutes.

"The moral of the story is that people shouldn't meet in back rooms in D.C. and choose who should run for Congress," he said. "I bet Ney and [Majority Leader John Boehner] had no idea about Ohio law when they cooked this up on Monday."

Penguins corralled on Texas highway

Four others, exotic fish killed when zoo transport overturns
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Posted: 7:25 p.m. EDT (23:25 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/08/texas.penguins.reut/index.html


SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) -- Twenty-one penguins were rescued on a hot east Texas highway Tuesday after a truck carrying the wildlife to a temporary home south of Houston overturned, said a state trooper.

Four penguins and some exotic fish were killed in the accident, including three penguins that were hit by passing motorists, said Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Richard Buchanan.

"The rest of the penguins kind of stayed together in the ditch," he said.

The truck, also carrying an octopus that was uninjured, was bound for Moody Gardens, a tourist destination in Galveston, an hour south of Houston, a resort spokeswoman said.

The wildlife was being transported to Texas from the Indianapolis Zoo while that zoo's ocean exhibit is being remodeled, said Jerri Hamacheck of Moody Gardens.

The trooper said it was the oddest traffic accident he had ever handled.

"We've worked several wrecks involving cows, horses, pigs, even fish, but this is the first where the live animals were penguins."

Buchanan said he was glad the accident was not worse.

"There was another truck full of snakes and alligators that was an hour ahead of them, so luckily we didn't have to deal with the alligators," Buchanan said.

The first truck arrived safely in Galveston by late afternoon, Hamacheck said.

The Nagasaki Principle

by James Carroll
August 7, 2006
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/07/the_nagasaki_principle/


Today is the anniversary of what did not happen. Sixty-one years ago yesterday, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The scale of nuclear devastation was apparent at once. The next day, no decision was made to call off the bombing of Nagasaki. Why? Historians debate the justification of the Hiroshima attack, but there is consensus that Nagasaki, coming less than three days later, was tragically unnecessary. President Harry Truman's one order to use the atomic bomb, given on July 25, established a momentum that was not stopped.

``The 509 Composite Group, 20th Air Force, will deliver its first special bomb," the order read, ``as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki." The order instructed the Air Force to deliver ``additional bombs . . . as soon as made ready by the project staff." The second bomb was the only other one ready, and because it was ready, it was used. If others had been ready, pity Kokura and Niigata. Truman's order was written by the project director, General Leslie Groves, who compared the new president here to a man jumping on a toboggan that was already speeding downhill. Watch out!

It is commonly said that war operates by the law of unintended consequences, but another, less-noted law operates as well. War creates momentum that barrels through normally restraining barriers of moral and practical choice. Decision makers begin wars, whether aggressively or defensively, in contexts that are well understood, and with purposes that seem proportionate and able to be accomplished. When destruction and hurt follow the outbreak of violence, however, and then when that destruction and hurt become extreme, the context within which war is begun changes radically. First assumptions no longer apply, and original purposes can become impossible. When that happens, what began as destruction for a goal becomes destruction for its own sake. War generates its own force in which everyone loses. This might be called the Nagasaki principle.

The Nagasaki principle comes in two parts. It can operate at the level of close combat, driving fighters to commit atrocities that, in normal conditions, they would abhor. It operates equally at the level of the commanders, leading them to order strikes out of desperation, frustration, or merely for the sake of ``doing something." Such strikes draw equivalent responses from the other side until the destruction is complete. After the fact, massive carnage can seem to have been an act for which no one is responsible, like the result of a natural disaster.

That's when a second aspect of the Nagasaki principle comes into play -- the refusal to undertake a moral reckoning with what has been done.

Across the decades, the United States has had a case of what the historian Marc Trachtenberg calls ``nuclear amnesia," a profound forgetfulness about the context and consequences of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The context included the prior destruction of dozens of Japanese cities, most notably Tokyo, that relativized the damage done at the two atomic sites. The consequences included the mutation in human consciousness that now foresaw the end not merely of individual life, but of civilization itself. Shame and dread defined the deepest part of the American psyche, even if no explicit confrontation with these feelings was ever undertaken.

Thus, what I am calling the Nagasaki principle consists in momentum, which obfuscates responsibility before the fact, and denial, which prevents a necessary moral reckoning afterward.

This may seem like airy theorizing, but the psychologically unfinished business of the Nuclear Age, dating to the day after Hiroshima, defined the American response to the trauma of Sept. 11, 2001. The nation had lived for two generations with the subliminal but powerfully felt dread of a coming nuclear war.

Unconsciously ashamed of our own action in using the bomb, we were waiting for pay-back, and on that beautiful morning it seemed to come. The smoke rising up from the twin towers hit us like a mushroom cloud, and we instantly dubbed the ruined site as Ground Zero, when, as historian John Dower observes, the only true Ground Zeros are the two in Japan.

Our unconscious shame was superseded by an overt sense of victimhood. We launched a war whose momentum has carried the world into the unwilled and unforeseen catastrophe that unfolds today. Our denial of nuclear responsibility, meanwhile, embodied in our permanent nuclear arsenal, licenses other nations that aim to match us -- notably Iran. Momentum and denial combined to destroy Nagasaki, which was, alas, not the end, but the beginning.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe. His most recent book is "Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War."

5,000 protest against Lebanon war in Tel Aviv

By: Yuli Kromchenko and Yoav Stern
Haaretz
6 August 2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746637.html


More than 5,000 people marched in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening, to protest the ongoing Israel Defense Forces operation in Lebanon. Demonstrators set off from Dizengoff Street and marched along King George Street, which was closed to traffic, calling for an end to the conflict and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, and denouncing Defense Minister Amir Peretz.

Two people, including a minor, were arrested. The demonstration also saw a confrontation with a several right-wing counter-protesters, who tore down some of the placards used in the rally.

Thousands marched in London on Saturday to demand a halt to the Lebanon war on Saturday as the British government tried to deflect criticism that it has failed to call for an immediate cease-fire.

Prime Minister Tony Blair`s government has come under fire at home for following U.S. President George W. Bush`s lead on the conflict between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas and refusing to call for an immediate halt to hostilities.

Thousands of demonstrators marched through central London holding placards reading `End Israeli crimes in Lebanon` and `Freedom for Palestine.` Police said around 15,000 people were marching but organizers put the number at more than 100,000.

The Stop the War Coalition, a group formed to oppose the U.S.-led `war on terror` which helped organize the march, urged demonstrators to pile children`s shoes near Blair`s residence in protest at the death of children in the war.

`This will be a memorial to the hundreds killed in Lebanon,` a spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition said in a statement.

Marchers were also hand in a petition to Blair urging the government to call for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire.

Despite Blair`s decision to delay his holiday to take part in negotiations on a United Nations resolution aimed at stopping the fighting, members of his Labour Party kept up attacks on his stance.

`Our prime minister has failed to represent the country`s feelings during the conflict,` Mohammad Sarwar, one of a number of Labour legislators calling for parliament to return from its summer break to discuss the crisis, told BBC radio.

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton, speaking for the government, denied the cabinet was split and tried to placate critics by saying Blair was making efforts to stop the war.

`The prime minister has made it very clear that the present situation simply cannot continue ... The violence is unacceptable,` Hutton told the BBC, adding that Blair was trying to bring the conflict to an end as quickly as possible.

Israel has responded to Hezbollah rocket attacks by pounding Lebanon with devastating air strikes. At least 734 people in Lebanon and 75 Israelis have been killed.

Hutton said London had made clear to Israel that its actions must be proportionate and comply with international law.

Minister and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw fuelled reports of cabinet divisions last week when he called Israel`s bombing of Lebanon `disproportionate`. Blair and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett have avoided similar language.

A spokesman for Blair said he had talked to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Friday and would make further calls on Saturday. `The prime minister believes progress is being made in New York (at the United Nations),` he said.

Worried by Blair`s plunging popularity, some Labour politicians were already urging him to quit sooner rather than later, after he said he would not stand in the next election expected in 2009.

Blair`s stance on the Lebanon crisis has further weakened his authority, potentially hastening his departure from office.



Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:56 AM
Friends –

I am forwarding this article from The Other Israel, a new roundup that I have subscribed to. It may give you hope to know that Israeli citizens are mounting their own campaigns against their government’s destruction of Lebanon. You may also go to http://www.gush-shalom.org and check out other articles re. what is going on in Palestine and within Israel – you may read in English, Arabic, Hebrew or Russian.

For information on what Jewish communities in America are doing to work for peace in the region, check out http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org. You may also check out http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ for research on the ongoing conflict there.

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/about.html gives you the opportunity to spend some time with the children who have died because of the current impasse.

I hope I am not overwhelming you.
Peace!
Ruvani Freeman <rfreeman@colby.edu>

The Constitution in Crisis

By Rep. John Conyers
The Huffington Post
Friday 04 August 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080406R.shtml


Six Years of Unchecked Abuses - Had Enough?

To view the full report: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2.html

Today, I am releasing the final version of my report, the "Constitution in Crisis." The report, which is some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than 1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself.

Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this Administration's misconduct.

Our Constitution established a tri-partite system of government, with the notion that each branch of government would act as a check on the other two. Unfortunately, for the last six years, the Republicans in Congress have largely viewed themselves as defenders of the Bush Administration, instead of a vital check on overreaching by the Executive Branch. By doing so, I believe they have acted to the detriment of our Constitutional form of government.

We have seen so many transgressions by this Administration that it is easy to forget last week's scandal amid this week's new outrage. I am hopeful that compiling all of these events of the last few years will help wake all of us up to the gravity of these matters and the cumulative damage to our country.

We have a mountain of reports that strongly indicate that this Administration was well aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they told the Congress and the American people the opposite in order to satisfy a predetermination to go to war. The "smoking gun" of these reports is the Downing Street Memoranda, contemporaneous reports from the highest reaches of the British government recounting meetings with their American counterparts, meetings where the facts were being fixed around the policy of going to war.

We have a mountain of statements from Administration officials making claims designed to conflate Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, and corresponding mountains of reports that credible intelligence officials in our government disputed such claims. We also have evidence showing that government officials instituted policies which endorsed the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and international treaties.

We have scores of sources indicating the Administration engaged in a concerted effort to discredit and defame anyone who came forward to expose these outrages, and have largely done so without consequence. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson dared to question whether Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, Administration officials retaliated against him by outing his wife as an undercover C.I.A. operative. When General Eric Shinseki and others in the military dared to dispute the Administration's wildly optimistic assessments of what was needed to pursue the Iraq conflict, he was summarily replaced. The pattern repeats itself with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey. And Cindy Sheehan. And the list goes on and on.

The American people have paid the price for this strategy of deception followed by, in the words of one anonymous Republican official, "slime and defend." We have paid with the lives of more than 2,500 of our sons and daughters in uniform and in hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxes.

The Administration also appears to have used the war on terror as an excuse to eviscerate the basic protections afforded to us in the Constitution. There have been warrantless wiretaps of law-abiding Americans, in clear contravention of federal law, not to mention the creation of a huge unchecked database of the phone records of innocent Americans.

All the while, the Republican Congress sits idly by. Rather than performing its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch, it has chosen to stymie any and all efforts at oversight. After six long years of deceptions, attacks and yes, outright lies, I am convinced the American people have had enough.

Cuba in the news

Bush's Mein Kampf
By Ricardo Alarcón De Quesada (President of the Cuban National Assembly)
Havana. July 13, 2006
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2006/julio/juev13/30kampfb.html


"For nothing is hidden unless it is to be disclosed, and nothing put undercover unless it is to come into the open." (Mark, 4:22)

Tom Crumpacker (*) was not exaggerating one iota when he compared the Bush annexation Plan with Hitler’s Mein Kampf. They are, effectively, the only available examples of publicly announced plans to subjugate a nation.

They are also similar in their genocidal and racist nature. In my previous article on this subject, I recalled that the Bush Plan, if it were carried out, would liquidate Cuba, the nation, but also enslave Cubans to extermination. That was the experience suffered by millions of individuals in the European countries occupied by Hitlerian hordes.

The blockade against Cuba is, without a doubt, a crime of genocide. It has been so since the first day and is so today. This definition perfectly corresponds to a policy that proposes to "cause hunger and desperation," as stated in recently declassified official documents from 1959 and 1960. The 2004 Plan and the additional measures approved by Bush this past Monday (July 10) intends to intensify the suffering of all Cubans. But it aspires to go beyond that. The disciple of Hitler, like his master, does not recognize borders.

The blockade, initially conceived and applied for nearly a half century in order to severely affect Cuba and all of its citizens, now wants to extend itself to fall, like a whip, over any other country and over any other Third World people.

Katrina For All

Included in the new document are measures that seek to damage Cuban medical cooperation with other countries. Bush specifically wants to impede the services offered to thousands of patients who have been cured of cataracts or other visual disorders and have recovered their sight in Cuba, or those who have received these benefits in their own countries; they intend to thwart the education of thousands and young people who are studying Medicine and other disciplines in Cuba; and equally they are seeking to sabotage the missions that our doctors, technicians, and nurses are undertaking abroad. Bush imagines himself capable of doing away with Operation Miracle, with the Henry Reeve International Brigade, and with ELAM (Latin American School of Medicine).

Of course "actions speak louder than words." Or to use another popular refrain adapted to the occasion: "Bush thinks one thing and the shopkeeper another," But regardless of whether he can achieve that or not, it is among the measures that he has just approved and the rubbish that is yet to be announced.

It is proclaimed on pages 31 and 32 of the document approved July 10: "deny all exports" of medical related equipment that could be used in "large-scale medical programs for foreign patients" or in "institutions of foreign assistance."

Such a proposal implies, ironically, the recognition of a reality that is increasingly difficult to hide: the beautiful display of internationalism and human solidarity to which there are millions of witnesses from Pakistan to Indonesia, crossing Africa and the Caribbean to the Andes and Central America.

Neither the arrogant empire, nor any of its servants in other capitalist countries, can boast of anything even remotely similar to this genuine international cooperation, this real struggle for life and the most elemental rights of millions of human beings. None of them are capable of doing what this little island, assaulted and harassed, has done.

It is an outrage that there are still thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in need of aid. Many were displaced and are living as refugees in their own country. Many have died without the protection or assistance that Bush prevented being given by that same Henry Reeve Brigade that he now wants to destroy. Parents are still looking for thousands of lost children. New Orleans and Katrina will always be symbols of the intrinsic inhumanity of capitalism. Bush’s "Pray and Go Away" summarizes his bungling insensitivity, which will pursue him to hell.

It is already known that Bush, like Hitler, scorns the poor and African Americans in the United States and couldn’t care less if they die abandoned. But now we also know, because he has just openly admitted it, that his hatred extends to all the poor, all the indigenous, all the Blacks and mixed race peoples of the world. It is urgent to stop him and defeat him.

Crumpacker recalled that when Mein Kampf was published in 1924, many Europeans simply ignored it. Fifteen years later, the worst tragedy befell them.

History must not be repeated.

The situation now is worse. Bush has weapons that his maestro never knew. When he drew up his infamous pamphlet, Hitler was in prison. His pupil is walking free. There is no time to lose.

(*) "Planning for the Re-colonization of Cuba" taken from the internet. Tom Crumpacker lives in Austin, Texas and is a member of the Miami Coalition to end the U.S. blockade of Cuba.


Mein Kampf Revisited
The Transition to Oligarchy:
Planning for the Re-Colonization of Cuba
by Tom Crumpacker
www.dissidentvoice.org
July 10, 2006
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Crumpacker10.htm

The Plan

The Bush Administration's "Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba," co-chaired by our Secretaries of State and Commerce, has presented a new report to our President this week. It's a lengthy and comprehensive plan, detailing the steps which US government and other "vital actors" will be taking to bring Cuba back into the family of overt US colonies, which now include some of the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, Kabul, and the Green Zone in Baghdad.
[...]