"George Bush ended 2004 on a sour note. But at least he maintained his record as the most disingenuous president since Richard Nixon. ... What the president did not say is that this initial commitment is less than the planned expenditure for his Jan. 20 inauguration: $40 million." - John Nichols
[b]What's going to be different in 2005??? ... Please [i]don't[/i] answer that at the end of January there are going to be Bush's so-called "elections" in Iraq!!! ...[i] Jeez [/i]... Many, many Iraqis have confessed that they're[i] not [/i]going to vote because they are living in fear for their lives ... These sham "elections" are only being "held" for the Mad King George's edification and are a betrayal of everything that any true democratic state holds dear for they will [i]not[/i] reflect the will of the people ... But not to worry:-- Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rove (and their incompetent & corrupt neo-con cabal of War Criminals) are now focused on their inaugural (coronation) balls, parties, dinners, fireworks, etc. to be held for 4 days from January 20th onwards ... While our U.S. Soldiers & innocent Iraqi civilians are dying, injured & maimed, and living in misery on a daily basis (with no end in sight)-- the Bush gang will be partying-- dancing-- laughing & joking-- celebrating-- swilling lots of costly booze-- and gorging on lots of rich, expensive food ... [i]Only in America!!! [/i]... "We the People" should be ashamed of ourselves ...[/b]
* The U.S. military suffered at least 348 deaths in Iraq over the final four months of the year, more than in any other similar period since the invasion in March 2003.
* The number of wounded surpassed 10,000, with more than a quarter injured in the last four months as direct combat, roadside bombs and suicide attacks escalated. When President Bush (news - web sites) declared May 1, 2003, that major combat operations were over, the number wounded stood at just 542.
* The number of attacks on U.S. and allied troops grew from an estimated 1,400 attacks in September to 1,600 in October and 1,950 in November. A year earlier, the attacks numbered 649 in September, 896 in October and 864 in November.
That's serious attrition. But of course, "we're making progress".
"Words are like planets, each with its own gravitational pull." ~ Kenneth Burke
"Define your terms." ~ Socrates
"We agree that language functions in a certain way so that we can understand each other; but within that are built all sorts of sentimental codes, codes of authenticity, codes of certain kinds of emotion." ~ John Yau
[b]The right-wing neo-con propagandists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]are experts at providing coded terms; loaded rhetoric; and outright mendacious falsehoods cloaked in convoluted language designed to hide criminal actions that represent the opposite of the actual meaning of words conveyed to lull us into a false sense of security ... "We the People" must learn their language of Orwellian deception in order to fight their neo-fascist transformation of our nation into their Global Corporate Empire ...[/b]
[b]Katrina vanden Heuvel's excellent 'Republican Dictionary' has been making its way around the web ... Refer to the "Republican Dictionary (Part 1)" on http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ... and, "Republican Dictionary (Part 2)" on http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ...[/b]
This past November, I wrote about the right's semantic trickery and proposed an idea for how we could debunk and decode the conservative's Orwellian Code of encrypted language: A Republican Dictionary.
I put together a small list and asked readers to send me their own entries. Response has been overwhelming--more than 375 people have sent definitions.
I published a small sample of the entries I've received in this space earlier this month. Below I'm publishing a second batch of reader submissions to this on-going project. We're going to continue posting additional entries in the weeks ahead, so click here to suggest your contributions.
ALARMIST, n. Any respected scientist who understands the threat of global warming. (Dave Nold, Berkely, California)
ALLIES, n. Foreigners who do what Republicans tell them to do. (Gary Schroller, Bellaire, Texas)
BALANCED, adj. 1. favoring corporations (a more balanced approach to the environment.); 2. favoring conservatives (fair and balanced reporting). (Scott Davis, Grand Prairie, Texas)
CLASS WARFARE, n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage. (Don Zwier, Grayslake, Illinois)
VERY CLEAR, adj. Modifier used immediately before any preposterous explanation or rationale. (Lance L. Prata, Eastlake Weir, Florida)
COALITION, n. One or more nations whose leaders have been duped, pressured or bribed into supporting ill-conceived, unnecessary, under-planned and/or illegal US military operations. (Michael Shapiro, Honolulu, Hawaii)
CONVICTION, n. Making decisions before getting the facts, and refusing to change your mind afterward. (Paul Ruschmann, Canton, Michigan)
CULTURE OF LIFE, n. A reduction of reproductive freedoms. (Sean Sturgeon, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada)
DEMOCRACY, n. My way or the highway. (Daniel Quinn, London, UK)
ECONOMIC RECOVERY, n. When three out of five software engineers who lost their jobs to outsourcing are able to find part-time work at Wal-Mart. (Rob Hotman , Houston, Texas)
ELECTION FRAUD, n. Counting every vote. (Sean O'Brien, Chicago, Illinois)
GIRLY MEN, n. Those who do not grope women. (Nick Gill, Newton, MA)
HARD WORK, n. What Republicans say when they can't think of anything better. (Brian McDowell)
HEALTHY FORESTS, n. No tree left behind. (Ron Russell, San Francisco, California)
JOB GROWTH, n. Increased number of jobs an individual has to take after losing earlier high-paying job. (John E. Tarin, Arlington, Virginia)
JUNK SCIENCE, n. Sound science. (Geoffrey King, Austin, TX)
OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, n. Christian Right payoff. (Michael Gendelman, Fair Haven, New Jersey)
OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, n. A society in which no one ever needs to own up to their mistakes or the consequences of their actions. (Sharon Gallagher, New York, New York)
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, n. A non-medical term invented by anti-choice zealots that refers to a broad class of abortion procedures; employed as a first step in reversing Roe v. Wade. (David McNeely, Lutz, Florida)
POLITICAL CAPITAL, n. What a Republican president receives as a result of a razor-thin margin of victory in an election. (Joy Losee, Gainesville, Georgia)
PRESS CONFERENCE, n. A rare event designed for the President to brag about his prowess as a leader while simultaneously dodging difficult questions. (Jim Nidositko, Westfield, New Jersey)
REFORM, n. Rollback of New Deal reforms, laws, standards and social protections. (Nick Gill, Newton, MA)
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, n. rich person (Michael Mannella, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, n. Leave no Wall Street broker behind. (Ann Klopp , Princeton, NJ)
STAYING THE COURSE, v., The act of being stubborn and unable to admit glaring policy mistakes; being wrong and sticking with the wrong idea regardless of the consequences. (Jillian Jorgensen, Staten Island, New York)
TAX SIMPLIFICATION, n. A way to make it simpler for large US corporations to export American jobs to avoid paying US taxes. (Seth Hammond, Goodwell, Oklahoma)
"As with the Iraq war, proponents of the Bush plan seek to tar their better-informed opposition as irresponsible and not to be trusted. [i]New York Times' [/i]conservative columnist, David Brooks complained that "The people setting the tone for the opposition to the Bush Social Security effort depict the financial markets as huge, organized scams where the rich prey upon the weak. Their phrases are already familiar: a risky scheme, Enron accounting, a gift to the securities industry, greedy speculators preying upon Grandma's pension." Once again, we are expected to take the Bush administration's intentions, competence and veracity on faith; once again, reporters are assisting in the creation of a fictional universe in which "reality" only rears its head after the damage done to those least able to bear it is permanent and irreversible."
[b]Access to good healthcare, affordable education, decent housing and a secure retirement are hallmarks of a healthy nation. In 2004,[i] TomPaine.com [/i]kept track of attacks on programs—like Social Security, Pell Grants, Medicare—that most Americans rely on as a stepping stone to economic security. "We the People" should be[i] very, very concerned [/i]regarding the reckless direction that the wanton, craven and corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is taking our country ...[/b]
Our reliance on payroll tax is already too high, and further reducing workers won't help when millions of baby boomers are ready to leave the workforce. So here's a bright idea: Instead of taxing hiring to cover Social Security and Medicare when we desperately need more jobs—why don't we tax natural resources, which we desperately need to use more efficiently? Get America Working president Robert Walker explains http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
Did you know that children, disabled workers and families of prematurely deceased workers all collect Social Security benefits? The program truly serves the role of government safety net as it was intended—lending a hand to Americans in their time of need. The personal investment accounts idea being floated by the White House and its surrogates would effectively shred that safety net. Duff Campbell and Entmacher of the National Women's Law Center show how http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
The recent omnibus bill included in its 1,000 pages a provision that allows the secretary of education to cut Pell grants—which allow many low-income students to pay for college. But It's a typical trick of conservatives, says Robert Borosage: play up middle-American values while quietly wreaking economic chaos http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
With President Bush set to make his tax cuts permanent for 2005 and push Social Security privatization, the extra money to make up the difference has to come from somewhere. Bill Vaughan of Families USA says it's likely to come from one of the largest—and most vital—government programs: Medicaid. In a season of doing good unto others, cutting taxes for millionaires and leaving severely ill seniors in nursing homes without care is an immoral choice http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
George Bush is beginning to frame his Social Security reform agenda as a way to help workers. That leaves Democrats the opportunity to reframe the debate about the best way to do so. Jonathan Tasini argues what will help workers—and American employers—is a single-payer health plan http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
Former mayor of Atlanta Andrew Young says the federal government has created a number of legislative programs that encourage hard work and facilitate economic mobility into America’s middle class. Essential to this transition for African Americans, in particular, Young says, is the Community Reinvestment Act, which helps low-income families own homes. Last week, the Bush administration took steps to dismantle the CRA—exposing the rift between reality and Bush’s stated interest in creating an “ownership society.” http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
The president has been touting his plan for an "ownership society" a lot on the campaign trail, and in his nomination acceptance speech, he claimed it would benefit working moms. But his approach is classic bait-and-switch politics, say policy experts Karen Kornbluh and Laurie Rubiner. The ownership society would simply ask Americans to "own" the risks they now share with the government in programs like employer-sponsored health care. What American women really need is reform of outdated New Deal programs. For more analysis of Bush's "ownership society," see [i]Bush And The Vision Thing [/i] http://www.tompaine.com/artic... by Roger Hickey. http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
A new study http://www.ourfuture.org/docU... released today by the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for America’s Future proves that spending government money on early childhood programs isn’t just good for children—it’s good for taxpayers and society. What’s most hopeful about this study is that the policies it recommends are increasingly being embraced by experts across the political spectrum http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
Think Again: Selling Social Security (Down the River), Eric Alterman with Paul McLeary, The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
"Nearly nine months after detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere became public, there still has been no independent, overarching investigation of the scandal." http://www.slate.com/id/21113...
"The Department of Defense has assured you, has assured the public that they take these issues seriously, that they have investigations going on."
"In-house Pentagon probes don't require sworn testimony, don't have subpoena power and are examples of the military trying to police itself."
– Letter from retired military leaders detailing insufficiencies in the administration's investigation into the scandal, http://www.usatoday.com/news/...
[b]Why aren't "We the People" outraged by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]sanction of murder, torture, rape and abuse that represents heinous Crimes Against Humanity perpetrated upon human beings held by the U.S. (in contravention of the Geneva Conventions)??? ...[/b]
A wave of new documents suggest "the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread, varied and grave http://www.washingtonpost.com... in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained." The new documents reveal "the misconduct included shocking detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag." Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the ACLU, said, "the documents show so far that the abuse was widespread and systemic, that it was the result of decisions taken by high-ranking officials http://www.washingtonpost.com... , and that the abuse took place within a culture of secrecy and neglect." White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said, "President Bush expects a full investigation and corrective actions 'to make sure that abuse does not occur again.'" But Slate points out that while the White House now promises an investigation of the latest disclosures, "there has been no independent http://www.usatoday.com/news/... or overarching investigation of the abuses, and the administration has opposed the creation of one http://www.washingtonpost.com... ." (American Progress has been calling for an independent investigation since May http://www.americanprogress.o... .)
"If the president is truly worried about the federal coffers running dry he should stop cutting taxes for us better-off folk and stop spending so much money on boondoggles like the occupation of Iraq."
"The income that Social Security provides to the elderly benefits multiple generations. Reliable, inflation-adjusted Social Security income has helped many older Americans live more independent lives. It has eased the financial burden on adult children who may be raising and trying to save for their own families."
"Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies. It leaves many retirees in poverty."
[b]The American people are being swindled out of one of their most important safety nets created after the Great Depression by FDR in order to keep the elderly from living in abject poverty, misery and/or illness ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]are out to destroy Social Security in order to line their own pockets & those of their Wall Street Cronies [like the crook, Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay] with the hard-earned collective investment that keeps our society from being a 3rd world military junta exploiting slave labour ... "We the People" should be outraged and contact Congress http://www.congress.org to demand that this neo-fascist corporate (and rich) take-all rape of Americans be put to a stop ...[/b]
[b][u]Sabotaging Social Security[/u]
GOP uses scare tactics against system that isn't broke[/b]
Just my luck: I finally get to be a senior citizen only to discover that the president considers my longevity a grave threat to the nation. Apparently, my collecting Social Security checks for as long as I have left on this Earth is going to help bankrupt the economy and/or be an unbearable burden on young Americans.
That's why, after seven decades of unmitigated success in protecting seniors from the vagaries of market forces, the White House now wants to turn Social Security itself over to the vagaries of market forces. The conservative mantra, whether it comes to energy policy, war in Iraq or education, is to siphon public money into the private sector whenever and wherever possible, through such gimmicks as agribusiness subsidies, school vouchers and the hiring of private mercenaries.
Greed perfectly meshes with ideology in the Republican Party, and the attempted sabotage of Social Security is just another example. While the followers of Milton Friedman talk about the free market in religious terms, Wall Street is slavering at the possibility of one of the biggest potential windfalls in human history if the Social Security spigot is turned its way. The attendant investment fees alone would be enormous -- certainly higher than the minimal 1% overhead costs the current Social Security system consumes.
What's astonishing is that despite the recent spate of abrupt corporate bankruptcies and Wall Street corruption scandals, the president would have us believe only stockbrokers can save Social Security, and the stability of the entire fund would be tied to a stock market that has been known to tank now and again. Further, even the president's key advisors admit that the short-run cost of "privatizing" Social Security would add trillions of dollars to the Bush legacy of federal government red ink.
While I am all for expanding opportunities to invest in tax- deferred retirement accounts (like 401k's), it does not follow that Social Security should be exposed to the same risks. Social Security is the safety net for the elderly that has since its inception protected millions from facing abject poverty upon retirement -- even if their pensions should evaporate, as they did for the employees of Enron.
Along with Medicare, Social Security is the key reason seniors are no longer the most impoverished class in our society or a crushing burden on their children. This last needs to be mentioned to counter the argument that ensuring the security of baby boom seniors would impose an intolerable burden on younger workers. For who is going to replace those Social Security checks, should they stop coming because Grandpa picked the wrong stock? The kids and grandkids, that's who, if they have any real family values.
I speak out of an experience I'm sure many of you share. My mother retired after 40 years as a garment worker, after which she lived with me until she died at the thankfully old age of 88. Her presence was of great emotional value to our family, but because of her two-decade bout with Parkinson's, it would have represented a serious financial burden on my wife and me had it not been for government support.
The president says the system that has served us well in the past is no longer sustainable. He, or rather those cooking the books for him, attempts to scare us with projections that the Social Security trust fund will begin to run deficits 38 years from now.
But those numbers assume no dramatic change in the increasing ability of seniors to retire later and otherwise continue to earn income that is taxable. The anti-Social Security crowd is trying to make this a young-versus-old generational fight, even though seniors still pay taxes like anybody else. We even pay taxes on most of our Social Security earnings, if our household income rises above a pittance.
If the president is truly worried about the federal coffers running dry he should stop cutting taxes for us better-off folk and stop spending so much money on boondoggles like the occupation of Iraq. However, if it turns out that we need additional taxes to cover the obligations of the Social Security trust fund four decades from now, so be it. After all, money distributed to the elderly through Social Security is poured right back into the economy.
For three-quarters of a century, Social Security has guaranteed us all a life of modest dignity as we live out the end of this mortal coil.
So -- if you'll pardon this senior's use of a curmudgeonly truism -- I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do." - Eleanor Roosevelt
On Friday, President Bush signed into law a bill to[b] reform the intelligence system[/b]. The bill was 563 pages long and was rushed through the Senate without enough time for senators to read and debate it adequately. Among other things, it creates a position of director of national intelligence and tightens border controls. [b]Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia [/b]was one of few Democrats who spoke publicly against the bill on the Senate floor.
[b]"We the People" are fortunate to have a Senator like Robert Byrd with the courage to stand up to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]and the wisdom to say what needs to be said ...
U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., delivered the following remarks as the Senate prepared to vote on the conference report on the National Intelligence Reform Act. Byrd criticized the hasty passage of the most significant reform of the nation's intelligence agencies since 1947, with Senators having less than 24 hours to review the final legislation.[/b]
[b]Byrd also was critical of many of the provisions within the legislation. For instance, Byrd noted a provision requiring the new National Intelligence Director to submit any testimony before Congress to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval prior to delivery. Byrd is concerned that requiring OMB approval can prevent Congress from receiving non-partisan intelligence analysis.
Overall, the West Virginia lawmaker believes that such substantial legislation deserves a higher standard of consideration in the world's foremost deliberative body.[/b] _________________________ _____________________
When the elected representatives of the people allow themselves to be coerced into a process that encourages the abdication of our responsibility to understand and thoroughly review legislation, the people are robbed of their voice in their government.
Senators take an oath to defend the Constitution, and common sense suggests that that means reading and studying the legislation before the Congress. We are duty bound to explore the opinions on all sides of an issue, and to work toward a process that does not exclude opponents or silence the opposition.
In its heyday, the Senate was known as the greatest deliberative body in the world. What we have seen in recent times, however, is a hollow shell of that noble tradition. Time after time, the Senate forgoes its responsibility to deliberate and carefully review legislation, and even defers to others to craft legislation for it.
Legislation is passed by the Senate, and then, too often, hastily rewritten in a conference committee behind closed doors marked, "no minority view admitted." All too often during the 108th Congress, the party leadership has held bills until just before a recess, and then employed disingenuous rhetoric about last opportunities to get something done. Senators preoccupied with holiday schedules and travel plans, for example, timidly roll over and accept whatever is placed in front of them. They do it time and time again.
I anguish about the eroding character of the Senate, and the message it sends to the American people, when this body allows itself to be stampeded into passing legislation without thorough examination. We congratulate ourselves on a job well done, and vote overwhelmingly in support of legislation, and yet we cannot even be bothered to ask questions about the changes made in conference. Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure when it comes to issues like intelligence reform.
I do not claim to know as much about this legislation as the managers of the bill, but I do know about process, and it galls me that the Senate has allowed itself to be jammed against a time deadline in considering this conference report.
This is the most far reaching reorganization of our intelligence agencies since 1947. These changes will remain for decades, and they will impact the security of our nation at countless levels. Such matters ought to be held to a higher standard of consideration by the Congress than is the case here.
This conference report has been reworked and redrafted over the course of two months in a closed door conference, and the Senate has only received a printed copy of the conference agreement less than 24 hours ago. As late as yesterday, the conferees were making changes. It is outrageous to expect Senators to read and understand a 600-page bill in less than 24 hours.
This conference agreement is very different from the legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate two months ago. For example, a number of provisions related to the Patriot Act and law enforcement powers have been inserted into this bill, which, again, have never been considered on the Senate floor.
This legislation has encountered virulent opposition since the time of its conception, and while it may enjoy the support of a majority of members here today, nobody can say with any confidence or certainty as to how this new layer of bureaucracy will affect our intelligence agencies or the security of our country. We don't know if it will enable them to better guard against a terrorist attack or whether it will cause a host of unforseen problems. And we are failing, in yet another misguided rush to judgment, to take the time and effort to find out.
The Senate barely understands how the experts line up on this bill. The 9-11 Commission is for it, that much we know. But former CIA Director George Tenet said last week that he opposes this bill. That is sobering criticism from someone who, having left government months ago, no longer has any turf to protect.
A distinguished group of national security experts wrote in September that they oppose any intelligence reform this year. That group included former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Boren; former Senator Bill Bradley; former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci; former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen; former CIA Director Robert Gates; former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre; former Senator Gary Hart; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn; former Senator Warren Rudman; and former Secretary of State George Schultz.
We do not know how these experts regard the bill today. Why should Senators forgo the valuable insight of almost every public figure who may actually be able to assess what is in this new version of intelligence reform?
I say again, let us not believe that we understand what has been included in this conference report. It is, in effect, a new bill that is very different from anything the Senate has considered to date. Common sense suggests that the Congress ought to hold hearings on the contents of this new bill, so that we may be informed by experts about its benefits and defects.
There is no reason why the Senate cannot proceed in this prudent manner early next year. Instead of viewing this conference report as the final stage of the process, we ought to consider it the starting point for debate next year. We ought to invite witnesses back to testify on it, and then allow the process to begin anew, outside the election cycle and built on the foundation of knowledge acquired this year.
Instead, we are allowing ourselves to be lulled into the fallacious belief that we must accept this bill or risk its not passing next year, with some even suggesting that a terrorist attack could result without it. That's nonsense, and don't you believe it. No legislation, alone, can forestall a terrorist attack on our country.
The momentum is strong now to reform our intelligence agencies, and I submit that the greater risk is not that the momentum will dissipate next year if this bill does not pass this week, but that the passage of this bill will remove any incentive to focus on the broader intelligence failures that have occurred outside the war on terror.
This legislation is appropriately focused on the failings of 9-11, but oblivious to the many other glaring deficiencies in our intelligence community. Our country went to war in Iraq on the shoulders of false claims about weapons of mass destruction, but this bill dances around that issue on tippy-toes. It is as though Congress is too afraid to mention the fact that faulty intelligence claims deceived the public into believing that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.
Why is Congress avoiding that critical issue? Is it because some do not wish to expose the role of the White House in feeding bad intelligence to the American people? The Founding Fathers intended Congress to be a check on the power of the Chief Executive, but increasingly Congress appears content to be merely a cheerleader for the president, depending upon which party might be in control at a given moment.
The intelligence bill fails to address the unfolding prison abuse scandals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The Armed Services Committee has held six hearings on the abuse of prisoners in U.S. military jails. There is mounting evidence that the CIA had some hand in the mistreatment of detainees. The Red Cross has reported on the illegal practices of U.S. intelligence agencies holding "ghost detainees" in secret prisons. Why is this intelligence bill silent on such outrageous policies? How can Congress claim to fix what is wrong with our intelligence agencies if this major piece of legislation doesn't even address such colossal intelligence failures?
The only way to reduce the risk of such failures is to ensure the accountability of this new Intelligence Director to the people's representatives in the Congress. It is Congress that must make the decision to declare war, and it is the Congress that is responsible for the oversight of this new Intelligence Program to help guard against future intelligence failures. It is paramount that the Congress do everything possible to ensure itself access to timely, objective intelligence. Yet, that is not what we see in this legislation.
The conference agreement eliminates provisions to ensure that the Congress receives timely access to intelligence, and it also allows the White House's Office of Management and Budget to screen testimony before the Intelligence Director presents it to the Congress. Whistle blower protections for intelligence officials who report to the Congress also have been stricken from the Senate-passed bill.
The conference agreement creates senior intelligence positions, but exempts many of them from confirmation by the Senate. It eliminates the privacy and civil rights officers included in the Senate-passed bill, and it strips 18 pages of legislative text that would have created an Inspector General and Ombudsman to oversee the Intelligence Director's office. That language has been replaced with one paragraph, authorizing the Intelligence Director, at his discretion, to create or not to create an Inspector General, and provides the Director with the power to decide which, if any investigative powers, to grant the Inspector General.
That means the new Intelligence Director could exempt his office from Inspector General audits and investigations, and that the Congress would not receive reports from an objective internal auditor. The Congress is limiting its own access to vital information within this new Intelligence Office, and it will have, thereby, compromised an essential mechanism for identifying potential abuses within the new Intelligence Program.
Given the dark history of abuses of civil liberties and privacy rights by our intelligence community, I had hoped that the Congress would exercise more caution, but it has not done so in this legislation.
The 9/11 Commission recognized that its recommendations call for the government to increase its presence in people's lives, and so it wisely endorsed the creation of an independent Civil Liberties Board to defend our privacy rights and liberties. The Senate-passed bill embraced this recommendation and included additional protections to help ensure that executive agencies could not exert undue influence on the Board. This conference agreement scuttles those protections by burying the Board deep inside of the Office of the President, subjecting Board members to White House pressure.
The conferees included language making changes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the law that blurs the rules on electronic surveillance and physical searches by the U.S. government. This conference report states that the Intelligence Director shall have authority to direct or undertake electronic surveillance and physical search operations pursuant to FISA if authorized by statute or executive order. This is dangerous ground to walk when the president, through executive order, and, without the authorization of the Congress, can direct this new Intelligence Director to undertake electronic surveillance and physical search operations.
Yet another provision would make terrorist crimes subject to a rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention, which means that prosecutors won't be required to show a judge that the defendant is a flight risk. Instead, the defendant will be presumed to be a flight risk. Are Senators sure we are not trampling on the civil liberties of the American people with the hasty passage of this conference report?
Again, few, if any, Senate hearings have been held on these provisions by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. The inclusion of these provisions in Title VI, with so little examination of their real meaning, reminds me of how the Patriot Act itself was enacted: in haste, with insufficient review, and with no real understanding of its true consequences.
These are unsettling provisions, and the Senate ought to insist on its rights to consider them more carefully. The Senate has not had enough time to understand this legislation or its implications. This new Intelligence Director has been granted significant authorities, and the Congress has not done enough to ensure adequate checks on the actions of the Intelligence Director.
With regard to homeland security, the bill authorizes a significant increase in the number of border patrol agents, immigration investigators, and a significant increase in the number of beds for immigration detention. The bill also authorizes increased funding for air cargo security and for screening airline passengers for explosives. All of these are worthy goals, but the provisions are just empty promises. Last September, when I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill to fund these precise activities, the White House opposed the amendment and my Republican colleagues lined up and voted against it. Today, members will line up and vote for more empty promises.
President Bush had the opportunity to support Congressman Sensenbrenner and insist on tougher immigration reforms in this bill, but he welched. Senators talk about reforms needed to protect against terrorism, and the fact is that this bill is a hodge podge of empty border security promises that the Administration has no intention of funding, and that will only encourage the kind of illegal immigration that leaves our country wide open to terrorists.
It may well be that the only problem that this bill will actually fix is one of politics. Passing this bill in the waning hours of the 108th Congress means that, for all intents and purposes, intelligence reform will be removed from the agenda of the next Congress. By passing this bill today, the Senate will be giving political cover to those who wish to dismiss calls for more thorough reform of intelligence agencies to fix problems that are not addressed in the legislation, including the Iraq WMD fiasco and the abuse of prisoners in secret detention facilities.
Intelligence reform should be done right the first time. But the actual implementation of this bill will be shrouded in secrecy and hidden from public scrutiny. Under this conference report, the total amount of intelligence spending will remain classified, so the American people may never know if the President is short-changing the reform effort that this bill requires. Senators ought not be so willing to rush this bill through, knowing that it may serve as political cover for an Administration that has a sorry history of promising big reform efforts that it never funds.
The 9/11 Commission's endorsement of this legislation will mean nothing if these so-called reforms lead to future intelligence failures.
What the American people will remember is that the Congress abdicated its role to protect their security interests. The American people will remember that the Congress empowered an unelected bureaucrat while doing little else to protect against future intelligence failures.
This process has been hurried and rushed from the beginning, and it has been tainted ever since the decision was made to tie its consideration to a political schedule.
When the 9/11 Commission needed more time to conduct its investigations into the September 11 attacks, the Congress acted magnanimously in granting a two month extension. Senators said at the time: "It would be counterproductive to deny the commission the extra two months it now says it needs to complete its investigations...we cannot feel we are successfully prepared to fight and win the war on terrorism and to protect the American people at home..."
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the notion that time is a luxury reserved for the unelected members of independent commissions. What about the Senate, and the elected representatives of the people that serve in this Body? The Framers of the Constitution conceived a Senate that would resist the forces that urge us to bend with each change in the political breeze. To the contrary, the Constitution binds Senators to serve the greater causes of the Republic, and reserves the power of each member to demand more time for debate and thoughtful consideration.
Shame on us for not invoking that wisdom in claiming the additional time we need to better assess this legislation.
"Morals consist of political morals, commercial morals, ecclesiastical morals, and morals." - More Maxims of Mark Twain, Johnson, 1927
"The political and commercial morals of the United States are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet." - Mark Twain in Eruption
[b]The subject of "morals" was apparently [i]in play [/i]during the Election 2004 ... The irony is that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is the most immoral, corrupt and craven administration that our nation has ever had the misfortune to have thrust upon us after it has cheated its' way into power ... "We the People" must be very deluded indeed[i] if we fall [/i]for the traitorous Bushies' hypocritical rhetoric and sanctimonious howling about "morals" because they have none (... i.e. [i]none[/i] that are [i]any[/i] good) ... Happily, [i]not[/i] everybody is fooled ...[/b]
With the 2004 presidential election over, Americans are reflecting on and commenting about what the election really meant. One particular post-election survey showed that many voters found "morals" to be the main issue and political analysts proclaimed progressives dangerously out of touch. Another survey challenges much of the conventional wisdom and points to a new, silent majority of religious moderates, religious progressives, and other non-traditional religious voters who hold similar moderate to progressive views on domestic and national security issues. What values motivate Americans? Citizens from around the country are weighing in on the meaning of "morals" and Election 2004.
[b]Cleveland, Ohio – The Plain Dealer
[u]Interpreting the vote along morality lines – Link Unavailable[/u][/b]
[i]November 14, 2004[/i]
"I would like to remind our representatives in Washington and Columbus that a moral agenda is more than defending the sanctity of marriage."
"As Hubert Humphrey said in 1977, 'The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'"
[b]Baltimore, Md. – The Baltimore Sun
[u]Don't forget about the religious left – Link Unavailable[/u][/b]
[i]November 8, 2004[/i]
"I am writing to express my chagrin at the usurpation of the phrase 'moral values' by the religious right and to remind the politicians and pundits that there is a 'religious left' as well. We too have strong moral values."
"We believe that one of the most important gifts of our Creator is free will … and that to impose our choices on others is not only wrong, but a denigration of that gift."
"Nonetheless, I believe it is time for the religious left to step out of the closet and try to be heard above the din of those who would speak for us."
[b]St. Louis, Miss. – The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
[u]Put moral values into practice[/u][/b]
[i]November 7, 2004[/i]
"Now it is time to put these 'moral values' to work. We have 45 million people with no health insurance. We have 35 million people living below the poverty line. Some elderly must choose between food and medicine or heat and medicine."
"Morals and family values mean caring for the vulnerable in our society. If we cannot translate these values into actions, they are just meaningless words."
"I challenge those who hold pro-family, pro-life values to protect all life including the poor, the elderly and children. If you can put your moral values into action, I believe we can be united this country."
[b]Milwaukee, Wis. – The Journal Sentinel
[u]Our 'mainstream' is actually quite diverse[/u][/b]
[i]November 6, 2004[/i]
"…please don't tell us that the values of half of the people who live in the United States - including the majority of people in Wisconsin and 19 other states - are not part of the 'mainstream.' The advancement of this erroneous idea is a misleading and divisive public relations tool, not to mention a great example of 'fuzzy math.'"
"No one group has a monopoly on moral values - and the 'mainstream' in this country is much wider and more diverse than some would have us believe."
"If Bush is truly interested in uniting a nation he helped divide with a bitterly antagonistic presidential campaign, he needs to recognize the values of all American citizens - regardless of age, race, gender, religious orientation or political party affiliation."
[b]Washington, D.C. – The Washington Post
[u]Where Is Charity for Our Troops?[/u][/b]
[i]November 29, 2004[/i]
"When I discovered that our wounded GIs … needed certain simple things to help make their recovery easier – snap-on pants for use when legs are put in metal "cages," with rods holding the bones in place; zippered hooded sweatshirts; phone cards; postage stamps; carry-on luggage for when they are transferred or discharged – I appealed to friends to help me provide some of these things by Thanksgiving."
"Why can't our government provide these simple things?"
"If snap-on pants make recovery from smashed legs or amputations easier, why not issue them?"
"If our new Congress and our president got elected on 'moral values,' perhaps they need to remember, 'And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity'" (I Corinthians 13).
[b]Milwaukee, Wis. – The Journal Sentinel
[u]There are two kinds of values – Link Unavailable[/u][/b]
[i]November 6, 2004[/i]
"Traditionally, Republicans have emphasized personal values, such as chastity, honesty, hard-working habits, etc.; Democrats, on the other hand, have emphasized societal values, such as affordable medical care, adequate salaries for workmen, no transfer of money from the poor to the wealthy, etc."
"Let us hope that President Bush does not forget societal values during the next four years of his tenure."
[b]Seattle, Wash. – The Seattle Post Intelligencer
[u]It's troubling to learn what drove the election[/u][/b]
[i]November 4, 2004[/i]
"Many of us, about half of the nation, are disappointed, sad and concerned today."
"What I am surprised about is the reporting about being an election about moral values."
"What moral value represents the attempt to deny gays and lesbians their rights?"
"What moral value represents the fact that millions have lost their health insurance?"
"What moral value represents the destruction of the environment?"
"What moral value represents the denying of civil liberties?"
"What moral value represents infringement of women's reproductive rights?"
"Our forefathers founded our country on the notion that authority is not always to be listened to and followed. Thus, we must take a lesson from them and challenge the shabby morality and failed policies of our government. It is time to reject their vanity and dishonesty. It is time to pursue our passion for democracy and our vision for justice. It is not only time, but it is our responsibility. Are we really that scared of how our government might react? What are they gonna do? Ground us?" - Who's Your Daddy?, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
[b]There wasn't even a proper public debate on the [i]flawed intelligence bill [/i]that Bush signed into law yesterday http://www.thestate.com/mld/t... ... Last minute changes were made by Bush's GOP toadies to this[i] Big Brother legislation [/i]and "We the People" were not told what the provisions of this bill will mean for our society and what impact they will have upon our civil liberties ... The corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]are transforming our Republic into a 3rd world fascist military dictatorship ... And yet "We the People" [i]have the power [/i]to put this insane treason to a stop ... Why don't you call http://www.congress.org for the impeachment of the War Criminals Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. today on the grounds of Treason & Crimes Against Humanity ...[/b]
[b]AMY GOODMAN:[/b] Good to have you with us. Can you talk about your concerns about the bill that President Bush is about to sign?
[b]ROBERT DREYFUSS:[/b] Well, I think first of all, you need to put it in context. After 9/11, and since then, there's been a stampede toward creating a surveillance society, toward creating a larger and more powerful intelligence community and merging the CIA and the FBI. We saw that in the PATRIOT Act that passed 99-1 in the Senate. We saw it again with this latest intelligence bill, which comes, by the way, after a tremendous expansion of the U.S. intelligence community. The budget -- and of course these figures are somewhat in doubt because they're so secret -- but the budget apparently for the intelligence community has gone from something like $26 or $27 billion before 9/11, to about $40 billion today. So, there's been a gigantic expansion of the intelligence community already.
Now, as sort of part of a political football debate in Congress, the 9/11 commission recommendations have basically, with some changes, been enacted into law, which leads to yet another expansion, not only of the size of the intelligence community, but of the scope of the intelligence community. It creates, just like the PATRIOT Act did, new powers for the federal government, creates a centralization of the intelligence community under what they're calling a National Intelligence Director. And it was basically rushed through Congress with almost no voice being raised about the kind of concerns that I have about this bill. In fact, all of the opposition to it, at least if you read the newspaper accounts of this, was coming from the Pentagon, which feared that this new Intelligence Director would agglomerate too much power, reducing the Pentagon's control over its share of the intelligence community activity and budget. Once that was resolved through a compromise, there was nobody, I think, with the exception of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, who even blinked about the dangers in this bill. I'm -- I frankly -- I'm shocked that no Democrats have gotten up to scream about this. In fact, they all saw it as some sort of a perverse triumph over the White House to have enacted this bill. Meanwhile, I think it's just yet another part of the pendulum, which is continuing still to swing away from civil liberties, and toward a surveillance state because of the alleged threat of terrorism since 9/11.
It creates, just like the PATRIOT Act did, new powers for the federal government, creates a centralization of the intelligence community under what they're calling a National Intelligence Director. And it was basically rushed through Congress with almost no voice being raised about the kind of concerns that I have about this bill. In fact, all of the opposition to it, at least if you read the newspaper accounts of this, was coming from the Pentagon, which feared that this new Intelligence Director would agglomerate too much power, reducing the Pentagon's control over its share of the intelligence community activity and budget. Once that was resolved through a compromise, there was nobody, I think, with the exception of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, who even blinked about the dangers in this bill. I'm -- I frankly -- I'm shocked that no Democrats have gotten up to scream about this. In fact, they all saw it as some sort of a perverse triumph over the White House to have enacted this bill. Meanwhile, I think it's just yet another part of the pendulum, which is continuing still to swing away from civil liberties, and toward a surveillance state because of the alleged threat of terrorism since 9/11. " READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW HERE http://www.democracynow.org/a... .
"Life is made up, not of great sacrifices or duties, but of little things, in which smiles, and kindnesses, and small obligations, given habitually, are what win and preserve the heart and secure comfort." - Humphrey Davy (English chemist, 1778-1829)
[b]"We the People"[i] "live in interesting times"[/i] (a Chinese Curse) whereby the best and brightest ideas that represented the Enlightenment which under-pin the foundation of our nation, and our Founding Fathers' noble vision of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for All; is tragically being undermined and replaced with the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]greed-ridden, rich & priviledged take-all neo-fascism, with no care for citizens in need -- no care for the future of people, the environment or our great heritage -- no care for the obligation that those with power and wealth have to be responsible, moral and caring guardians & care-takers of our system of government to ensure equity, fairness and the general welfare of All of our citizens ... [/b]
Is America better off now than it was a year ago? I'm sure everyone has a quick answer, but the Drum Major Institute's Year in Review http://www.drummajorinstitute...*/2775 provides you with the hard facts, evidence, and analysis to back it up.
From changes in rules governing overtime to the proposed gutting of the Community Reinvestment Act, the DMI http://www.drummajorinstitute... Review offers a scathing indictment of the national Administration.
In fact, with top-level support for the outsourcing of jobs and federal inaction on the skyrocketing costs of health care and higher education, this Administration showed a staggering disinterest in reversing the squeeze on America's middle class http://www.alternet.org/story... , content to allow our nation to be divided into those with vast wealth and then everyone else.
At the same time, the Year in Review highlights the success of local organizations and policymakers from both parties to expand access to affordable prescription drugs, stall the steady encroachment of big-box mega-stores into middle-class communities, raise the minimum wage http://www.thenation.com/doc.... , and provide entry for immigrant children to attain a higher education--all of which the President would not do.
The DMI 2004 Year in Review http://www.drummajorinstitute...*/2775 also offers its take on the best and worst in public policy, a recap of the 2004 national election (how divided are we, really?), a 2004 Injustice Index (the real state of the union, by the numbers), report recommendations, a highlight of efforts on the frontlines in five states (from California's struggle against Wal-Mart to Washington, DC's struggle for taxation with representation), and more. Click here http://www.drummajorinstitute...*/2775 to download and circulate the full report.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attempted to diminish a troop's concern that the army was short of fully armored vehicles, saying, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can still be blown up." http://www.dod.gov/transcript... Of course, when the Defense Secretary comes to Iraq, he travels in fully "up-armored" vehicles. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...+b+9yVeoxQ&pagewanted=pri nt&position=
[b]Rumsfeld is discredited, incompetent, arrogant, craven and corrupt ... Rummy should resign in the best interests of the United States of America [i]as well as [/i]the U.S. Military that he has exploited, abused and squandered [i]via [/i]his inept "planning"; insane ideology; and, outright corruption in the service of corporate interests over the well-being of our U.S. troops ... But what is[i] even more bizarre [/i]is that the stupid Bush and callous Cheney haven't fired the creep ... "We the People" must conclude that War Criminals Bush and Cheney are [i]as[/i] guilty of committing Crimes Against Humanity[i] as [/i]Rumsfeld-- and all of these neo-fascist monsters should be impeached ...[/b]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's condescending remarks http://www.americanprogressac... to American troops last week in Kuwait have sparked a barrage of criticism from fellow conservatives in recent days. Over the weekend, [b]Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)[/b] claimed the "irresponsible" Rumsfeld had "dismissed his generals… [and] all outside influence," http://transcripts.cnn.com/TR... while [b]Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)[/b] said he had "no confidence" http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... in Rumsfeld, citing "very strong differences of opinion."[b] Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf [/b]has confessed to being "angry" at Rumsfeld for acting like he "didn't have anything to do with the Army http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6... and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up." More recently, [b]Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)[/b], noted "increasing concerns about the secretary's leadership of the war." http://www.iht.com/bin/print_... And[b] Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) [/b]said that he is "not a fan" of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, adding, "we do need a change at some point." http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... Even GOP hawks are eyeing Rumsfeld like vultures. [b]William Kristol[/b], the prominent neoconservative cheerleader for the Iraq invasion, slammed Rumsfeld Wednesday in the [i]Washington Post[/i], arguing American soldiers "deserve a better defense secretary http://www.washingtonpost.com... than the one we have." Will these conservatives demand accountability and call for Rumsfeld's resignation? Stay tuned. In the meantime, we echo the [b]Republican Senate aide [/b]quoted in the [i]New York Times[/i]: [b]"What does it take to get fired around here?"[/b] http://www.iht.com/bin/print_...
"If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army." – Frederick the Great
[b]If our U.S. soldiers were to begin to think (and research to find out the ugly truth about the neo-con's insane, illegal and immoral war-mongerings ...) and realize that they are putting their lives[i] on the line [/i]([u]not[/u] to defend our nation ... but instead ...) based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods (so that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]can enrich itself & Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.)-- then they would refuse to be sent to die in the Middle East ...[/b]
So now the Iraqi defense minister is the latest to say that Abdel Aziz Hakim and Ayatollah Sistani’s Shiite fascist party is a Trojan Horse for Iran.
The statement from Defense Minister Hazim Shalaan is a stunner, and the fact that he is a chief actor in the puppet U.S. interim government doesn’t take away from the fundamental truth of what he had to say.
Most of today’s papers cover Shalaan’s remarks, but without the prominence they deserve.
The Sistani-backed Shiite party, organized by Hussein Shahristani, a Sistani acolyte, is the “Iranian list,” says Shalaan. “Iran is the big link in terrorism in Iraq. … I want to warn you that Iran is the most dangerous enemy to Iraq and to all Arabs. Shahristani went to Iran after 1991 and worked on building an Iranian nuclear reactor. We will not let him come back and become an Iraqi prime minister.” He warned that Iran and Sistani want “turbaned clerics to rule.”
He is exactly right—and the neoconservatives backing the rise of Shiite fascism in Iraq are to blame.
Incredibly, SCIRI—the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdel Aziz Hakim, a semi-ayatollah—is leading the Sistani list, despite its official backing from Iran. And Al Dawa (The Call) is another Shiite fascist party. Its members actually blew up the American embassy in Kuwait in 1983, with Iranian help, and carried out hundreds of assassinations and terrorist acts in Iraq between 1969 and 2003, also backed by Iran. These are the parties that President Bush wants to rule Iraq? Their leaders ought to be arrested for espionage and put on trial for terrorism by the Iraqi authorities. Hopefully, Shalaan will do just that, but Prime Minister Iyad Allawi isn’t there yet.
Unraveling all this is too complicated for a blog entry. But the important thing to understand is that the forces in Iran supporting Sistani, Shahristani, Hakim and Al Dawa are a faction of Iranians amenable to collaboration with the United States, Israel and the neocons. They are still (of course) Islamic revolutionaries, but slightly more moderate than the hardest of hardliners in Iran. They are the faction of illusory moderates that Bill Casey, Ollie North and Michael Ledeen courted during Iran-Contra in the mid-1980s, and I believe that Hashemi Rafsanjani—who is now contemplating a run for the presidency of Iran—is one of them. As I reported in yesterday’s entry http://www.tblog.com/template... , this is a Big Mistake by the neocons, who seem to relish making Big Mistakes.
" Conservatives, rather than wringing our hands, must re-engage the debate [with the neo-cons to oppose their neo-imperial warmongers in the Middle East]. All is not lost. All is never lost." - Patrick J. Buchanan
[b]"We the People" should be alarmed by the terrifying (and dishonest) neo-fascist propaganda that the neo-cons in and out of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are disseminating over the right-wing airways ... They lust for never-ending warfare in the Middle East ... This neo-hiterlian aggression is insane, immoral and illegal ... What is more, it is catastrophic for the future of our nation ...[/b]
Not many neo-conservatives are descended from the Prophet Mohammed. But you wouldn’t know it from the way many neo-cons—and their puppet in the White House—are backing the Iraqi Shiites.
The black turbans, of course, are the Shiites (mostly clergy) who make the spurious claim that they are descended in a direct bloodline from the prophet himself. Now, unless they’ve hired the genealogical whizzes from the Mormons, it’s not likely that they can prove any such thing. But among the credulous faithful, it’s a big deal. One of those who makes that claim is Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Iranian-connected “Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.” You wouldn’t think that anyone whose party calls for “Islamic revolution” would be invited to the White House, but Hakim has cozied up with President Bush himself in the Oval Office. Hakim also loves to snuggle with Iranian ayatollahs, and his paramilitary praetorian guard, the Badr Brigades, were armed and trained since the 1980s by Iran’s Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard.
Lots to say on this today.
The[i] New York Times [/i]has a he-said, she-said page one article on Hakim today, raising some concerns about Hakim and then knocking them down. It’s a horrible article, full of contradictions and with little to none investigative content. (Where, oh where, have the investigative reporters gone?) One glaring contradiction, unremarked on, is that it quotes Ghazi Yawar, the president of Iraq, warning that more than a million people from Iran have crossed the border to vote in the election and than Iranian money and agents are being mobilized to tilt the vote. It then reports: “But American and Iraqi officials say that many of the migrants crossing the largely unmonitored border are Iraqi Shiite families that fled Saddam Hussein’s repression.” I would point out that Yawar, the president, is not so sanguine, and he counts as an Iraqi official.
In the [i]Washington Times [/i]today, Arnaud de Borchgrave, conservative but no neocon, says that Jordanian intelligence reports that three million Iranians have entered Iraq since 2003.
The [i]New York Times [/i]piece goes on to tell readers to relax—that Shiites in Iraq don’t like Iran, that they don’t believe clerics should run the government, and that there are bitter rivalries among them. (Indeed, Hakim’s brother was blown up last year in Iraq.) All true. Yet there is no question that a great Shiite fundamentalist power is arising in Iran, Iraq and surrounding areas, and it’s all happening with American support.
In yesterday’s [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute takes all this on in a piece called: “Will Iran Win the Iraq War?” The heart of Gerecht’s piece is this: That a Shiite power in Iraq will undermine the clergy’s rule in Iran, and is part of a needed Bush administration offensive against the hard-liners in Teheran. Quote: “Such a government supported by Iraq’s Shiite establishment is a dagger aimed at Teheran’s clerical dictatorship.”
This theory, now official doctrine for the neocons, is at the heart of their Iran strategy. It counts as second Big Mistake of the Iraq war. Big Mistake No. 1 was the neocon belief that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms—instead, they welcomed us with arms. Big Mistake No. 2, now taking shape, is that Iraq’s Shiites are Good Guys who will lead a pro-American Iraq against Iran’s “clerical dictatorship.” I believe that they really believe this. But the reality is that in a Shiite-dominated Iraq, the hard-liners and the people with guns (i.e., the Badr Brigades) will take over, and they will make common cause with some of the clergy in Iran. It will be a dagger all right, but one aimed at Saudi Arabia’s Sunni state. Of course, that too is part of the long-term Israeli-neocon strategy, to overthrow the Saudi king. It’s a regional regime-change strategy (one that includes Syria of course) and it has been central to their whole Middle East policy for a decade. It is also a fantasy, with a thousand possibilities for things to go terribly wrong. Big Mistake No. 1 led to the Iraqi insurgency. Big Mistake No. 2 could lead to a Middle East inflamed by Islamic revolution in spades.
"Good art can [u]not[/u] be immoral. By good art I mean art that bears true witness, I mean the art that is most precise." - Ezra Pound
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - John Adams
[b]What this insane closure of an art exhibit in the wake of monstrous protests by neo-fascist thugs & neo-con goons shows is that [i]a chord has been struck [/i]in whatever remains of their criminal psyches ... That "We the People" don't want others to see what we don't choose to see ourselves, also shows how far we've fallen into a trap of bigotted, close-minded modern-day dictatorial 'group-think' ... Well done to Chris Savido for triggering a reaction showing us a mirror of our depraved culture led by a morally & intellectually deprived tyrant: Bush ...[/b]
A portrait of President George W. Bush using monkeys to form his image has led to the closure of a New York art exhibition over the weekend and anguished protests over freedom of expression.
"Bush Monkeys," a small acrylic on canvas by Chris Savido, created the stir at the Chelsea Market public space, leading the market's managers to close down the 60-piece show that was scheduled to stay up for the next month.
The show featured art from the upcoming issue of Animal Magazine, a quarterly publication featuring emerging artists.
"We had tons of people, like more than 2,000 people show up for the opening on Thursday night," said show organizer Bucky Turco. "Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."
Turco took the show down on Saturday and moved the art work to his small downtown Animal Gallery. Calls to the management of Chelsea Market for comment were not returned.
From afar, the painting offers a likeness of Bush, but when you get closer you see the image is made up of chimpanzees or monkeys swimming in a marsh.
Savido, 23, said he was surprised by the strong reaction to his painting, listed in the catalogue at $3,500 (1,820 pounds).
"It seems like people got a kick out of it," Savido said. "When they really see it, they almost do a double-take. I like to get a reaction from people."
The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-bred artist said he was happy for all the attention paid to his work but said the decision to shutter the exhibit was "a blatant act of censorship."
Savido plans to auction the painting and donate proceeds to an organization dedicated to freedom of expression.
"This is much deeper than art. This is fundamental American rights, freedom of speech," Savido said. "To see that something like this can happen, especially in a place like New York City is mind boggling and scary."
"War is a way of shattering to pieces...materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses... too intelligent." – George Orwell, "1984"
[b]"Will the newly energized President Bush interpret his narrow election win as public approval for his spaghetti Western-style shoot-’em-up foreign policy? Many neo-conservatives [inside and] outside the Bush administration have made noise about going after Iran. Could the swaggering sheriff be convinced by these pundits to take on the black-hatted mullahs of Iran? Let’s hope not; attacking Iran would be a bigger folly than invading Iraq." is the lede of a must-read editorial article entitled "Next Target: Iran?" http://www.antiwar.com/eland/... in which Ivan Eland poses the question that keeps us all on tender-hooks ... "We the People" must not let ourselves be fooled again by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]into another illegal and immoral war (outrageously) costing us http://www.tblog.com/template... the precious lives and treasure that is bankrupting our nation both morally and economically ...[/b]
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the US public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq.
With the US military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the US to attack Iran.
President Bush falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was linked to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and that Iraq would give weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terrorists. Senior members of the Bush administration terrified the US public with prospects of mushroom clouds going up over US cities.
Having been proved 100% wrong about Iraq, the Bush administration now claims that the nonexistent WMD are in Iran, or maybe Syria. During recent weeks the Bush administration worked overtime to terrify the US public into believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons and missiles with which to destroy American cities.
To ward off yet another gratuitous and illegal US attack on a Muslim country, Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and US experts such as Gordon Prather have exposed the Bush administration’s false claims.
But the Bush administration ignores factual truth. Bush has his own "truth," a delusional "truth" independent of all evidence.
Israel’s rightwing Likud Party regards Feith as one of its own. The[i] Jerusalem Post [/i]described Feith as "a staunch supporter of Israel" (Dec. 12). In an exclusive interview Feith told that paper that despite the intercession of Britain, France, Germany and the IAEA against a US attack on Iran, the Bush administration has not ruled out taking military action against Iran. [Feith to [i]'Post[/i]': US action against Iran can't be ruled out, By Caroline Glick]
In other words, the neocon Bush administration has already decided to attack Iran and Syria. The only question is what kind of lie can Bush use to get away with it.
But first Bush has to take over the IAEA, which has steadfastly refused to go along with Bush’s propaganda against Iran. According to the [i]Washington Post [/i](Dec. 12), the Bush administration has been tapping the telephones of the head of the IAEA, M. ElBaradei, hoping to find damaging information with which to frame, blackmail, or taint him as an Iranian ally.
Unable to find or to manufacture any evidence against ElBaradei, the Bush administration is using an orchestrated campaign of anonymous accusations in an effort to oust the IAEA director and to replace him with a US puppet.
The problem is that ElBaradei is more highly regarded than any member of the tainted Bush administration, including President Bush himself. So far Bush cannot find anyone anywhere in the world, including our British puppet, who is willing to be associated with the Bush administration’s disgraceful intentions.
The important unanswered question is: why do the neocons with their proven record of duplicity and delusion still hold the reigns of power in the Bush administration?
[b]Why isn’t Feith in prison?[/b]
Martha Stewart is in prison for "lying" about a noncrime. Feith’s lies have killed thousands. The Iraq war is based entirely on neocon lies. The war is costing the US a fortune it does not have. The war is producing US casualties comparable to those of the Vietnam War and has killed a minimum of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
The neocons have destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, alienated the entire Muslim world and made the US the most hated country on the planet.
What does Douglas Feith think the effect would be on Shi’ite Iraq of a US attack on Shi’ite Iran? The only reason the US army in Iraq has not been totally destroyed is the wait-and-see attitude of the majority Shi’ites, who expect to take control of Iraq once there is an election. If the US attacks Iran, the Iraqi Shi’ite clerics will not be able to maintain their neutrality toward the US occupation of Iraq.
The current Iraqi insurgency is drawn from Sunni ranks. Sunnis comprise only 20% of Iraq’s population. Yet, Sunnis have tied down 8 US divisions while inflicting horrendous casualties on US troops. If Bush escalates US aggression in the Middle East, he will create a larger insurgency.
Imagine the US casualty rate if the Iraqi insurgency was drawn from 80% of the population. The temporary Shi’ite insurgency of the minor cleric, Al Sadr, caused tremendous US consternation. What would be the US casualty rate if, instead of sitting on their hands, all the Shi’ites had joined the insurgency?
Iran covers almost four times the area of Iraq and has more than 2.5 times the population. If Bush attacks Iran, he will create an insurgency there as well, one that could spill over into Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Bush’s war is achieving a Shi’ite unity that will redraw Middle Eastern boundaries and eliminate secular Muslim governments. Shi’ite unity will merge with the anti-American terrorists and drive all Western expatriates out of the Middle East. Indeed, the departures are already underway. Israel will be isolated, exposed to the consequences of its aggression against the Palestinians.
Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio crazies misinform us that we are kicking terrorist butt, but in non-delusional reality, we are unifying Islam and ending forever Western influence in the Middle East.
"A black hole is a region of spacetime from which nothing can escape, even light." - Definition of Black Hole, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/us...
[b]The extravagant costs in precious human lives and U.S. taxpayer dollars to uphold the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]illegal & immoral neo-con war in Iraq are truly tragic ... Nearly 1300 U.S. Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Afghanistani & Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered in a bungled neo-fascist adventure waged by the traitorous Bush whores based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods:-- to enrich their pimps, the corporate robber-barons (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) ... There is no end in sight to the wanton & craven waste as human lives & U.S. taxpayer dollars are sucked into the neo-con Bush Crime Family's Corporate-Take-All Black Hole to enrich these neo-fascist crooks ... "We the People" should demand http://www.congress.org that War Criminal Bush be impeached from office and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity ...[/b]
The [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]reports that "Pentagon officials...will ask the Bush administration for an additional $80 billion in emergency funding http://online.wsj.com/article...,,SB110298641161299184,00 .html?mod=politics%5Ffirst %5Felement%5Fhs to help pay costs of the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan." That request would push "the total military costs, since the Iraq war began, to well over $230 billion." The additional funding "comes on top of $25 billion that Congress approved in August to help tide the Pentagon over until it could make a larger supplemental request."
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious." ~ General Smedley Butler
[b]Whether or not one agreed with Bush's illegal (and immoral) invasion of Iraq, nobody with an iota of brain-matter could deny that the handling of the war has been swamped with corruption, arrogance, and sheer-and-utter incompetence ... "We the People" should demand that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the insane neo-con fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]be impeached http://www.congress.org ...[/b]
Eighteen months after President Bush declared major combat operations were over, soldiers, National Guardsmen and reservists lack essential equipment and armor to fight the war in Iraq. The U.S. Army announced Friday it would be increasing the production of armored Humvees for American troops in Iraq by 100 a month. The steps to boost production came "despite recent assertions from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that soldiers could not be supplied with safer vehicles because Pentagon officials could not procure them faster." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) offered blistering criticism of the Secretary yesterday, saying, "I don't like the way he has done some things. I think they have been irresponsible. I don't like the way we went into Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq with enough troops. He's dismissed his general officers. He's dismissed all outside influence. He's dismissed outside counsel and advice. And he's dismissed a lot of inside counsel and advice from men and women who have been in military uniforms for 25 and 30 years." Rumsfeld's "irresponsible" policies have led to the lethal equipment shortage. As a result, the country's citizen soldiers are paying the price.
[b]FAILURE TO PLAN MEANS LACK OF EQUIPMENT:[/b] Before the war, the White House was anxious to garner support from the American people for the invasion. As a result, the administration concentrated solely on a best-case scenario in which U.S. troops would be greeted by a grateful population and the conflict would end quickly with little expense or effort. As a result, the Army today doesn't have the equipment it needs. The Pentagon, for example, originally said it would need 235 armored Humvees in Iraq. In reality, it needs 8,105, or thirty-five times the amount it predicted before the war.
[b]RELUCTANCE TO PAY WORSENS SHORTAGE:[/b] President Bush last week told the families of men and women stationed in Iraq, "we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones.'' However, a front-page story in today's Washington Post tells a different story. At the Red River Army Depot, the facility which repairs Humvees, hundreds of damaged vehicles which are desperately needed in Iraq are just sitting around waiting to be repaired. According to officials at the repair facility, this isn't the fault of the depot. Instead, "the real bottleneck may lie in Washington." Said one manager, "We'd like to produce them all today so the soldiers have their equipment. But…the reality is, there isn't the funding."
[b]NATIONAL GUARD PAYING THE PRICE:[/b] One major complaint from National Guard troops in the field has been that they have worse training and equipment than their active-duty counterparts. A new report by USA Today shows the tragic consequences: "In a reversal of trends from past wars, part-time soldiers in the Army National Guard are about one-third more likely to be killed in Iraq than full-time active-duty soldiers serving there." The statistics bear this out: the active army has seen one death for every 402 soldiers deployed. The Army Guard, however, sees "one fatality for every 264 soldiers who have served, or about a 35% higher death rate." This is a dramatic shift from the past, when the part-time citizen's army was less at risk. In the first Gulf War, for example, the Army Guard suffered no fatalities.
[b]SOLDIERS PUNISHED FOR EQUIPMENT SHORTAGE:[/b] The Washington Post reports, "At a time when some U.S. troops in Iraq are complaining they have to scrounge for equipment," six reservists from Ohio are being court-martialed for taking abandoned Army vehicles for parts they needed to carry out their own mission in Iraq. The reservists, unable to deliver fuel in the vehicles they had been provided, "took two tractor-trailers and stripped parts from a five-ton truck that had been abandoned in Kuwait by units that had already moved into Iraq." In return, they've been "charged with theft, destruction of Army property." The military maintains that, after delivering the fuel, the reservists should have tracked down the trucks' original unit and returned the vehicles.
[b]PLATOON REFUSES, LIVES:[/b] In October, members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were "disciplined and demoted" for refusing to carry out a highly risky mission with their inadequately protected vehicles. The unit which eventually did carry out the mission was, in fact, hit. One soldier on that mission, Sgt. Scott Montgomery, was wounded by shrapnel in the attack. "Had we not had armor on our vehicle," he said, "my entire crew would have been killed." He further charged, "If the 343rd Quartermaster unit had taken that convoy with unarmored vehicles, there would certainly have been more unnecessary deaths of U.S. soldiers."
From USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/... : "In a reversal of trends from past wars, part-time soldiers in the Army National Guard are about one-third more likely to be killed in Iraq than full-time active-duty soldiers serving there, a USA TODAY analysis of Pentagon statistics shows.
"According to figures furnished by the military branches, the active Army has sent about 250,000 soldiers to Iraq, and 622 have been killed. That works out to one death for every 402 soldiers who have deployed. About 37,000 Army Guard soldiers have been sent to Iraq since the war began and 140 have died there — one fatality for every 264 soldiers who have served, or about a 35 percent higher death rate."
Another Iraq Exit Strategy, What is so strategic about leaving a place that [i]you[/i] hold hostage?, http://www.antiwar.com/jeremy...
"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it." - Thomas Jefferson
[b]Bush and Cheney have wantonly squandered the good will that the entire world community showered upon us in the aftermath of 9/11 ... But, what is much, [i]much worse[/i], is that the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has treated the world with disdain & contempt-- a world which had held the U.S. in high regard (even if other nations didn't always agree with us); and now the majority of people throughout the world have lost their faith, trust and respect for our corrupt & incompetent leadership ... "We the People" should be demanding the impeachment http://www.congress.org of Bush because he is a War Criminal who has committed heinous Crimes Against Humanity, and thereby, we can re-gain our role of the moral leader in the world community, showing that we indeed do hold the rule of law protecting Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness, above all else ... [/b]
[u][b]Europeans take dim view of Bush re-election[/b][/u]
President Bush’s re-election was viewed negatively by a majority of people in several European countries — including those in Britain, America’s strongest ally in the war in Iraq, Associated Press polling found.
The president was not the only one viewed unfavorably. Americans generally were seen in an unfavorable light by many in France, Germany and Spain, countries not supportive of U.S. Iraq policies.
Bush pledged soon after his re-election victory Nov. 2 that he would work to “deepen our trans-Atlantic ties with the nations of Europe.” He plans a trip to Europe in February.
The president, and Americans generally, have plenty of work to do to win over Europeans, according to international AP-Ipsos polls.
Polling in the United States as well as Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain was done for the AP by Ipsos, an international polling company.
[b]Negativity extends to Americans in general[/b]
As reflected by his re-election, a majority in the United States viewed Bush favorably. Just over half in this country said they were hopeful and were not disappointed after Bush’s re-election.
At least seven in 10 in France, Germany and Spain said they have an unfavorable view of the U.S. president. Just over half of the French and Germans said they have an unfavorable view of Americans in general, and about half of Spaniards felt that way.
Especially inclined to have an unfavorable opinion of Bush in those countries were people between ages 18 and 24. A majority of all respondents in France, Germany and Spain said they were disappointed that Bush won a second four-year term, defeating Democrat John Kerry.
The rift with longtime allies France and Germany is the most serious in years, and relations with Spain are particularly frosty after Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq last April.
“Contrary to what usually happens just after a victory, George W. Bush’s re-election hasn’t improved his image in European public opinion,” said Gilles Corman, director of public affairs for Ipsos-Inra in Belgium.
The polls suggest an increasing lack of understanding about Americans in Europe, rather than a surge of anti-Americanism, said Corman, who studies public opinion trends in Europe.
[b]‘Disappointment and surprise’[/b]
“The predominant feelings about Bush’s re-election in the European countries are disappointment and surprise more than anger,” he said, noting that anger about Bush’s re-election was higher in Spain.
“Above all, they appear to be worried about the consequences of this election,” Corman said.
Polling found that Bush is viewed favorably by a majority of people in the United States. But that is not the case in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
A majority of people in Britain, America’s strongest ally in the Iraq war, have an unfavorable view of Bush. Six in 10 Britons said they were disappointed he was re-elected.
In Canada, about the same number of Canadians said they were disappointed with the re-election. The president was asked last month during a trip to Canada about various polls that show Canadians and Americans drifting apart.
“We just had a poll in our country where people decided that the foreign policy of the Bush administration ought to — stay in place for four more years,” he replied.
While just over half of the people in France, Germany and Spain had an unfavorable view of Americans, but a solid majority in Australia (69 percent), Britain (60 percent), Canada (80 percent) and Italy (56 percent) expressed a favorable opinion.
[b]War allies have brighter view[/b]
Australia, Britain and Italy are U.S. allies in the Iraq war. Canada did not send troops to support the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq but did send them to Afghanistan.
“The negative view that Canadians have of George Bush does not extend to Americans in general,” said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs-North America.
In Australia, seven in 10 surveyed had a favorable view of Americans; four in 10 had a positive impression of Bush. He got favorable reviews from more Australians than from those in any other country polled aside from the United States.
Randall Pearce, general manager of Ipsos Mackay Public Affairs, said Prime Minister John Howard’s public backing of Bush appeared to help the president. A majority of Howard’s supporters had a favorable view of Bush.
[b]Sources:[/b]
The AP-Ipsos polls of about 1,000 adults in each country were taken between Nov. 19-27 and have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...
"Today the real test of power is not capacity to make war but capacity to prevent it." - Anne O'Hare McCormick
[b]Iran is a nation that comprises 68 million people (approximately 3 times the population of Iraq) and is 636,293 square miles in land mass (nearly 4 times the size of Iraq) -- and the insane neo-con fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are now [i]beating the war drums [/i]to invade Iran!!! ... The U.S. military is over-stretched in Iraq[i] already[/i], and[i] that [/i]illegal and immoral war has been badly (criminally) bungled by the same incompetents, corrupt buffoons and arm-chair chicken-hawks howling for more warfare in the Middle East ... Yet, there is no legal, moral and/or ethical basis for war with Iran ... Are "We the People" going to fall for the same neo-con lies, deceptions and falsehoods perpetrated by the traitorous Bush regime as they cravenly proceed towards Armageddon??? ...[/b]
Amid all the talk about the supposed crisis in Iran, I haven’t heard anyone say what the legal basis would be for an attack on Iran. Is there any? Is there an international lawyer in the house?
My guess is: No. The invasion of Iraq was the [i]de facto [/i]implementation of the Bush administration’s preventive/pre-emptive war policy. But the neocons cooked up a legal justification, based on Iraq’s supposed violations of UN Security Council resolutions. (I personally interviewed the general counsel of the U.S. NSC about this, and listened in amazement as he spun the tale of how spurious Iraqi violations meant that the United States could invade Iraq in defiance of international law.)
Is this why the neocons are so hot to get the Iran nuclear issue to the UN? Usually they attack the UN lustily, but now they are pushing the issue there. Is it because they are seeking some vaguely worded UN resolution that they can use to invade or bomb Iran? As far as I can tell, Iran has every right in the world to develop nuclear weapons, since last time I checked it was a sovereign nation. We can be mad about it, but I don’t there is the slightest legal justification for an attack.
Of course, that doesn’t stop Bush and the denizens of Neocon World. Here’s the entire text of a UPI release http://interestalert.com/bran...%20News today:
... "WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- The U.S. Defense Department reportedly held simulations to determine the effectiveness of an attack on Iran, the Middle East Newsline reported Sunday.
The [i]Atlantic Monthly[/i] revealed the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The war games also included a ground invasion." ...
A silly piece in the [i]New Republic[/i]—a cover story no less—by Franklin Foer, purports to be an account of how the neocons are divided about how to deal with Iran. Maybe they haven’t settled on a specific plan yet (though the outlines are pretty clear), but Foer goes on and on about some supposed big division among them. Perhaps Foer ought to interview the neocons that run the [i]New Republic [/i]first.
As the [i]Times[/i] reported over the weekend, the United States (led by neocon-in-chief at the State Department John Bolton) and Europe are still at loggerheads over Iran, with the United States still trying to undermine the deal that Europe is trying to consolidate with Teheran. The article included this stunner http://www.iht.com/articles/2... :
... "U.S. officials say, however, they are suspicious of any partial deals that do not encompass an end to Iran’s support of insurgents in Iran and to groups that carry out attacks on Israeli citizens, including Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and militant factions within the Palestine Liberation Organization." ...
Huh? So it’s not enough to get Iran’s agreement to slow down its nuclear program, but Washington wants Iran to change its whole foreign policy and to bail out the United States’ bungled war in Iraq? Including a poison pill like this is obviously designed to scuttle an agreement.
"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." - Martin Luther King, Jr
[b]"Instead of democracy, U.S. policies have generated mistrust, hostility, and opposition, compounding the sense of degradation, indignity, and humiliation often found in the Islamic world. Both standing governments and legitimate opposition movements in these countries have come to see U.S. policies as a major obstacle to homegrown efforts to promote political reform. In the Islamic world, close association with the United States has become a kiss of death – figuratively and literally." says Ronald Bruce St. John in his excellent article entitled "Iraq Blowback Is Global and Growing" on http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s... ... "We the People" should demand an end to this insane neo-hitlerian war in Iraq waged by the neo-fascist Bush regime populated by neo-con thugs very similar indeed to the Nazi ideologues who promoted an imperial doctrine in Germany, in the late 1930s/early 1940s, resulting in death and destruction [i]too[/i] ... [/b]
[u][b]No Apologies For Dissent: Truth And Cowardice[/b][/u]
My November 23rd article "Loves, Hates, Kills, Dies," about an episode of fawning imperial war journalism at Time Magazine (see http://blog.zmag.org/index.ph... weblog/entry/loves _hates_kills_dies), continues to evoke angry response from militarist quarters. In the essay, I provided extensive quotes from a Time article that spoke in glowing terms about the military heroics of Army Staff Seargent David Bellavia (DB). The chilling Time piece showed Bellavia in the glorious act of killing a handful of Iraqi "insurgents," portraying Bellavia in practically hero-worshipping terms as a warrior prince who is ready to discuss the Renaissance during breaks in imperial violence.
"You're a better man than me," one of Bellavia's comrades tells him after DB dispatches numerous insurgents to an early grave.
The US troops in Fallujah, Time relates, refer to themselves as "Terminators."
My article also noticed the curious, somewhat surreal and interesting juxtaposition between this rugged hyper-masculinist war coverage and the softer, more officially feminine consumerism and bourgeois wealth-worship on the advertising pages of the same Time issue.
I also mentioned the curious combination in the same issue of an urgent story about the melting Arctic with a large number of advertisements for SUVs and min-vans, two large contributors to the alarming, "man-made" petro-capitalist global warming that is causing the dangerous rollback of polar ice and permafrost.
Since this article was published, US military supporters and empire defenders have written to tell me that:
* I have no right to criticize a man (DB) who is fighting to save his own life and my life too...
* Bellavia did not declare war; he is just following orders, doing his job and trying to save himself and his men.
* I am "a coward who hides behind a keyboard" because I am not fighting in Iraq.
* I am "a traitor."
* I should be "ashamed" of myself because I criticize the war in Iraq.
* I am "free because SSG Bellavia is doing what he's doing. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is protecting me, making me "free." I owe my freedom to the war in Iraq.
* It's those "terrorists" who are hurting the Iraq people. They are terrible people who be-head other human beings.
* "We" (America that is) are there to "free" Iraq and to help the the Iraqi people.
* I should get on a plane to Iraq and "see what kind of mercy" those Iraqi terrorists would show me. "You won't be singing their praises when they be-head you and show the film of your be-heading on CNN," notes one writer, "between advertisements for cars and diapers."
Many of the letters I received come from people with friends and/or relatives in the military.
I am going to refer people who write these notes to the following response letter, posted here for whatever literary and anti-war merit it may possess and to save me from having to cut and paste this letter again and again.
I could say a lot more than what's here but this will have to do for now....
[b]DEAR MILITARISTS AND EMPIRE SUPPORTERS WHO ARE ANGERED BY MY ARTICLE "LOVES, HATES, KILLS, DIES":[/b]
I offer my sincere apology for any and all mis-representation of SSG Bellavia and his comrades. Of course he and they are fighting for their lives. I hardly blame them for that. Of course they did not declare the war. I blame Bush and his cabal and his many elite enablers, including John Kerry, for that.
The article was not mainly about SSG Bellavia. It was mostly about the practically fascist way Time Magazine was presenting the bloody and illegal US attack on Fallujah. And it was about the surreal juxtaposition within "mainstream" media between terrible hyper-masculinized violence and officially feminized consumerism. The embedded Time journalist made DB the lead protagonist in his write-up and that's why DB is so prominent in mine.
Have you written to Time to complain about their provocative portrayal of SSG Bellavia, deleting any context on who makes the big and murderous decisions on what happens and who kills and dies on the great chess-boards of empire?
You have no legitimate basis for calling me a coward simply because I dare to oppose a specific imperial "war" (invasion and occupation that is) and the way it is being sold and because I oppose the murder and mayhem that is being carried out in the name of my country. My favorite peace button says "Not in My Name."
"My country right or wrong" is Nazism. Uncle Sam is wrong right now in Iraq; dead wrong. This is my opinion and it's the opinion of the very preponderant share of the human race.
I think US actions in Iraq are quite literally criminal but for what its worth I do not locate the core criminality in the activity of the front-line troops. I see the real criminality ----and the real cowardice, by the way --- in the White House and the Pentagon.
I am sorry if my article seems to primarily blame Bellavia and his embattled comrades in Fallujah. That's not my position at all.
I suspect that I was raised and socialized differently, with different loyalties and commitments, than you and (perhaps) your friends or relatives who are in the military. I am sure you are a good person but it seems that my values, for whatever accidental reasons, are much less nationalistic and much less trusting of what I see as illegitimate national authority, ie, Bush and Rumsfeld and the other chickenhawks who have put DB and many others in grave and unnecessary, illegitimate danger.
My primary reference group is the human race, and yours seems to be the nation state --- "your" (you think) nation state, that is.
I will never support or acquiesce to the prosecution of a war that I see as illegitimate, like this one or like Vietnam. This war is, in my opinion, transparently imperial and unjust, something that is well understood in every corner of the planet except the American "homeland."
I think parents should make sure that the White House is not allowed to use their children as fodder in its widely documented plan to rule the world by force....a plan that has used 9/11 as its Reichstag fire: justification for increasing empire abroad and inequality and repression at home. I think your son/husband/father/mother /daughter in Iraq is being terribly exploited and needlessly endangered by US policymakers.
I think children should be raised and educated to make the distinction between legitimate patriotism and racist imperialism. "Never," we should tell them, "let someone call you a coward because you refuse to join a fight that you know to be wrong."
There's an interesting group of people who think that the US invasion is not about Iraq's liberation at all but is instead about imperial control over strategic oil reserves: the Iraqi people, about 1 percent of whom think this invasion is about spreading democracy. Yes, one percent.
The entire world agrees by a huge margin. And the rest of the planet is much closer to the truth than you, I'm afraid.
Somehow we Americans seem to think that God and/or History has granted "us" (well, our rulers) some exceptional right to shred basic international laws and norms with murderous impunity.
This dangerous and toxic belief will come back and hurt us, at home and abroad again and again. Many millions will suffer, at home and abroad, as the world descends ever further into barbarism with Uncle Sam all too often leading the charge and setting the tone and pace.
Most of the US populace now says that the invasion of Iraq --- which is being implemented about as poorly as any imperial occupation in history, by the way --- was "a mistake." And the great majority of the American people polled in a recent social science opinion survey told the conservative Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that we should simply leave Iraq and indeed the Middle East if most of the people in that country and in that region want us to leave.
Well, Iraqis and Arabs want us out. The decent and noble thing is to leave....militarily that is.
In terms of medical and social services and re-building, we owe the country and the region many billions worth of dollars of assistance and reparations to compensate not just for this latest war but also for the first war on Iraq and for the devastating consequences of more than a decade of murderous economic sanctions and bombings.
I am also concerned with how empire deepens American inequality at home and about how the rich alone will benefit from this latest imperial campaign. And, speaking of cowardice, how many really affluent, wealthy people --- including folks from, at the highest level, the top 1 percent that owns 40 percent of American wealth --- have fought and directly killed in this noble Iraq campaign, which happens to be thoroughly illegal under Nuremberg law? If not zero, the answer is close to zero. That's interesting since rich people tended to vote strongly for the Messianic Militarist Iraq Warrior George W. Bush and to provide ample financial support to his campaign.
The great majority of people in combat roles are of lower or working-class background.
Cowardice? That's a standard, practically automatic, Pavlovian accusation that is typically made against those who oppose wars. But I'm not sure it applies. Put me in the US in 1942 and I'm signing up to fight the Nazis. Put me in Illinois in 1863 and I'm ready to join the Union Army to fight the slave power in the South. Personally, I'm not a pure pacifist.
But this "war?" The Vietnam War? Never, not on my life.
This is not cowardice; it is moral discernment. We all make our own choices, in accordance with our own values and how we were raised and socialized.
Is, say, the CEO of the Boeing Corporation (maker of the Blackhawk Helicopter and the B-2 bomber, among other hugely expensive taxpayer-financed war tools) a "coward" "hiding behind a keyboard" as he types a note say, to order up a fresh new batch of cruise missiles to pulverize Iraqi "insurgents" and families, even while he is not fighting in Iraq?
How about military planners and other officers in Pentagon rooms hitting keys that cause death, bitterness, and more terror recruits in Iraq even while these "defense" personnel sit safely in warm offices removed from the glorious Fallujah action recounted by Time and from the havoc their keystrokes cause across the world?
If you are going to start calling people "cowards" for not fighting in the war and using keyboards (does this include piano players?), then you are going to have to include a few million Americans in your charge.
But, of course, you are calling me a "coward" because (ironically enough) I dared to speak against this war and the way it's being conducted and covered. I guess that's the first thing that came to your mind --- so Pavlovian at this point. Personally, I think it's cowardly to oppose an unjust war and not to voice that opposition.
I need you and/or your friends and/or relatives in the military to protect me? Sorry, but I am capable of defending myself and I do not need your friend or relative to defend me. As I said above, moreover, I think this latest war heightens the American peoples' vulnerability. It endangers us and does not protect us.
Why would I fly to Iraq? Why would I need to worry about whether or not they would "show me mercy" if I wasn't over there occupying their country in the first place? Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. If Iraqis don't want me there than I have no business going it seems to me.
Of course some of the "insurgents" are resisting in the most chilling and vicious ways they can. Who has all the military hardware....the Bradleys, the Blackhawks, the cluster bombs, the Stealth bombers, the Daisy Cutters...(the list of "our" awesome slaughter tools goes on and on)? "We" do.
Of course some of the "insurgents" are monsters. Certainly the be-heading of hostages is unimaginably horrible. So is using bombs and missiles and artillery shells to cut Iraqi children and other noncombatants in half. The civilian casualty stories and numbers are simply horrendous in Iraq. The number of Iraqis, including large numbers of civilian so-called "collateral damage," that "we"" have killed through war and sanctions is also truly monstrous.
Who said we had the right to patrol the Mekong Delta in the 1960s or the Sunni Triangle or the Tigris and Euphrates in the 21st century? The world is not our oyster. We do not own other nations.
Americans were considered to be terrorists, for daring to resist imperial occupation, during the late 1770s and early 1780s.
Bush and Rumsfeld are liars: Iraq was no threat to you or I. No threat. Zero. Iraqis, including Saddam, had nothing to do with 9/11, contrary to what they've been telling your son/father/friend/daughte r/husband (etc;) in boot camp and in the field.
DB sounds like a tough and smart man who stands up for himself and his comrades.
Good. We need his sort of energy and skills to be directed against the privileged few, the "Masters of War" that Bob Dylan wrote about in 1962...the 'elite' chiefs who "hide in their mansions while young people's blood flows out of their bodies and gets buried in the mud. They fasten the triggers for the others to fire and sit back and watch while the death count gets higher." They are the cowards we need to focus on a bit more, I think.
"They" are the rulers of the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower left the White House rightly warning us about in 1960.
WHEN are you all going to learn to direct your anger away from the officially designated overseas Evil Others (generally non-white people you refuse to seriously understand) you are told to hate and away from people at home who are trying to stop the madness and make a more peaceful and just world --- fellow Americans you smear as "cowards" and "traitors" ---- and start to deal with the real masters, the real rulers, the real cowards, the "elite" possessors of concentrated wealth and power, who hire their violence for a pittance and enjoy the comfort of their safe and luxurious estates while bitter and damaged young men return from distant, unjust battlefields with missing limbs and shattered souls?
All of our troops who come back and who have killed --- and it's a very one sided war, with more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths to date ---- will suffer enormous negative consequences from the violence they were ordered to inflict. If you are currently attached in way to a US soldier in Iraq, I wish you strength and support as your friend/loved one/relative struggles with recovery and return.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid that George "Fortunate Son" Bush will be out on the golf course ("now watch me hit this drive") and Rumsfeld is preparing his criminal war memoirs in the quiet seclusion of a comfortable den. Interesting. As a young man, George "Bring 'Em On" (remember that comment?) Bush was content to let other poorer and browner men than him fight a war that he supported. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in Vietnam. Countless others were crippled and maimed. Many never really made the transition back; many Vietnam War veterans have killed themselves, haunted by the memories of what they saw, felt, and did in another imperial war ordered by Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, George "Mission Accomplished" (that was another good Dubya slogan, wasn't it) Bush has played a lot of golf, taken a lot of vacations, and generally enjoyed the unjust privilege of birth into super-concentrated wealth and special family name.
But he's not a "coward" in your mind, I strongly suspect. That's curious.
The current 'war' is actually endangering Americans and threatening what's left of world stability so that American big shot policy makers can secure more control of strategic oil resources and thereby more effectively (they hope) rule the world. It's all, well largely, about tightening the imperial stranglehold on that pivotal Persian Gulf petro-spigot.
Many troops know this very well. I hope more and more of them will rebel and refuse to engage in the current unjust and immoral occupation of Iraq.
So, no, sorry I am not ashamed of myself or of the many other Americans who think like I do about all of this. I am an American who takes seriously the eloquent words of James Madison:
"THE FETTERS IMPOSED ON LIBERTY AT HOME HAVE EVER BEEN FORGED OUT OF THE WEAPONS PROVIDED FOR THE DEFENSE AGAINST REAL, PRETENDED, OR IMAGINARY DANGERS ABROAD" (1799).
Empire does not protect us; it oppresses and divides us. Your letter to me is symptomatic of this, I think.
Here's another quotation, sent to me by a reader in Spain: "Naturally the common people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
That's from Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Reich Marshall, reflecting on how imperialists can use fear and the charge of cowardice and treason to whip the people into support of wars of conquest. It happens to be a good description of Bush administration rhetoric and propaganda strategy during the last three plus years.
As is generally known across the policy-making elite, the Iraqi danger was thoroughly imaginary --- something Madison and other Founders would immediately grasp.
If anything, moreover, Iraq has been turned into a dangerous state, a hotbed of terrorism, precisely by this illegal and immoral and murderous US invasion. We are breeding untold millions of new terrorists, something that was predicted in key establishment circles and pointed out by the conservative Catholic CIA Middle Eastern area expert "Anonymous" in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror.
"Anonymous" has recently been purged by the Bush administration, along with others who made the mistake of retaining some minimal commitment to non-partisan truth-telling in government.
Truth-telling is not cowardice.
Support the troops: bring them home.
American troops: resist this unjust war.
[b]Sincerely,
Paul Street[/b]
P.S. You didn't say anything about the global warming issue.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Paul Street is an urban social policy researcher in Chicago, IL. He is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, November 2004)., http://www.zmag.org/content/s...
"The detainees, who cannot consult lawyers at the hearings, are not allowed to see the classified evidence or learn the sources of the allegations against them. Several contend that American interrogators physically and psychologically abused them until they made false, incriminating statements about themselves and fellow prisoners, according to their statements to the tribunals or their lawyers. In papers released Thursday, an Australian detainee who faces charges of war crimes asserted that U.S. interrogators repeatedly beat him while he was blindfolded, injected him with drugs against his will and offered him a prostitute in exchange for information about his fellow prisoners. "I can't believe these things can happen, that they can come and take your husband away at night and, without reason or evidence, destroy your family, ruin your dreams," Nadja Dizdarevic, the wife of a Bosnian Muslim seized by U.S. authorities in January 2002, wrote to the federal court. Her husband, Boudella al Hajj, was taken into custody on the steps of a Sarajevo court that had found him not guilty of terrorism charges. "Why? Why are they doing this to us?" Dizdarevic asked." - Guantanamo Detainees, http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[b]Alberto Gonzales isn't fit to be Attorney General ... Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org and express your outrage at this corrupt toady being put forward by his paymaster Bush the War Criminal, as a high-ranking government servant who is supposed to uphold our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights-- and yet, has a disgraceful track-record for undermining the rule of law on behalf of the Bush Crime Family ... "We the People" seem no longer to be outraged at the craven corruption, dishonesty and lack of integrity displayed by the neo-fascist Bush neo-cons ... But, perhaps it is time for us to be outraged again ...[/b]
When William Bennett penned a book carrying this title, on the supposed moral decay of America (written in part, one assumes, in a comped room at one of the casino hotels he frequented in his search for virtue), Bennett focused on the American people's refusal to run Bill Clinton out of town on a rail for having consensual sexual relations with someone not his wife (Cough! B*o*j*b! Cough!). Well, with that, it seems, outrage became a dirty word for us, completely delegitimized by Bennett's ridiculous and hypocritical sanctimony.
But, I find that I again need the word "outrage." Because the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for the position of Attorney General of the United States is indeed an outrage. Not because he is undistinguished. God knows we've had plenty of undistinguished AGs. Nor is it because he may have condoned criminality. John Mitchell anyone? No, being undistinguished and a tolerator of corruption is not enough to trigger outrage.
The obvious reason for outrage is that Gonzales was the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the United States, in violation of the Geneva Convention. In recent days, the following words served as a cold slap in the face to my cynicism:
[b]A quote by Avi Schlaim, an Israeli historian, on the issue of comparisons to Nazi Germany (in this instance referring to Israeli government and military leaders, but the parallel works here as well):
The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren't different enough.[/b]
Of course, Gonzales is not a Nazi. But he is not different enough.
One of North Carolina's largest Christian schools is teaching history with a booklet, "Southern Slavery, As It Was," which "attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery http://www.newsobserver.com/n... and asserts that slaves…lived 'a life of plenty, of simple pleasures.'"
[b]"We the People" live in shame ... Our president is a crooked, hypocritical buffoon who manipulates ignorant people using bigotry cloaked in a false so-called "christianity" in order to commit ([i]with impunity[/i]) the most heinous Crimes Against Humanity ... In order to redeem our moral authority we should call for the impeachment of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]... The fascist neo-con Bushies represent a disaster for America ... [/b]
Today is the 56th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States has long provided global leadership on human rights. Today, however, that influence is starting to wane. The Bush administration is sending mixed signals about its commitment to defending human rights at home and around the world http://www.americanprogress.o... . The White House is undermining America's moral authority, as more nations begin to see the United States as a part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Moral leadership starts at home.
[b]SILENT WITNESS:[/b] According to the AP, Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel witnessed http://news.ft.com/cms/s/03c7... Abu Ghraib-style abuse against detainees at Guantanamo Bay as early as 2002. A newly released memo shows Thomas Harrington, the FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism, told the Pentagon that "he witnessed abuses as the leader of a team of FBI investigators that went to Cuba in 2002. It says that FBI agents witnessed at least three cases of 'highly aggressive interrogation techniques being used against detainees.'" It doesn't seem the FBI sounded the alarm. In Harrington's memo, he writes, "I have no record http://www.boston.com/news/gl... that our specific concerns regarding these three situations were communicated to the Department of Defense for appropriate action."
[b]POST-ABU GHRAIB COVER-UP:[/b] Weeks after the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was publicly discovered, two Defense Department intelligence analysts witnessed new brutal treatment http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1... of prisoners in Iraq. Military investigators immediately tried to threaten the analysts into silence, warning them "not to talk to anyone" about the mistreatment they discovered. The intelligence analysts also had their e-mails monitored, their vehicle keys confiscated http://www.guardian.co.uk/Ira...,2763,1369658,00.html and were ordered not to leave the base without express permission. The White House tried to keep the June 25 memo documenting this under wraps, but was recently compelled to release it after a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU. The administration wants to "portray prisoner abuses as isolated events and the Pentagon's response as swift," and has "fought vigorously to keep the new documents from public view." As the Washington Post points out, there still is "no record…that makes clear whether the abuses…have stopped or whether anyone has been held responsible for them."
[b]NOMINATION OF GONZALES:[/b] The White House has shown little interest in righting the wrongs of the abuse scandals or holding anyone responsible. Just last month, President Bush tapped Alberto Gonzales, the White House lawyer who was key in creating the policy which fostered the culture of abuse, to be the next attorney general. Gonzales was behind a Justice Department memo which included the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply http://www.washingtonpost.com... to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." He also characterized the Geneva Conventions – the rules set in place to guarantee the humane, legal treatment of prisoners in war time – as "quaint." (For more on Gonzales's record on human rights, read this backgrounder http://www.americanprogress.o... .)
[b]USING THE FRUITS OF TORTURE:[/b] Making matters worse, the administration believes that evidence gained by torture http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,0,645318 can be used by the U.S. military. For the past 70 years, statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts. According to Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle, however, U.S. military panels today "are allowed to use such evidence." Attorneys argued holding prisoners solely on evidence gained by torture "violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards." Boyle's response? The detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."
[b]GLOBAL LEADERSHIP:[/b] A new memo http://www.americanprogress.o... by the Center for American Progress outlines nine critical areas in which the United States must take leadership in promoting human rights abroad. For example, the Bush administration has been reluctant to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin, counting him as a close ally even as he supports brutal methods of fighting terrorism in Chechnya and backs a rigged election in the Ukraine. The White House also has yet to seriously censure Saudi Arabia, ignoring reports of "unlawful executions, arrests, torture and censorship." Most egregiously, the Bush administration has not provided leadership in ending the genocide in Sudan.
"War creates peace like hate creates love." - David L. Wilson
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has committed an ungodly atrocity against Iraq ... "We the People" should never have allowed the insane neo-cons to get away with their illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq executed based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... The entire Bush cabal should have been impeached and put on trial for War Crimes [i]and[/i] Crimes Against Humanity ... Now, the Iraqi people are facing the miserable prospect of a Civil War as a consequence of the bungling, corruption, incompetence and gross malfeasance by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, their neo-con ghouls [i]and[/i] their neo-fascist paymasters (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) who are making a bloody fortune from the mass-murder, torture and horrendous abuse of the Iraqi people ([i]and[/i] our U.S. Soldiers massacred; injured & maimed-for-life as cannon-fodder) ...[/b]
The Brigades of Fury in Iraq are the vanguard of the Shiite push for civil war. It is a Shiite militia, formed in Basra, that is reportedly building forces in the southern half of Iraq, and which this week engaged in a pitched battle with Sunni forces in the so-called “triangle of death,” the nonsensically named area just south of Baghdad.
It isn’t clear who, exactly, is backing this new force, but its purpose is clearly to intimidate the Sunni heartland and to help the U.S. occupation crush the resistance to the neocons’ plans for Iraq. To me, it seems inconceivable that such a force could come into being without at least the tacit support of Ayatollah Sistani, the czar of Shiite Iraq.
Sistani is intent on imposing his will, like most would-be dictators. Hiding under the label of “quietist,”—that is, apolitical—the in fact extremely political Sistani is using his muscle to force all Shiite factions into a unified election list. That “muscle” includes his Svengali-like influence over millions of deluded, fanatical followers chanting “Allahu Akbar!” It’s scary and violent. But not only is the Bush administration unconcerned, but with the neocons pushing it, the White House has established a working alliance with the Sistani right.
... "Representatives of Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, on Tuesday finalized an electoral coalition that will group all the country's major Shiite political parties, most minor ones and dozens of independents on a single slate.
The coalition's broad reach will put it in a commanding position to gain a sizable percentage of the majority-Shiite vote in Iraq's election scheduled for Jan. 30 and perhaps dominate the National Assembly that will draft a permanent constitution for Iraq.
The coalition will run as the United Iraqi Alliance, though among most Iraqis it already is being referred to simply as "Sistani's list."" ...
[i]Newsday[/i] notes that both Muqtada Sadr, the murderous Shiite insurgent, and Ahmed Chalabi, the neocons’ Iraqi darling, will be on the list. Many of the candidates will be Khomeini-style partisans of the rule-by-clergy theory invented by Khomeini in the 1960s and implemented in Iran in 1979.
A Shiite offshoot, which had threatened not to join Sistani’s list, caved in after voicing objections to the prominence of so many clergymen, or mullahs, on the list.
... "The Shiite Political Council, an umbrella organization of 38 parties, was persuaded to join the coalition after announcing last week that it would withdraw to protest the preponderance of religious hard-liners on the list, said Hussein Musawi, a spokesman for the group.
At the time, Musawi complained that "all the top names on the list are turbaned men who support wilayat al faqih," the theory of governance pioneered by Iran's late leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini." ...
[i]Wilayat al faqih[/i], roughly translated, means “the mullahs are the bosses.” And so it will be in the New Iraq.
"If the Senate confirms Alberto Gonzales as attorney general it will confirm that America is a country that supports and engages in torture of prisoners." - Blocking Mr. Torture, http://www.alternet.org/right...
[b]Enter Gonzales ...[/b]
Sure, he's not big on the Geneva Convention and took campaign contributions while on the bench, but he's got to be better than Ashcroft ...[i] right? [/i]... Right? ...
[b]Unfortunately "We the People" will be unable to block the very, very stupid Mr. Bush's corrupt, incompetent & traitorous nominees to his Cabinet (e.g. Condi Rice)-- however, we [i]should[/i] make a concerted effort to get our message to Congress http://www.congress.org , that we do not accept Alberto Gonzales, the Torture Guy ...[/b]
Civil Rights Leaders Call for Close Scrutiny of Gonzales Nomination, http://www.americanprogress.o...{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521- 5D6FF2E06E03}/Gonzales%20 Coalition%20Letter%2011-2 9-04.pdf
"If moral outrage was still alive and well and people still expected that the military had some ethical standards, then Sgt. Frank Ford's story http://www.salon.com/news/fea... would be all over the news. Sgt. Ford, a veteran with 30 years military service, witnessed five incidents of torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees and requested an investigation. Instead, he was strapped to a gurney and loaded on a military plane and taken out of the country. The army told him he was suffering combat stress, even though a psychiatric examination showed he was "perfectly normal."
Ford has military witnesses and psychiatric experts to back up his story. He has a lawyer and perhaps the beginnngs of an internal investigation. What he doesn't have is any major media coverage of what could be proof of a huge military cover up for prisoner abuse. Right now, if you want to read the whole story, the only place you can do so is on Salon's registration required (... Salon gives a Free Day Pass to non-subscribers ...) http://www.salon.com/news/fea... site." - Whitewashing torture, http://www.alternet.org/right...
[b]A truth that should be self-evident to "We the People" is that torture is unacceptable ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] should be held accountable for their heinous Crimes Against Humanity in Iraq, Afghanistan & at their concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay ... [i]Act Now![/i] ...[/b]
In a historic effort to hold US officials accountable for acts of torture, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR http://www.ccr-ny.org/ ) and four Iraqi citizens recently filed a criminal complaint http://abcnews.go.com/US/wire... with the German Federal Prosecutor's Office at the Karlsruhe Court in Karlsruhe, Germany against high ranking United States officials over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq. The four Iraqis all allege abuse at the hands of US troops, including severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation, hooding and sexual abuse.
The German court agreed to hear the case under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which allows suspected war criminals to be prosecuted irrespective of where they are located. "German law in this area is leading the world," Peter Weiss, vice president of the New York-based CCR http://www.ccr-ny.org/ , a human rights group, said in an interview with the [i]Frankfurter Rundschau [/i]newspaper. "We file these cases here because there is simply no other place to go," he added. "It is clear that the US government is not willing to open an investigation into these allegations against these officials."
The German Prosecutor has wide discretion in deciding how far to go with an investigation. CCR asks supporters of these legal proceedings to let the prosecutor's office know that people around the world support this effort. Click here http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/what... to add your voice to the international campaign.
CCR http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home... receives no government or corporate funding. The organization's ability to employ creative new strategies in the fight to preserve and advance civil and human rights can only continue with the financial support of the progressive community. Click here http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/lega... for info on what sorts of programs contributions help fund and click here https://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/donations/donation s.asp to make a donation. You can also join CCR's mailing list http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home... to keep up on the progress of the Abu Ghraib complaint and other progressive legal campaigns.
"If the Kingdom of God is within us, as the Lord says, then we ought to leave a little heaven behind everywhere we go." - Charity is Not Enough, http://www.alternet.org/colum...
[b]Advocates fear they are the leading edge of a new generation of homeless vets not seen since the Vietnam era ... Another broken promise by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], who lied about making sure that U.S. soldiers who serve our nation are treated properly ... It's going to be a very cold winter for these poor U.S. veterans, betrayed by "We the People" ...[/b]
U.S. veterans from the war in Iraq are beginning to show up at homeless shelters around the country, and advocates fear they are the leading edge of a new generation of homeless vets not seen since the Vietnam era.
“When we already have people from Iraq on the streets, my God,” said Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. “I have talked to enough (shelters) to know we are getting them. It is happening and this nation is not prepared for that.”
“I drove off in my truck. I packed my stuff. I lived out of my truck for a while,” Seabees Petty Officer Luis Arellano, 34, said in a telephone interview from a homeless shelter near March Air Force Base in California run by U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans.
Arellano said he lived out of his truck on and off for three months after returning from Iraq in September 2003. “One day you have a home and the next day you are on the streets,” he said.
In Iraq, shrapnel nearly severed his left thumb. He still has trouble moving it and shrapnel “still comes out once in a while,” Arellano said. He is left handed.
Arellano said he felt pushed out of the military too quickly after getting back from Iraq without medical attention he needed for his hand—and as he would later learn, his mind.
“It was more of a rush. They put us in a warehouse for a while. They treated us like cattle,” Arellano said about how the military treated him on his return to the United States.
“It is all about numbers. Instead of getting quality care, they were trying to get everybody demobilized during a certain time frame. If you had a problem, they said, ‘Let the (Department of Veterans Affairs) take care of it.’”
The Pentagon has acknowledged some early problems and delays in treating soldiers returning from Iraq but says the situation has been fixed.
A gunner’s mate for 16 years, Arellano said he adjusted after serving in the first Gulf War. But after returning from Iraq, depression drove him to leave his job at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He got divorced.
He said that after being quickly pushed out of the military, he could not get help from the VA because of long delays.
“I felt, as well as others (that the military said) ‘We can’t take care of you on active duty.’ We had to sign an agreement that we would follow up with the VA,” said Arellano.
“When we got there, the VA was totally full. They said, ‘We’ll call you.’ But I developed depression.”
He left his job and wandered for three months, sometimes living in his truck.
Nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and almost half served during the Vietnam era, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition, a consortium of community-based homeless-veteran service providers. While some experts have questioned the degree to which mental trauma from combat causes homelessness, a large number of veterans live with the long-term effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, according to the coalition.
Some homeless-veteran advocates fear that similar combat experiences in Vietnam and Iraq mean that these first few homeless veterans from Iraq are the crest of a wave.
“This is what happened with the Vietnam vets. I went to Vietnam,” said John Keaveney, chief operating officer of New Directions, a shelter and drug-and-alcohol treatment program for veterans in Los Angeles. That city has an estimated 27,000 homeless veterans, the largest such population in the nation. “It is like watching history being repeated,” Keaveney said.
Data from the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that as of last July, nearly 28,000 veterans from Iraq sought health care from the VA. One out of every five was diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the VA. An Army study in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 17 percent of service members returning from Iraq met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder or PTSD.
Asked whether he might have PTSD, Arrellano, the Seabees petty officer who lived out of his truck, said: “I think I do, because I get nightmares. I still remember one of the guys who was killed.” He said he gets $100 a month from the government for the wound to his hand.
Lance Cpl. James Claybon Brown Jr., 23, is staying at a shelter run by U.S.VETS in Los Angeles. He fought in Iraq for 6 months with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines and later in Afghanistan with another unit. He said the fighting in Iraq was sometimes intense.
“We were pretty much all over the place,” Brown said. “It was really heavy gunfire, supported by mortar and tanks, the whole nine (yards).”
Brown acknowledged the mental stress of war, particularly after Marines inadvertently killed civilians at road blocks. He thinks his belief in God helped him come home with a sound mind.
“We had a few situations where, I guess, people were trying to get out of the country. They would come right at us and they would not stop,” Brown said. “We had to open fire on them. It was really tough. A lot of soldiers, like me, had trouble with that.”
“That was the hardest part,” Brown said. “Not only were there men, but there were women and children—really little children. There would be babies with arms blown off. It was something hard to live with.”
Brown said he got an honorable discharge with a good conduct medal from the Marines in July and went home to Dayton, Ohio. But he soon drifted west to California “pretty much to start over,” he said.
Brown said his experience with the VA was positive, but he has struggled to find work and is staying with U.S.VETS to save money. He said he might go back to school.
Advocates said seeing homeless veterans from Iraq should cause alarm. Around one-fourth of all homeless Americans are veterans, and more than 75 percent of them have some sort of mental or substance abuse problem, often PTSD, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition.
More troubling, experts said, is that mental problems are emerging as a major casualty cluster, particularly from the war in Iraq where the enemy is basically everywhere and blends in with the civilian population, and death can come from any direction at any time.
Interviews and visits to homeless shelters around the Unites States show the number of homeless veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan so far is limited. Of the last 7,500 homeless veterans served by the VA, 50 had served in Iraq. Keaveney, from New Directions in West Los Angeles, said he is treating two homeless veterans from the Army’s elite Ranger battalion at his location. U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans, found nine veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in a quick survey of nine shelters. Others, like the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training in Baltimore, said they do not currently have any veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in their 170 beds set aside for emergency or transitional housing.
Peter Dougherty, director of Homeless Veterans Programs at the VA, said services for veterans at risk of becoming homeless have improved exponentially since the Vietnam era. Over the past 30 years, the VA has expanded from 170 hospitals, adding 850 clinics and 206 veteran centers with an increasing emphasis on mental health. The VA also supports around 300 homeless veteran centers like the ones run by U.S.VETS, a partially non-profit organization.
“You probably have close to 10 times the access points for service than you did 30 years ago,” Dougherty said. “We may be catching a lot of these folks who are coming back with mental illness or substance abuse” before they become homeless in the first place. Dougherty said the VA serves around 100,000 homeless veterans each year.
But Boone’s group says that nearly 500,000 veterans are homeless at some point in any given year, so the VA is only serving 20 percent of them.
Roslyn Hannibal-Booker, director of development at the Maryland veterans center in Baltimore, said her organization has begun to get inquiries from veterans from Iraq and their worried families. “We are preparing for Iraq,” Hannibal-Booker said.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence." - Mahatma Gandhi
[b]"Compassionate Conservatism"??? [i]What The Hell Is That Exactly??? [/i]... "We the People" should be ashamed of the callous and craven neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], only interested in the "welfare" of themselves; their hyper-rich corporate cronies; rapacious plutocrats; and, gluttonous & wealthier-than-ever-befor e campaign contributors ... These neo-con traitors may be cheering, singing and swilling plenty of "toasts" to themselves this Christmas-- but for our U.S. troops; Iraqi civilians; and millions of American working people-- it will be a cold, miserable "holiday" season ...[/b]
For millions of low-income Americans, it's going to be a long, very cold winter. Fuel prices have skyrocketed – according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the average cost of home heating this winter will be a whopping 24 percent higher than last year. To make matters worse, the number of people living in poverty, who are especially likely to need help paying their energy bills, rose last year by 1.3 million to 36 million people, or 12.5 percent of the population. Yet Congress is underfunding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP helps poor households – many of which include people who are elderly or disabled – pay their heating bills during the coldest months of winter). About 30 million households qualify for help, but a lack of funding means only about one out of every seven families receives assistance. And initial sampling shows that this year, with temperatures dropping, fuel prices soaring and more Americans living in poverty, requests for assistance could reach an all-time high.
[b]THE CHILLING STATISTICS:[/b] Energy costs can be devastating for low-income families. According to a survey conducted by the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, families assisted by LIHEAP "spend three times as much of their income on energy costs as middle-income families." The survey also found a quarter of people the program serves skipped medical care or paying their rent or their mortgage at least once because of energy bills. One out of every five said they skipped meals because they were forced to "use food money to pay a utility bill."
[b]CONGRESS'S FROSTY RESPONSE:[/b] In early October, a bipartisan group of 17 governors wrote to Congress, asking that funding for LIHEAP "include a larger base grant and $600 million in emergency funding." Millions of low-income families and frail elderly citizens, the governors wrote, "will likely be forced to choose between eating, paying rent or mortgages, buying prescription drugs or paying their heating bills." Congress didn't come through. In the recently enacted omnibus bill, the paltry increase in LIHEAP funding was "$164 million less than needed to cover the expected 24 percent increase in home heating costs." In fact, according to research by the CBPP, "adjusting for the price of fuel, the 2005 level of LIHEAP funding is lower than in any of the previous five years – 23 percent lower than the funding level for 2001."
[b]BUSH'S COLD SHOULDER:[/b] President Bush has shown a decided lack of dedication to getting poor Americans funding for heat. In his first budget, for the 2002 fiscal year, Bush actually tried to cut LIHEAP funding by $300 million as compared with the previous year, despite higher unemployment and a colder winter. While energy costs have soared, "funding for LIHEAP and other energy assistance programs grew 7 percent under the Bush administration, barely matching inflation." When LIHEAP started 22 years ago, the program helped about 7 million families. Today, it only helps about 5 million.
[b]STATES LEFT HOLDING THE BAG:[/b] With the federal government failing to provide necessary funding, the burden is falling on the states. Some governors are ready to take on the challenge: In Montana, Gov.-elect Brian Schweitzer announced he intends to make low-income heating assistance a budget priority next year. Wisconsin's Gov. Jim Doyle also got a jump on the crisis, opening LIHEAP enrollment a month ahead of schedule in anticipation of heightened need and the state is "kicking in $18.5 million to help keep Badger State residents warm." Many states are not as lucky. Colorado, for example, is slashing the amount of money eligible families will receive by $100. The state's lawmakers passed a bill to tack a voluntary 25-cent surcharge onto utility bills to subsidize the state's heating assistance program, but it was vetoed by Gov. Bill Owens "because it required utility customers to 'opt out' of paying the surcharge and he preferred an 'opt in' approach."
Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has spoken out in support of the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, saying criticism of him was "unfair" and that he was doing "a fine job". "I believe Kofi Annan is doing a fine job as United Nations Secretary-General, often in very difficult circumstances." - Tony Blair, http://smh.com.au/news/World/...
[b]The United States of America is an Irony-Free Zone ... Only in America, where the President (Bush) is responsible for the theft of billions of dollars from the sale of Iraq oil http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6... in the aftermath of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] illegal and immoral incursion and bloody guerrilla quagmire ensuing from the insane neo-con bungling in their War in Iraq-- could Kofi Annan be "taking the fall", when it is Bush who should be impeached and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity ... Can "We the People" not see the blatant hypocrisy and the diversion of attention from Bush's War Crimes onto Kofi Annan who dared to criticize Bush's neo-imperial aggressions???...[/b]
The right-wing has found an excuse to dust off its plans to undermine the United Nations. Without a doubt, the illegal exploitation of the United Nations' oil-for-food program by Saddam Hussein is a serious matter that deserves careful scrutiny. But it does not justify the dishonest and manipulative campaign by the right-wing lynch mob, led by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), against U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Fox News, predictably, has skipped over the question of whether Coleman's allegations – which he claims oblige Annan to resign – are true, and jumped right to the broader conclusion that the United Nations itself is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent. This Sunday, Fox News' Brit Hume said "The deeper problem here, of course, is the U.N. itself. This scandal is really, really a sign of what the U.N. has become. It is an enormously corrupt bureaucracy up there. It's a world unto itself. Self-dealing, I think, is rampant." For anyone sick of the bluster from people like Hume, here are the facts – we report, you decide: (Click here http://www.americanprogress.o... for our list of ten things you should know about the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.)
[b]THE SECURITY COUNCIL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE PROGRAM:[/b] Coleman and others are calling for Annan's head because he was at the helm of the United Nations bureaucracy while the scandal took place. But the U.N.'s oil for food program was developed and directed "not by U.N. civil servants but by the U.N. Security Council, as are all the organization's sanctions regimes." In other words, the people who ran the program didn't work for Annan, they "worked for the council's member states, including the United States and the four other permanent members." Therefore, diplomats from members of the Security Council – including the United States – are far more culpable for any problems with the oil-for-food program than Annan, who had no direct authority over it.
[b]SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IGNORED U.N. OFFICIALS: [/b]Since the Security Council ran the program, its members were responsible for rejecting or accepting contracts to do business with Iraq. On 70 occasions, U.N. officials – who were under the control of Annan – reported evidence of oil pricing scams to the council. The Security Council, including officials from the United States, ignored all of these warnings. They ended up approving 36,000 contracts to do business with Iraq, but didn't hold up a single one on the basis that it could be used to siphon money.
[b]LIES, DAMN LIES AND COLEMAN'S STATISTICS:[/b] Coleman issued a press release stating that "Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and U.N. sanctions." But Coleman fails to specify that two-thirds of this money had absolutely nothing to do with the oil-for-food program. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) explained on CNN on 12/3/04 that $15 billion was acquired by Saddam through "direct oil sales...by Iraq to Jordan and to Turkey and to Syria." This was no secret to the White House or Congress. According to Levin, "both President Clinton and this President [George W.] Bush knowingly waived that problem by notifying Congress that those sales were taking place in violation of the oil-for food program, but nonetheless they didn't want to do anything about it relative to stopping foreign aid," as generally required under United States law.
[b]THE OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM WORKED:[/b] The two most important facts are ignored by Coleman, Fox News and rest of the right-wing's anti-U.N. mob. First, according to the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, the sanctions regime was completely successful in preventing Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Second, the oil-for-food program mitigated the effect of the sanctions on the Iraqi people. The Financial Times notes, while the oil-for-food program was in place, "malnutrition was halved, whereas since last year's invasion of Iraq it has almost doubled."
[b]COLEMAN'S TORTUROUS HYPOCRISY:[/b] Coleman claims that "as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent" of the problems. But there is already a comprehensive independent investigation underway "headed by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman" for Ronald Reagan. Coleman has provided no evidence that Annan is impeding the investigation. Moreover, Coleman did not argue that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld step down so the military could make an independent investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal that occurred under his watch. Instead, Coleman offered Rumsfeld words of support after he testified before Congress (calling his testimony "contrite, candid and thorough" http://coleman.senate.gov/ind... ) and expressed confidence that a special commission investigating the scandal would be effective.
"Will someone explain why a 15 billion-year-old universe is any less miraculous than the one conjured up in biblical poetry? As Jimmy Fallon once cracked on "Saturday Night Live," the only compromise between the two will be an eventual agreement to start calling dinosaurs "Jesus Horses."" - 'Creationism's Strange Evolution', http://www.post-gazette.com/p...
Looking for a family outing? How about the new "Creation Museum," http://www.answersingenesis.o... slated to open sometime in the next few years in Petersburg, Kentucky? The museum is touted as "a wonderful alternative to the evolutionary natural history museums that are turning countless minds against the gospel of Christ and the authority of the Scripture."
We mostly like the part about Adam's sin causing God to create dinosaurs.
"We the People" have the distinction of being led down the Garden ([i]of Eden[/i]?) Path by the so-called "Christian" right-wing fanatics into the world of Fred Flintstone & Dino the dinosaur, as the basis of rational thought representing 21st Century America ... [i]Wow!!! [/i]...
"[i]'What Liberal Media?'[/i] confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, Eric Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for “liberal” bias but gives conservative bias a free pass." - http://www.whatliberalmedia.c...
[b]"We the People" seem oblivious to the fact that extreme right-wing conservatives have overtaken the so-called "liberals" to install their neo-con bias in the media ... In fact, it is craven corporate robber-barons & traitorous plutocrats who now feed us neo-fascist propaganda to benefit the wealthiest among us to our own detriment ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is adept at cynically manipulating the right-wing media whores http://www.tblog.com/template... to serve its' hateful neo-con agenda which is not in our nation's best interest ... "We the People" had better[i] wake-up [/i]and [i]wake-up fast [/i]...[/b]
Radio news just got a big push to the right. According to reports, the country's largest radio station operator, Clear Channel Communications Inc., chose right-wing Fox News Radio to provide national news for most of its news and talk stations. Clear Channel, which has been criticized in recent months for promoting a conservative agenda, owns and operates 1,200 radio stations http://www.americanprogress.o... across the United States, reaching more than 100 million people. The station currently provides a home to such right-wing radio hosts as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dr. Laura. This new deal is expected to double Fox's presence http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... on the airwaves, providing more than 100 Clear Channel stations with "a nightly news broadcast, as well as five-minute newscasts at the top of each hour" and coverage "around the clock."
[b]FOX NEWS, FAIRLY UNBALANCED:[/b] Fox News has a history of biased, right-wing news coverage. As LA Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote, Fox has become "the most blatantly biased http://www.latimes.com/news/c... major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism." This bias doesn't do listeners any favors; according to a study conducted last year by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) http://www.pipa.org/ at the University of Maryland, people who rely on Fox News for information "are significantly more likely to have misperceptions" about the war in Iraq. In fact, eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. The more people watched Fox News, the more likely they were to hold these misperceptions.
[b]FOLLOW THE MONEY:[/b] Clear Channel has strong ties to President Bush. The company's founder, R. Steven Hicks, is a Bush Pioneer, http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/r... having raised more than $100,000 for the president's campaign. His brother, Tom Hicks, also "made Bush a millionaire 15 times over" when he bought the Texas Rangers from him in 1999.
[b]CLEAR CHANNEL PUSHED THE MYTH:[/b] One of the biggest criticisms of the media in the days leading up to the Iraq war was they didn't ask enough tough questions. Clear Channel took that a step farther, blurring the lines between news organization and White House cheerleader by organizing pro-war rallies http://www.agitprop.org.au/no... in places like Atlanta, Cincinnati and Richmond.
[b]CONTENT CONTROL:[/b] Clear Channel has a past of suppressing speech it doesn't agree with. Some Clear Channel stations banned the Dixie Chicks after the group's lead singer criticized the president. Shock jock Howard Stern charges he was dropped in "retaliation for anti-Bush rhetoric." Other radio hosts were also dropped for their political views, including Roxanne Walker, the South Carolina d.j. fired in April 2003 after being reprimanded for anti-war statements and Phoenix, AZ, talk show host Charles Goyette who was kicked off the air for repeatedly discussing weaknesses in the intelligence in the push to war.
[b]PROJECT BILLBOARD:[/b] Clear Channel also owns 770,000 billboards across the country. The company breached a contract by refusing to allow the nonprofit group Project Billboard to buy ad space on one of its public billboards in Times Square during the Republican National Convention last August. The problem with the billboard? It advocated peace http://www.democracynow.org/a... .
"AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts within Social Security."
[i]Who Needs Social Security[/i]...
[i]...when you can bet on your favorite sports team for your retirement money?[/i]
[b]Of course, Social Security is indeed a very serious issue for the elderly who depend upon this meagre safety-net to avoid dire poverty, hunger and misery in their old age (... It should also be a serious issue for all conscientious citizens who want to live in a civilized society ...) ... For the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]to destroy Social Security in order to enable the neo-fascist Bush Crime Family; their greedy corporate cronies & the Wall Street robber-barons to embezzle the pensions of our elderly citizens is nothing less than criminal ... "We the People" should be outraged morally at this barbaric act of ruthless aggression against the vulnerable in our society-- And we should immediately contact Congress http://www.congress.org in order to express our opposition to the swindling of Americans via the cynical "privatization" (wanton theft) of Social Security by the craven neo-con Bush regime ...[/b]
[u][b]Inventing a Social Security Crisis[/b][/u]
Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.
I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.
There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.
Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.
The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.
But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.
Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.
It's true that the federal government as a whole faces a very large financial shortfall. That shortfall, however, has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security.
But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.
My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government.
If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.
But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.
There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.
For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.
White House admits Social Security 'fix' means borrowing - Analysts put the figure at $1 trillion over a decade. Bush officials offer no amount, but say not restructuring would cost more., http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
"An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored." Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
[b]The Center for American Progress (CAP) is one of the truly outstanding web-sites on the internet today-- notably for those who are interested in the truth ([i]as opposed to propaganda[/i]) surrounding our government's decisions; activities; and, rhetoric ... CAP has provided timely, accurate & comprehensive information to debunk the many lies; heinous crimes; and, traitorous hypocrisies inflicted upon our nation by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] ... CAP's research is thorough; professional and well-documented/well-sour ced-- And now CAP is filing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of "We the People" regarding Cheney's bizarre dealings with his secretive "Energy Taskforce" that he has refused to divulge to the American public ... Let us hope we are not stymied yet again by the dishonorable toadies on the Supreme Court who serve the treasonous Bush Crime Family instead of the United States of America ...[/b]
[b]For those not acquainted with the legal terminology ...
Definition of Amicus Curiae:[/b] Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.
"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89.
Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari http://www.techlawjournal.com... stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court's decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case. Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to "lobby" the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.
[b]American Progress Files Amicus Curiae Brief Seeking Disclosure of Records of Cheney Energy Policy Group[/b]
Download the amicus curiae brief in PDF: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/CHENEYI I.PDF .
On November 29, 2004, the Center for American Progress joined with leading library associations, the nation's largest archival association, and several other public interest organizations in a friend of the court brief seeking disclosure of who, outside the government, participated in the National Energy Policy Development Group (the "NEPDG") convened by Vice President Cheney to formulate a national energy policy in 2001. The case, now before the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was brought by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch after the vice president refused to disclose any information about the composition of the NEPDG. The case will be argued on January 27, 2005.
The case raises important questions about the public's right to know. Twenty-five years ago, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") to open the proceedings of federal advisory bodies to public scrutiny. Without such scrutiny, the public cannot know whether special interest groups are being given privileged access when government decisions are formulated behind closed doors. Nevertheless, the vice president has claimed that FACA does not apply to the proceedings of the NEPDG and has refused to disclose the names of those who had participated in its meetings.
The American Progress brief proposes a pragmatic solution to the impasse that would enable the court to provide meaningful access to the public while accommodating any legitimate interests the Executive Branch may have in protecting confidential information. Adopting a model known as the "Vaughn Index," which the courts commonly use in Freedom of Information Act cases, the brief recommends the creation of a "Cheney Log" that would identify the individuals who attended each meeting of the energy policy group.
Joining the Center in filing the brief are the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the National Security Archive, the Society of American Archivists, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the Liberty Project, OMB Watch, and the Society of Professional Journalists.
. Download the amicus curiae brief in PDF: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/CHENEYI I.PDF .
. Download the Center's previous amicus curiae brief in the case in PDF: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/Cheneya micusbrief.pdf .
"Common wisdom holds that if American troops withdraw anytime soon, Iraq will descend into civil war, as Lebanon did in the late 1970's. But that ignores a question posed by events of recent weeks:
Has a civil war already begun?
Iraq is no Lebanon yet. But evidence is building that it is at least in the early stages of ethnic and sectarian warfare." - Mayhem in Iraq Is Starting to Look Like a Civil War, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...
[b]Things are [i]not [/i]going well in Iraq ... This last weekend was bloody http://www.guardian.co.uk/Ira...,2763,1367279,00.html as the violence continues to escalate and even John McCain is now saying that the increase by the incompetent Rumsfeld gang in the Pentagon http://www.indiadaily.com/bre... to 150,000 U.S. Soldiers (from 138,000) announced last week is not going to be sufficient to ensure that the elections can proceed ... [i]This represents horrendous folly by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. junta![/i] ... "We the People" should contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that impeachment hearings be held for Bush and Cheney, who are guilty of treason as a consequence of a botched-up war waged based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods (i.e. War Crimes) ...[/b]
The seven weeks or so between now and Jan. 30—the scheduled date for the elections in Iraq—is by far the most critical period for the region since the start of the war itself. What happens over that period will determine whether Iraq moves toward civil war or some sort of stability. The Bush administration has opted for the former, by demanding elections come what may.
A bit of reality crept into the major media today. The [i]Post[/i], in a long dispatch on the shape of the resistance post-Fallujah, finally puts the emphasis (nearly) on the right place: that the Iraqi resistance is not made up of Islamist crazies or foreign Al Qaeda types, but home-grown Baathists. Says the [i]Post[/i] :
... "One of the key aspects of the insurgency that U.S. commanders are watching closely is the extent of cooperation between former Baath Party members and radical Islamic fighters. The Baathists remain the dominant opposition group, according to military analysts, but signs of them entering loose tactical alliances with more radical elements have been evident for months.
Such alliances are suspected of underlying at least some of the recent surge of violence in Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, where the police force collapsed under attack last month. Some U.S. officers worry about Mosul, or sections of it, possibly becoming a new insurgent stronghold, although the city's greater size and prosperity make it less susceptible than Fallujah was.
In some other Sunni areas, U.S. intelligence analysts have seen indications lately of Baathists reconsidering partnerships with radical Islamic elements.
"They're assessing their options," DeFreitas said.
The Baathist insurgency is centered on a number of key leaders, U.S. officers say, and still lacks the scope of a popular Sunni resistance. But the officers warned that growing political alienation could lead to a broadening of the insurgency." ...
This is really important stuff. Forget all the neocon nonsense about jihadists. The Baath is the core of the resistance. But even the[i] Post [/i]gets it slightly wrong. What they ought to say is that the resistance is not pro-Saddam, but mostly Iraq nationalists who made up the core of the Baath, and who are supported by or linked to other Arab nationalists in surrounding countries, through tribal connections. There are two major Sunni tribes whose leaders are emerging as leaders of the resistance. These are precisely the groups that ought to be brought into a dialogue over the future of Iraq, and the shape of peace is a simple equation: If you guys declare a truce, lay down your arms, and get an important share of power, then the United States will leave Iraq.
But the Bush-Sistani axis will here none of it ...
"Where nature makes natural allies of us all, we can demonstrate that beneficial relations are possible even with those with whom we most deeply disagree, and this must someday be the basis of world peace and world law." - John F. Kennedy
[b]My prediction is that the European Union and/or China will be the great superpower(s) by the end of the 21st Century overtaking the U.S. ... [i]Why?[/i] ... Because in China's case, they are building-up an economic power-house with a substantial trade surplus with the U.S. who is losing its' manufacturing base ... Because in the EU's case, they are investing in their people's education & welfare ... Meanwhile, the United States has foolishly chosen Empire, which history has shown is doomed to failure ... The U.S. taxpayers' monies squandered on enriching traitorous neo-con adventurers and greedy corporate robber-barons is not going to produce a "pay-back" for America at-large ... Finally, our leaders' illegal & immoral grabbing all of the wealth of our labors for themselves (their corruption reaching its' apex with the neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i]) and their craven contempt for science; the environment; the rule of law; respect for other nations; and, "We the People" will produce our downfall ...[/b]
Rarely has a presidential election been followed with so much attention, even engagement on the part of European countries. That's understandable once one acknowledges the impact of United States' political, economic, and military decisions on Europeans. And this is all the more so given that one is faced with an Administration that is guided not, as so many analysts claim, by the use of force, but rather by relations of force. There is nothing surprising in this manner of conducting policy, except, perhaps, the Bush Administration's crudeness and lack of diplomacy.
The Bush Administration has pushed its contempt for its traditional allies very far, and this policy has proven to be counterproductive. America, which has long wished for concrete engagement on the part of its allies, has ended up rejecting those it needed. But it also seems to me that it would be dishonest and counterproductive as well for Europeans to claim that they've had no hand in this result.
While Europeans endlessly discussed the elections on the other side of the Atlantic, Americans ignored European Union events. No candidate in the November 2nd American elections for Congress, the Senate, or President mentioned the European Union a single time. Certainly, this oblivion results in part from ignorance and provincialism. But that cannot explain it all. The European Union is a "non issue," a non-subject, or let us say: a subject with no impact, that Americans describe as "irrelevant".
Is the principal cause of this situation American blindness? Or have the Europeans contributed also? We may certainly deplore the minimal importance Europe occupies in United States political space. Certainly, the Bush Administration's contempt for its allies, for international organizations, as well as its unilateralist tendency, its nationalism, and its arrogance have not facilitated exchanges. But Europe is fooling itself when it sees itself as an innocent spectator doomed to suffer the giant's decisions.
When was the last time Europe took the initiative on any important action? Why does it always wait for America to show the way? That is perhaps not the image Europe has of itself, but it is always preferable to try to understand how one is perceived by others. Who among the politicians of the right or the left in France has posed the problem in these terms? The French media become monotonous by virtue of being so uniform and repetitive. It seems that in this country, opinion is worth more than analysis. That's what Tocqueville somewhat emphatically designated as the "French spirit." To understand is not to pardon, it's to illuminate and to avoid an unjustified self-satisfaction. Marc Bloch talked about the "laziness of knowledge" that has put France at such a disadvantage in the past and that has, unfortunately, since spread throughout the European continent.
The Bush Administration, in keeping with previous administrations, follows the fundamental rules of international politics, which have nothing to do with "being nice" or "friendship." It understands three things very well: usefulness, effectiveness, and power. Europe, as it is perceived by the United States, is obviously an ally, but an ally that doesn't want to support America, which is its right, and which, simultaneously, seems incapable of giving a hand or taking any initiative outside of Europe. For the United States, Europe has become quasi-isolationist.
The opposition to the war in Iraq has simply crystallized that which deeply troubles Euro-American relations. For the Americans, the situation is rather clear. The Europeans are not "useful" because their reluctance to act has become obvious and ever more asserted. The way they oppose the United States has also changed. It's no longer the disagreement of any ally, but -as the European attitude during the Iraq War demonstrated - opposition that allows them to side with America's enemies.
This way of seeing things may appear simplistic, but that's the vision shared by the political class in the Administration and in Congress. Also, this evaluation is not going to disappear along with the disappearance of the present Administration. The experience of recent years has only reinforced this point of view in the American political milieu, which has been able to observe how, even in the Balkans (which are in Europe, all the same!) the Europeans have to be pushed by the Americans. And what did they do themselves to prevent the genocide in Rwanda? What did they do in Darfur? Americans don't hear Europeans express themselves with a deafening and categorical voice except when it's a matter of opposing the United States and Israel.
The focus of European countries on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the detriment of so many other problems in the world (Darfur, Chechnya, Tibet, and many others) on which they have no grip has not been well realized. Everyone agrees about the importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Europe could have intervened in other contexts where its action would have been complementary to that of its principal ally.
Even in the Middle East, Europe could have contributed in a more vigorous way to the peace process by taking over from the United States to apply the road map. The United States has behaved irresponsibly in this matter. After having taken the initiative with Russia and the Europeans, America disengaged and "washed its hands of it." And the Europeans? They simply continued to produce their theoretical speeches, neglecting the urgency of making up for their own lack of legitimacy and persisted in ignoring reality. The Europeans are consequently not in a position to contribute to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Consequently, America concludes, once again, that Europeans have limited usefulness and are incapable of taking the initiative.
Contrary to a vision widely held in Europe, Americans are not hostile to the European Union. This vision is flattering for Europeans, because it suggests a certain symmetry between the two continents. In fact, the situation is worse. America does not take Europe seriously for the reasons I've just exposed. Moreover, America is inclined not to believe in European power because its own specific sense of realism prevents it from conceiving of a power composed of twenty-five sovereign countries that would be able to act in a unified and effective way. It seems to me that Bush's election to a second term could furnish Europe with an opportunity to demonstrate that it exists; that it is capable of taking on a certain number of responsibilities; that it is a power, not necessarily equal to the United States, but capable of making its voice heard in the international concert.
When I am constantly questioned about the future of European - United States relations, I tend to respond by asking another question: what does Europe intend to do? Why does Europe always wait for signals from the United States? Why doesn't it ever do anything to shift this relationship? Why this passivity? Why does Europe always limit itself to a reactive policy? Bush's reelection could have a positive effect on the European construct and provide an opportunity to give strength to the European Union, which would be the only way for it to put pressure on the United States and to re-energize the Atlantic alliance.
[b]Source:[/b]
Ezra Suleiman is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for European Studies at Princeton University, http://www.lefigaro.com/debat...
... Bush/Cheney Inc.'s Arab Democracy Project: Maybe Not ...
"The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, acknowledged that the country's homegrown forces aren't yet up to the task of ensuring secure elections, requiring the planned increase in U.S. troops. More than 42 Iraqis have been killed in the last two days alone." - Violence in Iraq Continues, http://www.dailykos.com/story...
[b]The situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a bloody guerrilla quagmire (along time ago, frankly-- and it hasn't gotten any better) ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]wantonly and recklessly lied us into their illegal & immoral war (to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. ... the Bush Crime Family) ... "We the People" cannot be surprised that the rest of the world has lost respect for our insane neo-con regime who cannot be trusted to tell the truth and who also cannot be trusted to carry out their neo-fascist (mis)-adventures in a competent manner ...[/b]
[b]No WMDs. No connection to Al Qaida. No nuthin'. What did the neocons have left to justify the Iraq Debacle? Why their Arab Democracy Project. Well, now that seems a non-starter too. At next week's summit with our Arab allies, the Bush Arab Democracy Project, so touted by the remaining defenders of the Iraq Debacle, looks like it will be put to rest. Arab Summit http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1... :[/b]
... "When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior American officials arrive at a summit meeting in Morocco next week that is intended to promote democracy across the Arab world, they have no plans to introduce any political initiatives to encourage democratic change.
President Bush started speaking in 2002 about the need to bring democracy to the Arab nations. Since then, however, the popular view of the United States in the region has grown so dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the original goal of political change.
Administration officials and their allies defend the change in strategy, saying the United States should no longer try to take the lead.
"Others have gotten involved in the political side, and that is a good thing," said Lorne W. Craner, who was assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights until August and now is president of the International Republican Institute, a government-financed organization dedicated to advancing democracy worldwide. But administration officials said some senior officials in the State Department were frustrated by the unwillingness of their colleagues to raise political initiatives at the meeting." ...
[b]I don't know who in their right mind actually ever believed this claptrap. But the few fig leafs provided for cover are now pretty much gone. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Has there ever been a case where such unmitigated failure was so rewarded?[/b]
"George W. Bush’s political allies appear to be slow-rolling a requested recount in Ohio, leaving so little time that even if widespread voting fraud is discovered, the finding will come too late to derail Bush’s second term."
[b]"President Bush’s victory over John Kerry in Ohio was closer than the unofficial election night totals showed, but the change is not enough to trigger an automatic recount, according to county-by-county results provided to[i] The Associated Press [/i]on Friday." http://www.commondreams.org/h... ... And yet, because the right-wing press is owned by corporate robber-barons who pander to the insane Bush regime and we no longer have a "free press" http://www.tblog.com/template... -- the real story is[i] not [/i]being told ... Election fraud took place in Ohio ([i]and[/i] also in Florida) ... But fortunately for the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], "We the People" live in the U.S.A., an irony free-zone-- So while cheering can be heard across the [i]Fruited Plains [/i]for the Ukrainians who have the courage and strength of character to fight for their own democracy-- lazy and stupid Americans accept the fraudulent results of a rigged election[i] here at home[/i], too fearful and ignorant to demand a run-off ... "We the People" won't even hear a peep out of the right-wing neo-fascist media whores on the subject ...[/b]
Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is preparing to certify that Ohio went for Bush.
No surprise there.
After all, Blackwell headed up Bush's reelection campaign in the state, and he did what he could to make it more difficult for people to cast provisional ballots.
As Jesse Jackson has noted, in a column entitled "Something's fishy in Ohio," this resulted in the disqualification of a disproportionate number of voters in predominantly Democratic Cuyahoga County.
In other strongholds, including liberal college towns, people had to stand in line for hours on end.
In Franklin County, the head of the board of elections, who happens to be the former head of the Franklin County Republican Party, failed to provide the necessary number of voting machines at the polls, even though he was made aware of the great increase in voter registrations and even though he had 68 extra voting machines available, according to Bob Fitrakis of the Columbus Free Press. In that city, "voters waited in the heavily Democratic wards between two and seven hours," he writes.
According to the Columbus Dispatch, voting machines were actually added in Republican precincts and taken away in Democratic ones.
Ohio voters have also given sworn testimony at public hearings of machines switching their Kerry votes over to Bush.
And in some heavily black precincts of Cleveland, obscure third party candidates were getting half to two-thirds as many votes as John Kerry, Fitrakis discovered, as did Juan Gonzales at The New York Daily News.
"In precinct 4F, located at Benedictine High School on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive," wrote Gonzales, "Kerry received 290 votes, Bush 21, and Michael Peroutka, candidate of the ultra-conservative anti-immigrant constitutional Party, an amazing 215 votes! . . . In precinct 4N, also at Benedictine High School, the tally was Kerry 318, Bush 21, and Libertarian party candidate Michael Badnarik 163."
"That's terrible. I can't believe it. It's obviously a malfunction with the machines," Cleveland City Councilman Kenneth Johnson told Gonzales.
Jesse Jackson pointed out one other peculiarity.
"Ellen Connally, an African-American Supreme Court candidate running an underfunded race at the bottom of the ticket, received over 257,000 more votes than Kerry in 37 counties," Jackson wrote. "She ran better than Kerry in the areas of the state where she wasn't known and didn't campaign than she did where she was known and did campaign."
Jackson's right. Something fishy did happen in Ohio.
And activists groups, muckraking journalists, and the Green Party are right to keep on challenging the results and demanding a recount until we know, for certain, what the actual vote totals were.
Ohio isn't the Ukraine. Or at least it's not supposed to be.
"Words are like planets, each with its own gravitational pull." ~ Kenneth Burke
"Define your terms." ~ Socrates
"We agree that language functions in a certain way so that we can understand each other; but within that are built all sorts of sentimental codes, codes of authenticity, codes of certain kinds of emotion." ~ John Yau
[b]The right-wing neo-con propagandists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]are experts at providing coded terms; loaded rhetoric; and outright mendacious falsehoods cloaked in convoluted language designed to hide criminal actions that represent the opposite of the actual meaning of words conveyed to lull us into a false sense of security ... "We the People" must learn their language of Orwellian deception in order to fight their neo-fascist transformation of our nation into their Global Corporate Empire ...[/b]
[b]Katrina vanden Heuvel's excellent 'Republican Dictionary' has been making its way around the web ... Refer to the "Republican Dictionary (Part 1)" on http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ...[/b]
Earlier this month, I wrote about http://www.thenation.com/edcu... the right's linguistic strategy, which is to use words, which may sound moderate to us but mean something completely different to its base. To counter these semantic tactics, I proposed an idea for how we could debunk and decode the right's veritable Orwellian Code of encrypted language: A Republican Dictionary.
I put together a small list to get the project started and asked readers to send me their own entries. Response has been overwhelming--more than 350 people sent me definitions.
Nation reader Laurence Cumbie even thanked me for "the very first laugh I have had since November 3." The idea, he added, "seems to me to be precisely the type of simplistic but effective antidote we need" to counter the linguistic trickery of the right.
Toward that end, I'm publishing a small sample of the new dictionary entires I've received below. We may even create a small book or extended pamphlet using the most creative examples submitted. Many thanks to those who took the time to write and apologies to those whose ideas we weren't able to include in this post. But watch this space. We're going to continue posting additional entries in the weeks ahead. And please click here to suggest your own contributions.
ACTIVIST JUDGE, n. A judge who attempts to protect the rights of minorities--most especially homosexuals--against the tyranny of the majority. (Amy Mashberg, Austin, Texas)
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES, n. New locations to drill for oil and gas. (Peter Scholz, Fort Collins, Colorado)
CIVIL LIBERTIES, n. Unnecessary privileges that you aren't afraid of losing unless you are a God-hating, baby-killing, elitist liberal who loves Saddam Hussein more than your own safety. (Megan Ellis, Bellingham, Washington)
CLIMATE CHANGE, n. Global warming, without that annoying suggestion that something is wrong. (Robert Shanafelt, Statesboro, Georgia)
DEATH TAX, n. A term invented by anti-tax zealots and referring to a tax used to prevent the very wealthy from establishing a dominating aristocracy in this country. (David McNeely, Lutz, Florida)
DEMOCRATIC ALLY, n. Any democracy, monarchy, plutocracy, oligarchy or dictatorship--no matter how ruthless--that verbally supports American diplomatic and economic goals. (L.J. Klass, Concord, New Hampshire)
DEREGULATE, v. To pursue greed and exploitation. (Nathan Taylor, Long Beach, California)
DETAIN, v. Hold in a secret place without recourse to law and treat in any manner one wishes. (Jeannine Bettis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
ECONOMIC PROGRESS, n. 1. Recession; 2. Rising unemployment; 3. Minimum-wage freeze. (Terry McGarry, East Rockaway, New York)
FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE, n. Christian Right Payoff. (Michael Gendelman , Fair Haven, New Jersey)
FAMILY VALUES, n. Oppression of women. (Nancy Matsunaga, Brooklyn, New York)
FOX NEWS, n. White House Press Office. (Donnalyn Murphy, San Francisco, California)
HARD WORK, n. What Republicans say when they can't think of anything better. (Brain McDowell), Durham, North Carolina)
INSURGENT, n. Armed or unarmed, violent or non-violent Iraqi on the receiving end of an American rocket blast or bullet spray, regardless of age, gender or political affiliation. (Joey Flores, Marina del Ray, California)
MODERNIZE, v. To do away with, as in modernizing Social Security, labor laws, etc. (Robert Sean Roarty, Atlanta, Georgia)
OBSTRUCTIONIST, n. Any elected representative who dares to question Republican radicals on the issue of the day. (Terry Levine, Toronto, Ontario)
OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, n. A society in which Republican donors own the rest of us. (Adrianne Stevens, Seattle, Washington)
PRIVATIZE, v. To steal the resources of the national community and give them to private business. (Susan Dyer, Ottsville, Pennsylvania)
REFORM, v. To eliminate, as in tort reform (to eliminate all lawsuits against businesses and corporations) or Social Security and Medicare reform (to eliminate these programs altogether). (Darren Staley, Millers Creek, North Carolina)
STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST, n. A judge with extremely conservative beliefs, who interprets laws in a manner that fits his/rarely-her own belief systems, while maintaining that this was the original intent of the law. (Floyd Doney, Athens, Ohio)
SUPPORT THE MILITARY, v. To praise Bush when he sends our young men and women off to die for no reason and without proper body armor. (Marc Goldberg, Vancouver, Washington)
TAX REFORM, n. The shifting of the tax burden from unearned income to earned income, or rather, from the wealthy elite to the working class. (Eric Evans, Gregory, Michigan)
TORT REFORM, n. Corporate immunity and impunity. (Sue Bazy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
UNITER, n. A Leader who brings together his followers by fomenting hatred for anyone who disagrees with him. (Larry Allred, Las Cruces, New Mexico)
"There is more than a verbal tie between the words common, community, and communication.... Try the experiment of communicating, with fullness and accuracy, some experience to another, especially if it be somewhat complicated, and you will find your own attitude toward your experience changing." - John Dewey
[b]The problem with deceit is that it almost always is exposed ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is not trusted by the well-informed, conscientious, and, moral human beings in America and around the world ... "We the People" must take stock of the horrendous negative impact that Bush's lies, deceptions & falsehoods are having upon our national security, and consider impeachment on the grounds of treason ...[/b]
More than three years after 9/11, with the country's reputation plummeting worldwide http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/Imp... , America's strategic communication is "in a state of crisis." http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/re... So says a scathing report http://www.salon.com/opinion/... by the Defense Science Board Task Force, "a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice" http://www.disinfopedia.org/w... to the Pentagon. The report concludes America has no clear message for the Muslim world, nor a means of communicating that message. "Missing are strong leadership, strategic direction, adequate coordination, sufficient resources, and a culture of measurement and evaluation." The institutions charged with battling the "war of ideas" are neglected, confused, or broken http://www.globalissues.org/G... . Conclusion? The United States has lost its "power to persuade." It lacks even one "working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam."
[b]AIDING ADVERSARIES:[/b] The Defense Board concludes America's inept communications strategy has failed in the fundamental non-military objective of the fight against terrorism, "separating the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists." American efforts have "not only failed in this respect. They may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended," elevating the stature of radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in many Arab societies. The toxic combination of bad policy and inept public diplomacy has left America's credibility so badly damaged that "whatever Americans do and say only serves the party that has both the message and the 'loud and clear' channel: the enemy."
[b]COME OUT OF THE COLD:[/b] Part of the problem is the Bush administration's over-reliance on Cold War models. "We must think in terms of global networks, both government and non-government," the report says. "If we continue to concentrate primarily on states…we will fail." The report accuses the administration of reflexively adopting "Cold War-style responses to the new threat, without a thought or a care as to whether these were the best responses to a very different strategic situation." Indeed, President Bush's elevation of former National Security Director Condoleezza Rice even further underscores the point – Rice has insisted on using "Cold War techniques" to fight the battle against terrorism.
[b]WHITE HOUSE BURIED THE REPORT:[/b] So what did the Bush administration do with the Defense Board's incisive critique of its communication strategies? The report was delivered in September, but not made public until well after the election, when it was "silently slipped" onto the Pentagon web site the Wednesday night before Thanksgiving. This didn't stop spokesman Byran Whitman from bragging the report's release was consistent with the Pentagon's "guiding principle of making information available in a timely and accurate manner."
[b]THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE OSI:[/b] The administration did try – briefly – to develop a communications strategy. In late 2001, the Department of Defense created an Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), to wage a "strategic information campaign in support of the war on terrorism." The office, however, was dissolved less than four months later, following reports it was developing plans to plant false news items in the foreign press. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the office had "clearly been so damaged…that it could not function effectively."
[b]THE NEW PLAN, SAME AS THE OLD PLAN:[/b] Alarmingly, however, the OSI's central programs were never terminated. This week, the LA Times reported that "much of OSI's mission…has been assumed by offices through the U.S. government," coordinated by Pentagon "misinformation" expert Douglas Feith. Trying to psych out the insurgents, the offices recently duped CNN into reporting the invasion of Fallujah was beginning, even though troops would not cross into the city for three weeks. It is unlikely Feith and his fake stories were what the Defense Board had in mind when it advised the U.S. to "search out credible messengers and create message authority." Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers was been so alarmed by Feith's projects he wrote an internal memo expressing concerns that U.S. military efforts "could suffer if world audiences begin to question the honesty of statements from U.S. commanders and spokespeople."
"A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. . . . Freedom is nothing else but a chance to bet better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse." - Albert Camus
[b]Thomas Jefferson said "Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." ... Our corporate-owned right-wing media has done a lousy job over the past few decades ... Moreover, since the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has hijacked our nation, the press has been either a blind puppet[i] or else [/i]intimidated, cowered and terrorized into being nothing more than a megaphone to pass-on the traitorous Bush regime's neo-con lies, deceptions and falsehoods, benefitting neo-fascist corporate robber-barons (and the Bush Crime Family) ... It is a disservice to brain-wash our people with neo-imperial propaganda based upon dishonest rhetoric & mendacious "factoids" skewed to manipulate public opinion ... We deserve better than[i] this [/i]and have the [i]power[/i] to demand that the news be reported and reported correctly ... "We the People" have been betrayed and we must demand a diligent, demanding and independent press in accordance with the U.S. Constitution:-- i.e. accountable to us-- and who holds our governmental servants accountable to us[i] too [/i]...[/b]
The story is one as old as the political arena itself. When one side feels it wields all the power, it loses a sense of proportion and limits on its behavior. We’ve seen countless hints of such likely abuses from the conservatives who rule the roost today, from a purge of those who offered sensible advice before our current misadventure in Iraq took place to an ill-fated attempt to give certain congressional staffers the police-state like power to examine the tax records of Americans at will. Together with this tendency to believe in one’s political invulnerability is the notion that power is no longer accountable in the old-fashioned way; that the media are no longer to be treated as a necessary protection of the people’s right to know, but rather as a nuisance to be neutered so that power may roll along merrily and unhindered by too many uncomfortable questions.
Disdain for the fundamental functions of reporting and the accountability it inspires has long been evident among many denizens of the Bush administration. Of late it has also filtered down the state level as well. We see it in Texas; we see it in New York; and most recently, we see it next door to the nation’s capitol in Maryland.
On November 18, the press office of Maryland's Republican governor, Robert Ehrlich Jr., sent a memo to all state public information officers forbidding them from speaking to two Baltimore Sun reporters, State House Bureau Chief David Nitkin and columnist Michael Olesker. The governor was unhappy with some reporting critical of his administration the two had produced. He claimed they had engaged in "noncontextual innuendo" in writing about his administrations formula for evaluating Maryland's surplus public lands, including a charge that the governor was employing state-funded advertising for personal political gain. Nitkin was accused of authoring a story that included an incorrect map of state lands, while Olesker appeared to imply that he had been present at a state hearing that he had, in fact, failed to attend.
Ehrlich has seen little reason to defend his decision, and has so far refused to meet with representatives of the paper to outline his objections to their coverage, telling a local Baltimore radio station, "[The ban is] meant to have a chilling effect on them. They have no credibility. It's clearly meant to have not only chilling effect...but a very serious effect on these two writers." ‘Chilling,’ indeed.
In order to defend itself from the charge of enforcing its own set of press ethics on employees of a respected news organization and seeking to control an ostensibly free press, Ehrlich’s press secretary, Greg Massoni authored an additional memo in which he charged Nitkin and Olesker with "failing to objectively report on any issue dealing with the Ehrlich-Steele administration." He added that their employer, the Baltimore Sun, suffered from that age old malady that conservatives detect in any news they would prefer to see go unreported: the dreaded disease of "liberal bias."
Bias, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. So too, the journalistic goal of "objectivity." As the Sun has reported, "While the administration has complained that the articles have been 'unbalanced', nothing in them has been found to be inaccurate." The ban on its reporter and columnist, Sun editors maintain, "seeks to limit the Sun's ability to gather and report information. It also is designed to put the paper on the defensive and to plant seeds of doubt among readers about the veracity of the Sun's reporting."
Exactly. For more than three decades now, the Right has been enormously successful at planting just such "seeds of doubt" in the public’s mind, and has built a up a massive commercial and non-commercial information infrastructure to reinforce them. Without, people like Brent Bozell, and the late Reed Irvine would have had to find honest work in the for-profit sector conservatives so frequently extol. And it’s worked. As author Bent Cuningham noted in the [u]Columbia Journalism Review[/u] http://www.cjr.org/issues/200... (CJR) last year, the fight’s relentless attack on the media’s alleged (and largely unproven) liberal bias has taken a powerful toll on the press’s ability to do its job properly. In speaking of a redefined notion of objectivity, he wrote, "One result is a hypersensitivity among the press to charges of bias, and it shows up everywhere: In October 2001, with the war in Afghanistan under way, then CNN chairman Walter Isaacson sent a memo to his foreign correspondents telling them to "balance" reports of Afghan "casualties or hardship" with reminders to viewers that this was, after all, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. More recently, a CJR intern, calling newspaper letters-page editors to learn whether reader letters were running for or against the looming war in Iraq, was told by the letters editor at The Tennessean that "letters were running 70 percent against the war, but that the editors were trying to run as many pro-war letters as possible lest they be accused of bias."
Accompanying this phony charge of bias we frequently find a willingness to use the power of office to try to intimidate reporters from looking too carefully at the actions of public officials who might not enjoy—or perhaps survive—such scrutiny. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer was a master of this tactic, once telling a reporter who asked him a question he didn't like that the question had been "noted in the building". He even informed close White House ally, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, that his prediction that Al Gore would win the 2000 election had also been dutifully "noted". Perhaps Fleischer’s most unsettling employment of this tactic was his famous September 2001, however, when in response to some unfavorable comments by comedian Bill Maher, when he warned that all Americans had better "watch what they say, watch what they do."
Hamstrung by its commitment to objectivity and its desire to appear nonpartisan, the media have done a woefully ineffective job of defending themselves—and their constitutional responsibility to hold power accountable. In the end it is America’s democracy that suffers most as a result. The blacklisting of two veteran reporters under Governor Ehrlich's watch provides just the latest example. By falsely terming the Sun "liberal," Ehrlich changes the topic from his own political decisions and gets himself off the hook from the kind of public scrutiny that would ensure the he carry out the people’s business faithfully. And while a tactic this effective with the right’s minions is unlikely to disappear anytime soon, employing it to deny reporters the ability to do their jobs crosses a new line in this decades-long campaign. It is one that all Americans have an interest in seeing the media defend vigorously and without compromise.
[b]Source:[/b]
Eric Alterman is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the author of six books, including the just-published [u]When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences[/u]. http://search.barnesandnoble.... Paul McLeary is a New York writer., http://www.americanprogress.o...
... Bush/Cheney Inc. Disseminating False Information on Abstinence Using U.S. Taxpayer $$$ ...
"State Rep. Gerald Allen (R-AL) has filed a bill http://www.al.com/news/birmin... intended to ban library books with "gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural." What would happen to those books if the bill passes? "I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," Allen said."
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." - Thomas Jefferson
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is comprised of dangerous neo-con ideologues and fanatical neo-fascist traitors who are spreading heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods,[i] now [/i]about health issues-- including bizarre & dishonest propaganda disguised as "education" regarding abstinence ... "We the People" seem to find ourselves deceived on everything from the economy (facing Armageddon according to financial experts & economists) to warfare waged on vile mendacities (Iraq is a shambolic, nightmarish fiasco, according to intelligence experts & military specialists) to the environment, science and health care issues ...[/b]
[u][b]HEALTH: Factual Abstinence[/b][/u]
The Bush administration is pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into programs – billed as abstinence-only "education" – that "teach adolescents false and misleading information about reproductive health." A study released yesterday by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that 11 of the 13 most commonly used abstinence-only programs contain errors. For example, one popular curriculum teaches students that touching another person's genitals "can result in pregnancy." Moreover, these abstinence-only programs have proven ineffective in reducing teenage sexual activity and increase risky sexual behavior among teenagers. Nevertheless, President Bush – apparently more concerned about promoting right-wing ideology than accuracy or effectiveness – has pushed for significant funding increases for such programs, requesting $270 million for 2005. (For more on the problems with the push for abstinence-only programs, read these columns http://www.americanprogress.o... ).
[b]FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES:[/b] One abstinence-only curriculum teaches students that "in heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time." The program bases that assertion on a 1993 study that the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) described as "flawed," based on "serious error" and contradicted by other more recent, larger studies. According to the CDC, the scientific consensus is that latex condoms, used properly, "are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV." Another program teaches students that HIV and other STDs can "pass through" condoms. This contradicts the CDC's scientific conclusion that "latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."
[b]FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION:[/b] Several abstinence-only programs use taxpayer money to advance a political agenda which criminalizes abortion. One curriculum claims that, after a woman has an abortion, there is a five to ten percent chance she will become sterile and her next child is more likely to be born premature. Scientific obstetrics textbooks reveal that both of these claims are flatly false.
[b]ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS DEMEAN WOMEN:[/b] Abstinence only programs frequently reinforce false and demeaning stereotypes about women. For example, one program instructs impressionable students that "women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." Another program lists "financial support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Women" and "domestic support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Men." Another program tells the story of a princess who advises a knight to save her from a dragon using poison. The poison works, but the knight feels "ashamed" because he needed the help of the princess. He ends up marrying a village maiden only after making sure she knows nothing about poisons. The moral of the story: "occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
[b]ABSTINENCE-ONLY DOESN'T INCREASE ABSTINENCE AND DISCOURAGES SAFE SEX:[/b] Advocates for Youth, a non-profit group, evaluated eleven state abstinence-only programs and found there were "few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact." Five programs measured long-term impact on sexual behavior: "No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens' sexual behavior at follow-up, three to 17 months after the program ended." In at least two states, AFY Evaluators noted that abstinence-only programs' emphasis on the failure rates of contraception, including condoms, "left youth ambivalent, at best, about using them."
[b]ABSTINENCE-ONLY IN YOUR STATE:[/b] The fact that abstinence-only programs are ineffective hasn't stopped President Bush from flooding the nation with money for them. The Sexual Information and Education Counsel http://www.siecus.org/policy/... has done a breakdown of the impact of these programs in all fifty states. Check out the impact of abstinence-only programs in your state http://www.siecus.org/policy/... .
"Maybe I will die when I vote," one Iraqi told Dozier.
Dozier asked him, "So, you will do what you need to survive? And that means no voting?"
He replied, "Yeah."
While some Iraqis see voting as a declaration of independence from terrorism, others have decided democracy is no good, if you're not around to enjoy it.
[b]Bush is a reckless, ruthless and greedy opportunist http://www.tblog.com/template... who is responsible for the massacre of over 1,250 US Troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians -- all in order to amasse a forture embezzled from the U.S. taxpayers & Iraqis and to enrich his corrupt corporate cronies (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) ... Now Bush insists upon elections being held "on-schedule" in Iraq irrespective of the safety and security which is lacking due to the botched-up, bloody, & catastrophic mis-management of their illegal & immoral neo-fascist war by the War Criminals: Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld ... But, Bush wants to "look good"-- and it doesn't matter who pays the price for Bush's heinous disregard for human life, so long as the insane neo-con Bushies "win" ... "We the People" should be ashamed of ourselves for condoning War Criminal Bush's despicable Crimes Against Humanity ...[/b]
There’s no question that the United States, occupying Iraq and now strengthening the size of its occupying force, can successfully insist on elections there Jan. 30. In recent days, given the opportunity to hedge its bet, the Bush administration has staked all of its chips, and all its prestige, on that date. It’s foolishness of the worst sort, equal to the errors they’ve made in the past, from trying to impose Ahmed Chalabi on Iraq to believing that Iraqis would greet U.S. forces as “liberators.”
As usual, leading the foolishness are the neocons and their chief mouthpiece, the [i]Washington Post’s [/i]Jim Hoagland, who insists in today’s column that the elections be held come what may, and that country be turned over to Shiite-Kurdish militias:
... "[i]As the results of U.S. training of Iraqi police and soldiers remain uneven, it becomes more and more likely that the Shiite and Kurdish militias that U.S. officials have fought to keep out of any significant role in maintaining national order will be called on by the next government to do just that. The new order will be run on Iraqi rules, however uncertain, messy or even tumultuous they may seem at this point[/i]." ...
Hoagland, like most neocons, strongly endorses the “unified list of candidates” being dictated by Ayatollah Sistani, a list that includes fundamentalist Shiite parties like Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, along with Chalabi (yes, he’s back). The “militias” that Hoagland praises would be SCIRI’s scary Badr Brigades, the militant army armed and trained by Iran, reportedly with 10,000 fighters. Sure, Mr. Hoagland, let’s let them loose in Fallujah!
The fact is, a Jan. 30 election held under the guns of 150,000 U.S. troops, with Iraqi police nowhere to be seen, will be a U.S.-imposed one, and the government that it creates will have no more legitimacy than Prime Minister Allawi’s puppet one today.
"In the Ukraine, citizens are in the streets protesting what they charge is a fixed election. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell expresses this nation's concern about apparent voting irregularities. The media give the dispute around-the-clock coverage. But in the United States, massive and systemic voter irregularities go unreported and unnoticed." - Something's Fishy in Ohio, Jesse Jackson, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
[b]Noam Chomsky's instructive article is optimistic for he describes an enlightened population who desperately seek humanistic policies; greater co-operation with other nations; and, justice for all ... "We the People" must take our nation back from the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist war-mongers and corporate robber-barons who have hijacked our nation [i]and[/i] deny our collective will ...[/b]
The elections of November 2004 have received a great deal of discussion, with exultation in some quarters, despair in others, and general lamentation about a "divided nation." They are likely to have policy consequences, particularly harmful to the public in the domestic arena, and to the world with regard to the "transformation of the military," which has led some prominent strategic analysts to warn of "ultimate doom" and to hope that US militarism and aggressiveness will be countered by a coalition of peace-loving states, led by – China! (John Steinbruner and Nancy Gallagher, Daedalus). We have come to a pretty pass when such words are expressed in the most respectable and sober journals. It is also worth noting how deep is the despair of the authors over the state of American democracy. Whether or not the assessment is merited is for activists to determine.
Though significant in their consequences, the elections tell us very little about the state of the country, or the popular mood. There are, however, other sources from which we can learn a great deal that carries important lessons. Public opinion in the US is intensively monitored, and while caution and care in interpretation are always necessary, these studies are valuable resources. We can also see why the results, though public, are kept under wraps by the doctrinal institutions. That is true of major and highly informative studies of public opinion released right before the election, notably by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) and the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the U. of Maryland (PIPA), to which I will return.
One conclusion is that the elections conferred no mandate for anything, in fact, barely took place, in any serious sense of the term "election." That is by no means a novel conclusion. Reagan's victory in 1980 reflected "the decay of organized party structures, and the vast mobilization of God and cash in the successful candidacy of a figure once marginal to the `vital center' of American political life," representing "the continued disintegration of those political coalitions and economic structures that have given party politics some stability and definition during the past generation" (Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers, Hidden Election, 1981). In the same valuable collection of essays, Walter Dean Burnham described the election as further evidence of a "crucial comparative peculiarity of the American political system: the total absence of a socialist or laborite mass party as an organized competitor in the electoral market," accounting for much of the "class-skewed abstention rates" and the minimal significance of issues. Thus of the 28% of the electorate who voted for Reagan, 11% gave as their primary reason "he's a real conservative." In Reagan's "landslide victory" of 1984, with just under 30% of the electorate, the percentage dropped to 4% and a majority of voters hoped that his legislative program would not be enacted.
[b]The neo-conservatives are getting into[i] their own version [/i]of the holiday spirit ... I wonder how Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, would view their holiday shopping list in celebration of his birthday ...[/b]
The right-wing Heritage Foundation sent an email yesterday to help conservatives with their holiday shopping. If you too like to compare the American Left to "Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other totalitarians," http://www.thbookservice.com/... you'll love: a textbook defending a "maligned" Joe McCarthy and explaining why the Civil War wasn't really about slavery; a replica of a "never surrendered" Confederate sword; and a book attacking the "hidden agenda" http://www.thbookservice.com/... and bloody threat posed by all Muslims.
[b]"We the People" can surely see the blatant hypocrisy, vile propaganda and hate-filled agenda that these ungodly neo-con opportunists are shoving down our throats, can't we??? ... I'll bet Jesus Christ could, if he was here on earth & alive today ...[/b]
... Restoring Relations with Europe Takes More than Nice Words ...
"The United States has failed to explain its diplomatic and military actions adequately to the Muslim world, according to a high level report by a Pentagon advisory board that has been made public." - US's negative image in world opinion: Pentagon, http://timesofindia.indiatime...
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has a problem outside of the United States of America with the rest of the world now mistrusting its untrustworthy words & mendacious rhetoric; its dishonest motives; and, its (in)competence ... The insane neo-con cabal of crooks in the Bush regime have no credibility-- they squandered it during their first term because they perpetrated heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods to wage their illegal and immoral neo-hitlerian aggression into Iraq ... Moreover, the arrogant display of hubris by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and their neo-con war criminals succeeded in alienating nearly every civilized nation on this planet ... Bush and his criminal regime claim(ed) that they didn't/don't care ...
But they've got another problem: the U.S. Military is stretched beyond its capacity to continue to fight their neo-con wars; the value of the dollar & our economy (reckless record-level deficits) is in trouble; and, they simply can't afford to fight on multiple fronts (Didn't some other tyrant named Adolf Hitler fail miserably because he insisted on fighting on multiple fronts without the power?[i] Hmmm[/i]...) ... So Bush is forced to [i]eat some crow[/i] and to [i]clumsily try to mend fences [/i]with the Europeans, Canadians and other allies ... Other nations are not so easily led and so ignorant as the American public however, and it's going to take more than Bush's mediocre "weasel 'nice-nice' words" to persuade other nations to "go along" with us ... "We the People" should be ashamed that such an incompetent, ugly and greedy buffoon as the Use-ful/less Idiot Bush is our "leader" ... It's a disgrace ...[/b]
In the days immediately after his reelection, President George W. Bush moved swiftly to assure America's European friends that the next four years would be different from the last — that in a second term, he would devote time and energy to rebuilding the alliances that had been torn apart by disagreements over Iraq and other issues.
In his first press conference after the election, Bush made clear that he would "reach out to our allies and friends," and specifically singled out "our partners" in NATO and the Europe Union. After the election, NATO's Secretary General was the first foreign official to visit the Oval Office; Tony Blair followed the next day. At the same time, Condoleezza Rice welcomed her French counterpart to the White House. And Bush announced that he would travel to Europe as soon as possible after the inauguration "to remind people that the word is better off, America is better off, Europe is better off when we work together."
The change in tone is a welcome contrast to the general denigration of Europe that marked Bush's first term. Then, NATO was dismissed as an institution that fought wars by committee and undermined America's ability to act, and Europe as a whole was castigated as weak and indecisive. Opposition to U.S. policy reflected little more than the concerns of "old Europe," while longstanding allies like Germany were compared to foes like Libya and Cuba.
Now, the tone emanating from official Washington is quite different. But it will take more than nice words, Oval Office visits, and presidential trips to rebuild a shattered relationship. It will, in some key instances, require a change in American policy. For while Bush's style has grated many Europeans, it is his administration's policies that have caused the gap between the United States and Europe to widen so precipitously.
On some major issues — notably Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — the differences between the United States and Europe are likely to remain unbridgeable. Bush is never going to see the decision to invade Iraq, or even the conduct of the postwar period, as a mistake. Most Europeans will continue to believe it was the wrong thing to do. While Europe and America have a common interest in ensuring Iraq comes out alright, the commitment each will make to that end will inevitably be colored by this diverging assessment.
Differences are also likely to persist about the other major conflict in the Middle East. In Europe, the core of the problem is believed to be Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands and there is a widely held belief that Washington can do more to press Israel to change this state of affairs. In contrast, the dominant view in the United States is that Palestinian terrorism and Israel's lack of security are the fundamental problem, and that U.S. pressure is neither an appropriate nor an effective means to ending the conflict. The U.S.-Europe standoff on this issue will therefore continue.
But on other issues, a change in policy is both possible and desirable. One such change involves the value of alliances like NATO. After 9/11, the Bush administration dismissed alliances as undue constraints on America's freedom of action. Its motto was that "the mission defines the coalition." But while Washington has been left free to act as it wishes, it has done so virtually on its own, without the aid of many key allies whose contributions could have made a welcome difference. The costs to Americans, in Iraq and elsewhere, is plain for all to see. One important policy change, therefore, would be for Bush to make clear that Washington will once again work through alliances rather than on the basis of ad-hoc coalitions.
A similar change in direction is desirable with respect to the European Union. Throughout its first term, the Bush administration made clear that it preferred Europe to be weak and divided rather than strong and united. This was short-sighted. For all our power, our resources are limited and our capacity to meet global challenges like terrorism and weapons proliferation depends on the cooperation of others, most especially our European friends. Bush therefore should make clear that the United States has nothing to fear from a strong, united Europe, and that Washington welcomes every effort that makes such a Europe more of a reality.
Finally, Bush will need to recommit to upholding and strengthening global norms and rules dealing with issues like global warming, proliferation, and Guantanamo. Nothing damaged America's image in Europe as much as Bush's abandonment of America's championing of the rule of law in international affairs. From declaring Kyoto dead to actively undermining international treaties on war, Bush conveyed a sense of America as being above the law. To regain Europe's trust, he will have to commit America to strengthen rules curbing global warming, halting proliferation, dealing with Guantanamo and war crimes, and other such global issues.
Will Bush change policy in the ways his rhetoric implies? Not likely. In the same press conference in which he said he would reach out to friends and allies he also noted that he would continue making decisions with little regard to the perspectives of these same friends and allies. "I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make." Not much comfort to those others who, even knowing the explanation, profoundly doubt the decisions this president has made.
