New Downing Street Memos From Down Under
By David Swanson
t r u t h o u t Guest Columnist
Tuesday 28 November 2006
More than a year before the United States launched an endless war on Iraq in what President George W. Bush told Congress was an urgently needed action to prevent an attack with non-existent weapons by non-Iraqi terrorists ...
Eleven months before Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whitehousememo] that a good way to start a war on Iraq would be to paint planes with UN colors, fly them low, and get them shot at ...
Five months before the Downing Street Minutes were taken at a meeting revealing the knowledge top British officials had of the secret war plans of the Bush administration ...
Just a week or two before several of the Downing Street Memos recorded US-British discussions of the coming war ...
On February 27, 2002 - just five months after 15 Saudis, 2 Lebanese, and 2 Yemenis flew airplanes into US buildings - Trevor Flugge, who was then chairman of AWB, the Australian Wheat Board, a private corporation, told AWB's board that John Dauth, who was then Australia's ambassador to the United Nations, had revealed to Flugge the plans of the US and Australian governments for war on Iraq. Tragically for war profiteers everywhere, somebody took minutes of the meeting.
You may not have heard about this from the US media. Maybe if we all scream really loudly for six weeks you will. That's how the Downing Street Minutes found their 15 minutes of fame in June 2005. But, as we stuff our faces with dead turkeys, the new Melbourne Minutes are the top news story in Australia. According to the Australian Associated Press:
Mr Dauth briefed Mr Flugge in New York in February 2002 - 13 months before the invasion - and the details appear in minutes of AWB's February 27 board meeting tendered to the inquiry.
"The ambassador stated that he believed that US military action to depose Saddam Hussein was inevitable and that at this time the Australian government would support and participate in such action," the minutes say. "The ambassador believed that the Iraqis grossly underestimated the US reaction to September 11 (with the consequent military response in Afghanistan) and that Iraq's request to renegotiate UN weapons inspectors was a direct result of their nervousness about US action. The ambassador believed that the latest olive branch from the Iraqis was likely to stave off US action [for] 12 to 18 months but that some military action was inevitable."
Mr Dauth - now high commissioner in New Zealand - predicted the Iraq war would be similar to the campaign in Afghanistan, with heavy use of air support followed by the deployment of ground troops.
"He undertook to ensure that AWB was given as much warning as would be possible under such circumstances, but noted that in these instances often the Australian government had little notification," the board minutes said.
Where have we heard that word "inevitable" before? Oh, yeah: the Downing Street Minutes: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Why are we hearing about the minutes of this Australian meeting only now? Well, the minutes have been released by a government investigation into AWB's bribing of Saddam Hussein's government in order to win contracts to export Australian wheat to Iraq. That investigation may now be expanded in Australia. It's also one that the incoming Democratic chairs of the House and Senate agriculture committees in the US committed last week to investigating. What will they do now, with the wheat-bribe scandal having taken this interesting twist?
The past six years of near-zero Congressional oversight in Washington is one reason Americans' knowledge of the planning of the Iraq War comes largely from foreign sources. But, if members of the Australian government were passing word around, I shudder to think how many people in the right circles in Washington, DC, knew the score but kept their mouths shut and are keeping them shut to this very day. It's clear that members of the US corporate media elite were in the know. In fact, if you ask them to condescend to notice this Australian news, they'll almost certainly tell you it's "old news," that they knew it all four years ago. They did, but they didn't tell the rest of us.
Now here we are, years later, still killing and dying in Iraq, and proposing to attack Iran on the basis of lies almost identical to those used to justify the initial attack on Iraq.
We must demand that the new Congress block any new wars and cut off funding for the current one. We must also demand investigations immediately into the lies that launched the war and the conducting of the war. American citizens are the last to know what our government is doing. We're used to that, but there is no reason we need wait any longer. If the subpoenas don't start piling up in the White House mailbox on New Year's Day, we will have established two critical facts:
1. Future presidents are free to ignore all laws.
2. Democrats are just Republicans with manners.
David Swanson is creator of MeetWithCindy.org, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. His website is www.davidswanson.org.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112806C.shtml
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Hugo Chavez Gains An Ecuadoran Ally
by Stephen Lendman
Ecuador's Supreme Electoral Tribunal is still counting the votes in the November 26 presidential runoff election but the results seem clear - with one-half of them tallied so far they show: the peoples' candidate, Rafael Correa, 68% and the bible-toting billionaire banana tycoon oligarch who's also the richest man in the country, Alvaro Noboa, - 32% - results consistent with two exit polls and an unofficial citizens election watchdog group, but without the completion of the suspended vote count in the Guayas province that's a Noboa stronghold that when done should raise his percent of the total but nowhere near enough to close the current electoral gap against him.
The people have spoken, and the Washington-directed election-riggers failed for the second time this month to arrange for their man to steal what the people of Ecuador voted en masse to deny them - the same way it turned out on November 7 when Nicaraguans reelected Daniel Ortega despite strong opposition to his candidacy from Washington. Again the people won, and it's a good omen for Hugo Chavez six days before Venezuelans vote on Sunday hoping to prove what the latest independent polls show - that he should win reelection impressively and get to serve another six year term as the country's president.
Ecuadorans voted for populist economist and self-styled "humanist, leftist Christian" candidate Rafael Correa who promised big changes in another Latin American country ruled up to now by and for the interests of capital and against the public welfare. Washington's choice was Alvaro Noboa who as of last night hadn't yet conceded but may have by now as Correa's lead is too great for him to overcome, barring any yet to be uncovered mass vote fraud undiscovered so far but that can't be ruled out.
Correa will face huge challenges ahead when he takes office on January 15 in a country of 13 million, over 70% of whom live in poverty and who supported a man promising to help them with the kinds of social programs Hugo Chavez instituted in Venezuela. Correa sounded a positive tone last night at his campaign headquarters as the early returns showed him to be the likely winner. He told his supporters "It won't be Rafael Correa who assumes power in January; it will be the people." He'll be Ecuador's eighth president in the last decade including three of them driven from office by mass street protests against their misrule. In Mr. Correa, Ecuadorans expect something much different, and he promised to deliver it for them.
The country's majority poor have put their faith in a man they hope can do for them what Hugo Chavez did for the people of Venezuela. Ecuador is the hemisphere's fifth largest oil producer, and Correa supporters want him to use the country's oil wealth, as Chavez has done, to bring them critically needed social services they've never had before and now hope to get.
Correa said he'll deliver a "citizens' revolution" and supports beginning it by calling for a constituent assembly to write a new constitution, a pattern similar to the one Hugo Chavez followed after his election as Venezuela's president in 1998. He called for renegotiating the country's $16 billion foreign debt and hasn't ruled out an Argentine-style default to free up money for vitally needed social programs that include 100,000 low-cost homes, doubling the $36 "poverty bonus" 1.2 million poor Ecuadorans receive each month and raising the minimum wage.
He also expressed strong opposition to any new "free-trade" pact with Washington on its one-way terms and affirmed his determination not to renew the lease for the US military base in Manta he said he won't allow to remain open unless the Bush administration allows his country the right to have its own in Miami - a clear sign of his contempt for George Bush who he called "dimwitted" in the first electoral round.
Rafael Correa faces an uphill struggle to help his people. He'll have strong opposition in Ecuador's legislature as well as a hostile Bush administration that will do all it can to subvert him. He does have a few things in his favor, however, he can exploit to advantage - overwhelming support from his people, the nation's oil wealth giving him a measure of independence from Washington and the international lending agencies it controls and two very supportive and friendly neighbors in Hugo Chavez (he promises closer ties with) and Evo Morales in Bolivia. The ball is now in Mr. Correa's hands, and it's his move to show if he can run with it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Ecuador's Supreme Electoral Tribunal is still counting the votes in the November 26 presidential runoff election but the results seem clear - with one-half of them tallied so far they show: the peoples' candidate, Rafael Correa, 68% and the bible-toting billionaire banana tycoon oligarch who's also the richest man in the country, Alvaro Noboa, - 32% - results consistent with two exit polls and an unofficial citizens election watchdog group, but without the completion of the suspended vote count in the Guayas province that's a Noboa stronghold that when done should raise his percent of the total but nowhere near enough to close the current electoral gap against him.
The people have spoken, and the Washington-directed election-riggers failed for the second time this month to arrange for their man to steal what the people of Ecuador voted en masse to deny them - the same way it turned out on November 7 when Nicaraguans reelected Daniel Ortega despite strong opposition to his candidacy from Washington. Again the people won, and it's a good omen for Hugo Chavez six days before Venezuelans vote on Sunday hoping to prove what the latest independent polls show - that he should win reelection impressively and get to serve another six year term as the country's president.
Ecuadorans voted for populist economist and self-styled "humanist, leftist Christian" candidate Rafael Correa who promised big changes in another Latin American country ruled up to now by and for the interests of capital and against the public welfare. Washington's choice was Alvaro Noboa who as of last night hadn't yet conceded but may have by now as Correa's lead is too great for him to overcome, barring any yet to be uncovered mass vote fraud undiscovered so far but that can't be ruled out.
Correa will face huge challenges ahead when he takes office on January 15 in a country of 13 million, over 70% of whom live in poverty and who supported a man promising to help them with the kinds of social programs Hugo Chavez instituted in Venezuela. Correa sounded a positive tone last night at his campaign headquarters as the early returns showed him to be the likely winner. He told his supporters "It won't be Rafael Correa who assumes power in January; it will be the people." He'll be Ecuador's eighth president in the last decade including three of them driven from office by mass street protests against their misrule. In Mr. Correa, Ecuadorans expect something much different, and he promised to deliver it for them.
The country's majority poor have put their faith in a man they hope can do for them what Hugo Chavez did for the people of Venezuela. Ecuador is the hemisphere's fifth largest oil producer, and Correa supporters want him to use the country's oil wealth, as Chavez has done, to bring them critically needed social services they've never had before and now hope to get.
Correa said he'll deliver a "citizens' revolution" and supports beginning it by calling for a constituent assembly to write a new constitution, a pattern similar to the one Hugo Chavez followed after his election as Venezuela's president in 1998. He called for renegotiating the country's $16 billion foreign debt and hasn't ruled out an Argentine-style default to free up money for vitally needed social programs that include 100,000 low-cost homes, doubling the $36 "poverty bonus" 1.2 million poor Ecuadorans receive each month and raising the minimum wage.
He also expressed strong opposition to any new "free-trade" pact with Washington on its one-way terms and affirmed his determination not to renew the lease for the US military base in Manta he said he won't allow to remain open unless the Bush administration allows his country the right to have its own in Miami - a clear sign of his contempt for George Bush who he called "dimwitted" in the first electoral round.
Rafael Correa faces an uphill struggle to help his people. He'll have strong opposition in Ecuador's legislature as well as a hostile Bush administration that will do all it can to subvert him. He does have a few things in his favor, however, he can exploit to advantage - overwhelming support from his people, the nation's oil wealth giving him a measure of independence from Washington and the international lending agencies it controls and two very supportive and friendly neighbors in Hugo Chavez (he promises closer ties with) and Evo Morales in Bolivia. The ball is now in Mr. Correa's hands, and it's his move to show if he can run with it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Chicago ponders war protester's suicide
By ASHLEY M. HEHER, Associated Press Writer
11/26/03
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/ap_on_re_us/anti_war_suicide_2
CHICAGO - Malachi Ritscher envisioned his death as one full of purpose. He carefully planned the details, mailed a copy of his apartment key to a friend, created to-do lists for his family. On his Web site, the 52-year-old experimental musician who'd fought with depression even penned his obituary.
At 6:30 a.m. on Nov. 3 — four days before an election caused a seismic shift in Washington politics — Ritscher, a frequent anti-war protester, stood by an off-ramp in downtown Chicago near a statue of a giant flame, set up a video camera, doused himself with gasoline and lit himself on fire.
Aglow for the crush of morning commuters, his flaming body was supposed to be a call to the nation, a symbol of his rage and discontent with the U.S. war in Iraq.
"Here is the statement I want to make: if I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world. I refuse to finance the mass murder of innocent civilians, who did nothing to threaten our country," he wrote in his suicide note. "... If one death can atone for anything, in any small way, to say to the world: I apologize for what we have done to you, I am ahamed for the mayhem and turmoil caused by my country."
There was only one problem: No one was listening.
It took five days for the Cook County medical examiner to identify the charred-beyond-recognition corpse. Meanwhile, Ritscher's suicide went largely unnoticed. It wasn't until a reporter for an alternative weekly, the Chicago Reader, pieced the facts together that word began to spread.
Soon, tributes — and questions — poured in to the paper's blogs.
Was this a man consumed by mental illness? Or was Ritscher a martyr driven by rage over what he saw as an unjust war? Was he a convenient symbol for an anti-war movement or was there more to his message?
"This man killed himself in such a painful way, specifically to get our attention on these things," said Jennifer Diaz, a 28-year-old graduate student who never met him but has been researching his life. Now, she is organizing protests and vigils in his name. "I'm not going to sit by and I can't sit by and let this go unheard."
Mental health experts say virtually no suicides occur without some kind of a diagnosable mental illness. But Ritscher's family disagrees about whether he had severe mental problems.
In a statement, Ritscher's parents and siblings called him an intellectually gifted man who suffered from bouts of depression. They stopped short of saying he'd ever received a clinical diagnosis of mental illness.
"He believed in his actions, however extreme they were," his younger brother, Paul Ritscher, wrote online. "He believed they could help to open eyes, ears and hearts and to show everyone that a single man's actions, by taking such extreme personal responsibility, can perhaps affect change in the world."
His son, who shares the same name as his father, said his father was trying to cope with mental illness. Suicide seemed to be the next step, and the war was a way to give his death meaning.
"He was different people at different instances and so, so erratic. I loved him no doubt, but he was a very lonely and tragic man," said Ritscher, 35, who is estranged from the rest of the family. "The idea of being a martyr I'm sure was attractive. He could literally go out in a blaze of glory."
Born in Dickinson, N.D., with the name Mark David, Ritscher dropped out of high school, married at 17 and divorced 10 years later. Eventually, he would change his name to match his son's and, coincidentally, a world-famous prophet. At the end, he worked in building maintenance and was a fixture in Chicago's experimental music scene.
He described himself as a renaissance man who'd amassed a collection of more than 2,000 musical recordings from clubs in Chicago. He was a writer, philosopher and photographer. He was an alcoholic who collected fossils, glass eyes, light bulbs and snare drums. He paid $25 to become an ordained minister with the Missionaries of the New Truth and operated a handful of Web sites protesting the Iraq war.
A member of Mensa who claimed to be able to recite the infinite number Pi to more than 1,000 decimal places, he titled his obituary "Out of Time." Friends, who seemed surprised about his death, found themselves searching for answers. Ritscher's death became even more enigmatic than his life.
Perhaps the most famous self-immolation occurred in 1963, when Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc burned himself at a Saigon intersection in protest against the south Vietnamese regime. Another activist, Kathy Change, lit fire to herself in 1996 at the University of Pennsylvania to protest the government and the country's economic system.
Ritscher's death brought back memories for Anita King, a 48-year-old artist from West Philadelphia who was Change's best friend.
"I think both of them, they just felt like their death could be the last drop of blood shed," King said. "It was too hard for them. They had too much of a conscious connection to the struggle to go on in their lives."
In the end, only Ritscher knew the motivations for his suicide. There is little doubt, though, that he was satisfied with his choice.
"Without fear I go now to God," Ritscher wrote in the last sentence of his suicide note. "Your future is what you will choose today."
Malachi Burns Himself Alive To Protest Iraq War
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/
(Chicago) A long time Chicago activist, artist and contributer to the Chicago jazz scene has burned himself alive in an act of protest against the iraq war. He is only one of 10 Americans in history to have done this . Buddist monks did this during the VietNam war. On Friday, November 3, a man doused his body with gasoline and set himself afire to protest the war in Iraq . He died quietly in flames. His name was Malachi Ritscher.
Haven't seen it in the news? Me neither, which is kind of strange if you ask me, considering that it happened right here in downtown Chicago in front of hundreds of commuters during morning rush hour. The only conventional newspaper coverage to date was a tiny paragraph that appeared in the Saturday edition of the Chicago Sun-Times. Since then...nothing.
His death must not be in vain please spread the word...Chicago activists are planning a protest for Malachi and against the war saturday Nov. 18 in Chicago to get this out into the mainstream news.
All Google links iheardyoumalachi.orgl - Malichi's statement and site dedicated to keeping his story alive. chicago.indymedia.org - Saturday demo for Malachi and against the war Nitsuh Abebe - a thoughtful & well researched article: mental illness or form of protest Malachi will be missed in Chicago's jazz community Peter Margasak's blog pieceoplastic.com - malachi-ritscher-rip/ ajbenjaminjr blog - postscript-on-malachi-ritscher -a reasonably fair and balanced view of Malachi , his life and activism non-prophets - a friend of Malachi's blogspot
Sites Malachi designed,maintained and contributed to: http://www.savagesound.com http://www.unwinnablewar.net http://www.killthepresident.net http://www.warwhores.us
mission statement
Malachi Ritscher
http://www.savagesound.com/gallery99.htm
11/26/03
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/ap_on_re_us/anti_war_suicide_2
CHICAGO - Malachi Ritscher envisioned his death as one full of purpose. He carefully planned the details, mailed a copy of his apartment key to a friend, created to-do lists for his family. On his Web site, the 52-year-old experimental musician who'd fought with depression even penned his obituary.
At 6:30 a.m. on Nov. 3 — four days before an election caused a seismic shift in Washington politics — Ritscher, a frequent anti-war protester, stood by an off-ramp in downtown Chicago near a statue of a giant flame, set up a video camera, doused himself with gasoline and lit himself on fire.
Aglow for the crush of morning commuters, his flaming body was supposed to be a call to the nation, a symbol of his rage and discontent with the U.S. war in Iraq.
"Here is the statement I want to make: if I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world. I refuse to finance the mass murder of innocent civilians, who did nothing to threaten our country," he wrote in his suicide note. "... If one death can atone for anything, in any small way, to say to the world: I apologize for what we have done to you, I am ahamed for the mayhem and turmoil caused by my country."
There was only one problem: No one was listening.
It took five days for the Cook County medical examiner to identify the charred-beyond-recognition corpse. Meanwhile, Ritscher's suicide went largely unnoticed. It wasn't until a reporter for an alternative weekly, the Chicago Reader, pieced the facts together that word began to spread.
Soon, tributes — and questions — poured in to the paper's blogs.
Was this a man consumed by mental illness? Or was Ritscher a martyr driven by rage over what he saw as an unjust war? Was he a convenient symbol for an anti-war movement or was there more to his message?
"This man killed himself in such a painful way, specifically to get our attention on these things," said Jennifer Diaz, a 28-year-old graduate student who never met him but has been researching his life. Now, she is organizing protests and vigils in his name. "I'm not going to sit by and I can't sit by and let this go unheard."
Mental health experts say virtually no suicides occur without some kind of a diagnosable mental illness. But Ritscher's family disagrees about whether he had severe mental problems.
In a statement, Ritscher's parents and siblings called him an intellectually gifted man who suffered from bouts of depression. They stopped short of saying he'd ever received a clinical diagnosis of mental illness.
"He believed in his actions, however extreme they were," his younger brother, Paul Ritscher, wrote online. "He believed they could help to open eyes, ears and hearts and to show everyone that a single man's actions, by taking such extreme personal responsibility, can perhaps affect change in the world."
His son, who shares the same name as his father, said his father was trying to cope with mental illness. Suicide seemed to be the next step, and the war was a way to give his death meaning.
"He was different people at different instances and so, so erratic. I loved him no doubt, but he was a very lonely and tragic man," said Ritscher, 35, who is estranged from the rest of the family. "The idea of being a martyr I'm sure was attractive. He could literally go out in a blaze of glory."
Born in Dickinson, N.D., with the name Mark David, Ritscher dropped out of high school, married at 17 and divorced 10 years later. Eventually, he would change his name to match his son's and, coincidentally, a world-famous prophet. At the end, he worked in building maintenance and was a fixture in Chicago's experimental music scene.
He described himself as a renaissance man who'd amassed a collection of more than 2,000 musical recordings from clubs in Chicago. He was a writer, philosopher and photographer. He was an alcoholic who collected fossils, glass eyes, light bulbs and snare drums. He paid $25 to become an ordained minister with the Missionaries of the New Truth and operated a handful of Web sites protesting the Iraq war.
A member of Mensa who claimed to be able to recite the infinite number Pi to more than 1,000 decimal places, he titled his obituary "Out of Time." Friends, who seemed surprised about his death, found themselves searching for answers. Ritscher's death became even more enigmatic than his life.
Perhaps the most famous self-immolation occurred in 1963, when Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc burned himself at a Saigon intersection in protest against the south Vietnamese regime. Another activist, Kathy Change, lit fire to herself in 1996 at the University of Pennsylvania to protest the government and the country's economic system.
Ritscher's death brought back memories for Anita King, a 48-year-old artist from West Philadelphia who was Change's best friend.
"I think both of them, they just felt like their death could be the last drop of blood shed," King said. "It was too hard for them. They had too much of a conscious connection to the struggle to go on in their lives."
In the end, only Ritscher knew the motivations for his suicide. There is little doubt, though, that he was satisfied with his choice.
"Without fear I go now to God," Ritscher wrote in the last sentence of his suicide note. "Your future is what you will choose today."
Malachi Burns Himself Alive To Protest Iraq War
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/
(Chicago) A long time Chicago activist, artist and contributer to the Chicago jazz scene has burned himself alive in an act of protest against the iraq war. He is only one of 10 Americans in history to have done this . Buddist monks did this during the VietNam war. On Friday, November 3, a man doused his body with gasoline and set himself afire to protest the war in Iraq . He died quietly in flames. His name was Malachi Ritscher.
Haven't seen it in the news? Me neither, which is kind of strange if you ask me, considering that it happened right here in downtown Chicago in front of hundreds of commuters during morning rush hour. The only conventional newspaper coverage to date was a tiny paragraph that appeared in the Saturday edition of the Chicago Sun-Times. Since then...nothing.
His death must not be in vain please spread the word...Chicago activists are planning a protest for Malachi and against the war saturday Nov. 18 in Chicago to get this out into the mainstream news.
All Google links iheardyoumalachi.orgl - Malichi's statement and site dedicated to keeping his story alive. chicago.indymedia.org - Saturday demo for Malachi and against the war Nitsuh Abebe - a thoughtful & well researched article: mental illness or form of protest Malachi will be missed in Chicago's jazz community Peter Margasak's blog pieceoplastic.com - malachi-ritscher-rip/ ajbenjaminjr blog - postscript-on-malachi-ritscher -a reasonably fair and balanced view of Malachi , his life and activism non-prophets - a friend of Malachi's blogspot
Sites Malachi designed,maintained and contributed to: http://www.savagesound.com http://www.unwinnablewar.net http://www.killthepresident.net http://www.warwhores.us
mission statement
Malachi Ritscher
http://www.savagesound.com/gallery99.htm
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Chavez Holds Commanding Lead Eight Days Before Election
by Stephen Lendman
Hugo Chavez holds an insurmountable lead in two late November polls - one by Ipsos Venezuela/the AP-Ipsos Poll and the other by Zogby International-University of Miami. Both were released on November 24 and are the most current and reliable data available and are consistent with most independent poll results for months. This is in stark contrast to several fraudulent US National Endowment of Democracy (NED)-financed oligarch-run ones published to create a false perception of public sentiment in preparation for cries of fraud once the election results are in.
This is now standard US operating practice in all developing countries when Washington fears an unacceptable electoral outcome, so it tries to subvert the democratic process by engineering one in its favor. That's how it's playing out in Venezuela now where things are in place to create the myth of what's impossible to achieve in fact to help Washington pull off its scheme to remove the main "threat" to its hegemony in the hemisphere. It's not likely to work any better now than in the failed 2002 coup attempt, but there will be mass-staged street protests that may get violent before it's over proving it.
Here's what's now going on. The Washington-based and NED-funded Penn, Schoen & Berland polling organization is part of the scheme to depose Chavez and has set up camp in Venezuela working with the opposition to do what they're expert at - putting out phony polling data currently showing main opposition candidate Manuel Rosales closing the gap and almost pulling even with Hugo Chavez as the December 3 election date approaches. Baloney, but that doesn't stop the Venezuelan corporate media from reporting it saying "The momentum is clearly with Rosales," and it looks like he can win.
If past Penn, Schoen & Berland tactics are prologue, expect their pre-election poll number-rigging to be supplemented with equally fraudulent exit polls on election day showing the same kind of cooked results. More baloney, smell included. That will be following by blasting them all over the Venezuelan corporate media airwaves and front pages to convey the false impression Rosales may have won to shape public perception in preparation for whatever Washington-concocted scheme is planned likely beginning on December 4.
Rosales has no chance whatever of even coming close to winning on December 3, and the Venezuelan people know it. They'll never tolerate a result made in Washington that's contrary to the way they'll vote that's pretty obvious from some "real" polling data. Here's what the oligarchs, corporate media and Washington suppress - and for good reason because it's so lopsided in favor of Hugo Chavez.
The latest Ipsos/AP poll shows Chavez getting overwhelming support from 59% of likely voters with Rosales trailing far behind at 27%. The margin of error is from 2.2 - 2.9%. Zogby International confirms this showing Chavez at 60% and Rosales at 31%. It's margin of error is 3.5%. Both polls thus show Chavez with an insurmountable 2 - 1 lead with eight days to go before the election. Moreover, these polls are consistent with nearly all independently-run pre-election surveys showing Washington-selected Rosales has no chance to win (something he knows), and Hugo Chavez will be reelected for another six year term as president with an impressive margin of victory - because the great majority of Venezuelans love him and won't allow anyone else to serve as their president as long as he wants the job.
Here's the rub. That's not what the Bush administration wants, virtually guaranteeing post-election cries of fraud followed by staged street protests with likely violence and a fourth Washington-directed attempt to oust Chavez to prevent him from continuing as president. The people of Venezuela won't tolerate this kind of interference, and that sets the stage for a turbulent period just ahead - the many millions of Venezuelans vs. George Bush and his failed administration visibly consumed in the burning sands of Iraq. If some variety of that template is the way to defeat a hegemon, it bodes well for democracy in Venezuela but not without a struggle to achieve it. History shows even superpowers are no match for mass people-action when it's determined enough to prevail. We'll soon know if it proves so Venezuelan-style again.
Stephen Lendman can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also, visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
for more:
Coup D'etat in Venezuela: Made in the USA
Since 2000, this smooth new strategy to influence elections and topple regimes has been implemented in many other countries. Dubbed as the "post-modern coup" by Jonathan Mowat, the same brilliant techniques were used in Belarus in 2001, in Georgia in 2003, and in the Ukraine in 2004, to name a few. Although it ultimately failed in Belarus, in Georgia the U.S. effort produced the "Rose Revolution" which overthrew President Eduard Shevardnadze. In the Ukraine it was the "Orange Revolution" that installed Victor Yushchenko in 2004. Each time, groups financed by the NED, and USAID worked inside the country to build popular support for the opposition candidate. Each time they constructed an appealing campaign image using the modern marketing tactics that they have perfected along the way. And each time, they used Penn, Schoen & Berland election "polls" to shape the public's perception.
In his article, "Coup D'etat in Disguise," Jonathan Mowat described how these "polls" work: "Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. ""...the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television...give the false impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive."
Hugo Chavez holds an insurmountable lead in two late November polls - one by Ipsos Venezuela/the AP-Ipsos Poll and the other by Zogby International-University of Miami. Both were released on November 24 and are the most current and reliable data available and are consistent with most independent poll results for months. This is in stark contrast to several fraudulent US National Endowment of Democracy (NED)-financed oligarch-run ones published to create a false perception of public sentiment in preparation for cries of fraud once the election results are in.
This is now standard US operating practice in all developing countries when Washington fears an unacceptable electoral outcome, so it tries to subvert the democratic process by engineering one in its favor. That's how it's playing out in Venezuela now where things are in place to create the myth of what's impossible to achieve in fact to help Washington pull off its scheme to remove the main "threat" to its hegemony in the hemisphere. It's not likely to work any better now than in the failed 2002 coup attempt, but there will be mass-staged street protests that may get violent before it's over proving it.
Here's what's now going on. The Washington-based and NED-funded Penn, Schoen & Berland polling organization is part of the scheme to depose Chavez and has set up camp in Venezuela working with the opposition to do what they're expert at - putting out phony polling data currently showing main opposition candidate Manuel Rosales closing the gap and almost pulling even with Hugo Chavez as the December 3 election date approaches. Baloney, but that doesn't stop the Venezuelan corporate media from reporting it saying "The momentum is clearly with Rosales," and it looks like he can win.
If past Penn, Schoen & Berland tactics are prologue, expect their pre-election poll number-rigging to be supplemented with equally fraudulent exit polls on election day showing the same kind of cooked results. More baloney, smell included. That will be following by blasting them all over the Venezuelan corporate media airwaves and front pages to convey the false impression Rosales may have won to shape public perception in preparation for whatever Washington-concocted scheme is planned likely beginning on December 4.
Rosales has no chance whatever of even coming close to winning on December 3, and the Venezuelan people know it. They'll never tolerate a result made in Washington that's contrary to the way they'll vote that's pretty obvious from some "real" polling data. Here's what the oligarchs, corporate media and Washington suppress - and for good reason because it's so lopsided in favor of Hugo Chavez.
The latest Ipsos/AP poll shows Chavez getting overwhelming support from 59% of likely voters with Rosales trailing far behind at 27%. The margin of error is from 2.2 - 2.9%. Zogby International confirms this showing Chavez at 60% and Rosales at 31%. It's margin of error is 3.5%. Both polls thus show Chavez with an insurmountable 2 - 1 lead with eight days to go before the election. Moreover, these polls are consistent with nearly all independently-run pre-election surveys showing Washington-selected Rosales has no chance to win (something he knows), and Hugo Chavez will be reelected for another six year term as president with an impressive margin of victory - because the great majority of Venezuelans love him and won't allow anyone else to serve as their president as long as he wants the job.
Here's the rub. That's not what the Bush administration wants, virtually guaranteeing post-election cries of fraud followed by staged street protests with likely violence and a fourth Washington-directed attempt to oust Chavez to prevent him from continuing as president. The people of Venezuela won't tolerate this kind of interference, and that sets the stage for a turbulent period just ahead - the many millions of Venezuelans vs. George Bush and his failed administration visibly consumed in the burning sands of Iraq. If some variety of that template is the way to defeat a hegemon, it bodes well for democracy in Venezuela but not without a struggle to achieve it. History shows even superpowers are no match for mass people-action when it's determined enough to prevail. We'll soon know if it proves so Venezuelan-style again.
Stephen Lendman can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also, visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
for more:
Coup D'etat in Venezuela: Made in the USA
Since 2000, this smooth new strategy to influence elections and topple regimes has been implemented in many other countries. Dubbed as the "post-modern coup" by Jonathan Mowat, the same brilliant techniques were used in Belarus in 2001, in Georgia in 2003, and in the Ukraine in 2004, to name a few. Although it ultimately failed in Belarus, in Georgia the U.S. effort produced the "Rose Revolution" which overthrew President Eduard Shevardnadze. In the Ukraine it was the "Orange Revolution" that installed Victor Yushchenko in 2004. Each time, groups financed by the NED, and USAID worked inside the country to build popular support for the opposition candidate. Each time they constructed an appealing campaign image using the modern marketing tactics that they have perfected along the way. And each time, they used Penn, Schoen & Berland election "polls" to shape the public's perception.
In his article, "Coup D'etat in Disguise," Jonathan Mowat described how these "polls" work: "Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. ""...the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television...give the false impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive."
Friday, November 24, 2006
War, Children, is just a shot away
“I feel good!”, said the bush, as he pumped his fist into the air, to start his invasion of Iraq, launching a new round of carnage in the Middle East. Smugly excited, as if it was one of those games he watched from the sidelines in his cheerleader uniform in college. Unconcerned at the impending deaths and destruction. After all, it wasn’t any of his family or friends that would be making the sacrifice. Himself, either.
And now, almost 4 years later, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, millions of destroyed lives later, thousnads of torture victims later, hundreds of billions of dollars of damage later, no remorse, as he once again turns to daddy to bail out the drunken son. And daddy, to protect the family name, does. Not to right any wrongs, not to stop the carnage, not for justice, mercy, or plain humanity, but to protect the family name, and the republican party.
The US is trapped in Iraq because the only plan the bushistas had was to destroy and loot. That’s it. All that talk of “democracy”, “liberation”, “removing a dictator”, were, and are, merely ass-covering platitudes bleated out by the administration and its supporters to mask the horror of what they’ve done, an attempt to soothe their own bloody selves. No thought was ever given to the Iraqi people, or the Afghans for that matter. Those people that were soon to be under the bombs and cruise missiles, watching their family, their friends, their neighborhoods and cities, and children, and their children, disappear forever under that deadly rain. Trapped, doomed, just as those in the World Trade Center on Sep 11, 2001. Just as innocent. Just so much “collateral damage”. As rumsfeld said, “Stuff happens”. Nothing to worry or “beautiful minds” about, as barbie bush said.
No thought was ever given to the American military personnel that were about to be killed and maimed, or their families.
There was a buck to be made. There wasn’t a dime to spare for useless things like adequate armor for Humvees, or body armor. Not a nickel to protect the Iraqi cultural or historical infrastructure, such as museums. Not a penny to provide adequate medical care to the people caught in the crossfire. Sick, perverted bastards, the whole lot of them. Disgusting. These are the same kinds of people who prowl the kiddie porn sites on the internet.
Now the neo-cavemen that authored this abomination are backing away faster than a burglar caught in the act. In the hope that we’d all forget their enthusiasm for this war, they are to push the blame to others. They are all flailing around like hooked fish, hoping to escape, now that their bankrupt philosophy is exposed for the obscenity it is. And you know what? We’re going to let them go. We will passively sit and watch, clucking our tongues at the injustice of it all, while our “betters” sort this out. Except for unusually bloody days, or a political assassination, Iraq’s in the middle pages, Afghanistan lucky to get a mention. Palestine? The less said the better.
In about a month, Christians will be celebrating the birth of Jesus. They’ll be beaming at their children, happily passing out gifts all around, eat a big dinner, and be content. And on Christmas, a child will be killed in Iraq by the violence they have unleashed.
So, where do we go from here? There aren’t any options left. Except to leave. Whether we go, or stay, the Iraqis will have to decide for themselves what sort of government they want. As things stand now, that process is not going to bloodless. No matter what, the Iraqis face many and huge difficulties putting their country back together again.
“Oops, sorry. Here’s a couple of bucks for the damage.”, is not going to be enough. Those who caused this must be punished. If we allow the bushistas to dance away to enjoy their lives and riches, we’re no better than they are. Impeachment and criminal courts for the bushistas, all of them, is a moral imperative. In the next two years, it’s the most important thing that America needs to do. If for no other reason than to drag these crimes into the light of day for all to see. Then we can decide what kind of country that we want.
For us, as well as the Iraqis, that’s the decision that needs to be made, and the sooner the better. The Iraqis don’t need our help in their decision. They are fully capable on their own. They’re neither ignorant nor children. As for us, we are. We’ve been perfectly content not to look at unpleasantness, nor to face up to the consequences of our actions, just like children. We’ve chosen to be ignorant of the reality of the world and the society around us. We’ve assuaged our conscience with platitudes and patriotic fervor.
These next two years, with the republican, one-party, neostalinist hold on the government broken, at least temporarily, is the window of time we have to decide. What difference will it make what party is in power if we keep pursuing the same bankrupt and destructive policies? Right now, this time, this place, conditions are ripe for a true political revolution. The ambitious will be jockeying for position and power. They’ll be jostling for the good seats. Coalitions and alliances will be made and broken. Rumors will fly.
In a time of political uncertainty, as we’ve learned from numerous US interventions in the political process of other countries, a nudge at the right time and place can move the paradigm a great distance. And as we’ve learned from our own experience in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a vocal populace can move it even further.
This holiday season, let’s remember the kids. Our children, our grandchildren and their children, will have to live with the choices we make today. While we watch them rip the wrappings off that new toy, let’s try to think about where they’re going to be 20, 30 years from now.
We have the chance and the ability to create a political climate where impeachment of the bush administration is possible. Not only possible, but the only choice for any person hoping for a future in politics. We have the chance and the ability to create a political climate where criminal trials of the bush administration are possible. Why not go for it?
And now, almost 4 years later, hundreds of thousands of deaths later, millions of destroyed lives later, thousnads of torture victims later, hundreds of billions of dollars of damage later, no remorse, as he once again turns to daddy to bail out the drunken son. And daddy, to protect the family name, does. Not to right any wrongs, not to stop the carnage, not for justice, mercy, or plain humanity, but to protect the family name, and the republican party.
The US is trapped in Iraq because the only plan the bushistas had was to destroy and loot. That’s it. All that talk of “democracy”, “liberation”, “removing a dictator”, were, and are, merely ass-covering platitudes bleated out by the administration and its supporters to mask the horror of what they’ve done, an attempt to soothe their own bloody selves. No thought was ever given to the Iraqi people, or the Afghans for that matter. Those people that were soon to be under the bombs and cruise missiles, watching their family, their friends, their neighborhoods and cities, and children, and their children, disappear forever under that deadly rain. Trapped, doomed, just as those in the World Trade Center on Sep 11, 2001. Just as innocent. Just so much “collateral damage”. As rumsfeld said, “Stuff happens”. Nothing to worry or “beautiful minds” about, as barbie bush said.
No thought was ever given to the American military personnel that were about to be killed and maimed, or their families.
There was a buck to be made. There wasn’t a dime to spare for useless things like adequate armor for Humvees, or body armor. Not a nickel to protect the Iraqi cultural or historical infrastructure, such as museums. Not a penny to provide adequate medical care to the people caught in the crossfire. Sick, perverted bastards, the whole lot of them. Disgusting. These are the same kinds of people who prowl the kiddie porn sites on the internet.
Now the neo-cavemen that authored this abomination are backing away faster than a burglar caught in the act. In the hope that we’d all forget their enthusiasm for this war, they are to push the blame to others. They are all flailing around like hooked fish, hoping to escape, now that their bankrupt philosophy is exposed for the obscenity it is. And you know what? We’re going to let them go. We will passively sit and watch, clucking our tongues at the injustice of it all, while our “betters” sort this out. Except for unusually bloody days, or a political assassination, Iraq’s in the middle pages, Afghanistan lucky to get a mention. Palestine? The less said the better.
In about a month, Christians will be celebrating the birth of Jesus. They’ll be beaming at their children, happily passing out gifts all around, eat a big dinner, and be content. And on Christmas, a child will be killed in Iraq by the violence they have unleashed.
So, where do we go from here? There aren’t any options left. Except to leave. Whether we go, or stay, the Iraqis will have to decide for themselves what sort of government they want. As things stand now, that process is not going to bloodless. No matter what, the Iraqis face many and huge difficulties putting their country back together again.
“Oops, sorry. Here’s a couple of bucks for the damage.”, is not going to be enough. Those who caused this must be punished. If we allow the bushistas to dance away to enjoy their lives and riches, we’re no better than they are. Impeachment and criminal courts for the bushistas, all of them, is a moral imperative. In the next two years, it’s the most important thing that America needs to do. If for no other reason than to drag these crimes into the light of day for all to see. Then we can decide what kind of country that we want.
For us, as well as the Iraqis, that’s the decision that needs to be made, and the sooner the better. The Iraqis don’t need our help in their decision. They are fully capable on their own. They’re neither ignorant nor children. As for us, we are. We’ve been perfectly content not to look at unpleasantness, nor to face up to the consequences of our actions, just like children. We’ve chosen to be ignorant of the reality of the world and the society around us. We’ve assuaged our conscience with platitudes and patriotic fervor.
These next two years, with the republican, one-party, neostalinist hold on the government broken, at least temporarily, is the window of time we have to decide. What difference will it make what party is in power if we keep pursuing the same bankrupt and destructive policies? Right now, this time, this place, conditions are ripe for a true political revolution. The ambitious will be jockeying for position and power. They’ll be jostling for the good seats. Coalitions and alliances will be made and broken. Rumors will fly.
In a time of political uncertainty, as we’ve learned from numerous US interventions in the political process of other countries, a nudge at the right time and place can move the paradigm a great distance. And as we’ve learned from our own experience in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a vocal populace can move it even further.
This holiday season, let’s remember the kids. Our children, our grandchildren and their children, will have to live with the choices we make today. While we watch them rip the wrappings off that new toy, let’s try to think about where they’re going to be 20, 30 years from now.
We have the chance and the ability to create a political climate where impeachment of the bush administration is possible. Not only possible, but the only choice for any person hoping for a future in politics. We have the chance and the ability to create a political climate where criminal trials of the bush administration are possible. Why not go for it?
Thursday, November 23, 2006
carving Iraq
and other things to be thankful for
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part One)
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part Two)
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 16, 2006.
Iraq is sitting on a mother lode of some of the lightest, sweetest, most profitable crude oil on earth, and the rules that will determine who will control it and on what terms are about to be set.
The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies future elected governments might want to pursue…
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East:
The Project for a “New Middle East”
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, November 18, 2006
The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon…
Women, kids, old, sick most at risk in Iraq--IOM
Tue 21 Nov 2006 20:02:02 GMT
GENEVA, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Single women, children and the old and sick in Iraq are most at risk of being left hungry and homeless among people uprooted by the sectarian violence, an international aid group warned on Tuesday.
In a report, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said that children were especially vulnerable to malnutrition and spread of disease.
[…]
According to the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR), some 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing their homes each month because of the violence adding to the more than 1.5 million already homeless within Iraq.
Iraq's death squads
by Deborah Davies,
Global Research, November 15, 2006
Channel 4
Up to a hundred bodies a day are found dumped on waste ground and rubbish tips around Baghdad. They've usually been dreadfully tortured. Acid and electric drills are the favourite methods and many of the bodies are still wearing police handcuffs.
As we discovered, there is even compelling evidence that the secret prisons of Saddam's day are back - stinking hell-holes where hundreds of victims are herded together to be raped, tortured and maimed for no crime other than belonging to the wrong sect.
And it's all happening under the eyes of US commanders, who seem unwilling or unable to intervene. These are the chilling findings of a special investigation, filmed for a Channel 4 documentary, The Death Squads that reveals how one of the most senior ministers in Iraq's new administration stands accused of presiding over a campaign to torture, maim and execute his enemies. And this is the dossier that utterly explodes the myth that peace and a liberal democracy are blossoming in the new 'liberated' Iraq…
Depleted Uranium, Another Gift From The Imperialists
By Pauline Paulinson
16 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Depleted uranium (DU) is cheap toxic waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth's heaviest elements and DU easily smashes through tanks, buildings and bunkers spontaneously catching fire and burning people alive. The radioactivity lasts over 4,500,000,000 years and causes cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects…
[…]
US forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in 1991. The actual figure is closer to 800. Also the US used 200 tons more in Baghdad alone during the recent invasion with a total of 1500 tons in all of Iraq. And this time it wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons but was extended to guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities…
[…]
US forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in 1991. The actual figure is closer to 800. Also the US used 200 tons more in Baghdad alone during the recent invasion with a total of 1500 tons in all of Iraq. And this time it wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons but was extended to guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities…
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part One)
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil (Part Two)
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 16, 2006.
Iraq is sitting on a mother lode of some of the lightest, sweetest, most profitable crude oil on earth, and the rules that will determine who will control it and on what terms are about to be set.
The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies future elected governments might want to pursue…
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East:
The Project for a “New Middle East”
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, November 18, 2006
The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon…
Women, kids, old, sick most at risk in Iraq--IOM
Tue 21 Nov 2006 20:02:02 GMT
GENEVA, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Single women, children and the old and sick in Iraq are most at risk of being left hungry and homeless among people uprooted by the sectarian violence, an international aid group warned on Tuesday.
In a report, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said that children were especially vulnerable to malnutrition and spread of disease.
[…]
According to the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR), some 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing their homes each month because of the violence adding to the more than 1.5 million already homeless within Iraq.
Iraq's death squads
by Deborah Davies,
Global Research, November 15, 2006
Channel 4
Up to a hundred bodies a day are found dumped on waste ground and rubbish tips around Baghdad. They've usually been dreadfully tortured. Acid and electric drills are the favourite methods and many of the bodies are still wearing police handcuffs.
As we discovered, there is even compelling evidence that the secret prisons of Saddam's day are back - stinking hell-holes where hundreds of victims are herded together to be raped, tortured and maimed for no crime other than belonging to the wrong sect.
And it's all happening under the eyes of US commanders, who seem unwilling or unable to intervene. These are the chilling findings of a special investigation, filmed for a Channel 4 documentary, The Death Squads that reveals how one of the most senior ministers in Iraq's new administration stands accused of presiding over a campaign to torture, maim and execute his enemies. And this is the dossier that utterly explodes the myth that peace and a liberal democracy are blossoming in the new 'liberated' Iraq…
Depleted Uranium, Another Gift From The Imperialists
By Pauline Paulinson
16 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Depleted uranium (DU) is cheap toxic waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth's heaviest elements and DU easily smashes through tanks, buildings and bunkers spontaneously catching fire and burning people alive. The radioactivity lasts over 4,500,000,000 years and causes cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects…
[…]
US forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in 1991. The actual figure is closer to 800. Also the US used 200 tons more in Baghdad alone during the recent invasion with a total of 1500 tons in all of Iraq. And this time it wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons but was extended to guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities…
[…]
US forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in 1991. The actual figure is closer to 800. Also the US used 200 tons more in Baghdad alone during the recent invasion with a total of 1500 tons in all of Iraq. And this time it wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons but was extended to guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities…
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Geriatric Squad
by Charley Reese
November 20, 2006
The Baker commission – or more accurately, the Geriatric Squad – is not likely to come up with a solution to the Iraq War.
The commission consists of some old political types – two ex-secretaries of state, Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger; two ex-senators, Chuck Robb and Alan Simpson; two ex-congressmen, Leon Panetta and Lee Hamilton; an ex-Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor; an ex-attorney general, Ed Meese; an ex-defense secretary, William Perry; and a lone black representative, Vernon Jordan. There's not a Middle East expert in the bunch.
Baker has already said in a public speech that the solution must be between "cut and run" and "staying the course." I don't know what that might be, unless it is a phased withdrawal. At any rate, they have held off making their report, in part due to the election.
It has occurred to me that perhaps the real goal of the invasion of Iraq has already been accomplished. That is, the real goal all along might well have been to half-destroy the country and create chaos. A country in chaos is not a strong country. It's been taken out of the play. That might explain Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's statement that the Iraq invasion has contributed greatly to Israel's security.
That could be the Middle East plan: Either become an obedient lackey of the U.S., or we'll turn your country into a chaotic mess. If that's the plan, then Syria and Iran are next on the list. That scheme, cruel and immoral as it is, would at least make more sense than believing democracy was ready to bloom in the desert. I suspect, however, it is beyond the brainpower available in the administration.
Robert Fisk, the British Independent's outstanding correspondent in the Middle East, believes we will eventually just blame the Iraqis, declare them too backward to take advantage of our help and use that as an excuse to withdraw.
Whatever the excuse or cover, we will eventually withdraw. The American people have finally woken up to the fact that there is no prize to be won with a so-called victory. There's not even a way to define victory. All of those young people's deaths and wounds are buying Americans nothing of value. They are dying for people who hate them.
I think a good case can be made that most of the leaders who take their countries to war are stupid. It became clear in World War I that with the advent of high explosives and the machine gun, nobody really wins a modern war. The cost in blood and treasure to the victor is usually not worth it. It takes a pretty dumb person not to figure out a better way to resolve some petty conflict other than by going to war.
Wars are usually fought over land and resources, so greed is at the bottom of most wars. It's easy, looking backward, to think that the way things happened was inevitable and the only way they could have happened. That's not true, however. There are nearly always alternatives to war.
An old Marine general once suggested that as soon as war breaks out, all of the munitions and weapons makers should be drafted and paid a private's salary until the war is over. I wish there were a way to make the political leaders who start wars stand in the front lines and catch the first bullets.
Alas, we live in the era of chickenhawk jingoists and behind-the-lines leaders. Nearly every one of those men who pushed so ardently for war in Iraq has never heard the whiz of a bullet past his ear.
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10030
November 20, 2006
The Baker commission – or more accurately, the Geriatric Squad – is not likely to come up with a solution to the Iraq War.
The commission consists of some old political types – two ex-secretaries of state, Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger; two ex-senators, Chuck Robb and Alan Simpson; two ex-congressmen, Leon Panetta and Lee Hamilton; an ex-Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor; an ex-attorney general, Ed Meese; an ex-defense secretary, William Perry; and a lone black representative, Vernon Jordan. There's not a Middle East expert in the bunch.
Baker has already said in a public speech that the solution must be between "cut and run" and "staying the course." I don't know what that might be, unless it is a phased withdrawal. At any rate, they have held off making their report, in part due to the election.
It has occurred to me that perhaps the real goal of the invasion of Iraq has already been accomplished. That is, the real goal all along might well have been to half-destroy the country and create chaos. A country in chaos is not a strong country. It's been taken out of the play. That might explain Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's statement that the Iraq invasion has contributed greatly to Israel's security.
That could be the Middle East plan: Either become an obedient lackey of the U.S., or we'll turn your country into a chaotic mess. If that's the plan, then Syria and Iran are next on the list. That scheme, cruel and immoral as it is, would at least make more sense than believing democracy was ready to bloom in the desert. I suspect, however, it is beyond the brainpower available in the administration.
Robert Fisk, the British Independent's outstanding correspondent in the Middle East, believes we will eventually just blame the Iraqis, declare them too backward to take advantage of our help and use that as an excuse to withdraw.
Whatever the excuse or cover, we will eventually withdraw. The American people have finally woken up to the fact that there is no prize to be won with a so-called victory. There's not even a way to define victory. All of those young people's deaths and wounds are buying Americans nothing of value. They are dying for people who hate them.
I think a good case can be made that most of the leaders who take their countries to war are stupid. It became clear in World War I that with the advent of high explosives and the machine gun, nobody really wins a modern war. The cost in blood and treasure to the victor is usually not worth it. It takes a pretty dumb person not to figure out a better way to resolve some petty conflict other than by going to war.
Wars are usually fought over land and resources, so greed is at the bottom of most wars. It's easy, looking backward, to think that the way things happened was inevitable and the only way they could have happened. That's not true, however. There are nearly always alternatives to war.
An old Marine general once suggested that as soon as war breaks out, all of the munitions and weapons makers should be drafted and paid a private's salary until the war is over. I wish there were a way to make the political leaders who start wars stand in the front lines and catch the first bullets.
Alas, we live in the era of chickenhawk jingoists and behind-the-lines leaders. Nearly every one of those men who pushed so ardently for war in Iraq has never heard the whiz of a bullet past his ear.
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10030
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Criminalizing Compassion in the War on Terror:
Muslim Charities and the Case of Dr. Rafil A. Dhafir
By Katherine Hughes
“The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But ... the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
Martin Luther King, Jr.[1]
“The truth shall set you free? Maybe. But first the Truth must be set free.”
Wole Soyinka, Nigerian playwright, educator.[2]
Since the events of 9/11 the government has implemented powerful new prosecutorial tools to gain convictions in its War on Terror. In an article entitled, “Terrorist Financing,” Jeff Breinholt, Deputy Chief of the Department of Justice's Counterterrorism Section, explains these tools and how they are being used to win convictions.[3] On page thirty-one of the article he lists the statutes being used in the criminal prosecution of terrorist financing and among these statutes is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Breinholt also labels as “United States economic sanctions.”[4] IEEPA provides the President of the United States with authority to deal with any “unusual and extraordinary threat” that has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States; this includes threat to “national security, foreign policy, and the economy.”[5]
Prosecutors armed with the statutes listed in Breinholt’s paper are further empowered by using them in conjunction with the “material support of terrorism” laws, Executive Order 13224, and civil asset forfeiture laws, particularly those under IEEPA, which were amended by the PATRIOT Act. Under the IEEPA civil asset forfeiture provisions the government can close down an organization and seize its assets while an investigation is ongoing, without probable cause of criminal activity and without any charges ever being brought against anyone.[6]
E.O. 13224 was issued on September 23, 2001, and introduced a blacklist of organizations and individuals suspected of terrorism, materially aiding terrorism, or associating with terrorists. IEEPA and international law permit humanitarian assistance for these suspects, including food, clothing and medicine, but this humanitarian aid is outlawed under the E.O. 13224.[7] The penalty, for an IEEPA violation, for organizations that knowingly engage in terrorist financing already carries a sentence of twenty years to life in prison. What this new provision does is “drastically increase the penalties for knowing violations of non-terrorism-related IEEPA offenses.”[8] People with a concern for civil liberties are troubled by the fact that the government provides no legal definition of what they consider a “specially designated terrorist” and by the broad manner in which the government is interpreting the new rules.[9]
read the full article here
By Katherine Hughes
“The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But ... the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
Martin Luther King, Jr.[1]
“The truth shall set you free? Maybe. But first the Truth must be set free.”
Wole Soyinka, Nigerian playwright, educator.[2]
Since the events of 9/11 the government has implemented powerful new prosecutorial tools to gain convictions in its War on Terror. In an article entitled, “Terrorist Financing,” Jeff Breinholt, Deputy Chief of the Department of Justice's Counterterrorism Section, explains these tools and how they are being used to win convictions.[3] On page thirty-one of the article he lists the statutes being used in the criminal prosecution of terrorist financing and among these statutes is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Breinholt also labels as “United States economic sanctions.”[4] IEEPA provides the President of the United States with authority to deal with any “unusual and extraordinary threat” that has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States; this includes threat to “national security, foreign policy, and the economy.”[5]
Prosecutors armed with the statutes listed in Breinholt’s paper are further empowered by using them in conjunction with the “material support of terrorism” laws, Executive Order 13224, and civil asset forfeiture laws, particularly those under IEEPA, which were amended by the PATRIOT Act. Under the IEEPA civil asset forfeiture provisions the government can close down an organization and seize its assets while an investigation is ongoing, without probable cause of criminal activity and without any charges ever being brought against anyone.[6]
E.O. 13224 was issued on September 23, 2001, and introduced a blacklist of organizations and individuals suspected of terrorism, materially aiding terrorism, or associating with terrorists. IEEPA and international law permit humanitarian assistance for these suspects, including food, clothing and medicine, but this humanitarian aid is outlawed under the E.O. 13224.[7] The penalty, for an IEEPA violation, for organizations that knowingly engage in terrorist financing already carries a sentence of twenty years to life in prison. What this new provision does is “drastically increase the penalties for knowing violations of non-terrorism-related IEEPA offenses.”[8] People with a concern for civil liberties are troubled by the fact that the government provides no legal definition of what they consider a “specially designated terrorist” and by the broad manner in which the government is interpreting the new rules.[9]
read the full article here
the continuing carnage
We have been talking about the deaths of people as collateral damage, an expenditure of consumable goods. I can think of no better example of the depravity of the “war president” and bush’s America. Iraq is being destroyed by the US occupation, and civil war. Over 2 million lives have been destroyed, caused by the direct actions, both deliberate and negligent, of the bush administration and its allies and propagandists.
After 44 months, with US resources now stretched to an unsustainable limit, and an electorate overwhelmingly opposed to the occupation of Iraq, everyone waits breathlessly for the appearance of the “Baker Report”, the reasoned recommendations of the wise people of the Iraq Study Group who will save us from our folly in Iraq. Well, there are no “reasonable” solutions to that morass of obscenity.
It is ironic that the bush should be in Vietnam, the other country that defeated us in guerrilla warfare, a country he was too scared to go to when his country needed him, at the same time we are being defeated in another guerrilla war of his choice. Of course, his arrogance doesn’t allow him to understand it. The lesson? We just need “patience”. Yeah, just long enough for him to leave this mess for his successor.
Bush went to Vietnam and boasted about how we would have won if we had not quit. This was, he said, the lesson for Iraq of the Vietnam War. He managed to be wrong about two wars at once and to anger both his hosts (how churlish!) and the Iraqi public. The American Right never admitted that they lost in Vietnam, thus the Rambo movies and, Melani McCallister argues, the US admiration for Entebbe. Iraq was their chance, they thought, to get it right. Bush had also said insulting things to the Philiippines about how wonderful it was that we had colonized them (and killed 400,000).
- Juan Cole, Informed Comment Nov 18, 2006
And so, the macabre dance continues, and the war criminal kissinger gets another chance to “get it right”.
How security guards became killers
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, Asia Times, Nov 10, 2006
BAGHDAD - The Facilities Protection Service (FPS) created after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has become the principal incubator of death squads in Iraq, senior leaders say.
"…the forces formed were actually militias, not organized forces, because they were formed according to rations given to each party in power…
"Those politicians brought their followers into the so-called security forces. Others took bribes of US$500-$700 from each applicant to be accepted regardless of standard regulations…"
- General Harith al-Fahad of the former Iraqi army
Caught in the crossfire
Mike Whitney, Online Journal, Mar 2, 2006
[…]
In Max Fuller’s seminal article, “For Iraq, ‘The Salvador Option,' becomes Reality,” Fuller points out that the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s death squads were, in fact, trained by agents from the CIA who had honed their skills in Vietnam and El Salvador. (Recently even the New York Times has admitted that these groups received American training) Fuller sees the same pattern appearing in Iraq as in other American-backed counterinsurgency operations.
No Exit?
What It Means to "Salvage U.S. Prestige" in Iraq
by Tom Engelhardt; November 16, 2006
[…]
Sooner or later, failure has a way of stripping most of us of our dreams and pretensions. So let's start with a tiny history of failure. George W. Bush's life trajectory of failing upward has had a rhythm to it -- and a rubric, "crony capitalism." Daddy's friends and contacts helped him into and -- after he failed -- out of the oil business, into and out of the baseball business, into and now, it seems, out of the failed game of global politics. His is, as the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish and John Aloysius Farrell put it back in 2002, "the story of a man who struck out numerous times before being bailed out by big hitters who often were family members, friends, or supporters of his father."
It's appropriate, then, that the man who bailed him out in Florida when he essentially lost the presidency in 2000, Bush family consigliere James A. Baker III, would reappear six years later, in the wake of another failed election, to bail him out again now that he's screwed up the oil heartlands of the planet. Daddy -- we're talking here about former President George H.W. Bush -- has three adopted boys: His former National Security Advisor (and alter ego) Brent Scowcroft, who went into opposition to the younger Bush's Iraq policy even before the invasion of 2003 and now lurks quietly in the wings; his former CIA Director Robert Gates; and Baker.
Like Daddy, Gates was deeply involved in, but never indicted for his dealings in the scurrilous Iran-Contra affair; was later involved in the tilt toward and arming of Saddam's Iraq against Khomeini's Iran, pioneered fertile territory in the late 1980s in terms of manipulating intelligence in the debate over the nature of Gorbachev's Soviet Union, had a hand in the first Gulf War, and most recently held the presidency of Texas A&M, where he was the keeper of the flame for Daddy's library. Could you ask for a better insider CV for taking over the Pentagon from one of Bush elder's rivals in the Gerald Ford era, Donald Rumsfeld…
After 44 months, with US resources now stretched to an unsustainable limit, and an electorate overwhelmingly opposed to the occupation of Iraq, everyone waits breathlessly for the appearance of the “Baker Report”, the reasoned recommendations of the wise people of the Iraq Study Group who will save us from our folly in Iraq. Well, there are no “reasonable” solutions to that morass of obscenity.
It is ironic that the bush should be in Vietnam, the other country that defeated us in guerrilla warfare, a country he was too scared to go to when his country needed him, at the same time we are being defeated in another guerrilla war of his choice. Of course, his arrogance doesn’t allow him to understand it. The lesson? We just need “patience”. Yeah, just long enough for him to leave this mess for his successor.
Bush went to Vietnam and boasted about how we would have won if we had not quit. This was, he said, the lesson for Iraq of the Vietnam War. He managed to be wrong about two wars at once and to anger both his hosts (how churlish!) and the Iraqi public. The American Right never admitted that they lost in Vietnam, thus the Rambo movies and, Melani McCallister argues, the US admiration for Entebbe. Iraq was their chance, they thought, to get it right. Bush had also said insulting things to the Philiippines about how wonderful it was that we had colonized them (and killed 400,000).
- Juan Cole, Informed Comment Nov 18, 2006
And so, the macabre dance continues, and the war criminal kissinger gets another chance to “get it right”.
How security guards became killers
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, Asia Times, Nov 10, 2006
BAGHDAD - The Facilities Protection Service (FPS) created after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has become the principal incubator of death squads in Iraq, senior leaders say.
"…the forces formed were actually militias, not organized forces, because they were formed according to rations given to each party in power…
"Those politicians brought their followers into the so-called security forces. Others took bribes of US$500-$700 from each applicant to be accepted regardless of standard regulations…"
- General Harith al-Fahad of the former Iraqi army
Caught in the crossfire
Mike Whitney, Online Journal, Mar 2, 2006
[…]
In Max Fuller’s seminal article, “For Iraq, ‘The Salvador Option,' becomes Reality,” Fuller points out that the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s death squads were, in fact, trained by agents from the CIA who had honed their skills in Vietnam and El Salvador. (Recently even the New York Times has admitted that these groups received American training) Fuller sees the same pattern appearing in Iraq as in other American-backed counterinsurgency operations.
No Exit?
What It Means to "Salvage U.S. Prestige" in Iraq
by Tom Engelhardt; November 16, 2006
[…]
Sooner or later, failure has a way of stripping most of us of our dreams and pretensions. So let's start with a tiny history of failure. George W. Bush's life trajectory of failing upward has had a rhythm to it -- and a rubric, "crony capitalism." Daddy's friends and contacts helped him into and -- after he failed -- out of the oil business, into and out of the baseball business, into and now, it seems, out of the failed game of global politics. His is, as the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish and John Aloysius Farrell put it back in 2002, "the story of a man who struck out numerous times before being bailed out by big hitters who often were family members, friends, or supporters of his father."
It's appropriate, then, that the man who bailed him out in Florida when he essentially lost the presidency in 2000, Bush family consigliere James A. Baker III, would reappear six years later, in the wake of another failed election, to bail him out again now that he's screwed up the oil heartlands of the planet. Daddy -- we're talking here about former President George H.W. Bush -- has three adopted boys: His former National Security Advisor (and alter ego) Brent Scowcroft, who went into opposition to the younger Bush's Iraq policy even before the invasion of 2003 and now lurks quietly in the wings; his former CIA Director Robert Gates; and Baker.
Like Daddy, Gates was deeply involved in, but never indicted for his dealings in the scurrilous Iran-Contra affair; was later involved in the tilt toward and arming of Saddam's Iraq against Khomeini's Iran, pioneered fertile territory in the late 1980s in terms of manipulating intelligence in the debate over the nature of Gorbachev's Soviet Union, had a hand in the first Gulf War, and most recently held the presidency of Texas A&M, where he was the keeper of the flame for Daddy's library. Could you ask for a better insider CV for taking over the Pentagon from one of Bush elder's rivals in the Gerald Ford era, Donald Rumsfeld…
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Restaging the End of Another War
By Les Blough
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23423.shtml
November 4, 2004 - "How will we get out of this, another dirty, Godless war, fought in the service of Global Corporatism? What will the "Exit Strategy" from this mess look like -when it is all over? The images of U.S. soldiers fleeing Vietnam have been burned into our minds for 30+ years with U.S. helicopters pushed off the sterns of ships, decades of suffering by Vietnam Veterans with disabilities, their broken families, the never-ending searches for MIAs and a national guilt that will haunt us for years to come. To these memories, the Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq will carry the additional 'baggage' of the effects of depleted uranium on Afghan and Iraqi children and the loss of the culture to which all human beings owe their genesis. What images will be burned into our minds 30 years hence? Indeed, what images of us will be carried into history for those looking back?"
- Les Blough, Editor At What Price The Bush Wars
The clouds of deceit at the beginning and during a war cannot be compared with the size and numbers of the lies that surround the end of a war. But the lies at the end of the war are all dissolved by one simple truth.
All wars end with the defeat and surrender of one side or the other
"Discussions in Washington", conducted by Amy Goodman about withdrawal from Iraq covers an interview with Fmr. Senator George McGovern, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and AEI's Joshua Muravchik. It reminds us of two scenarios during the last days before the fall of the U.S. military in Vietnam:
1. The first scene is one of Henry Kissinger (unbelieveably now advising George Walker Bush) in the "Paris Peace Talks" (sic)
Back then we were subjected to daily corporate media coverage of Kissinger and his gibberish about only leaving Vietnam after achieving "Peace with Honor". While he mouthed Peace with Honor - he and his cohorts were desperately trying to find ways to prevent what finally happened to their "exit strategy". Kissinger and company spoke about "peace with honor" as though they were still in a position to negotiate with the Vietnamese. It was a propaganda ploy, buying time while they sought to save face before the Vietnamese military literally ran them out. Now we see the shell game being played by both - the Democrats and Republicans:
- Blaming the puppet government they installed for "not doing enough to establish order".
- Trying to convince the world that they are trying to save Iraq from a civil war (i.e. to "save Iraqis from Iraqis")
- To prevent a base for world terrorism from being established in Iraq.
- To prevent Iraq from falling under the control of Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, as early as March 17, 2006 the U.S. government has been trying to negotiate with Iran - the same Iran condemned by George W. Bush as a member of the "Axis of Evil" - for their help in getting the U.S. out of Iraq. They are "negotiating" with Iran as though they had a power base from which to negotiate. They have none.
The last great ploy to rescue the U.S. government from itself in Iraq - at the expense of billions of U.S. tax dollars - can be seen in the 2006 midterm elections with "Democrats to the Rescue". We hear Sen. Carl Levin, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, threatening the Iraq "government" with U.S. troop withdrawal for their "not taking responsibility" for the security of Iraq. We hear him fabricating the lie that instead of destroying Iraq, the U.S. government gave Iraqis an opportunity to have better lives:
"America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over twenty thousand wounded. But the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if they insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife."
We hear Levin blame Iraq's US-installed puppet government for not ending "sectarian violence":
"We were momentarily hopeful when the Iraqi leaders signed a four point agreement on October 2nd to end the sectarian violence. That turned out to be another false hope."
We hear him blaming the Iraqis for not "putting their political house in order". We hear Democrat Senator Carl Levin blaming the victim for U.S. atrocities and abrogate all responsibility for U.S. war crimes in Iraq:
"We should put the responsibility for Iraq’s future squarely where it belongs – on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."
"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves" ... The transparency of that statement is so clear that even the casual, "apolitical" reader sees through it like a window pane. This is beyond a cynical lie. This is also psychological projection of the guilt for crimes against humanity, committed by the U.S. government - being projected upon their hirelings.
We should not be surprised at Levin's preposterous claims. On June 15, 2006 he simply argued in the U.S. Senate for the U.S. to begin to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 with no timetable for complete withdrawal. Joe Lieberman, another Democrat argued against Levin's resolution, warning that it would result in “the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 being able to claim victory in Iraq and going on, emboldened, to attack us again here at home.” Stephen Zunes (Foreign Policy in Focus) observes that Lieberman failed to mention that al-Qaida found recruitment opportunities inside Iraq only after the U.S. invasion. Zunes also reported,
"Lieberman was joined by Democrats Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. All but one Republican senator opposed Levin's resolution."
and astutely observed ...
"Resolutions like Kerry's and Levin's enable Democratic senators to have it both ways: to go on record opposing the war while continuing to fund it."
The Senate passed a $50 Billion funding bill for the war in Iraq with a 97-0 vote for fiscal year 2006. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments anticipated $94 billion in 2006 and as of April of this year, the U.S. government was spending about $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, The Guardian (UK) reported the findings of a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert: the actual cost of the US war in Iraq will be somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought.
In fact, not a single U.S. senator, neither Republican nor Democrat, has voted against funding the war and occupation of Iraq since the 2003 invasion.
2. The second scene in the last days of the U.S. occupations of Vietnam and Iraq are seen in the words of George McGovern, excerpted from the interview that follows:
"We’re not advocating a mad dash to the border, not a stampede or what the critics call “cut and run.” We’re advocating an orderly withdrawal, not the kind of forced withdrawal that took place in Vietnam so many years ago, where we saw the TV pictures of our last survivors there being airlifted off the roof of the embassy."
Even old George McGovern is doing his best to try to save the face (and the ass) of the U.S. government as it desperately attempts to turn reality into fantasy. As in the last days of Vietnam, the U.S. government is acting as though they still hold some sort of bargaining power in their flight from the hell they created in Iraq.
The bottom line is this:
If the U.S. does not retreat from Iraq immediately, those old images at the end of the Vietnam war will be restaged in the very near future: images like helicopters being pushed off the sterns of ships; the "Green Zone" overrun by the Iraqi resistance; U.S./British occupation-collaborators clamoring for rescue by their paid masters and U.S. troops attacked while in retreat - just as George Herbert Walker Bush ordered the slaughter of Iraqi soldiers as they retreated under aerial bombing in his 1991 invasion of the country.
The end-of-war deceptions now manufactured in Washington under the cover of the cover of the Democratic Party and promulgated by the corporate media are transparent.
Withdrawal" is no longer an option. The U.S. military has been defeated and is now being run out of Iraq under fire.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23423.shtml
November 4, 2004 - "How will we get out of this, another dirty, Godless war, fought in the service of Global Corporatism? What will the "Exit Strategy" from this mess look like -when it is all over? The images of U.S. soldiers fleeing Vietnam have been burned into our minds for 30+ years with U.S. helicopters pushed off the sterns of ships, decades of suffering by Vietnam Veterans with disabilities, their broken families, the never-ending searches for MIAs and a national guilt that will haunt us for years to come. To these memories, the Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq will carry the additional 'baggage' of the effects of depleted uranium on Afghan and Iraqi children and the loss of the culture to which all human beings owe their genesis. What images will be burned into our minds 30 years hence? Indeed, what images of us will be carried into history for those looking back?"
- Les Blough, Editor At What Price The Bush Wars
The clouds of deceit at the beginning and during a war cannot be compared with the size and numbers of the lies that surround the end of a war. But the lies at the end of the war are all dissolved by one simple truth.
All wars end with the defeat and surrender of one side or the other
"Discussions in Washington", conducted by Amy Goodman about withdrawal from Iraq covers an interview with Fmr. Senator George McGovern, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and AEI's Joshua Muravchik. It reminds us of two scenarios during the last days before the fall of the U.S. military in Vietnam:
1. The first scene is one of Henry Kissinger (unbelieveably now advising George Walker Bush) in the "Paris Peace Talks" (sic)
Back then we were subjected to daily corporate media coverage of Kissinger and his gibberish about only leaving Vietnam after achieving "Peace with Honor". While he mouthed Peace with Honor - he and his cohorts were desperately trying to find ways to prevent what finally happened to their "exit strategy". Kissinger and company spoke about "peace with honor" as though they were still in a position to negotiate with the Vietnamese. It was a propaganda ploy, buying time while they sought to save face before the Vietnamese military literally ran them out. Now we see the shell game being played by both - the Democrats and Republicans:
- Blaming the puppet government they installed for "not doing enough to establish order".
- Trying to convince the world that they are trying to save Iraq from a civil war (i.e. to "save Iraqis from Iraqis")
- To prevent a base for world terrorism from being established in Iraq.
- To prevent Iraq from falling under the control of Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, as early as March 17, 2006 the U.S. government has been trying to negotiate with Iran - the same Iran condemned by George W. Bush as a member of the "Axis of Evil" - for their help in getting the U.S. out of Iraq. They are "negotiating" with Iran as though they had a power base from which to negotiate. They have none.
The last great ploy to rescue the U.S. government from itself in Iraq - at the expense of billions of U.S. tax dollars - can be seen in the 2006 midterm elections with "Democrats to the Rescue". We hear Sen. Carl Levin, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, threatening the Iraq "government" with U.S. troop withdrawal for their "not taking responsibility" for the security of Iraq. We hear him fabricating the lie that instead of destroying Iraq, the U.S. government gave Iraqis an opportunity to have better lives:
"America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over twenty thousand wounded. But the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if they insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife."
We hear Levin blame Iraq's US-installed puppet government for not ending "sectarian violence":
"We were momentarily hopeful when the Iraqi leaders signed a four point agreement on October 2nd to end the sectarian violence. That turned out to be another false hope."
We hear him blaming the Iraqis for not "putting their political house in order". We hear Democrat Senator Carl Levin blaming the victim for U.S. atrocities and abrogate all responsibility for U.S. war crimes in Iraq:
"We should put the responsibility for Iraq’s future squarely where it belongs – on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves."
"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves" ... The transparency of that statement is so clear that even the casual, "apolitical" reader sees through it like a window pane. This is beyond a cynical lie. This is also psychological projection of the guilt for crimes against humanity, committed by the U.S. government - being projected upon their hirelings.
We should not be surprised at Levin's preposterous claims. On June 15, 2006 he simply argued in the U.S. Senate for the U.S. to begin to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 with no timetable for complete withdrawal. Joe Lieberman, another Democrat argued against Levin's resolution, warning that it would result in “the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 being able to claim victory in Iraq and going on, emboldened, to attack us again here at home.” Stephen Zunes (Foreign Policy in Focus) observes that Lieberman failed to mention that al-Qaida found recruitment opportunities inside Iraq only after the U.S. invasion. Zunes also reported,
"Lieberman was joined by Democrats Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. All but one Republican senator opposed Levin's resolution."
and astutely observed ...
"Resolutions like Kerry's and Levin's enable Democratic senators to have it both ways: to go on record opposing the war while continuing to fund it."
The Senate passed a $50 Billion funding bill for the war in Iraq with a 97-0 vote for fiscal year 2006. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments anticipated $94 billion in 2006 and as of April of this year, the U.S. government was spending about $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, The Guardian (UK) reported the findings of a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert: the actual cost of the US war in Iraq will be somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought.
In fact, not a single U.S. senator, neither Republican nor Democrat, has voted against funding the war and occupation of Iraq since the 2003 invasion.
2. The second scene in the last days of the U.S. occupations of Vietnam and Iraq are seen in the words of George McGovern, excerpted from the interview that follows:
"We’re not advocating a mad dash to the border, not a stampede or what the critics call “cut and run.” We’re advocating an orderly withdrawal, not the kind of forced withdrawal that took place in Vietnam so many years ago, where we saw the TV pictures of our last survivors there being airlifted off the roof of the embassy."
Even old George McGovern is doing his best to try to save the face (and the ass) of the U.S. government as it desperately attempts to turn reality into fantasy. As in the last days of Vietnam, the U.S. government is acting as though they still hold some sort of bargaining power in their flight from the hell they created in Iraq.
The bottom line is this:
If the U.S. does not retreat from Iraq immediately, those old images at the end of the Vietnam war will be restaged in the very near future: images like helicopters being pushed off the sterns of ships; the "Green Zone" overrun by the Iraqi resistance; U.S./British occupation-collaborators clamoring for rescue by their paid masters and U.S. troops attacked while in retreat - just as George Herbert Walker Bush ordered the slaughter of Iraqi soldiers as they retreated under aerial bombing in his 1991 invasion of the country.
The end-of-war deceptions now manufactured in Washington under the cover of the cover of the Democratic Party and promulgated by the corporate media are transparent.
Withdrawal" is no longer an option. The U.S. military has been defeated and is now being run out of Iraq under fire.
The Price of Imperial Arrogance
by Stephen Lendman
[…]
When the most powerful military force in the history of the universe throws up its hands and effectively cries uncle, it shows how bad things are in the Kafkaesque maelstrom of Iraq. It also shows how hopeless this adventure was that should have been brain-dead and stillborn from the start - but you'd never know it from the head-in-the-sand comments of the "stay-the-coursers" in Washington that includes the president, vice-president and Democrat leadership even when their language changes. They're willing to fine-tune the tactical management of the operation as they're now about to do but never willing to give up the prize they've already invested so much in and can't afford to give up because the cost of doing it is so great. It's what journalist Robert Fisk meant when he said "the US must get out (of Iraq), they will get out, and they can't get out."
Here's more evidence of how bad things are and how impossible it's becoming trying to deal with it. In his November 1 column in the London Independent, unembedded journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote that "Baghdad Is Under Siege." It follows his article days earlier called "From 'Mission Accomplished' to 'Mission Impossible' in Iraq." From his vantage point on the ground, Cockburn paints a grim picture of out-of-control chaos. "Sunni insurgents have cut the roads linking the city (Baghdad) to the rest of Iraq. The country is being partitioned as militiamen fight bloody battles for control of towns and villages north and south of the capital." He goes on to say food shortages in some neighborhoods are becoming severe, and the scale of daily killing is "massive" --
--1000 or more violent deaths weekly.
--Shia fighters controlling most of the city encircled by Sunnis.
--1.5 million Iraqis have fled their homes according to the Iraqi Red Crescent (a separate UNHCR estimate apart from Cockburn's article puts the number at 1.8 million Iraqis living in neighboring countries and another 1.6 million "internally displaced" within Iraq including those who left during the 1990s).
--Shia and Sunni militias control the country, not the US military, Iraqi army or police that are all impotent.
--the militias grow "stronger by the day because the Shia and Sunni communities feel threatened and do not trust the army and police to defend them."
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres confirmed through his chief spokesperson Ron Redmond on November 3 how bad things are in Iraq based on the number of refugees the conflict is generating. UNHCR says about 100,000 Iraqis now leave their homes each month in a desperate attempt to find safety. The UN agency estimates 2000 a day go to Syria, another 1000 a day cross into Jordan, some go to other countries and still others seek asylum in Europe. UNHCR also estimates an additional 50,000 Iraqis become "internally displaced" each month.
The immense refugee problem is the most visible sign of a failed US policy along with the out-of-control daily violence across most of the country killing 100 or more every day according to a UN estimate that's too low. It's the culmination of nearly 16 years of a US-directed reign of state-sponsored terrorism against the country and its people that slaughtered or caused the deaths of over two million Iraqi men, women and children and counting and left in its wake a surreal lawless armed camp wasteland with few or no essential services like electricity, clean water, vital sanitation, medical care, education, fuel and most everything else needed for sustenance and survival. Things aren't improving. They're getting worse as a brutal occupation grinds on and death squads roam freely including the US-directed "Salvador option" ones of the type National Intelligence Director John Negroponte once led in the 1980s when he was US Ambassador to Hondurus during the Reagan Contra wars when he directed the administration's terror war of that era against the Nicaraguans and Salvadorans fighting for their freedom.
[…]
full article
[…]
When the most powerful military force in the history of the universe throws up its hands and effectively cries uncle, it shows how bad things are in the Kafkaesque maelstrom of Iraq. It also shows how hopeless this adventure was that should have been brain-dead and stillborn from the start - but you'd never know it from the head-in-the-sand comments of the "stay-the-coursers" in Washington that includes the president, vice-president and Democrat leadership even when their language changes. They're willing to fine-tune the tactical management of the operation as they're now about to do but never willing to give up the prize they've already invested so much in and can't afford to give up because the cost of doing it is so great. It's what journalist Robert Fisk meant when he said "the US must get out (of Iraq), they will get out, and they can't get out."
Here's more evidence of how bad things are and how impossible it's becoming trying to deal with it. In his November 1 column in the London Independent, unembedded journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote that "Baghdad Is Under Siege." It follows his article days earlier called "From 'Mission Accomplished' to 'Mission Impossible' in Iraq." From his vantage point on the ground, Cockburn paints a grim picture of out-of-control chaos. "Sunni insurgents have cut the roads linking the city (Baghdad) to the rest of Iraq. The country is being partitioned as militiamen fight bloody battles for control of towns and villages north and south of the capital." He goes on to say food shortages in some neighborhoods are becoming severe, and the scale of daily killing is "massive" --
--1000 or more violent deaths weekly.
--Shia fighters controlling most of the city encircled by Sunnis.
--1.5 million Iraqis have fled their homes according to the Iraqi Red Crescent (a separate UNHCR estimate apart from Cockburn's article puts the number at 1.8 million Iraqis living in neighboring countries and another 1.6 million "internally displaced" within Iraq including those who left during the 1990s).
--Shia and Sunni militias control the country, not the US military, Iraqi army or police that are all impotent.
--the militias grow "stronger by the day because the Shia and Sunni communities feel threatened and do not trust the army and police to defend them."
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres confirmed through his chief spokesperson Ron Redmond on November 3 how bad things are in Iraq based on the number of refugees the conflict is generating. UNHCR says about 100,000 Iraqis now leave their homes each month in a desperate attempt to find safety. The UN agency estimates 2000 a day go to Syria, another 1000 a day cross into Jordan, some go to other countries and still others seek asylum in Europe. UNHCR also estimates an additional 50,000 Iraqis become "internally displaced" each month.
The immense refugee problem is the most visible sign of a failed US policy along with the out-of-control daily violence across most of the country killing 100 or more every day according to a UN estimate that's too low. It's the culmination of nearly 16 years of a US-directed reign of state-sponsored terrorism against the country and its people that slaughtered or caused the deaths of over two million Iraqi men, women and children and counting and left in its wake a surreal lawless armed camp wasteland with few or no essential services like electricity, clean water, vital sanitation, medical care, education, fuel and most everything else needed for sustenance and survival. Things aren't improving. They're getting worse as a brutal occupation grinds on and death squads roam freely including the US-directed "Salvador option" ones of the type National Intelligence Director John Negroponte once led in the 1980s when he was US Ambassador to Hondurus during the Reagan Contra wars when he directed the administration's terror war of that era against the Nicaraguans and Salvadorans fighting for their freedom.
[…]
full article
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
US plans last big push in Iraq
see also:
Family Feud: Little Bush Hits Back at Daddy
Written by Chris Floyd
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=923&Itemid=135
Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401095_pf.html
Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit
by Simon Tisdall
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.
Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.
Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.
The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.
Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
"The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Externally, US policy is focused on what is achievable. Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try."
Yesterday, a top state department official, David Satterfield, said America was prepared in principle to discuss with Iran its activities in Iraq.
Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.
To the certain dismay of US neo-cons, initial post-invasion ideas about imposing fully-fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system, as advocated by Democratic senator Joe Biden and others would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis.
Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.
"You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall."
The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.
The official added: "Bush has said 'no' to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it."
Addressing Congress yesterday, General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, warned against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing US and Iraqi forces. Gen Abizaid spoke as the Senate armed services committee began re-examining US policy after last week's Democratic election victory. But Gen Abizaid argued against extra troops, saying US divisional commanders believed more pressure needed to be put on the Iraqi army to do its part.
Family Feud: Little Bush Hits Back at Daddy
Written by Chris Floyd
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=923&Itemid=135
Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 15, 2006; A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401095_pf.html
Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit
by Simon Tisdall
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.
Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.
Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.
The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.
Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
"The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Externally, US policy is focused on what is achievable. Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try."
Yesterday, a top state department official, David Satterfield, said America was prepared in principle to discuss with Iran its activities in Iraq.
Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.
To the certain dismay of US neo-cons, initial post-invasion ideas about imposing fully-fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system, as advocated by Democratic senator Joe Biden and others would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis.
Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.
"You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall."
The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.
The official added: "Bush has said 'no' to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it."
Addressing Congress yesterday, General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, warned against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing US and Iraqi forces. Gen Abizaid spoke as the Senate armed services committee began re-examining US policy after last week's Democratic election victory. But Gen Abizaid argued against extra troops, saying US divisional commanders believed more pressure needed to be put on the Iraqi army to do its part.
Wha-a-a-at?!?!
by Mary Pitt
It is a comon expression that one sees on the faces of "liberal" bloggers and op-ed writers on internet web sites as we view the talking heads in the expensive suits on the mainstream media dismissing us and demanding a move to the centrist viewpoint. It's like kenneling the watchdogs because a few foxes and skunks have been removed from the chicken house. We dis-elected enough right-wingers from the House of Representatives to give the Democrats a narrow edge and dislodged a few Senators so that there wiould be a fighting chance in the Senate and we are dismissed with a pat on the head and a "Good boy" and told that, despite our efforts, our agenda will be ignored in Congress for the next two years. We have made a start on the job ahead but there are still many thieves in the counting house and we have much work left to do.
Many Neo-Con sympathizers remain in the Senate and both Houses are still rife with the Old Guard who exercize earmarks on a whim and this corruption will continue until they are rooted out. It will take two more elections to clean the culprits out of the Senate and we will still be afflicted by Good Ole Joe Lieberman while there are many good people like Ned Lamont who are still on the outside looking in. Nancy Pelosi made a good start on the popular agenda with her declaration of The First Hundred Hours but they must not stop there Count the numbers of the Executive Orders and Presidential Signing Statements that must be countermanded. Add the reform of the "reforms" that have taken place in the last six years and you will find a veritable blizzard of work that must be done to restore our individual rights under the Constitution.
Once again we are being bombarded with cries for "bipartisanship" as the Republicans realize that we have disabled their rubber stamp. They should get the same "bipartisanship" that we were given as fulfillment of the Bush campaign promises. If it works for them, it should work almost as well for us. So long as our children are in Iraq, so long as our rights as free Americans are being stolen, so long as our tax money is being diverted from its intended purpose to the pockets of the big multi-national corporations, so long as our good jobs remain in overseas factories and technology labs, and so long as The People's House is walled off from the public so that the Business of The People can be conducted in secret, our work is far from done.
Candidates for President are gearing up for the run in 2008. So must we be gearing up to counteract the campaigns, not only of the Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani but also of some of the go-along-to-get-along Democrat "centrists" who have spent six years selling out the people and voting in lockstep with this adminstration in order to further their own ambitions. There is still time to convene a meeting of the "splinter parties" to find those issues on which we can coalesce and find common cause to gain the strength to become a real factor in the choice of our next President. We demonstrated strength in the elections of 2004 and have grown stronger in the last two years as our demands were heard and our influence felt as we worked behind the Democrats in this election. If we can gather together, finding our common ground and casting aside our differences, we can be influential in taking back our country in a peaceful manner in 2008.
Only by founding a real "party of the people" can we not only affect but possibly make major choices in the selection of our next adminstration. Without it, we can look forward to another pat on the head and another "Good Boy" as we are put back in the kennel with our foreheads wrinkled in dismay and our mouths wide open, saying "Wha-a-a-at?!?!"
It is a comon expression that one sees on the faces of "liberal" bloggers and op-ed writers on internet web sites as we view the talking heads in the expensive suits on the mainstream media dismissing us and demanding a move to the centrist viewpoint. It's like kenneling the watchdogs because a few foxes and skunks have been removed from the chicken house. We dis-elected enough right-wingers from the House of Representatives to give the Democrats a narrow edge and dislodged a few Senators so that there wiould be a fighting chance in the Senate and we are dismissed with a pat on the head and a "Good boy" and told that, despite our efforts, our agenda will be ignored in Congress for the next two years. We have made a start on the job ahead but there are still many thieves in the counting house and we have much work left to do.
Many Neo-Con sympathizers remain in the Senate and both Houses are still rife with the Old Guard who exercize earmarks on a whim and this corruption will continue until they are rooted out. It will take two more elections to clean the culprits out of the Senate and we will still be afflicted by Good Ole Joe Lieberman while there are many good people like Ned Lamont who are still on the outside looking in. Nancy Pelosi made a good start on the popular agenda with her declaration of The First Hundred Hours but they must not stop there Count the numbers of the Executive Orders and Presidential Signing Statements that must be countermanded. Add the reform of the "reforms" that have taken place in the last six years and you will find a veritable blizzard of work that must be done to restore our individual rights under the Constitution.
Once again we are being bombarded with cries for "bipartisanship" as the Republicans realize that we have disabled their rubber stamp. They should get the same "bipartisanship" that we were given as fulfillment of the Bush campaign promises. If it works for them, it should work almost as well for us. So long as our children are in Iraq, so long as our rights as free Americans are being stolen, so long as our tax money is being diverted from its intended purpose to the pockets of the big multi-national corporations, so long as our good jobs remain in overseas factories and technology labs, and so long as The People's House is walled off from the public so that the Business of The People can be conducted in secret, our work is far from done.
Candidates for President are gearing up for the run in 2008. So must we be gearing up to counteract the campaigns, not only of the Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani but also of some of the go-along-to-get-along Democrat "centrists" who have spent six years selling out the people and voting in lockstep with this adminstration in order to further their own ambitions. There is still time to convene a meeting of the "splinter parties" to find those issues on which we can coalesce and find common cause to gain the strength to become a real factor in the choice of our next President. We demonstrated strength in the elections of 2004 and have grown stronger in the last two years as our demands were heard and our influence felt as we worked behind the Democrats in this election. If we can gather together, finding our common ground and casting aside our differences, we can be influential in taking back our country in a peaceful manner in 2008.
Only by founding a real "party of the people" can we not only affect but possibly make major choices in the selection of our next adminstration. Without it, we can look forward to another pat on the head and another "Good Boy" as we are put back in the kennel with our foreheads wrinkled in dismay and our mouths wide open, saying "Wha-a-a-at?!?!"
Monday, November 13, 2006
New Faces, Same Agenda
by Stephen Lendman
The political firmament shook briefly post-November 7 raising hopes change would follow the Republican's drubbing at the polls and the Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the GOP sweep in 1994. Presumed new House speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped the tremors making it clear no substantive change will be on the table when when the 110th Congress convenes on January 3. Instead, she announced to those paying attention it'll be business as usual (as it always is) as she intends to work with the president in a spirit of bipartisanship and not be "obstructionist" even though Republicans for past 12 years never returned that courtesy or even made a pretense of doing it.
Pelosi made it clear the Democrat victory will be just another betrayal of the electorate that sent her and the Democrats a strong message it voted for a mandated populist anti-Bush, anti-war agenda it won't get. It's always for the same reason - because those controlling the political process in Washington owe their allegiance to the interests of wealth and power that select and fund them and of which these officials are a part. The Democrat (anti-populist) Leadership Council (DLC) made that position clear when it participated in a November 10 post-election made-for-television spectacle in the Oval Office so the whole world could watch their new congressional leadership line up in a shameless public display of partnering with a criminal enterprise in the White House posing as a legitimate government they've been complicit with all along. Should anyone understanding how things work in Washington have expected anything else?
Politics 101, Washington-style teaches that nothing can be taken on its face, campaign promises are empty and disingenuous, and in the nation's Capitol the criminal class is bipartisan. Pelosi, whose background is one of privilege and not populism, and her leadership collaborators plan on business as usual come January. They intend taking full advantage of their newly empowered status to grab a bigger piece of the political pie without sharing any of it with their constituents beyond a few crumbs that exclude the most important things people voted for - ending the Iraq and Afghan wars of aggression and bringing US forces home, impeaching Bush and Cheney, addressing critically needed social services like health care and public education Republican and DLC Democrat rule have ignored and allowed to deteriorate, restoring our civil liberties, finding and prosecuting everyone involved in the cesspool of rampant endemic corporate and government corruption both parties allowed to go on and that only a few have had to answer for - and that's just for starters.
What about restoring constitutional democracy and the rule of law complete with checks and balances, the separation of powers and our elected officials held accountable to the public for all their actions and made to face the music when they betray the public trust. What about ending the privatization of the most fundamental element of a democratic process and returning control of it to the people - the electoral process (now corporate run and corrupted) that can only be fair under a system of verifiable paper ballots counted by hand by civil servants unconnected to either party or the corporatocracy that funds and owns them. What about allowing real alternative party candidates the right to run under a system of proportional representation and break the monopoly of a corrupted two-party, winner take all system. What about that and a lot more that a real democracy demands, and the sham one we now have won't allow.
Post-election, we're light years from any of that which was confirmed when the other newly empowered Democrats were also quick to show their shameless deference publicly. They, too, had their Oval Office moment, genuflected obediently for the cameras while there, and pledged their fealty to an unindicted war criminal who's done more harm to the core principles of the country and the welfare of everyone around the world (other than the elitists like themselves) than any former president since Richard Nixon who was forced from office in disgrace. Expect little chance of that for George Bush if the Democrats' disgraceful display of servility indicates what's ahead, which it does unless people wake up and demand the accountability everyone deserves.
New Senate majority whip Richard Durbin showed the public what it's up against. He expressed the victor's spirit of conciliation and complicity saying both sides spoke of "moving forward on an agenda, finding things that we can agree on to start off on the right foot." Incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid was even clearer than the Illinois senator saying "The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results....and that's what we're going to do." And the man the Wall Street Journal calls "the architect of the Democrats' Senate win," New York Senator and Senator to Tel Aviv Charles Schumer, said in a November 11 Journal interview "If we are seen as just blocking the president, it will not serve us well in 2008."
With acts of this kind of obeisance, any hope the 110th congress will address the key issues people voted for and demand faded like a late autumn sunset. For one thing, Nancy Pelosi said any notion of following through on what a growing majority of the public wants is off the table - impeaching George Bush (87% of participants in an MSNBC online poll still in progress said "yes" to impeachment). Pre-election, incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers said that would be a priority for him, but on November 10 he reneged saying "The incoming speaker has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."
The public needs to remind Mr. Conyers how he laid out the grounds for impeachment last December in a detailed 350 page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-Ups in the Iraq War" and later updated it to include "illegal domestic surveillance." Now the Michigan Democrat, just reelected to a 22nd term by his constituents, can do no better than say "To be sure, I have substantial concerns about the way this administration has abused its authority, but impeachment would not be good for the American people." Is he saying war crimes, crimes against humanity and the destruction of a democratic republic gone unpunished are good for the people?
In the past, Conyers had a record of being one of the few in Washington remembering who elected him and supporting their interests. What is this man now thinking in backing off on a crucially important issue with mass public support, and why after over 40 years in the Congress is he willing to renege on his word on a fundamental matter needing resolution before the country can move on? Mr. Conyers has the power to end our "long national nightmare" that will go on unless he does the job the public demands of him - and if he won't, he needs to step aside and let someone else do it.
Just last May in a Washington Post op-ed piece, the Michigan congressman had a different view than now saying a new Congress needs to get answers about whether the "intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war (and if) high-ranking (administration) officials approved the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees." If evidence was found, he indicated these would be potentially impeachable offenses and left no doubt he believes the constitutional law of the land is sacred, and if the president of the United States violated it he must be forced to answer for it like anyone else.
He did violate it, and there's plenty of evidence found to prove it. So why did John Conyers decide not to follow through on the evidence he found as he promised to do. The public needs to remind the congressman of the oath he took and the word he gave and demand he reverse his statement and chalk it up to a case of temporary bad judgment. He'll be forgiven if he does, but damned if not. It now remains to be seen if he's man enough to see his error, say he's ready to do the job he said he would, and be willing to fulfill the public trust with the power entrusted in him.
Conyers has all the evidence he needs in The Downing Street (Memo) Minutes mentioned above and in the title of his report. It refers to the secret 2002 Washington meeting of high level US and British officials when the intelligence claiming justification for the 2003 Iraq war was cooked to fit the policy already decided on by the Bush administration and is clearly stated in so many words. It was smoking gun evidence the president and his close advisors lied to the public to make their fraudulent case for the Iraq war. It had nothing to do with the falsified justification given for it, and that alone is grounds enough for initiating impeachment proceedings.
One of the war-planning co-conspirators practically admitted his guilt when Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and now World Bank president, later gave an interview in Singapore and was asked publicly how it was he and others in Washington decided on WMDs as the reason to go to war. He answered "it was the only thing we all could agree on."
The new Democrat leadership apparently didn't hear him or bother to read the Downing Street Memo. It also fails to grasp that if Bill Clinton could be nonsensically impeached for lying in a sworn deposition about his sexual proclivities, the present incumbent deserves at least as much for going to war based on lies and murdering 655,000 or more Iraqis and counting plus the many thousands of Americans killed, wounded and to be affected by the war for the rest of their lives along with their families. He and his spurned Republican allies also need to be held to account for six years of wanton abuses of the public trust in all aspects of their agenda from hell still ongoing and unaddressed.
The list is endless and includes waging two illegal wars of naked aggression to supporting and funding the two illegal ones Israel waged over the summer with one still raging below the radar that's murdering defenseless Palestinians daily and that no one is acting to stop. It includes waging war on the public at home, dismantling or ending essentially needed social services, endangering the economy by a policy of reckless spending, destroying our civil liberties and seizing absolute state control through a power-grab coup d'etat the Democrats supported by their votes in the Congress or silence when they could have acted to thwart it with strong public support backing them.
On November 7, the public expressed a powerful sentiment of anger and disgust against a rogue criminal administration, demanding accountability from those they voted for and big change going forward. They won out in spite of already uncovered massive Republican- manipulated voter fraud (again) that was unable to contain the torrent of resentment too great to overcome. In drubbing the Republican congress that Tuesday, voters sent a message they want a new direction that reverses all the harm done by the current one. So far, it hasn't gotten through and unless repeated on the streets, through the mail, in town meetings, on the phone, in emails and all the other ways voters reach their officials, it'll again be ignored by the Democrat leadership, who, like their counterparts, never get it until they awaken the day after and realize they just lost their jobs.
The DLC is already actively collaborating behind the scenes to continue the conflict in Iraq by signing on to whatever altered tactical plan the Baker Commission proposes and is soon to release. Should we have expected anything else from a party that marched shamelessly in lockstep with a Republican administration beginning with Al Gore's pathetic refusal to fight for the office he won in 2000, choosing instead to surrender it meekly to George Bush's Supreme Court appointment as did John Kerry four years later in his show of insouciance in an election even more fraud-laden than the one in 2000. It hardly matters under a system author and political critic Gore Vidal calls our one party state ruled by the Property Party with two wings in a plutocracy, with scarcely a dime's worth of difference between them.
The public is slow reacting and is still hypnotized and basking in the deceptive afterglow of post-election hoopla to realize they've been had again. Instead of celebrating victory unconsummated, what's needed is follow-through to press the demands that will remain unaddressed waiting around for a new bunch of politicos to act on them. Nothing will change in Washington until people understand that bringing in a new set of bums replacing the old ones only guarantees more of the same unless they press their advantage in a very visible and vocal way beyond the voting booth.
Otherwise, the only change guaranteed ahead is none at all, and all they'll have to look forward to is the next electoral round in 2008 when the same charade of a democratic process is repeated on the false pretense it will matter more then than it does now. You'd have thought after 12 years in the political wilderness, enough newly inspired Democrats and some of its leaders would have been as aroused as were the revolutionary Republicans with their Contract with America in 1994 that helped them sweep the mid-term elections that year with a promise to "bring to the floor the (ten) bills, each to be given a full and open debate....and fair vote....and be available for public inspection." They delivered as promised, but it was a scam calling for government reform Clinton DLC Democrats went along with and voters fell for not realizing the GOP agenda meant tax cuts for the rich and corporate giants, a dismantling of tort and welfare protection, and cuts in social programs and bedrock social security protection mostly affecting those most in need of them.
So where do we stand now that the celebratory dust has settled and the cold light of another day has dawned. Washington is still enveloped in a Kafkaesque shroud of hellish strangulation combining illegal foreign wars with domestic repression and neglect along with a guarantee nothing substantive will change beyond a few feel-good bits of tinkering around the edges to fool the public again a new agenda arrived and all is well in the world. The reality is all is hell in the world, and the DLC Democrats intend to continue conspiring with a criminal administration to keep it that way - at least as long as people allow them to get away with it.
Hope springs eternal and eventually there may be a public awakening that the same criminal element is in charge, little has changed nor will it without action outside the voting booth, the illegal Iraq and Afghanistan killing machines go on without end as do the appropriations for them about to get another obscene supplemental off-the-books $160 billion wasted-on-war tranche of funding diverting desperately needed revenue away from critically neglected social programs Democrats allowed Republicans to slash and burn and now aren't even considering for restoration.
The specter of Patriot Act I and the covertly proposed and stealth piecemeal enacted Patriot II (total police state takeover) Act remain in force as do the just passed Military Commissions Act and revision of the Insurrection Act that makes everyone including US citizens an "enemy combatant" unprotected by habeas or due process and allows the president the right to send "jackboots" to the streets to enforce whatever he says is the law and against anyone he claims without evidence is a threat to national security - aka a terrorist.
That combined with a president claiming the dictatorial right of a "unitary executive" allowing himself, on his self-authorization, to go around the Constitution, Congress and courts in the "interest" of "national security" has transformed a country Lincoln said "was conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal (in a) "government of the people, by the people, (and) for the people into a fascist dictatorship the Democrat leadership is very comfortable with and has no intention of challenging - as long as they're cut in on the spoils which they'll now get a bigger piece of.
These are the same "Democrats" who pledge allegiance to Thomas Jefferson who abhored war calling it the "greatest scourge of mankind....(swore) eternal hostility against every form of tryanny....(explained) All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent....(and said) Every generation needs a new revolution (to reinvent itself and expunge the sins of the past one)."
If Jefferson were with us now, he'd tell us the sins of the past generation are so enormous and out-of-control and so endanger the republic, at best on life support and fading fast, that never before in the country's history than now is the mother of all revolutions he spoke of needed. The political class in Washington won't respond to his call or even want us to know about it, and it's up to the public to deliver the message in a way those in power can't ignore.
Jefferson would approve explaining how important it is to keep "the spirit of resistence....alive....(that) timid men prefer the calm of despotism....(and that everyone has) certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson also knew what Ben Franklin meant when he said at the Constitution's birth that we have a Republic if we can keep it. He also knew that if lost, it's for the public to reclaim it from those who took it. It's high time to try. Jefferson and Franklin would approve.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
The political firmament shook briefly post-November 7 raising hopes change would follow the Republican's drubbing at the polls and the Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the GOP sweep in 1994. Presumed new House speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped the tremors making it clear no substantive change will be on the table when when the 110th Congress convenes on January 3. Instead, she announced to those paying attention it'll be business as usual (as it always is) as she intends to work with the president in a spirit of bipartisanship and not be "obstructionist" even though Republicans for past 12 years never returned that courtesy or even made a pretense of doing it.
Pelosi made it clear the Democrat victory will be just another betrayal of the electorate that sent her and the Democrats a strong message it voted for a mandated populist anti-Bush, anti-war agenda it won't get. It's always for the same reason - because those controlling the political process in Washington owe their allegiance to the interests of wealth and power that select and fund them and of which these officials are a part. The Democrat (anti-populist) Leadership Council (DLC) made that position clear when it participated in a November 10 post-election made-for-television spectacle in the Oval Office so the whole world could watch their new congressional leadership line up in a shameless public display of partnering with a criminal enterprise in the White House posing as a legitimate government they've been complicit with all along. Should anyone understanding how things work in Washington have expected anything else?
Politics 101, Washington-style teaches that nothing can be taken on its face, campaign promises are empty and disingenuous, and in the nation's Capitol the criminal class is bipartisan. Pelosi, whose background is one of privilege and not populism, and her leadership collaborators plan on business as usual come January. They intend taking full advantage of their newly empowered status to grab a bigger piece of the political pie without sharing any of it with their constituents beyond a few crumbs that exclude the most important things people voted for - ending the Iraq and Afghan wars of aggression and bringing US forces home, impeaching Bush and Cheney, addressing critically needed social services like health care and public education Republican and DLC Democrat rule have ignored and allowed to deteriorate, restoring our civil liberties, finding and prosecuting everyone involved in the cesspool of rampant endemic corporate and government corruption both parties allowed to go on and that only a few have had to answer for - and that's just for starters.
What about restoring constitutional democracy and the rule of law complete with checks and balances, the separation of powers and our elected officials held accountable to the public for all their actions and made to face the music when they betray the public trust. What about ending the privatization of the most fundamental element of a democratic process and returning control of it to the people - the electoral process (now corporate run and corrupted) that can only be fair under a system of verifiable paper ballots counted by hand by civil servants unconnected to either party or the corporatocracy that funds and owns them. What about allowing real alternative party candidates the right to run under a system of proportional representation and break the monopoly of a corrupted two-party, winner take all system. What about that and a lot more that a real democracy demands, and the sham one we now have won't allow.
Post-election, we're light years from any of that which was confirmed when the other newly empowered Democrats were also quick to show their shameless deference publicly. They, too, had their Oval Office moment, genuflected obediently for the cameras while there, and pledged their fealty to an unindicted war criminal who's done more harm to the core principles of the country and the welfare of everyone around the world (other than the elitists like themselves) than any former president since Richard Nixon who was forced from office in disgrace. Expect little chance of that for George Bush if the Democrats' disgraceful display of servility indicates what's ahead, which it does unless people wake up and demand the accountability everyone deserves.
New Senate majority whip Richard Durbin showed the public what it's up against. He expressed the victor's spirit of conciliation and complicity saying both sides spoke of "moving forward on an agenda, finding things that we can agree on to start off on the right foot." Incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid was even clearer than the Illinois senator saying "The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results....and that's what we're going to do." And the man the Wall Street Journal calls "the architect of the Democrats' Senate win," New York Senator and Senator to Tel Aviv Charles Schumer, said in a November 11 Journal interview "If we are seen as just blocking the president, it will not serve us well in 2008."
With acts of this kind of obeisance, any hope the 110th congress will address the key issues people voted for and demand faded like a late autumn sunset. For one thing, Nancy Pelosi said any notion of following through on what a growing majority of the public wants is off the table - impeaching George Bush (87% of participants in an MSNBC online poll still in progress said "yes" to impeachment). Pre-election, incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers said that would be a priority for him, but on November 10 he reneged saying "The incoming speaker has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."
The public needs to remind Mr. Conyers how he laid out the grounds for impeachment last December in a detailed 350 page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-Ups in the Iraq War" and later updated it to include "illegal domestic surveillance." Now the Michigan Democrat, just reelected to a 22nd term by his constituents, can do no better than say "To be sure, I have substantial concerns about the way this administration has abused its authority, but impeachment would not be good for the American people." Is he saying war crimes, crimes against humanity and the destruction of a democratic republic gone unpunished are good for the people?
In the past, Conyers had a record of being one of the few in Washington remembering who elected him and supporting their interests. What is this man now thinking in backing off on a crucially important issue with mass public support, and why after over 40 years in the Congress is he willing to renege on his word on a fundamental matter needing resolution before the country can move on? Mr. Conyers has the power to end our "long national nightmare" that will go on unless he does the job the public demands of him - and if he won't, he needs to step aside and let someone else do it.
Just last May in a Washington Post op-ed piece, the Michigan congressman had a different view than now saying a new Congress needs to get answers about whether the "intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war (and if) high-ranking (administration) officials approved the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees." If evidence was found, he indicated these would be potentially impeachable offenses and left no doubt he believes the constitutional law of the land is sacred, and if the president of the United States violated it he must be forced to answer for it like anyone else.
He did violate it, and there's plenty of evidence found to prove it. So why did John Conyers decide not to follow through on the evidence he found as he promised to do. The public needs to remind the congressman of the oath he took and the word he gave and demand he reverse his statement and chalk it up to a case of temporary bad judgment. He'll be forgiven if he does, but damned if not. It now remains to be seen if he's man enough to see his error, say he's ready to do the job he said he would, and be willing to fulfill the public trust with the power entrusted in him.
Conyers has all the evidence he needs in The Downing Street (Memo) Minutes mentioned above and in the title of his report. It refers to the secret 2002 Washington meeting of high level US and British officials when the intelligence claiming justification for the 2003 Iraq war was cooked to fit the policy already decided on by the Bush administration and is clearly stated in so many words. It was smoking gun evidence the president and his close advisors lied to the public to make their fraudulent case for the Iraq war. It had nothing to do with the falsified justification given for it, and that alone is grounds enough for initiating impeachment proceedings.
One of the war-planning co-conspirators practically admitted his guilt when Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and now World Bank president, later gave an interview in Singapore and was asked publicly how it was he and others in Washington decided on WMDs as the reason to go to war. He answered "it was the only thing we all could agree on."
The new Democrat leadership apparently didn't hear him or bother to read the Downing Street Memo. It also fails to grasp that if Bill Clinton could be nonsensically impeached for lying in a sworn deposition about his sexual proclivities, the present incumbent deserves at least as much for going to war based on lies and murdering 655,000 or more Iraqis and counting plus the many thousands of Americans killed, wounded and to be affected by the war for the rest of their lives along with their families. He and his spurned Republican allies also need to be held to account for six years of wanton abuses of the public trust in all aspects of their agenda from hell still ongoing and unaddressed.
The list is endless and includes waging two illegal wars of naked aggression to supporting and funding the two illegal ones Israel waged over the summer with one still raging below the radar that's murdering defenseless Palestinians daily and that no one is acting to stop. It includes waging war on the public at home, dismantling or ending essentially needed social services, endangering the economy by a policy of reckless spending, destroying our civil liberties and seizing absolute state control through a power-grab coup d'etat the Democrats supported by their votes in the Congress or silence when they could have acted to thwart it with strong public support backing them.
On November 7, the public expressed a powerful sentiment of anger and disgust against a rogue criminal administration, demanding accountability from those they voted for and big change going forward. They won out in spite of already uncovered massive Republican- manipulated voter fraud (again) that was unable to contain the torrent of resentment too great to overcome. In drubbing the Republican congress that Tuesday, voters sent a message they want a new direction that reverses all the harm done by the current one. So far, it hasn't gotten through and unless repeated on the streets, through the mail, in town meetings, on the phone, in emails and all the other ways voters reach their officials, it'll again be ignored by the Democrat leadership, who, like their counterparts, never get it until they awaken the day after and realize they just lost their jobs.
The DLC is already actively collaborating behind the scenes to continue the conflict in Iraq by signing on to whatever altered tactical plan the Baker Commission proposes and is soon to release. Should we have expected anything else from a party that marched shamelessly in lockstep with a Republican administration beginning with Al Gore's pathetic refusal to fight for the office he won in 2000, choosing instead to surrender it meekly to George Bush's Supreme Court appointment as did John Kerry four years later in his show of insouciance in an election even more fraud-laden than the one in 2000. It hardly matters under a system author and political critic Gore Vidal calls our one party state ruled by the Property Party with two wings in a plutocracy, with scarcely a dime's worth of difference between them.
The public is slow reacting and is still hypnotized and basking in the deceptive afterglow of post-election hoopla to realize they've been had again. Instead of celebrating victory unconsummated, what's needed is follow-through to press the demands that will remain unaddressed waiting around for a new bunch of politicos to act on them. Nothing will change in Washington until people understand that bringing in a new set of bums replacing the old ones only guarantees more of the same unless they press their advantage in a very visible and vocal way beyond the voting booth.
Otherwise, the only change guaranteed ahead is none at all, and all they'll have to look forward to is the next electoral round in 2008 when the same charade of a democratic process is repeated on the false pretense it will matter more then than it does now. You'd have thought after 12 years in the political wilderness, enough newly inspired Democrats and some of its leaders would have been as aroused as were the revolutionary Republicans with their Contract with America in 1994 that helped them sweep the mid-term elections that year with a promise to "bring to the floor the (ten) bills, each to be given a full and open debate....and fair vote....and be available for public inspection." They delivered as promised, but it was a scam calling for government reform Clinton DLC Democrats went along with and voters fell for not realizing the GOP agenda meant tax cuts for the rich and corporate giants, a dismantling of tort and welfare protection, and cuts in social programs and bedrock social security protection mostly affecting those most in need of them.
So where do we stand now that the celebratory dust has settled and the cold light of another day has dawned. Washington is still enveloped in a Kafkaesque shroud of hellish strangulation combining illegal foreign wars with domestic repression and neglect along with a guarantee nothing substantive will change beyond a few feel-good bits of tinkering around the edges to fool the public again a new agenda arrived and all is well in the world. The reality is all is hell in the world, and the DLC Democrats intend to continue conspiring with a criminal administration to keep it that way - at least as long as people allow them to get away with it.
Hope springs eternal and eventually there may be a public awakening that the same criminal element is in charge, little has changed nor will it without action outside the voting booth, the illegal Iraq and Afghanistan killing machines go on without end as do the appropriations for them about to get another obscene supplemental off-the-books $160 billion wasted-on-war tranche of funding diverting desperately needed revenue away from critically neglected social programs Democrats allowed Republicans to slash and burn and now aren't even considering for restoration.
The specter of Patriot Act I and the covertly proposed and stealth piecemeal enacted Patriot II (total police state takeover) Act remain in force as do the just passed Military Commissions Act and revision of the Insurrection Act that makes everyone including US citizens an "enemy combatant" unprotected by habeas or due process and allows the president the right to send "jackboots" to the streets to enforce whatever he says is the law and against anyone he claims without evidence is a threat to national security - aka a terrorist.
That combined with a president claiming the dictatorial right of a "unitary executive" allowing himself, on his self-authorization, to go around the Constitution, Congress and courts in the "interest" of "national security" has transformed a country Lincoln said "was conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal (in a) "government of the people, by the people, (and) for the people into a fascist dictatorship the Democrat leadership is very comfortable with and has no intention of challenging - as long as they're cut in on the spoils which they'll now get a bigger piece of.
These are the same "Democrats" who pledge allegiance to Thomas Jefferson who abhored war calling it the "greatest scourge of mankind....(swore) eternal hostility against every form of tryanny....(explained) All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent....(and said) Every generation needs a new revolution (to reinvent itself and expunge the sins of the past one)."
If Jefferson were with us now, he'd tell us the sins of the past generation are so enormous and out-of-control and so endanger the republic, at best on life support and fading fast, that never before in the country's history than now is the mother of all revolutions he spoke of needed. The political class in Washington won't respond to his call or even want us to know about it, and it's up to the public to deliver the message in a way those in power can't ignore.
Jefferson would approve explaining how important it is to keep "the spirit of resistence....alive....(that) timid men prefer the calm of despotism....(and that everyone has) certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson also knew what Ben Franklin meant when he said at the Constitution's birth that we have a Republic if we can keep it. He also knew that if lost, it's for the public to reclaim it from those who took it. It's high time to try. Jefferson and Franklin would approve.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
the fall of neostalinism?
Yes. Well. It was a good week.
Now, I have to say that I’m under no illusion that the Democrats will effect any big changes in the direction this country is going. At the same time, I’m pleased that the one-party rule of the neostalinists in the republican party has been broken for the time being. No problem facing America at this time was ever going to be addressed as long as the republicans maintained their hold. All they ever had their eyes on was more power and more riches, and nothing was going to stand in their way.
The record shows [that to] the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
Afghanistan, Iraq, the US Constitution, the UN, all just collateral damage. The reasons that this was going to be good for anyone besides themselves were just too “complicated” to explain to the American people. That’s why everything had to be kept a secret. And the ccma* just went along in their quest for power and money.
Although the collapse of their bankrupt ideology matches that of the Soviet Union, these neostalinists are not going to just go away. They’ll just continue to appear as “experts” on news programs, and radio talk shows. And hope we’ll forget. Attempts to resuscitate the little bush’s legacy are already underway. Unless we put a stop to this now, through congressional investigation and impeachment, and criminal charges brought against these war criminals and corrupt politicians, with severe punishment brought for those found guilty, we can expect little georgie to be revered like the “sainted” big ronnie reagan.
They chanted “democracy”, and threatened to jail anyone who dissented. Murder, kidnapping, torture, and corruption have been the tools of the neostalinists. Tuesday, the American people said, “Enough”. Let’s finish it.
* consolidated corporate media of america
Now, I have to say that I’m under no illusion that the Democrats will effect any big changes in the direction this country is going. At the same time, I’m pleased that the one-party rule of the neostalinists in the republican party has been broken for the time being. No problem facing America at this time was ever going to be addressed as long as the republicans maintained their hold. All they ever had their eyes on was more power and more riches, and nothing was going to stand in their way.
The record shows [that to] the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
Afghanistan, Iraq, the US Constitution, the UN, all just collateral damage. The reasons that this was going to be good for anyone besides themselves were just too “complicated” to explain to the American people. That’s why everything had to be kept a secret. And the ccma* just went along in their quest for power and money.
Although the collapse of their bankrupt ideology matches that of the Soviet Union, these neostalinists are not going to just go away. They’ll just continue to appear as “experts” on news programs, and radio talk shows. And hope we’ll forget. Attempts to resuscitate the little bush’s legacy are already underway. Unless we put a stop to this now, through congressional investigation and impeachment, and criminal charges brought against these war criminals and corrupt politicians, with severe punishment brought for those found guilty, we can expect little georgie to be revered like the “sainted” big ronnie reagan.
They chanted “democracy”, and threatened to jail anyone who dissented. Murder, kidnapping, torture, and corruption have been the tools of the neostalinists. Tuesday, the American people said, “Enough”. Let’s finish it.
* consolidated corporate media of america
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)