- Signs of the Times for Sat, 18 Feb 2006 -





Editorial: The Protocols of the Pathocrats

Laura Knight-Jadczyk
18 Feb 06

In this week's podcast we discuss what we have identified as the very first problem that must be solved in order for positive changes to be undertaken in American and elsewhere in the world: the Media.

Knowledge is power. Those who control information can control the masses; it's that simple.

As we researched the subject of the media, we came across The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. As everyone knows, this is a vicious anti-Semitic hoax. We agree. We do not for a minute think that this represents Judaism or ordinary Jewish people.

What was shocking for us was our realization that the Protocols is being implemented almost line by line by many of the members of the Bush Administration and the various government 'think-tanks' that formulate their policy. In other words, the Protocols is not a hoax because it is nonsense, but rather it is only a hoax because it was attributed to Jews.

Here, we present the text of Protocol 12 from which several excerpts were read on the podcast and which we jokingly referred to as "The Gospel According to Karl Rove."

Read it and understand that this is, indeed, the number one issue that America must deal with before they can do a single other thing.

PROTOCOL No. 12 Control of the Press

1. The word "freedom," which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows -

2. Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.

3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? The produce of publicity, which nowadays is a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it, will be turned by us into a very lucrative source of income to our State: we shall lay on it a special stamp tax and require deposits of caution-money before permitting the establishment of any organ of the press or of printing offices; these will then have to guarantee our government against any kind of attack on the part of the press.

For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy. Such measures as stamp tax, deposit of caution-money and fines secured by these deposits, will bring in a huge income to the government. It is true that party organs might not spare money for the sake of publicity, but these we shall shut up at the second attack upon us. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification. I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER.
WE CONTROL THE PRESS

4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....

6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest....
FREE PRESS DESTROYED

7. We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution-money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.

8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.

10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.

11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.

12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.

13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.

14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.
ONLY LIES PRINTED

15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.

17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.

18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.

19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: 7862 Iraqi Prisoners Murdered In U.S. Custody

Signs of the Times
February 18, 2006

Two days ago, online magazine Salon.com announcedd that they had obtained files and other electronic documents from an internal Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal.

The files, from the Army's Criminal Investigation Command contained a total of 1,325 new images of suspected detainee abuse, 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse, 660 images of adult pornography, 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts, 20 images of a soldier with a Swastika drawn between his eyes, 37 images of Military Working dogs being used in abuse of detainees and 125 images of questionable acts. Based on time signatures of the digital cameras used, all the photographs and videos were taken between Oct. 18, 2003, and Dec. 30, 2003. Some of the images can be seen here.

Over a period of about 10 weeks in 2003 then, the US military and members of the CIA, acting on the orders of the Pentagon and undoubtedly with the knowledge of members of the US government, tortured 546 Iraqi prisoners to death in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

That 'higher ups' were well aware of, and indeed were deliberately orchestrating these acts is evidenced by the many testimonies by 'lowly' U.S. soldiers who were forced to carry the can for the depravity of their superiors. One notable example is that of Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick who was interviewed by 60 Minutes in April 2004:

“We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations,” says Frederick. “And it just wasn't happening."

Six months before he faced a court martial, Frederick sent home a video diary of his trip across the country. Frederick, a reservist, said he was proud to serve in Iraq. He seemed particularly well-suited for the job at Abu Ghraib. He’s a corrections officer at a Virginia prison, whose warden described Frederick to us as “one of the best.”

Frederick says Americans came into the prison: "We had military intelligence, we had all kinds of other government agencies, FBI, CIA ... All those that I didn't even know or recognize."

Frederick's letters and email messages home also offer clues to problems at the prison. He wrote that he was helping the interrogators:

"Military intelligence has encouraged and told us 'Great job.'"

"They usually don't allow others to watch them interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison, they have made an exception."

"We help getting them to talk with the way we handle them. ... We've had a very high rate with our style of getting them to break. They usually end up breaking within hours."

No doubt, how long would it take you to "break" if you were being sodomised with a floresent light tube?

Attorney Gary Myers and a judge advocate in Iraq are defending Frederick. They say he should never have been charged, because of the failure of his commanders to provide proper training and standards.

"The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating,” says Myers. “And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important."

Unfortunately, and contrary to government spin that "torture in U.S. prisons is not widespread", there is no reason to believe that Oct. 18th 2003 was the beginning of these acts of torture and murder, nor can we have any hope that they ended on Dec. 30, 2003. If we take the figure of 546 murdered Iraqi detainess during this 10 week period as an average, we are left with a figure of approximately 7,500 Iraqi detainess that have probably been murdered by US military personnel and members of the CIA (and Mossad) since the beginning of the Iraq invasion. Of course, this figure is likely to be on the low side since there is little doubt that the full extent of these atrocities have been revealed, or will ever be revealed, to the general public.

Given the indsicriminate way in which the US military's goes about arresting Iraqi insurgent suspects, it is very likely that many of the murdered Iraqis were in no way connected with armed resistance to the US military presence in Iraq. The International Red Cross has stated that between 75 and 90% of Iraqis arrested are in fact innocent of any crime. Not that being a member of the Iraqi resistance or defending one's life and family against a ruthless invader can ever be construed as a crime, at least not under any just interpretation of man-made law.

In the face of this evidence, and the observable facts from the past five years, who can disagree that the US government is a brutal regime bent on the destruction of the Middle East and its inhabitants? Who can disagree that the American NeoCons are doing the bidding of the Israeli government and their Zionists taskmasters? The day after the September 11th attacks, former (and soon to be again) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamim Netanyahu wrote an article for the New York Post entitled: "Today We are All Americans", where he stated:

"What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of civilization... I have absolute confidence that if we, the citizens of the free world, led by President Bush, will marshal the enormous reserves of power at our disposal, harness the steely resolve of a free people and mobilize our collective will to eradicate this evil from the face of the earth.... The international terrorist network is thus based on regimes - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taleban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority and several other Arab regimes such as the Sudan. For the bin Ladens of the world, Israel is merely a sideshow. America is the target"

Does anyone think it is mere coincidence that Netanyahu was able to name the very same countries that have been, or are soon to be, attacked by the US military since that day? The day after the 9/11 attacks, we were told that no one even knew who had carried out the attacks, much less the countries that supported the attackers.

But Netanyahu knew.

Are we to assume that he possesses powers of divination? Or is it that the entire concept of "world-wide Islamic terrorism", the 9/11 attacks and the resulting invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran and Syria, are all a part of one giant conspiracy to reshape the world in the likeness of the Pathocrat?

The facts speak for themselves.

See today's stories on torture for more on this topic.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Slow Murder of the Fourth Amendment

Kurt Nimmo

Earlier today, I called Jack Blood’s radio show on GCN and complained loudly and mightily about how the PATRIOT Act was rubber stamped by the Senate yesterday, paving the way for all manner of continued and increasing malfeasance against the people and the now jackboot trampled and seriously bruised (if not comatose) Bill of Rights.

“The Senate voted 96-3 to move toward final passage of new civil liberties protections to the Patriot Act, which the White House negotiated with a handful of Republicans,” reports Knight Ridder. “Some Democrats remain convinced that the post-Sept. 11, 2001, anti-terrorism law gives the federal government too much power to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans. It is set to expire next month unless it is renewed.”

Of course, these are the same Democrats who apparently don’t have a problem with the NSA snooping in on your phone calls and email, almost effortlessly crumbling under “heavy pressure” from the Straussian neocons, according to ranking Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat Jay Rockefeller (the name alone should provide a clue why he has acquiesced).

Instead of protecting the people of the United States from the heavy-handed and authoritarian tactics of the neocons, Pat Roberts has suggested the 1978 FISA law governing electronic “eavesdropping” (basically underwear drawer snooping) be modified to allow “extensive briefings on the closely guarded National Security Agency program,” in other words a select few enemies of the people will be included in the loop.

NSA snooping is nothing new—it has simply taken on a new urgency under the Bushian neocons as they inexorably wend their demented way toward total war and, in the process, strive to silence (if not eliminate) their growing number of critics. General Michael Hayden—the guy who believes the Fourth Amendment contains no requirement for probable cause—made sure to tell us the NSA is operating under Executive Order 12333, signed by Reagan in 1981.

EO 12333 was created to allow the FBI to use intrusive “investigatory” techniques, such as mail openings, wiretaps and burglaries, when there was supposedly probable cause to suspect a “terrorist” threat. “Executive Order 12333, permits the FBI and CIA to surveil individuals even if they are not breaking the law or acting on behalf of a foreign power,” explains Margaret Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Searches need not be limited to offices, or to premises under the control of a suspected agent, nor need they be linked to the alleged commission of an unlawful act.” In short, so-called searches can be conducted in massive, sweeping, and indiscriminate fashion. “Ratner noted with irony that the FBI’s remarkable claim of this unconstitutional inherent authority came after the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ‘turned down an FBI request for a warrant to conduct a black bag job, holding that Congress had given it jurisdiction only over electronic surveillance,’” according to PublicEye (see previous link). FISA was chucked as useless more than two decades ago.

In other words, we have lived under the eye of a fascist and technocratic Panopticon for some time now and the NSA “scandal” is nothing new—instead, under the direction of the Machiavellian neocons, untethered and muscular surveillance has reached a quite natural and logical (under the authoritarian rubric) height. If the technology now currently employed existed in the 1930s, no doubt the Nazis (and Stalin) would have used it in similar fashion.

As the history of COINTELPRO reveals, the idea here is not to monitor Osama’s phone calls placed from an Afghan cave, but instead investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations and individuals (and thus violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights). First and foremost, the NSA snoop program (and parallel efforts such as CIFA at the Pentagon) is all about psychological warfare, harassment, intimidation, infiltration, black bag jobs, and even so-called extralegal force and violence. COINTELPRO, however, was illegal—but under the newly enshrined PATRIOT, the COINTELPROesque efforts of the Straussian neocons are entirely legal—and will be put to good use.

In the months ahead—as the Straussian neocons shock and awe Iran and other selected enemies—no doubt we will find out how effective massive snooping (and psywar unbound) is against those of us who speak and act out.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: How long do you have?

By John Kaminski
Will you wait to be killed, or ID the real perpetrators?

How do you talk to your neighbor when he's right in the middle of killing someone?

What if all your neighbors are doing it, what do you do then? Do you also start killing?

And then there are those who are the real victims, the relatives of suddenly mutilated corpses you now so glibly explain away as facile geopolitical rationalizations, exactly what do you say to those folks?

Remember the words of Madeleine Albright: “We think the price is worth it.”

How do you speak to a nation where half the population can’t read?

They want to kill you for what you've done, you know. Can you blame them? Americans who have murdered innocent darkskinned people with bizarre video games in hightech machines ... all that has been created by the Iraq war is a visceral search for vengeance sweeping the entire world to punish America in the same sadistic manner this phony Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave has punished the world, to reverse the same torture techniques that the United States and its overlords Britain and Israel now flash around the world like squalid semen from the devil himself.

Iraq is bleeding with a fatal wound, and very soon, the cyber sentinels tell us, the nation of Iran, one of the oldest countries on the planet, will suffer the same tortured fate.

For what, may I ask?

The Zionist monster, three nations merged together in a capitalist terror machine run by the same people who ran the killing apparatus in the Soviet Union, merged with the sellouts who created Nazi Germany. All of that has been glued together in an epoxy of evil, with the blackmail, bribery and murder coordinated by the state of Israel. As we speak, it spreads like a cancer around the world and stains humanity with its murderous and conscienceless faux justifications.

Justifications for endless murder and robbery.

From the Hindu Kalachakra to Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, we have been adequately warned. But the power of money and media are overpowering, and when combined with pharmaceuticals, nutrition, education, medicine and literature all conspiring to turn us into alienated robots, the average joe doesn’t stand much of a chance against the forces of predesigned slavery that are arrayed against him.

Identifying the perpetrators is always the key step. Exactly who is doing what to whom.

How long will you cling to the excuse that this is the way the system is, that I owe allegiance to my country and my cause? How long will you insist that you are not responsible for the psychopathic banking kingpins who run roughshod over phony laws and rob and kill whomever they choose?

Or will you just waltz quietly into the amorphous white noise of your slavery?

When will you reach the inevitable conclusion that it is the very way you think that has created all this carnage, images of fear that have turned our collective social life a nauseating shade of brown and black? And red, for the innocent blood shed like a savior in every family. How is it you came to be such a whimpering coward, too afraid of losing his own stash of gold that you became willing to overlook the crimes for which you accept responsibility — the Palestinians lying bleeding in the dirt of Gaza, and the crushed red shells of children’s skulls in Baghdad.

When we made that choice in our cowardice, we forfeited the future of the human species for a potful of meaningless currency. And now we're paying the price with our children, though most of us are either too drugged or too dumbed down to even notice.

Deny it if you like, but this is what our world has come to. Do you know how to shoot a gun? And will it do any good?

Can you imagine what it must be like to have to use a gun every day in order just to survive? The scenario is coming sooner than you think to America. Although by then (maybe tomorrow), everyone will be so drugged down from the poison they buy in supermarkets (sing it with me — AS-PAR-TAME!) and mentally twisted from the subliminal dumbdown programming on TV that there will be no revolution this time, only a slow, somnambulent walk as in a grey dream right out of the Talmud into the neocon extermination camps now currently under construction by the fine folks at, you guessed it! — Halliburton.

If you don't know who or what Halliburton is by now, then you should make out your will as best you can, and prepare to meet a violent death in the coming months.

I remember from reading dozens of disaster novels back when I was a young turk. And I remember wondering about the calm, unsuspecting narration just before some colossal disaster. It’s always eerie to contemplate what the writer didn’t know about in advance, like some comet from the human subconscious come to wipe out the species.

Very sad to say (and I proceed with advance apologies) but a popular topic of conversation down at your local therapist these days is to consider how each of you reading this story is likely to die in the coming months.

Tops on the list right now is a nuclear strike on Iran that leads to either retaliation and destruction of the United States (a process of advanced decay already proceeding nicely on the financial and legal levels), or some unforeseen tectonic or atmospheric consequence that will kill billions.

But what perhaps is even more frightening is the formidable list of alternative death scenarios that are right behind it.

No. 2 is probably to be thrown into a Halliburton concentration camp for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt and being tortured to death by teenagers from Connecticut on Prozac and in the Marines, just returned from duty at Abu Ghraib.

Here are some others scenarios.

• Your chemotherapy doctor ups your dose and you’re out of here.

• Some cop decides he doesn’t like the greasiness of your hair, and because he knows he can get away with it, he does, and you’re done.

• You were in the Army, got irradiated in Iraq, and now have infected your wife and kids.

• When you return from Iraq, you realize what you have done to innocent women and children in the name of nothing, and put a gun to your own head.

There are just four random probabilities in your immediate future, in this world of bloody bullshit that you have created for yourself.

Most of us will disappear from the universe very soon without ever knowing who it was that created many of these situations that cause us needless pain and suffering, that have killed so many people needlessly.

And we who finally found out must forever live with the guilt that we knew what we saw but couldn’t stop it.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Redneckville

by Rob Kall

How would you feel if you could travel back in time and visit a rally in Germany, supporting Hitler.

I spent a few hours in Redneckville yesterday, in the Pocono region of Pennsylvania. I took my son skiing (yes, I DID do deep double diamond moguls) and it was difficult, sitting in the lodge, to not glare at the guys who seemed to perfectly fit the profile of the right wingers in the People's Poll. These men were white, blue collar, with a few kids, wives with too much cheap makeup... some wearing patriotic tee shirts. These are the rural, born-again men who make up the strongest base of the right wing. I saw them as people who would, in the 1930's, have rallied behind Hitler. I felt like putting on a tee shirt that said, Still Like Bush, You'd Have Loved Hitler in the Early 1930's

I'd say that I have about a 90% chance of being accurate on my assessments of these right wing rural white men. It gets harder and harder to be quiet around these kool-aid-brainwashed white boys who are hurrying the end of democracy and the blooming of full-fledged fascism in this nation. Like a time traveller seeing Hitler supporters in the 1930's, I see these average to below average intelligence, sports fanatic, gun toting, self righteous, hyper masculinized guys as a major part of THE problem. I see them as unconscious puppets, easily manipulated by the dark, corporate fascist forces that have been shaping the US since Bush stole the presidency. Call me paranoid. Tell me to lighten up. But I am no longer willing to be cheerful and friendly with these failures of democracy, these losers who have sold out our precious freedoms so they can, even if it's at a subconscious level, feel more manly, more tough, by buying into Bush's war, his pseudo tough, stupid, cowboy talk about evildooers, swamps and caves. These men ARE the swamp and cave dwellers, and they are actively helping to send the US into a third world era.

Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology.


Comment on this Editorial


China Rushes to Complete $100B Deal With Iran

By Peter S. Goodman Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, February 17, 2006

SHANGHAI -- China is hastening to complete a deal worth as much as $100 billion that would allow a Chinese state-owned energy firm to take a leading role in developing a vast oil field in Iran, complicating the Bush administration's efforts to isolate the Middle Eastern nation and roll back its nuclear development plans, according to published reports.
The completion of the agreement would advance China's global quest for new stocks of energy. It could also undermine U.S. and European initiatives to halt Tehran's nuclear plans, possibly generating friction in Beijing's relations with outside powers.

Caijing, a respected financial magazine based in Beijing, reported on its Web site on Thursday that a Chinese delegation comprised of officials from the National Development and Reform Commission -- a top economic policy body -- intends to visit Iran as early as next month to conclude an agreement. The deal would clear China Petrochemical Corp., also known as Sinopec, to develop the Yadavaran oil field in southern Iran.

Beijing and Tehran are attempting to swiftly conclude a deal in the next few weeks, ahead of the possible imposition of international sanctions against Iran, according to a report published in Friday's editions of The Wall Street Journal. The report relied upon unnamed Iranian government officials. Sanctions could hinder Chinese investments in Iran.

Chinese officials declined to comment, and calls to Sinopec's offices went unanswered. In a written statement, the Iranian Embassy in Beijing asserted that the two nations have been working together on energy development, "following the rule of mutual benefits and respect in all bilateral cooperation."

A deal would cement a memorandum of understanding signed by China and Iran in October 2004. The framework agreement pledges that Sinopec will develop the Yadavaran field in exchange for the purchase of 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year for the next quarter-century.

Analysts in China said the deal should primarily be seen as part of Beijing's global reach for new energy stocks to fuel its relentless development -- a drive that has in recent years led Chinese companies to invest in Indonesia, Australia, Venezuela, Sudan and Kazakhstan. China is now locked into a high-stakes competition with Japan for access to potentially enormous oil fields in Russia.

But the speed with which China and Iran are moving to conclude their agreement and begin development appears to signal Beijing's intent to limit the United States-led drive for sanctions against Iran to curb what the Washington describes as Tehran's rogue effort to develop nuclear weapons.

As one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, China can veto a sanctions proposal within the international body, or at least threaten to do so to restrict the bite and breadth of such an initiative.

"The timing is really interesting," said Shen Dingli, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. "China and Iran appear to be collaborating not only for energy development but also to increase the stakes in case sanctions are imposed. This is a subtle message that even if sanctions are passed, you could have limited sanctions without touching upon oil. China is saying, 'This is my cheese. Don't touch.' "

China's voracious appetite for energy is increasingly guiding its foreign policy. China has used the threat of a Security Council veto to limit sanctions against Sudan, the African nation in which China's largest energy firm, China National Petroleum Corp., is the largest investor in a government-led oil consortium. China is the largest buyer of Sudan's oil, as well as the largest supplier of arms to its ruling regime. The Sudanese government has been accused of massacring villagers to clear land for further energy development and of committing genocide in its efforts to crush separatist rebels in the western region of Darfur.

China's pursuit of an energy deal with Iran comes as Tehran has announced the resumption of its uranium enrichment program. Tehran says this work is merely aimed at generating energy, while the Bush administration asserts it is a precursor to the development of nuclear weapons and has been lobbying its allies to take a hard line while threatening sanctions.

China has joined the international chorus in urging Tehran to halt its nuclear plans. But China's aggressive pursuit of an oil deal with Iran underscores how energy security has become a paramount concern for Beijing at a time of relentless industrial growth. Government forecasts show China's demands for imported crude oil swelling from about one-third of its total needs to about 60 percent by 2020.

Analysts assume that the Iranian field could produce as much as 300,000 barrels of oil per day, making it one of the larger overseas operations for a Chinese company. Sinopec would hold a 51 percent stake in the Yadavaran project, according to the Caijing report, while India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. would hold 29 percent. The rest of the venture would be divided among Iranian companies and perhaps other outside investors.

Comment: Whoops! There goes the Neocon plan to take over the world. The reactions in Washington ought to entertaining!

Comment on this Article


War Whore Rice: Iran is global terror 'banker'

AlJazeera 17 Feb 06

The Iranian government is a "central banker" for global terrorism and working with Syria to destablise the Middle East, the US Secretary of State has said.

Speaking in testimony to the US Senate on Thursday, Condoleeza Rice signaled the US intention to step up the diplomatic offensive against Iran, saying the threat it posed went beyond its controversial nuclear programme.

"It's not just Iran's nuclear programme but also their support for terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for terrorism," she told the Senate Budget Committee.
Rice’s comments came a few days before a planned trip to the Middle East, during which she plans to hold talks with regional allies on containing a regime she said was bent on "political subversion, terrorism, and support for violent Islamist extremism."

Claiming success for recent US efforts to haul Iran before the UN Security Council for its nuclear activities, she added that it was not possible just to address Iran’s nuclear program “in a vacuum".

"Perhaps one of the biggest challenges we face is the policy of the Iranian regime, which is a policy of destabilization of the world's most volatile and vulnerable region," she said.

"It is Iran's regional policies that really are concerning as we watch them, with their sidekick Syria, destabilizing places like Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and, indeed, even in southern Iraq."

'Strategic challenge'

The United States has accused Iran of supporting militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as Iraqi insurgents and Palestinian movements such as Hamas that are opposed to peace with Israel.

Rice's testimony came a day after she and other US officials signaled Washington's intention to launch a broadened diplomatic offensive against Iran calling it a "strategic challenge" to the world.

Meanwhile the Bush administration is hoping to put the spotlight on Tehran at a meeting of the Group of Eight industrial powers in Moscow next week, with plans also in the works for a NATO session specifically on Iran, officials said.

'Imperialism'

As its contribution to ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, the US House of Representatives voted 404-4 Thursday to approve a resolution condemning the government of Iran for resuming its nuclear activities.

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes, pursued its own diplomatic maneuverings on Thursday to counter the American diplomatic onslaught.

Iranian parliament speaker Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel started a two-day visit to Cuba, proclaiming that Tehran was "facing imperialism in the front lines" and needed the Marxist-ruled island's continued support.



Comment on this Article


The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War

by Michel Chossudovsky February 17, 2006 GlobalResearch.ca

"Current US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to keeping the US nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power - a commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years. Much of the current US nuclear policy has been in place since before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years." (Robert McNamara, US Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations)



The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO) ).

The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO), which applies to Iran and North Korea calls for "offensive and defensive integration". It explicitly allows the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons in conventional war theaters.

In the showdown with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, these Pentagon "guidelines" would allow, subject to presidential approval, for the launching of punitive bombings using "mini-nukes" or tactical thermonuclear weapons.

While the "guidelines" do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US and/or Israeli nuclear arsenal, Pentagon "scenarios" in the Middle East are currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B-61-11 bunker buster bomb. This particular version of the bunker buster is a thermonuclear bomb, a so-called Nuclear Earth Penetrator or NEP. It is a Weapon of Mass Destruction in the real sense of the word. Its utilization by the US or Israel in the Middle East war theater would trigger a nuclear holocaust.

History of the B61 Thermonuclear Bomb

The B-61 thermonuclear bomb, first produced in 1966, is described as a light weight nuclear device. Its construction essentially extends the technology of the older version of tactical nuclear warheads. (for further details see, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html .

The B61-11 earth-penetrating version of the B61 was developed in the immediate wake of the Cold War under the Clinton administration. It was configured initially to have a "low" 10 kiloton yield, 66 percent of a Hiroshima bomb, for (post-Cold War) battlefield operations:

"In October 1993, Harold Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy, sought approval to develop an alternative to the B53 high-yield nuclear bomb, which was the principal "bunker buster" weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The B53 was also the heaviest payload nuke in use, weighing 8,900 pounds, and only deployable from the B-52 bombers. Under the guise of "weapons modernization," Smith was pushing the development of the B61-Mod 11.

... The B61-11 was developed and put into the stockpile without full-scale nuclear tests. Some critics have maintained that the B61-11 is a new nuclear weapon, but the US has said all along that the B61-11 is not new, but a modification of older B61s to give the weapon an earth-penetrating capability to destroy buried targets...."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm )

The B61-11 was intended for the Middle East. The Clinton administration had in fact threatened to use it against Libya, suggesting that Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons facility at Tarhunah "might be a target of the then-newly deployed B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear weapon." ( The Record (Bergen County, NJ) February 23, 2003)

Military documents distinguish between the NEP and the "mini-nuke" which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or seventy times a Hiroshima bomb.

This distinction between mini-nukes and NEPs is in many regard misleading. In practice there is no dividing line. We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several "available yields", ranging from "low yields" of less than one kiloton, to mid-range and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb. In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several "available yields".

What is contemplated for theater use is the "low yield" 10 kt bomb, two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.

Mini-Nukes in Conventional War Theaters

There are indications that the Bush administration does not exclude using thermonuclear bunker buster bombs in the Middle East war theater. These weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War conventional war theater "with third world nations".

In October 2001, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisaged the use of the B61-11 in Afghanistan. The targets were Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains.

Rumsfeld stated at the time that while the "conventional" bunker buster bombs "' are going to be able to do the job', ... he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons." (Quoted in the Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001).

The use of the B61-11 was also contemplated during the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. In this regard, the B61-11 was described as "a precise, earth-penetrating low-yield nuclear weapon against high-value underground targets", which included Saddam Hussein's underground bunkers:

"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).

There is no documentary evidence, however, that the B61-11 was used against Iraq.

"Safe for Civilians"

The B61-11 is categorized as a "deep earth penetrating bomb" capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing". The B61-11s can be delivered in much same way as the conventional GBU (gravity bomb), from a B-2. a 5B-2 stealth bomber or from an F-16 aircraft.

"military officials and leaders of America's nuclear weapon laboratories are urging the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons... which could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations.

Critics argue that adding low-yield warheads to the world's nuclear inventory simply makes their eventual use more likely. In fact, a 1994 law currently prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war."

... Senate Republicans John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) buried a small provision in the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill that would have overturned these earlier restrictions... Senators Warner and Allard imagine these nuclear weapons could be used in small-scale conventional conflicts against rogue dictators, while leaving most of the civilian population untouched. As one anonymous former Pentagon official put it to the Washington Post last spring, "What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population." Statements like these promote the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their "collateral damage," making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons." (See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001 / click v54nl, italics added)

In an utterly twisted logic, the nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented as an instrument of peace-making and regime change, which will enhance global security. It is intended to curb the dangers of WMD proliferation by "nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and "rogue states". Pentagon propaganda has carefully distorted the nature of this bomb.

The B61-11 is casually described as causing an underground explosion without threatening "the surrounding civilian population".

The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons and nuclear bombs. Already during the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians.

The Bush administration has gone one step further in defining the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which are now part of America's preemptive arsenal. Essentially they are described defensive weapons. Under the preemptive nuclear doctrine, they are specifically identified for use in conventional war theaters.

The Pentagon claims that the use of the B61-11 minimizes the risks of "collateral damage". According to US. military planners, "potential adversaries" are hiding their WMDs in "fortified bunkers" below more than 100 feet of concrete. Yet test results indicate that the low yield B61-11 has never penetrated more than 20 feet below the ground (See also The Independent. 23 October 2003) :

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. ... Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. ... Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area " (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson,Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).

Nuclear Holocaust

According to GlobalSecurity.org , the use of the B61-11 against North Korea would result in extensive radioactive fallout over nearby countries, thereby triggering a nuclear holocaust.

"... In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth,... But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to be transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock. Moreover, it has a high yield, in the hundreds of kilotons. If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout could drift over nearby countries such as Japan" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm )

If it were to be launched against Iran, it would result in radioactive contamination over a large part of the Middle East - Central Asian region, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, including US troops stationed in Iraq:

"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."(Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, by Robert W. Nelson, op cit )

At present, the B61-11 is slated for use in war theaters together with conventional weapons. (Congressional Report“ Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues , Congressional Research Service March 2005). Other versions of the B61, namely mod 3, 4 and 7, which are part of the US arsenal, involve nuclear bunker buster bombs with a lower yield to that of B61-11).

(For further details see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html )

While the US Congress has blocked further research funding in fiscal 2005 on new more robust tactical nuclear weapons, this decision does not affect the existing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11, developed during the Clinton administration. The B61-11 bunker busters are fully operational, The B61-11 has apparently been tested "resulting in its acceptance as a standard stockpile item". It has been cleared for battlefield use.

Part II of this article is forthcoming on Global Research

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here.



Comment on this Article


Iran Seeks Allies In Latin America For Nuclear Program

Associated Press 17 Feb 06

CARACAS --Iran is reaching out to Latin American countries from Venezuela to Uruguay, seeking to line up diplomatic allies as it faces increasing scrutiny of its nuclear program.

Touring the region, Iranian lawmakers have turned to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban President Fidel Castro as key partners against what they call an imperialist U.S. government.
After an initial two-day stop in Venezuela, the delegation traveled to Cuba, where on Thursday National Assembly president Ricardo Alarcon pledged support to Iran in the nuclear dispute.

"No one has the right to deny any people the possibility of the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Alarcon said. "What the world should combat precisely is the monopoly that some have over arms of mass destruction - nuclear ones in particular."

Next, the Iranian delegation headed by parliament speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel planned to travel to Brazil and Uruguay, said Hojat Soltani, a spokesman at the Iranian Embassy in Caracas.

"This tour is for further deepening and broadening the relations we have with these counties," Soltani said.

Iran already has loyal backing from Chavez and Castro in the dispute over its nuclear program, but obtaining similar support from other Latin American nations such as Brazil could be difficult, said Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

Of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35 members, 27 nations voted last month in favor to referring Iran to U.N. Security Council over fears it aims to build an atomic bomb. Venezuela voted against the referral along with Cuba and Syria, while the remainder abstained.

"I don't think this is going to result in a diplomatic breakthrough for the Iranians. These Latin American nations may simply abstain from voting rather than vote against referring Iran to the council," Birns said.

"Chavez has opened the door for Iran. He's not going to let the White House control his guest list. Some may see this as a bad public relations move, but he genuinely believes in this type of solidarity," said Birns. "I don't think Brazil or Uruguay will be so accommodating."

The U.N. Security Council is to consider Iran's nuclear activities next month. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week. Iran insists the enrichment is for nuclear energy, not arms.

While in Venezuela, Haddad Adel denied that Iran wants to produce nuclear arms but insisted that Tehran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes - a view strongly shared by Chavez, who has expressed interest in starting a nuclear energy program himself.

The Iranian parliament leader said Tehran had not discussed the possibility of cooperating with Venezuela in nuclear energy technology, but would be willing to consider it. "In the framework of the IAEA, all countries can help each other," he said through an interpreter.

He also proposed joining with Venezuela and other like-minded Latin American countries to help counter U.S. "imperialism."

"Iran and the Mideast and Venezuela and Latin America can act as two convergent axes to neutralize the plans of arrogant world (powers)," Haddad Adel said in a speech to the Venezuelan National Assembly on Tuesday.

Iran has become Venezuela's closest ally in the Middle East, and a range of joint projects include a $200 million development fund and factories to make tractors, auto parts and cement in the South American country.

Before leaving Venezuela, top Iranian and Venezuelan lawmakers signed a document Wednesday saying all nations have a right to peaceful nuclear energy.

They also pledged "joint actions" aimed at "achieving respect for the just cause" of Palestinians, whom they called an "oppressed people."

Venezuela has said it will welcome Palestinian leaders of the Hamas movement on an as-yet-unconfirmed South American tour following their electoral victory.

The United States and Europe consider Hamas a terrorist organization and have refused to deal with a Hamas-led Palestinian leadership.



Comment on this Article


Why Iran Can Afford to Be Insane

By Brad Macdonald The Trumpet March 2006 Issue

Although Iran can’t stop the flow of oil, it can reduce the volume of oil flowing onto the global market if it chooses. And any such restriction in oil flow would yield dire results for the economies of America, Europe and Asia—directly affecting transportation, manufacturing, industry, agriculture and the military, with indirect ramifications for every other economic sector. Even a couple of million fewer barrels of oil per day on the market would likely create economic chaos, which would precipitate political crisis.
Is the Iranian president crazy, or canny? Before you answer, consider the ace up his sleeve.

Iran has guts, there’s no doubt about it—what with its pressing forward with nuclear development while threatening to wipe Israel off the map. But these moves aren’t as careless as some people assume, considering the ace Tehran has up its sleeve.

Oil, that is.

The equation is simple. The advanced economies of America and Europe rely heavily on a stable supply of oil, much of it from opec member nations. Iran is the second-largest opec producer and a major contributor to the global oil supply.

In the same manner that nutrient-rich sap is the lifeblood of a tree, furnishing the energy needed to grow, oil provides energy (in many cases, literally) to the largest and most affluent economies on the globe. Oil is absolutely central to our modern lifestyles.

Although Iran can’t stop the flow of oil, it can reduce the volume of oil flowing onto the global market if it chooses. And any such restriction in oil flow would yield dire results for the economies of America, Europe and Asia—directly affecting transportation, manufacturing, industry, agriculture and the military, with indirect ramifications for every other economic sector. Even a couple of million fewer barrels of oil per day on the market would likely create economic chaos, which would precipitate political crisis.

But here is where the analogy breaks down. While a tree wouldn’t respond to a mere threat to reduce its sap flow, with oil it is different. Even the threat of there not being enough oil to meet global demands has an impact.

We experienced this phenomenon in late January. As Europe and America scrambled to drum up support for UN sanctions against Tehran for resuming its nuclear activities, the Iranian oil minister warned that one of the consequences of sanctions will be “the unleashing of a crisis in the oil sector and particularly a price hike” (Agence France Presse, January 19). The news of a potential disruption in the flow of oil from Iran caused oil prices to jump to near four-month highs.

This is quite startling. Iran didn’t actually reduce the amount of oil it contributes to global supply, it just threatened to reduce it—and look what happened.

The amount of influence Iran wields in this scenario is ridiculous. The Iranian oil minister makes a statement to the Middle Eastern press, and you have to pay more at the gas pump. This man is taking more money from your wallet, and there is little you can do to stop him.

Why? Because America, as well as Europe and Asia, absolutely must have a stable flow of oil. Oil has become the Achilles heel of the world’s greatest, most advanced nations. Even though the United States doesn’t receive oil directly from Iran, in the event of Tehran squeezing supply, those nations that do import Iranian oil would have to hunt elsewhere for it. In the end, it affects everyone.

Few Alternatives


As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad swaggers, endorsing dangerous ideologies, flippantly throwing around offensive remarks that he remains arrogantly unapologetic for, many wonder if this politician isn’t slightly loco—if there aren’t some screws loose in his mind. What else would give him the gall to push around some of the most powerful nations and groups of nations in the world?

But is he crazy, or canny?

It is hard to deny the truth in a threat Ahmadinejad made this past January 14. The Guardian in Britain reported his statement: “Iran had a ‘cheap means’ of achieving its nuclear ‘rights,’ Mr. Ahmadinejad said, adding: ‘You [the West] need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation’” (January 16; emphasis mine).

Iranian oil fuels and energizes some of the world’s leading nations. Fully aware of the resultant massive influence it wields on the world scene, Iran believes it can run the risk of pushing around global giants.

Iran is playing for the highest stakes in the global energy game, given that, based on latest figures, that country contains some of the largest proven reserves of hydrocarbons in the world.

That explains the West’s embarrassing timidity in invoking any real penalties on Iran for flouting conventions in its pursuit of nuclear capability. With Iran, regardless of the stridency of the rhetoric from the rest of the world, appeasement is the foreign policy of the day. The major energy-consuming nations dare not risk any move by Iran to further disrupt an already high-priced energy market.

The most ironic aspect of the situation is this: These nations’ response to Tehran’s prestige has gone well beyond mere inattention. In the scramble for energy resources, Germany, having the leading industrial economy in Europe, realized early that the nuclear option would be a prime negotiating tool in gaining favorable access to Iranian energy resources. Even 30 years ago, it ensured an early place in the development of Iran’s nuclear technology by signing its first contract to assist in this project. Since then, it has been joined by Russia and China in aiding and abetting Iran’s development of nuclear power, using various tricks of delay in contractual fulfillment as diplomatic carrots or sticks, depending on the mood reflected by their major Islamic client.

But there is now a stark new threat. The ayatollahs may have been extreme, but Ahmadinejad is truly a volatile, unpredictable customer whose violent vocalizing against Israel, the U.S. and EU members is forcing these nations to reassess their foreign policies toward this rising king of the south. Now Ahmadinejad has ripped the UN seals off Iran’s stalled nuclear program and declared his intention to proceed full-steam ahead with the development of a nuclear capability, despite any global opinion to the contrary.

Sure, UN sanctions would hurt the Iranian economy, and its national income would decrease substantially if it chose to withhold oil from the market. But Tehran knows such measures would hurt America and Europe even more. It could potentially devastate their economies! These facts infuse Iran’s leaders with tremendous confidence.

The Danger of Overconfidence

The Iranians are failing to consider all the ramifications of their flippant behavior, however. They are blinded by arrogance and overconfidence. They operate under the assumption that they can push Europe and America around without serious implications. Time will prove them wrong.

Europe is heavily dependent on outside sources for its energy. The lives and well-being of most Europeans depend heavily on Russian natural gas and opec oil. Threatening Europe’s supply of energy is the same as threatening the lives of Europeans! President Ahmadinejad is foolish for thinking Europe will roll over and acquiesce to Tehran’s wishes. To push at Europe by threatening its energy supply is naive and highly dangerous.

Facing Russian instability to the east and Iranian arrogance to the south, Europe has to secure the flow of oil and natural gas into its borders. And this will not be good news for Iran.

For more than a decade, our editor in chief has foretold of bullying tactics by Iran that would “push” Europe over the edge—inviting a blitzkrieg attack from the Europeans. This is based on a prophecy in Daniel 11 that shows Europe, a resurrection of the old Roman Empire—an outgrowth of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon—marching into the Middle East, partially to secure its energy supplies.

Europe’s energy issues will play a significant part in bringing this biblical prophecy to pass. Continuing resistance by Ahmadinejad to German-led EU initiatives on the nuclear front, stymieing EU efforts to tap further into Iran’s massive oil and gas reserves, will ultimately awaken the beast in the German breast. With the engines of this formidable global power needing fuel, and present sources proving so unpredictable, we can expect that, quite soon, Europe will rise up and impose its will on this energy-rich nation by force.



Comment on this Article


Iraq Attacks Increase

Pakistan Tribune 17 Feb 06

The US military has warned that rebel attacks across Iraq have increased 30 percent over the past few weeks, the statement coming as attacks across the country Thursday wounded 30 people and killed at least eleven.
Three car bombs exploded in the capital Baghdad, killing an Iraqi civilian and wounding 18, an interior ministry source said.

Two of the bombs appeared to target passing police cars.

An army lieutenant-colonel was shot dead in southern Baghdad, while three municipal employees, including an Egyptian, were gunned down while working in the west of the capital.

Two of their colleagues were wounded.

Also in Baghdad, gunmen shot dead the Iraqi driver of a Jordanian embassy car at a petrol station, according to Jordanian government spokesman Nasser Jawdeh.

Outside of the capital two Shiite tribal leaders and a municipal head were shot dead in Khan Abi Saad, 30 kilometres north of Baghdad.

While 10 people were wounded as a roadside bomb and a booby-trapped motorbike blew up in nearby Baquba.

In the northern city of Kirkuk, police said, an army captain and a soldier, acting as his bodyguard, were shot and killed.

Insurgents change targets

"We`re seeing the insurgent move his target away from coalition forces to Iraqi security forces," US Major-General Rick Lynch said.

He attributed the spike to the increased role of Iraqi security forces, as well as the interim period between the December 15 elections and the formation of a new government, which is still pending.

"We have seen over the last several weeks about a 15 percent increase in civilian casualties, and we`ve seen about a 30 percent increase in attacks against security forces," he told reporters.

"The insurgents want to attack because they want to discredit the government in existence, so seeing spikes in attacks during this period in time was not indeed unpredicted." Major General Lynch added.



Comment on this Article


Japan plans Iraq troop withdrawal

UPI 17 Feb 06

TOKYO, Japan (UPI) -- Japan will start withdrawing its troops from Iraq in late March, around the same time Britain will begin its pullout, the Yomiuri Shimbun said Friday.
The government`s withdrawal plan includes moving the 600 troops to Kuwait by May as a first step, and recalling them to Japan by July, after cleaning their equipment and vehicles to pass quarantine inspections in Japan.

Although ground troops will be withdrawn, Japan`s air force will maintain and expand its logistic support for multinational forces in Iraq, the report said.

Japan reportedly wants to withdraw its troops around the same time as Britain, which is in charge of security in the Samawah region, where Japanese troops have been carrying out humanitarian tasks such as repairing buildings and providing medical training since early 2004.

Britain is set to start pulling out its troops in March and complete the withdrawal by the end of May.

Japan, Australia, Britain and the United States will hold a working-level meeting in London at the end of next week to discuss detailed withdrawal plans.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International



Comment on this Article


Iran calls on UK troops to pull out of Basra

Reuters 17 Feb 06

Prime Minister Tony Blair swiftly rebuffed Tehran, saying British soldiers were in Iraq under a United Nations mandate and warned Iran not to try to divert attention from international concern over its nuclear programme.
Iran's foreign minister called on Britain on Friday to pull its troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, saying their presence was destabilising the city.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran demands the immediate withdrawal of British forces from Basra," Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters through an interpreter during a visit to Lebanon.

"We believe that the presence of the British military forces in Basra has led to the destabilisation of the security situation in the city," he said.

Prime Minister Tony Blair swiftly rebuffed Tehran, saying British soldiers were in Iraq under a United Nations mandate and warned Iran not to try to divert attention from international concern over its nuclear programme.

Mottaki also said the British presence had also negatively affected the security situation in southern Iran itself.

He was apparently referring to a spate of recent bomb attacks in southern Iran.

Iran last month accused the British military in Iraq of cooperating with Arab bombers who attacked targets in the Iranian oil city of Ahvaz, killing eight people. Britain has denied the allegation and condemned the attack.

The minister also denounced what he said were human rights violations by the British forces in Basra.

But Blair, speaking at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, said it was up to the U.N. and the Iraqi government to decide how long the troops stayed.

"British troops are in Iraq today under a United Nations mandate and with the consent of the Iraqi government. They stay as long as the U.N. mandate is in place and the Iraqi government wishes us to stay," he said.

"What I would say to the Iranians is that there's no point in trying to ... divert attention from the issues to do with Iran by calling into question the British presence in Iraq which is there, as I say, with a U.N. mandate and Iraqi support."



Comment on this Article


Bush Administration's War Spending Nears Half-Trillion Dollars - President Asks Taxpayers for Another $65 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan

ABC News 17 Feb 06

In a single year, it is difficult to measure overall progress in the war on terror. But ABC News has learned today that President Bush will ask Congress for an additional $65.3 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It brings the total funds requested this year to more than $110 billion for those operations.

This is the fourth time in three years that the Bush administration has asked for additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, and the $65 billion request is $2 billion higher than expected.
Of that amount, $38 billion will be spent for ongoing military operations, with $11 billion going to repair and replenish war-fighting equipment ravaged by wear and tear.

Another $1.9 billion is allocated for protecting against improvised explosive devices.

The blizzard of numbers boils down to nearly $7 billion a month.

"I'm still stunned that there's no downward motion at all in the monthly costs. And clearly in 2006, the administration plans on no end in sight to that," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

This increase would bring the cost of the war thus far to $400 billion — a far cry from the administration's original estimates.

Cost Estimates Were Off the Mark

Just before the invasion of Iraq in 2002, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost would be $100 billion to $200 billion.

That estimate was later dismissed by Mitch Daniels, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, who said costs would be between $50 billion to $60 billion.

Today Democratic lawmakers called for the president to provide more information about spending on the war.

"The president has a responsibility," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "He has to tell us the true costs of the war."

"I am very concerned that we are going to be asked for a boatload of additional funding," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

The money from this supplemental request is expected to keep operations going only for the next eight months. The White House has already said an additional $50 billion for Iraq will likely be requested later this year.



Comment on this Article


Iraq and the Democratic Empire

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. This talk was delivered to the Auburn University Libertarians on February 16, 2006.

As all students today know, Iraq is the country that the US invaded with the attempt to convert the state and the people from enemy to friend. On the face of it, this sounds rather implausible, of course. Good fences make good neighbors. Friendship and peace are not usually the result of insults, sanctions, invasions, bombings, killings, puppet governments, censorship, economic controls, and occupations. If this generation learns anything from this period, that would be a good start.
Earlier students thought of Iraq as the country that was forever being denounced by the Clinton administration and by Bush's father when he was president. Why? Iraq, it seems, had some crazy notion that the US might attempt an invasion at some point in the future, and thus thought it had better prepare by spending money on its military. Its weapons program, however, was quickly dismantled under pressure from the UN.

Doubtful that Iraq had really given up the idea of creating a viable national defense, the US cobbled together extreme sanctions against the country, preventing it from trading with the world. The standard of living plummeted. Middle class merchants suffered. The poor died without the essentials of life. The child mortality rate soared. The head of the US State Department told a reporter on national television that even if US sanctions had resulted in 500,000 child deaths, they were “worth it.”

Jumping back earlier, the US had waged another war on Iraq. Bush Senior saw it as the war to end all aggressions, in this case an aggression of Iraq against its neighbor called Kuwait, a name that has been strangely absent from the news for the better part of ten years. What was strange was how the US had given the green light to Saddam to aggress against its neighbor, with the US ambassador having told Saddam Hussein that the US took no position on its long-running border dispute with its former province.

Now, if we jump back still further and consider the Reagan years, students would remember a long and boring but truly bloody conflict between Iraq and Iran. It lasted eight years, between 1980 and 1988. The US favored Iraq in this war. Saddam was a friend of the US, a man on the payroll. The weapons he used in this war on Iran were provided to him courtesy of the US taxpayer, as weapons inspectors in the 1990s were reminded when they went hunting for WMDs. There is a famous photo of one of Reagan’s weapons emissaries, Donald Rumsfeld, smiling broadly as he shakes hands with Saddam.

The war did not fully wreck Iraq, though many of its sons died. The country was secular and liberal by regional standards. There were private schools, symphonies, universities, and a complex and developing economy. Women had rights. They could drive and have bank accounts. They wore Western clothing. You could get a drink at a bar or buy liquor and have it at home. Christians were tolerated. They could worship as they pleased, and send their children to Christian schools. The electricity stayed on. You could buy gasoline. It was an old-fashioned dictatorship but it was, in regional terms, prosperous.

The war between Iran and Iraq was inconclusive. But today, we've come full circle. Iraq is a wreck. The Wall Street Journal ran a story the other day that documented how the prevailing political influence today in Iraq is Iran's ruling Shiite political party, which hopes to add another country to those ruled by Islamic law. So, from the vantage point of twenty-five years, it appears that the winner has finally been decided in the great Iran-Iraq war. The side that the US favored lost.

This is increasingly the pattern in the post-Cold War world. The US spends money, invades countries, sheds blood, and becomes ever more powerful at home and unpopular abroad. In the end, no matter how powerful its weapons or how determined its leaders, it loses. It loses because people resist empire. It loses for the same reasons that socialism and its central plans always fail. Large-scale attempts to force people into predetermined molds founder on the inability of the state to allocate resources rationally and to anticipate change, as well as the ubiquitous and pesky phenomenon called human volition. Mankind was not meant to live in cages.

Why did the US win wars in the past? Because it fought far poorer governments. Today it loses because it fights populations – people acting on their own, forming their own associations, using their brains to outwit bureaucrats, and cobbling together resources from underground markets. The market always outruns the planners for the same reason that guerilla armies usually win over regular armies. Decentralized and spontaneous associations of dedicated individuals are smarter and wiser and more committed than centralized and planned bureaucrats who follow their rule books.

This is a point well elaborated by the Austrian School of economics. The full critique of war would involve an elaboration on the work of F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard and their modern disciples. Time and space does not permit, so let me quickly draw your attention to the writings of Mises on this point.

In 1919, he wrote a book called Nation, State, and Economy. One of the many great discoveries of Guido Hulsmann was that Mises's original title is better translated in one word: Imperialism. It is a relentless attack on the idea of democratic empire, and an investigation of the role of the democratic state in foreign policy matters.

In the old world that was then passing, Mises wrote, imperial monarchs had ruled over large-scale, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and sometimes multi-religious territories with an eye to carefully balancing the relationships among groups and avoiding policies that set group against group. It was the only policy that made their rule viable. If they failed to do this, their rule was threatened. Royal families specialized in linguistic proficiency. They adopted an air of fairness, and tended over time to liberalize economic structures in the interest of harmonizing groups.

Mises welcomed the age of democracy because he believed that political democracy was the closest analogy to applying a market principle to the sphere of civic life. But he made an important proviso. Under a democratic regime, empires would have to come to end. There could be no rule over multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious populations. Every group would need to be permitted self-determination. Democracy meant, in Mises's view, the right of groups and even individuals to choose their own state. There could be no rule over a people or part of a people without their consent.

Mises then observed a dangerous paradox. The onset of the age of democracy was also the age of the rise of socialism. Socialism requires control, not only over economic structures but also over all of civic life, including religions. The most extreme form of socialism was totalitarianism. Mises saw that socialism and democracy were based on incompatible principles. If people are given true choice in regimes, they can also choose the rules under which they live. But socialism is predicated on the supposition that people can be permitted no choice. They must live under a plan as crafted by a dictator.

Mises saw that the attempt to wed socialism and dictatorship would lead to unparalleled calamity, which indeed it did because Mises's pathway out of this problem was ignored. He mapped out his solution in his great book Liberalism, which appeared in 1927. Here he said that the foundation of liberty is private property. If property were protected from invasion, all else in politics follows. The state cannot be imperialistic because it cannot raise the funds necessary to fund adventures in foreign lands. On the other hand, he wrote, the more the state is given control over private property, the more it will be tempted toward imposing its rule via arms and war.

Therefore, he said, war and socialism are both part of the same ideological apparatus. They both presume the primacy of power over property. In the same way, peace and free enterprise are cut from the same cloth. They are the result of a society with a regime that respects the privacy, property, associations, and wishes of the population. The liberal society trades with foreign countries rather than waging war on them. It respects the free movement of peoples. It does not intervene in the religious affairs of people but rather adopts a rule of perfect tolerance.

I don't need to tell you that this is not the kind of regime under which we live in the US. The state is an empire, a democratic empire. It is aggressive internally and externally. Indeed, it is the richest and most powerful government on earth and in all of human history. Along with this has come a cultural change. The founding fathers loathed and feared war. They said that nothing ruins a country quicker than the warlike spirit. It brings bankruptcy, corruption, and tyranny. George Washington warned against war, and called for trade and friendship with all nations.

The ideology of war has infected our rulers. Mises explained it in his book Liberalism. This is an ideology against which rational argument does not work. If you say war leads to suffering, pain, and death, they will say: so be it. Instead, writes Mises, the warmongers claim that "it is through war and war alone that mankind is able to make progress. War is the father of all things, said a Greek philosopher, and thousands have repeated it after him. Man degenerates in time of peace. Only war awakens in him slumbering talents and powers and imbues him with sublime ideals. If war were to be abolished, mankind would decay into indolence and stagnation."

I submit to you that this is precisely the ideology that reigns in such publications as National Review. This is the view propounded from the lecterns at Republican gatherings. Speaker after speaker at conservative conferences echoes this very view. I've heard it again and again in private conversations among diehard Republicans. This view that war is good for us is sheer fantasy, a dangerous and violent fit of utter irrationality. But it persists. It infects. It kills.

What view should replace the ideology of war? Mises again:

"It starts from the premise that not war, but peace, is the father of all things. What alone enables mankind to advance and distinguishes man from the animals is social cooperation. It is labor alone that is productive: it creates wealth and therewith lays the outward foundations for the inward flowering of man. War only destroys; it cannot create. War, carnage, destruction, and devastation we have in common with the predatory beasts of the jungle; constructive labor is our distinctively human characteristic. The liberal abhors war, not, like the humanitarian, in spite of the fact that it has beneficial consequences, but because it has only harmful ones…. Victorious war is an evil even for the victor…peace is always better than war."

The US has already lost the war on Iraq. It should pull out. When? Now. What will happen? I don't know. No one knows. What will people do when you let them out of their cages? What will slaves do when you free them? What happens when you free those who are imprisoned unjustly? I don't know the answer to these questions, and no one does. I will observe that other countries count the day that the US soldiers left as the beginning of a bright future.

I think of Somalia, which – after a Bush Senior invasion – Clinton wisely left in a lurch after violence against American soldiers. Today warlords still compete for control of the capital. The CIA factbook contains a sentence that might have pleased Thomas Jefferson: Somalia has "no permanent national government." But the rest of the country has moved on. It has prospered.

Here is more from the latest CIA factbook:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

The CIA chooses the word "despite" the seeming anarchy. I would like to replace that with "because" of the seeming anarchy.

If the US leaves Iraq, a big cost will be born by Americans. We have lost freedoms and rights. The military and spying sector has grown enormously. Big government abroad is incompatible with small government at home. To the extent we cheer war, we are cheering domestic socialism and our own eventual destruction as a civilization.

When you consider the full range of social, economic, and international planning on which it has embarked, you can know in advance that staying cannot work. Government is not God, nor are the men who run it impeccable or infallible, nor do they have a direct pipeline to the Almighty. Even if they were angels, they couldn't do it. The method they have chosen to bring about security and order is destined toward failure. But they are not angels. Their power has corrupted them, and the more absolute the power they gain, they more damage they create.

Let me state plainly too that we should end the entire war on terrorism because it cannot work and it is killing us instead of them. The pool of potential terrorists is unlimited, and it has been unleashed by the very means the state has employed. Bin Laden is still on the loose, and everyone knows that there are hundreds or thousands of additional Bin Ladens out there.

But can't the state just kill more, employ ever more violence, perhaps even terrify the enemy into passivity? A bracing comment from Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld: "The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don't see that it helped them much." Without admitting defeat, the Americans finally pulled out of Vietnam, which today has a thriving stock market.

Can the US just back out of its war on terror? Wouldn't that mean surrender? It would mean that the state surrenders its role, but not that everyone else does. Had the airlines been in charge of their own security, 9-11 would not have happened. In the same way that the free market provides for all our material needs, it can provide our security needs as well.

The War on Terror is impossible, not in the sense that it cannot cause immense amounts of bloodshed and destruction and loss of liberty, but in the sense that it cannot finally achieve what it is supposed to achieve, and will only end in creating more of the same conditions that led to its declaration in the first place.

In other words, it is a typical government program, costly and unworkable, like socialism, like the war on poverty, like the war on drugs, like every other attempt by the government to shape reality according to its own designs. You can see the results in the fatality figures. You and I paid for those flags on the caskets of the soldiers. We paid for the war that cost them their lives. We paid for the cheaper coffins of the far more numerous Iraqi dead. We didn't do it voluntarily. The state forced us to do so, just as it is forcing Iraq to endure a dreadful occupation.

What is in the past is gone, a cost that is sunk and never to be regained. But we can control the future. Now is the time to end this ghastly undertaking in Iraq.

In American political culture, which is dominated by the competitive interest groups we call the two main political parties and their ideological compatriots, we are asked to choose between two false alternatives.

In the first, as that offered by the Left and the Democrats, we are asked to think of the state as an expansive Good Samaritan who clothes, feeds, and heals people at home and abroad. They completely fail to notice that this Samaritan ends up not helping people but enslaving its clients and leaving the rest of us like the robbery victim on the street.

In the second, as offered by the Right and the Republicans, we are asked to think of the state as an expansive Solomon with all power to right wrong and bring justice and faith to all peoples at home and abroad. They completely fail to notice that Solomon ends up behaving more like Caesar Augustus and his successors, sending all the world to be counted and taxed and then plotting to kill any competitive source of authority.

Are you independent minded? Reject these two false alternatives. Do you love freedom? Embrace peace. Do you love peace? Embrace private property. Do you love and defend civilization? Defend and protect it against all uses of Power, the evil against which we must proceed ever more boldly.

February 17, 2006

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com and author of Speaking of Liberty.



Comment on this Article


George Bush’s War Without End

By David Martin 17 Feb 06

Now that the cakewalk that was to be our invasion of Iraq is nearing its third anniversary and the roses that were to be thrown at us have turned into improvised explosive devices, it has become official — we are engaged in a long war. Make that “The Long War.”
Donald Rumsfeld, in a statement before House’s Armed Services Committee, acknowledged the re-branding of the conflict previously known as The Global War on Terror. He told the assembled committee members that we are “nation engaged in what will be a ‘long war.’” It’s a war that will be the central security issue of our time and will transform the way we defend our nation, he said.

The SecDef’s comments underlined a theme sounded by his Commander-in-Chief in the recent State of the Union speech. George Bush, insinuating himself into a pantheon of former presidents that included Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, said, “our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy.”

So much for setting a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter. When other recent remarks from multi-starred generals referring to a long war that could last ten to twenty years are taken in to account, it’s clear that we have achieved George Orwell’s state of perpetual war.

The administration’s depiction of our conflict in Iraq as an open-ended struggle with ever-shifting enemies is another of its deviously brilliant bits of PR chicanery. The adoption of a simple phrase — The Long War — eliminates expectations that there will be an end to the needless deaths of Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis any time soon. War in distant, dusty places will become a mundane feature of American life just like higher gas prices, warrant less electronic surveillance, and curtailed civil liberties.

Five, ten, twenty years from now when the last American soldier has long been airlifted out of Iraq and someone says, “Tell me again, why are we fighting in Uzbekistan (or Kazakhstan or name your own favorite ‘stan),” the answer will come back, “Don’t you remember? We’re in a Long War against the terrorists who attacked us on Nine-Eleven.”

It is a particular stroke of genius to characterize this Long War as one waged against the nebulous foe of terrorism. With Communism, the last big bogeyman to feed our national nightmares, there was a well-defined dogma to identify who was a Communist and who was not. The problem, however, was that after the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe, there weren’t a lot of Communists left over to get hysterical about. Sure, there was still Castro in Cuba and the Chinese. But Castro alone is hardly worth $400 billion in defense spending, and we’ve come to rely on the Chinese to make all the consumer goods Americans used to make.

Terrorism makes a much better bête noire because it’s a vaguer appellation. The terrorist label can be hung on, well, just about anyone. Terrorists can be desperate men armed with box cutters who fly airplanes into tall buildings. Or they can be radical Moslems who live in caves in Afghanistan. Or they can be Quaker peace groups who conspire to conduct candlelight vigils on village greens or nuns who attack ICBMs with ball peen hammers to demonstrate opposition to an illegal war or VA nurses so upset at the federal government they are moved to write angry letters to newspaper editors.

Soon, thanks to the creative wordsmiths in Boy George’s lawyer pool, terrorism will come to mean any expression against the established order, whether that expression is a car bomb or outraged e-mail to a like-minded friend.

This concept of terrorism is a self-fulfilling one. Wherever we go in search of terrorists, we are sure to find them. If they’re not present when we arrive, they will inevitably appear once American soldiers, in the name of advancing freedom, have kicked in enough doors, recklessly shot enough innocent civilians, and hauled away enough fathers and cousins and friends for questioning (read torturing). When outraged locals begin retaliating with roadside bombs, our leaders will tell us, “See we told you there were terrorists in (insert name of country here). It just took us some time to create them.”

“A Long War” and “Global Terrorism” are malleable phrases that can be applied to any situation in which a local populace seeks redress against the international organizations and multi-national corporations that control the levers of the world economy. They are equally applicable to turban wearing tribesman living in regions known only to readers of National Geographic or a neighbor who checked out the wrong book from the library. As this “Long War” progresses and the definition of terrorist becomes stretched far enough, who knows whom the FBI thugs will come for next.

Hold on a sec, I think I hear a knock at the door.

Copyright David Martin - damrtn48@ntplx.net



Comment on this Article


"At Some Point We Have to Take Seriously the Idea of Putting a Very Large Wrench Into the Gears of This War Machine"

Ron Jacobs interviews Mike Ferner Alternative Press Review 17 Feb 06

On Wednesday, February 15, 2006, a group of war resisters began a 34 day liquids only fast in Washington, DC. The fast is sponsored by the Voices for Creative Nonviolence (VCNV)--a nonviolent action group made up of regular citizens who are fed up with the direction of the US government, especially as regards its foreign policy. The name VCNV has given the campaign that this fast is part of is the Winter of Our Discontent.
One of the fast participants is a man named Mike Ferner. I first heard of Mike when he traveled to Iraq in the winter of 2003 just before the US/UK invasion in March of that year. Mike is a Vietnam vet who served as a Navy Corpsman and then received an honorable discharge from the service as a conscientious objector. He is also a union organizer, member of Veterans for Peace, and served on the Toledo, Ohio city council. His book on his trips to Iraq (he went there again in 2004) is titled Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq, and is due out in August, 2006. I have maintained a rather loose email contact with Mike over the past several months and, when I heard he was participating in this fast, decided to ask him a couple questions. The email "conversation" follows.

Ron: Hi Mike, I heard that you were participating in the 34 day fast to protest the war in Iraq and thought I would check in with you. What made you decide to participate? Furthermore, since the administration is unlikely to be affected, whose conscience do you hope to stir with this action?

Mike: I decided to participate because I needed to do something more to up the ante against the war. If you go to the NCNV page and watch the video featuring Jackson Browne singing "Lives in the Balance," you'll get as good an idea as I can give you why we need to do more for peace. There ARE lives in the balance and we in this country are all complicit in the suffering our government is causing.

I agree with you that our fast/vigil/sit-ins won't affect the criminals waging the war. We certainly want to call people's attention to the crimes they are committing, but we know we won't change their behavior by our small presence in Washington over the next month. What will change their behavior (and hopefully impeach and imprison them) however, is if every person in the U.S. who opposes this war will stop and think for a moment about what they can do to up the ante. Those are the people whose hearts we need to reach. We can all do more—every one of us—no matter what our job or station in life. And if every person mad as hell that this war continues will think about what more they can do for peace it will indeed make a difference...and more than just "make a difference" in some abstract way. It will throw a wrench into the gears of the war machine and grind it to a halt. This we can do, if every person of good conscience decides they have to do more than they thought they could do.

Ron: You have a book scheduled to be published in late summer 2006. What is it about and when did you write it?

Mike: We just settled on a title, Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq. It's about my trips to Iraq and the people I met. People in the peace movement, Iraqis, G.I.'s, and journalists. My first trip was just prior to the U.S. invasion when I went with Voices in the Wilderness for a month. The second trip was in early 2004 for two months when I went specifically to report and write. I wasn't thinking at the time of writing a book, actually, but the more I worked at the stories, the more I realized I had experienced something that needed to be told.

Ron: From your involvement in Voices for Creative Nonviolence, it seems apparent that you believe in the power of nonviolent direct action as practiced and preached by Martin Luther King, Jr. What experiences in your life led you to this commitment?

Mike: First off, I don't consider myself a pacifist...yet, anyway. Even though I'm learning more about Gandhi and King and nonviolent principles and I'm getting closer to being a pacifist the older I get, I can still see why people will resort to violence if they're oppressed long enough. What has lead me to a life of activism was, initially, being a hospital corpsman during the Viet Nam war and taking care of the young men who came back in pieces from that conflict. Few things will turn you against war quicker than that kind of work. Then, through life I realized that the Viet Nam war wasn't the only injustice, simply the first one I had experienced directly. I got involved in the environmental movement and the labor movement over the years. So social change has been the constant theme in my life since getting out of the Navy.

Ron: What do you think lies ahead for the people of Iraq?

Mike: While the U.S. continues to occupy it, nothing but violence and suffering. I believe that every political institution created in Iraq since the invasion will be seen as tainted by the invader, and as such, stands a good chance of being torn down once we are finally gone. That is not a pleasant picture to imagine, but it will happen whenever we leave. And until then, the violence and suffering will continue because our presence is fueling the resistance. Withdraw that fuel and the fire will subside. Who knows what will follow, but whatever it is, it will happen when (not if) we leave. Then, the peace movement's mettle in the U.S. will be put to the test to see if we can force our government to make amends for what we've done to the extent that is possible.

Ron: How about the people of Iran?

Mike: Our government leaders will seal the case for their insanity diagnosis if they take military action against Iran. If they do so, however, it won't be anything like the Iraq war. Iran has got military capabilities far in excess of Iraq's. They have missile systems that will inflict terrible damage and casualties to U.S. ships and ground forces in the region. Beyond that, of course, violent reprisals will become the order of the day and we will have succeeded in making the world considerably more unbalanced and frightening.

Ron: The people of the US?

Mike: That's a good question, isn't it? Do we think that except for the relatively small number of military casualties coming back from Iraq we will be unaffected? I'm sure that's what our "leaders" would like to promote, but that's not the reality. Every G.I. that's been killed, and every one of the tens of thousands who've been wounded—physically and mentally—has a family; has a city or town they're from; had hopes and dreams and skills they would have shared fully with their communities and society. Instead, we will bear the financial and emotional costs of dealing with the families of those men and women and everyone their pain has touched, radiating out in ever-larger circles—for the rest of their lives. Say nothing of the opportunities lost, the health care these billions could have provided, the civil liberties we have lost, etc. etc. Just the direct costs, financial and emotional, from this war will be felt for generations. And as a people we will be much less safe when it is finally over. Look at what other countries thought of the U.S. right after September 11, 2001, and what they think of us now. We are making a dangerous world for our children and grandchildren.

Ron: Despite my better judgment, I occasionally get incredibly frustrated with the failure of the antiwar movement to end this damn war. In fact, sometimes I feel like going the route of the Weather Underground. I know I am not alone in this. Indeed, I would imagine that you feel this way sometimes. What do you do to convince yourself to continue the struggle?

Mike: It is most definitely frustrating, without a doubt. Is violence the answer? I can understand what drives oppressed people to it, but I still think it can never really be the answer.

Ron: Last fall before the big antiwar march on Washington you wrote an article calling on people to sit-in around the White House a la the Chinese occupation of Tianamen Square. Do you still think this is a good strategy?

Mike: Actually, my suggestion was that when we were hundreds of thousands strong we sit down then, not two days later in a staged sit-in at the White House, which is what happened. Bless every one of those 400+ people who got arrested there (I was arrested earlier that morning at the Pentagon with 40 others), but at some point we have to take seriously the idea of putting a very large wrench into the gears of this war machine—make the nation simply ungovernable in every way we can. We have to do more.

Ron: Back to the fast—will there be a way for people to keep in touch with this campaign and publish its progress on their email lists and in their local organizations?

Mike: Check out the Voices for Creative Nonviolence website for updates. MORE IMPORTANTLY, organize a fast, or a vigil, or better yet, a sit-in at your local congressional offices, and let us know what you're doing so we can fan the flames of protest.

Ron: As a vet, do you have any special message for women and men who are currently in the service (or considering joining)?

Mike: If you're thinking of joining, don't. It ain't worth it. And I don't just mean you might get killed or wounded. The military is not what we should be using as a tool to protect the holdings of the empire, and that's its basic role no matter what the enlistment commercials say. If you're already in and have come to believe what we're doing is wrong, call the G.I. Hotline 800-394-9544 and find out what you can do to get out.

Ron: Thanks for your time. I'll keep in touch.

******

Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (Haymarket Series), just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on music, art and sex: Serpents in the Garden.



Comment on this Article


Losing our values in the war on terror

Daily Mail Editorial 18 Feb 06

"I never imagined I would live to see the day... One cannot find strong enough words to condemn what Britain and the United States have accepted... habeas corpus is part of our freedom..."

How humbling that it takes an African churchman from one of our former colonies, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, to warn that Britain is tearing up centuries of civil liberties and squandering its moral authority by the way it conducts the war on terror at home and abroad.

Consider the events of a truly depressing week. Having failed so far in his attempt to tear up habeas corpus and jail suspects for 90 days without charge, Mr Blair is openly playing politics with terrorism.
While the Tories and Lib Dems press for a cross-party consensus on how to deal with the threat, the Prime Minister isn't interested. Instead he insists on ill-judged shows of "toughness" designed to portray the Opposition as soft.

Why, for example, did he push through this week's vote against the "glorification" of terror?Itwasn't because thelaw needed to be changed. After all, Abu Hamza was jailed under existing legislation.

No, a Government that disgracefully ignored his sermons of hate for years just wanted to be seen doing something - the same motive that prompted its plans for ID cards, which probably won't work.

The sadness is that Gordon Brown - who is untainted by the mendacity associated with Tony Blair - is lending his huge authority to this partisan charade. He talks of reviving 90 days' detention, which reminds Archbishop Tutu of the apartheid regime.

These are grim developments at home. But what is happening abroad is infinitely more damaging. Remember how Mr Blair went to war in Iraq under the banner of justice, democracy and human rights? Now those values are flung back in our faces across the Islamic world, after those pictures of British troops abusing rioters and the even more sickening scenes of U.S. guards degrading prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

But these excesses pale to relative insignificance when compared with the contempt for morality and the basic principles of law shown by our American allies at Guantanamo Bay, where hundreds of suspects have been kept in ghastly conditions for four years without charge, trial or independent lawyers.

Britain's response to this monumental aberration has been pitifully ambivalent. And the Bush administration? It just doesn't get it. The cloth-eared Republicans in the White House don't grasp the consequences. They refuse to listen when they are condemned by the UN. They don't understand how they are shaming America. And they don't care about the damage to Britain.

No, they continue to stir up Muslim hatred of the West, make a mockery of democratic values and encourage young hot-heads to flock to the terrorist cause. Osama bin Laden couldn't have been handed a greater propaganda gift.

At least some British politicians see the dangers. In Washington, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague warned America of the "critical erosion" of its moral authority.

But Mr Blair? The man who misled Britain into a disastrous war might go some way towards redeeming himself if he exerted his influence with the President to insist that America ends the disgrace of Guantanamo Bay.

Yet if influence exists, he doesn't use it. Instead, he feebly suggests something should be done "sooner or later".

So the abuse goes on. Britain is seen to share the shame. Enemies multiply. And the loudest defence of our most fundamental values comes not from politicians, but an African archbishop.



Comment on this Article


Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle - Our leader über alles

By Paul Craig Roberts 17 Feb 06

Last week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden.

Former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who led the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton, reminded the CPAC audience that our first loyalty is to the U.S. Constitution, not to a leader. The question, Barr said, is not one of disloyalty to Bush, but whether America "will remain a nation subject to, and governed by, the rule of law or the whim of men."

The CPAC audience answered that they preferred to be governed by Bush. According to Dana Milbank, a member of the CPAC audience named Richard Sorcinelli loudly booed Barr, declaring: "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say Bush is off course trying to defend the United States." A woman in the audience told Barr that the Constitution placed Bush above the law and above non-elected federal judges.

These statements gallop beyond the merely partisan. They express the sentiments of brownshirtism. Our leader über alles.
Only a few years ago this same group saw Barr as a conservative hero for obtaining Clinton's impeachment in the House. Obviously, CPAC's praise for Barr did not derive from Barr's stand on conservative principle that a president must be held accountable if he violates the law. In Clinton's case, Barr's principles did not conflict with the blind emotions of the politically partisan conservatives demanding Clinton's impeachment.

In opposing Bush's illegal behavior, Barr is simply being consistent. But this time, Barr's principles are at odds with the emotions of the politically partisan CPAC audience. Rushing to the defense of Bush, the CPAC audience endorsed Viet Dinh's Fuhrer Principle over the rule of law.

Why do the media and the public allow partisan political hacks, like Viet Dinh, to define Bush's illegal actions as a national security issue? The purpose of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is to protect national security. FISA creates a secret court to which the president can apply for a warrant even after he has initiated spying. Complying with the law in no way handicaps spying for national security purposes. The only spying handicapped by the warrant requirement is spying for illegitimate purposes, such as spying on political opponents.

There are only two reasons for Bush to refuse to obey the law. One is that he is guilty of illegitimate spying for which no warrant would be issued by the FISA court. The other is that he is using "national security" to create unconstitutional powers for the executive.

Civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate writing in the Boston Phoenix says that Bush's grab for "sweeping, unchecked power in direct violation of a statute would open a Pandora's box of imperial possibilities." In short, it makes the president a dictator.

For years, the Republican Federalist Society has been agitating for concentrating more power in the executive. The members will say that they do not favor a dictator, just a check on the "imperial Congress" and "imperial judiciary." But they have not spelled out how the president can be higher than law and still be accountable, or, if he is only to be higher than some laws, but not other laws, and only in some circumstances, but not all circumstances, who draws the line through the law and defines the circumstances.

On Feb. 13, the American Bar Association passed a resolution belatedly asking President Bush to stop violating the law. "We cannot allow the U.S. Constitution and our rights to become a victim of terrorism," said bar association president Michael Grecco.

The siren call of "national security" is all the cover Bush needs to have the FISA law repealed, thus legally gaining the power to spy however he chooses, the protection of political opponents be damned. However, Bush and his Federalist Society Justice Department are not interested in having the law repealed. Their purpose has nothing to do with national security. The point on which the regime is insisting is that there are circumstances (undefined) in which the president does not have to obey laws. What those circumstances and laws are is for the regime to decide.

The Bush regime is asserting the Fuhrer Principle, and Americans are buying it, even as Bush declares that America is at war in order to bring democracy to the Middle East.

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.



Comment on this Article


14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism - Flash

BushFlash

Flash to share with family and friends.




Comment on this Article


Bush May Be Crossing the Rubicon From Republic To Dictatorship

Miles Mogulescu Huffingtonpost.com

Through the justifications it has put forth for warrentless wiretapping, the Bush administration is almost literally crossing the Rubicon, beginning the process of transforming the United States from a republic into to a presidential dictatorship.

The warrantless wiretapping is dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional by itself. These are criminal acts by the President, and in and of themselves warrant impeachment and removal from office (whether or not impeachment is politically practical under a Republican Congress.)

But the Administration's feeble rationales justifying this program are even more dangerous. Bush and his surrogates claim that the President has the constitutional right, as part of his inherent powers as Commander-In-Chief during a time of war (an endless war in this case) to do anything he chooses to do if he believes it protects national security. In short, Bush claims the power of a dictator.
Where could this power grab lead? President Bush and his surrogates have proclaimed many times that opposition to the Iraq war is dangerous, demoralizes the troops, encourages the enemy, and threatens America's chances for victory. If Bush believes that opposition to the war threatens national security, why doesn't he have the right to act against opponents to the Iraq war to protect national security?

Apparently government agents have already spied on a small Quaker peace group. Why then shouldn't Bush have the power to wiretap the phones of Iraq war opponents from Rep. Murtha to Cindy Sheehan? Why shouldn't he have the right to infiltrate anti-war groups with government informants? Why can't he place agent provocateurs in anti-war groups to incite violent demonstrations in order to discredit the anti-war movement which is harming national security? Why can't he burglarize the offices of psychiatrists of leading anti-war figures to find information with which to discredit them? Why can't he break into the offices of the Democratic National Committee?

Wait a second; the government has already done all of these things in the recent past. It was called Watergate and the COINTELPRO Program (which lasted from 1956-71. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, di