Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: Full Text : The President of Iran's Letter To President Bush
Signs of the Times
Translated by Le Monde
05/09/06
Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena - which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.
Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make "War and Terror" his slogan,
And finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
While at the same time:
Have countries attacked,
The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of there being criminals in a village or city, or convoy for example, have the entire village, city or convey set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, the sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years.
At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments
On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.
Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the war on Iran, Saddam was supported by the West.
Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ, the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.
Page 2
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ, human rights and liberal values.
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.
Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
Mr President, I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment of Israel; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.
Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ or Moses or liberal values?
Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs
Page 3
Contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying "why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?"
Mr President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well. Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.
You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.
Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
Mr President, don't Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth - including minerals - is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
Page 4
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.
Mr President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9/11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people - who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks - some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity - some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way - and was the justification - for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly - for the public to, finally, believe - and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?
Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values?
Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?
Page 5
Mr President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?"
As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist - to a larger or lesser extent - in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign - paid from the public treasury - be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention - which I am hoping you will agree to some of - is:
Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful - thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs'?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns.
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office - to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets - or not?
Mr President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity - raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the people of the world?
Page 6
How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?
Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?
Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ will be present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses. All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the world.
The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).
Mr President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.
"To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds."
"The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court" "planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins". "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors". "He is the Compassionate, the Merciful". "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness". "He is witness to the actions of His servants", "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast". "Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds." "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants". And "A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."
Page 7
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus, and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers. The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.
We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious."
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well. Divine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man - based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world - that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets - and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Page 8
Mr President,
History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.
Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?
Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.
The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Ahmadinejad Sends a Futile Letter
Kurt Nimmo
May 9, 2006
Iran’s president Ahmadinejad never said Israel should
be "wiped off the map," although Shimon
Peres did say "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can
also be wiped off the map." As Anneliese
Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann note, Ahmadinejad was deliberately misquoted
as part of an ongoing propaganda campaign against Iran by the neocons, in particular
the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), founded by Yigal Carmon,
who served time in Israeli military intelligence, and Meyrav Wurmser, a neocon
that had a hand in crafting the neocon document "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm" presented to then Israeli president,
Benjamin Netanyahu. MEMRI is known for selectively quoting and distorting Arab
and Muslim news reports and editorials.
Shimon Peres was simply using the distortions of Ahmadinejad’s comments
to make excuses for the long-held Israeli and later neocon plan to not necessarily "wipe
off the map" Islamic countries, but rather reduce them through "Lebanonization," or
balkanization, a plan sketched out by Oded Yinon, an Israeli diplomat attached
to the Foreign Ministry. Oded Yinon’s "A Strategy for Israel in
the 1980s" document, according to historian Stephen
Sniegoski, "undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli
military and intelligence establishment. The article called for Israel to bring
about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of
ethnic groupings."
Of course, Israel realized it did not have the power or resources to pull
off this massive undertaking. Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi
reflected on Yinon’s critique "to impose a Pax Israelica on the
Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them harshly" and
hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the weakest
Arab state—Lebanon—will disabuse people of similar ambitions in
other territories." Sniegoski comments: "Left unconsidered by Harkabi
was the possibility that the United States would act as Israel’s proxy
to achieve this goal," a fact partially realized a decade later when Bush
Senior invaded Iraq and, more than another decade removed, his son finished
the job.
In the wake of Bush Senior’s invasion and merciless attack on Iraqi
civilian infrastructure, octogenarian British "Orientalist" Bernard
Lewis wrote for the premier globalist periodical, the CFR’s Foreign Affairs,
that most "of the states of the Middle East … are of recent and
artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process [balkanization].
If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society
to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding
allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened
in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes,
regions and parties," a miserable and violent condition preferred by the
Israelis and the Straussian neocons (see British
Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations, Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg).
Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s feeble and somewhat absurd letter sent
to Bush through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran—an effort to stave off the
impending destruction and "Lebanonization" of his country—was
received in a predictable fashion. "US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice dismissed Iranian President’s surprise letter to President George
W Bush, saying it did not seriously address the standoff over Tehran’s
disputed nuclear program," reports NDTV. "This letter is not the
place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything
of the sort. It isn’t addressing the issues that we’re dealing
with in a concrete way," declared Secretary of State Condi
Rice. "Rice’s comments were the most detailed response from
the United States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to
an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in
Tehran," ABC
News adds. "She would not discuss the contents in detail but made
clear that the United States would not change its tack on Iran."
In short, the shock and awe campaign against the people of Iran—a beginning
fusillade in the process of balkanizing Iran into several more easily digestible
pieces—is on. Now the question is when this will happen and what the
response will be here in America and across the world. Of course, for the neocons,
this response is hardly important and may be safely ignored, as opponents will
once again be dismissed as a "focus group" (as Bush called those
of us opposed to his invasion of Iraq) and the process of splintering the Middle
East will move forward, closing in on its ultimate goal, as described by Bernard
Lewis, of delivering the Muslim world "into a chaos of squabbling, feuding,
fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Book Review: The Case Against Israel
Raymond Deane
The Electronic Intifada
9 May 2006
Michael Neumann is the US-born son of Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany, and Herbert Marcuse's stepson. He now teaches philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada.
A tireless advocate for the Palestinian cause, Prof Neumann has consistently de-bunked conventional wisdom, more often than not in the online newsletter CounterPunch. In August 2002, in an essay tauntingly entitled Protect Me from My Friends - Pro-Palestinian Activists and the Palestinians, he wrote
"The enormous, ignored fact of the Palestinian story is that America is not, as the left loves to think, pursuing some vital interest in its alliance with Israel. On the contrary, America is acting against its vital interests."
Apart from its pertinent critique of the left, this, of course, pre-empts aspects of the recent Walt/Mearsheimer article The Israel Lobby by several years. So why didn't it stir up the same controversy as the latter? There are two possible answers. Firstly, Neumann's impeccably Jewish pedigree makes him a difficult target for those whose only weapon is the "anti-Semite" charge. Secondly, Counter/Punch is a leftie website from which attacks on Israel are "only to be expected" and hence can be safely ignored.
The same factor precludes the kind of response that one might have expected had The Case Against Israel been issued by a major publishing house such as John Wiley & Sons, who published Alan Dershowitz's best-selling The Case For Israel in 2003. Publication by CounterPunch was a sure guarantee that The Case Against Israel would not be reviewed in the mainstream media and would not be the focus of the kind of concerted vilification to which the ultra-establishment figures Walt and Mearsheimer have been subjected. Given Neumann's formidable capacity for rational riposte, this is regrettable.
Although the title of this little book gives the misleading impression that it is conceived as a reply to Dershowitz's lamentable screed (Dershowitz gets only one un-indexed look-in), its thrust is rather similar to Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, which is so conceived. Both authors maintain that "the Israel/Palestine conflict is not so complex as it has been made out to be" (Neumann), and set about cutting away the thicket of obfuscation with which it has been deliberately surrounded. The historian Finkelstein marshalls a massive array of evidence that utterly disproves that adduced by Dershowitz, while the philosopher Neumann's preferred weapon is Ockham's razor, a logical procedure for stripping away layers of assumption.
Neumann's main argument is rapidly sketched:
"The Zionist project... was entirely unjustified and could reasonably be regarded by the inhabitants of Palestine as a very serious threat, the total domination by one ethnic group of all others in the region. Some form of violent resistance was , therefore, justified..."
Describing his focus as "moral and political...not legal", Neumann quickly disposes of international law, which "has no central authority to enforce it. The UN... is unavailable because the most powerful countries can veto any sanction they dislike..."
A few pages later, the "right of self-determination of peoples" is dismissed as a tool for either side, being equated with "advocating the political supremacy of an ethnic group." He later elaborates that the Palestinians "could appeal, not to rights of ethnic self-determination, but to rights of self-government within a sovereign geographic area."
A historical account (for Neumann by no means shuns history, just as Finkelstein doesn't shun logic) demonstrates that Zionism always intended to establish a sovereign state in Palestine, however cunningly it sought to dissimulate this end. The indigenous Arabs were perfectly well aware of this, hence "they would have been irrational not to resist..." Neumann's verdict on Zionism is uncompromising and devastating - "It was wrong to pursue the Zionist project and wrong to achieve it" - and from this he draws the conclusion that "much that is said in its defence, and in Israel's defence,... is irrelevant."
By now the pro-Palestinian activist is feeling smug and elated. However, Neumann's logic inexorably leads him to the less comfortable conclusions that Israel does indeed have a right to exist, however illegitimate its foundations, and a concomitant right to self-defence.
"Israel's existence is tainted, not sacred, but it is protected by the same useful international conventions that allow others... to retain their ill-gotten gains. ...The more your actions, right or wrong, put your life in danger, the more you are justified in defending yourself."
Hence Neumann is even prepared to concede that "'the occupation itself', in the narrowest sense of the word, was no great crime." Indeed he believes that the 1967 war, which "liberated" the West Bank from Jordanian tutelage, gave Israel "a chance to make handsome amends for the crimes on which it was built...Israel could have sponsored...the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state..." Instead, largely spearheaded by the USA, the settlements made a bad situation infinitely worse, and it is the settlements and the brutal military regime instituted to defend them that bear the brunt of Neumann's often eloquent disgust.
When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".
As for "terrorism", which he defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?
"Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."
So why does Israel still command such support from the US? Neumann deftly dismantles the notions that there are either "shared values" or a "confluence of interests" between the US and Israel, or that Israel is anything but a hindrance in the pursuit of America's nefarious oil politics. The US/Israel alliance is analysed historically as a relic of the cold war perpetuated by inertia: "Stale ideology has enshrined a counter-productive alliance at the heart of American foreign policy." Neumann calls for the US to change sides, and itemises the obvious benefits that would accrue from such a U-turn:
"It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the governments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement! The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly... Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation."
Neumann's final verdict: "Israel is the illegitimate child of ethnic nationalism." While it is not his brief to "formulate specific strategies" leading towards a solution, he advocates "vigorous anti-Israeli action" primarily in the shape of "the most extensive international sanctions possible", undeterred "by the horrors of the Jewish past."
The Case Against Israel is, in my view, the most comprehensive and devastating critique of Israel in print. Its value as a campaigning tool consists primarily in the icy precision of its logic, and its independence of quibbles about international law or historical responsibility. Following its elegant arguments requires a concentrated application of the reader's own reasoning faculties - but the exercise is worth it.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Life in the Bush Economy: Fat, Drunk and Broke
By Paul Craig Roberts
05/08/06
The Bureau of Labor Statistics payroll jobs report released May 5 says the economy created 131,000 private sector jobs in April. Construction added 10,000 jobs, natural resources, mining and logging added 8,000 jobs, and manufacturing added 19,000. Despite this unusual gain, the economy has 10,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than a year ago.
Most of the April job gain --72%--is in domestic services, with education and health services (primarily health care and social assistance) and waitresses and bartenders accounting for 55,000 jobs or 42% of the total job gain. Financial activities added 26,000 jobs and professional and business services added 28,000. Retail trade lost 36,000 jobs.
During 2001 and 2002 the US economy lost 2,298,000 jobs. These lost jobs were not regained until early in February 2005. From February 2005 through April 2006, the economy has gained 2,584 jobs (mainly in domestic services).
The total job gain for the 64 month period from January 2001 through April 2006 is 7,000,000 jobs less than the 9,600,000 jobs necessary to stay even with population growth during that period. The unemployment rate is low because millions of discouraged workers have dropped out of the work force and are not counted as unemployed.
In 2005 the US had a current account deficit in excess of $800 billion. That means Americans consumed $800 billion more goods and services than they produced. A significant percentage of this figure is offshore production by US companies for American markets.
The US current account deficit as a percent of Gross Domestic Product is unprecedented. As more jobs and manufacturing are moved offshore, Americans become more dependent on foreign made goods. This year the deficit could reach $1 trillion.
The US pays its current account deficit by giving up ownership of its existing assets or wealth. Foreigners don't simply hold the $800 billion in cash. They use it to acquire US equities, real estate, bonds, and entire companies.
The federal budget is also in the red to the tune of about $400 billion. As Americans have ceased to save, the federal government is dependent on foreigners to lend it the money to operate and to wage war in the Middle East.
American consumers are heavily indebted. The growth of consumer debt is what has been fueling the economy. Social Security and Medicare are in financial trouble, as are many company pension plans. Decide for yourself--is this the economic picture of a superpower that can dictate to the world, or is it the picture of a second-rate country dependent on foreigners to finance its consumption and the operation of its government?
No-think economists make rhetorical arguments that the decline of US manufacturing employment reflects higher productivity from technological improvements and not a decline in US manufacturing per se. George Mason University economist Walter Williams recently ridiculed the claim that US manufacturing jobs are moving to China. Williams asks how the US could be losing manufacturing jobs to China when the Chinese are losing jobs faster than the US: "Since, 2000, China has lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S."
The 4.5 million figure comes from a Conference Board report that is misleading. The report that counts was written by Judith Banister under contract to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and published in November 2005 (www.bls.gov/fls/chinareport.pdf). Banister's report was peer reviewed both within the BLS and externally by persons with expert knowledge of China.
Chinese manufacturing employment has been growing strongly since the 1980s except for a short period in the late 1990s when layoffs resulted from the restructuring and privatization of inefficient state owned and collective owned factories. To equate temporary layoffs from a massive restructuring within manufacturing with US long-term manufacturing job loss indicates extreme carelessness or incompetence.
Banister concludes: "In recent decades, China has become a manufacturing powerhouse. The country's official data showed 83 million manufacturing employees in 2002, but that figure is likely to be understated; the actual number was probably closer to 109 million. By contrast, in 2002, the Group of Seven (G7) major industrialized countries had a total of 53 million manufacturing workers."
The G7 is the US and Europe. In contrast to China's 109,000,000 manufacturing workers, the US has 14,000,000.
When I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, the US did not have a trade deficit in manufactured goods. Today the US has a $500 billion annual deficit in manufactured goods. If the US is doing as well in manufacturing as no-think economists claim, where did an annual trade deficit in manufactured goods of one-half trillion dollars come from?
If the US is the high-tech leader of the world, why does the US have a trade deficit in advanced technology products with China?
There was a time when American economists were empirical and paid attention to facts. Today American economists are merely the handmaidens of offshore producers. Apparently, they follow President Bush's lead and do not read newspapers--thus, their ignorance of countless stories of US manufacturers moving entire plants and many thousands of US engineering jobs to China.
Chinese firms, including state owned firms, have numerous reasons, tax and otherwise, to understate their employment. Banister's report gives the details.
Banister points out that the excess supply of labor in China is about five to six times the size of the total US work force. As a result, there is no shortage of workers in China, nor will there be in the foreseeable future.
The huge excess supply of labor means extremely low Chinese wages. The average Chinese wage is $0.57 per hour, a mere 3% of the average US manufacturing worker's wage. With first world technology, capital, and business knowhow crowding into China, virtually free Chinese labor is as productive as US labor. This should make it obvious to anyone who claims to be an economist that offshore production of goods and services is an example of capital seeking absolute advantage in lowest factor cost, not a case of free trade based on comparative advantage.
American economists have failed their country as badly as have the Republican and Democratic parties. The sad fact is that there is no leader in sight capable of reversing the rapid decline of the United States of America.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Comment on this Editorial
Insecure In The Homeland
Poll: Dim View Of Bush, GOP
CBS
May 9, 2006
NEW YORK - President Bush and the Republican Congress show nearly record low ratings while Democrats are viewed much more favorably in their performance on the issues that matter most to Americans, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
Only 31% of those polled approve of Mr. Bush's job performance and 68% believe the United States is worse off today than it was before Bush became president.
Personal evaluations of Mr. Bush are the lowest they've ever been during his presidency.
On the public's confidence in Bush's ability to handle a crisis, 51% had been the previous low in September 2005. That figure is now at 50%. The President's handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis is tied to that decrease.
There is also concern that Mr. Bush is spending too much time on foreign policy issues: 55% think so. Also, on the issues that are most important to Americans, Iraq and gas prices, Bush's ratings have dropped.
On handling the issue of rising gas prices, Bush's performance rating dropped four percentage points from what it was a month ago (from 17% to 13%).
With the Iraq war, Bush's approval rating dropped one percentage point (from 30% to 29%) since last month. Similarly, only 30% of poll respondents said they have some degree of confidence Bush will be able to end the war successfully. The poll also reveals that 56% of those polled said that United States should have stayed out of Iraq; this number is the highest it's been since the start of the war.
The only area where Bush's approval rating is not at an all-time low is fighting terror: approval is at 46%.
Congressional Republicans get an eviscerating review in this poll. The GOP gets a favorability rating of 37%, exactly 20 percentage points lower than where it was in 1994. Inversely, Democrats in Congress had a favorability rating increase of 11 percentage points over what it was in 1994.
On the issues of Iraq and gas prices, the poll shows that the public believes Democrats are doing a better job. For instance, on Iraq, 48% said the Democratic Party is better while only 30% thought the Republican Party is. On keeping gas prices low, the disparity is even more pronounced: 57% say the Democrats perform better, while only 11% say the Republicans do.
Democrats also surpass Republicans in their work on issues such as prescription drug cots, improving health care and immigration, among others.
However, Republicans get a better assessment than Democrats in dealing with terrorism: 40% prefer the GOP's handling of the issue while 35% prefer the Democratic Party's.
The overall approval of Congress' performance has diminished vastly since 2001; only 23% approve now while 67% did in 2001. This figure reflects frustration over Congress' ability to challenge the President since 67% think Congress does not question his policies enough.
Also, 39% say that Congress would be in better condition today if Democrats were in charge, an increase from last month.
Heading into the 2006 elections, Democrats look to have quite an advantage. For instance, if the elections were held today, 44% of registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts, while only 33% would support the GOP candidate.
Comment on this Article
Presidential Plans Found In Trash
By Bruce Leshan
9 News
5/9/2006 11:17:36 PM
How much do you think Osama bin Laden would pay to know exactly when and where the President was traveling, and who was with him? Turns out, he wouldn't have had to pay a dime. All he had to do was go through the trash early Tuesday morning.
It appears to be a White House staff schedule for the President's trip to Florida Tuesday. And a sanitation worker was alarmed to find in the trash long hours before Mr. Bush left for his trip.
It's the kind of thing you would expect would be shredded or burned, not thrown in the garbage. Randy Hopkins could not believe what he was seeing.
There on the floor next to a big trash truck was a thick sheaf of papers with nearly every detail of the President's voyage.
"I saw locations and names and places where the President was going to be. I knew it was important. And it shouldn't have been in a trash hole like this," he said.
Hopkins works in sanitation. He's an ex-con, and he's worried about fallout from talking to us, so he's asked us not to say exactly where he's employed. But he also felt it was his civic duty to tell somebody about what he'd found.
"We're going through a war, and if it would have fell into the wrong hands at the right time, it would have been something really messy for the President's sake," he said.
The documents details the exact arrival and departure time for Air Force One, Marine One and the back up choppers, Nighthawk 2 and Three.
It lists every passenger on board each aircraft, from the President to military attaché with nuclear football. It offers the order of vehicles in the President's motorcade.
We faxed a copy to the Secret Service, which as usual rule declined to say much, other than insisting that it was a White House staff document, not a Secret Service document.
And while it is marked official the Secret Service says it is NOT classified. But you don't have to be in Presidential security to figure out the big mistake here.
What do you think the message is that comes out of this? Shred the important papers.
The Secret Service referred us to a White House spokeswoman, who declined to comment on the record. Some of this information in the document goes out to the media before every Presidential trip. But we're always told not to publish it.
And there are a whole lot of details in it that we do NOT get.
Comment: Well, the trash IS where Bush's plans belong after all...but this story also highlights the reality that dominates government circles. For all the delusions of grandeur that occupy the minds of members of the Bush administration and those that pull their strings, they are very aware of the very real reality of the complete unreality of the "terror threat". Think about it: if these people believed that the "terrorist threat" was as real as they would like the public to believe it is, do you think exact details of Bush's travel plans would be tossed away like a kleenex? The simple fact is that there is no threat to Bush or anyone else, and in private, the actions of the members of the Bush government reflect this. Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be another "terror attack", just that, if and when it happens, Bush knows he has nothing to fear from it.
Comment on this Article
America's Hitler, Part Two: How Fear and Perceived Powerlessness Contributes to Manipulation by "God's Agents" on Earth
by Lonna Gooden VanHorn
OpEdNews.com
May 4, 2006
In 1942-43 the American government commissioned a psychological study of Adolf Hitler. It was published in a book titled "The Mind of Adolf Hitler" by Walter Langer in 1972. Most of the analysis of Hitler in this article is based on that book.
In the text below, L indicates Langer's Words and H indicates Hitler's words.
This is the second of five parts of "America's Hitler. Part one was posted on May 1st.
British author John LeCarre wrote an article in 2003 titled "The United States of America Has Gone Mad," in which he said "America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War."
Amen.
The events of 9/11, and the fear those events engendered in the American people who, because of our unquestioned military superiority had for decades felt almost impervious to danger from other countries, made many Americans so afraid, their new feeling of vulnerability to danger made them psychologically open to a bellicose leader promising not only "justice," but also vengeance. Never mind that this same leader was unquestionably negligent in doing nothing to guard against terrorist attacks even after being strongly warned from the beginning of his presidency that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were a real threat and must be taken seriously. We now know that on January 25, 2001, Richard Clarke sent an urgent memo to Condi Rice saying it was imperative that a principals meeting on Al Qaeda and terrorism be held as soon as possible. There were warnings all summer. And then there was the PDB warning on August 6th, "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S."
Following 9/11 many Americans needed a show of American military might to make them feel "in control" and "on top" again. We bombed Afghanistan. And then there was the "shock and awe" of our invasion of Iraq. For awhile all was glorious. But then, unlike we had been promised, the Iraqi people did not just roll over and let us take over their country, and the real resistance began. Now it has been three years of almost unremitting bad news and at least four times as much money as we were told it would cost, with no end in sight. And now some are talking about occupying Iraq for ten or fifteen years of more. The violence and deaths do not end, and the people are tired of hearing "bad news." It seems they want the press to ignore what is actually happening if it is not good news.
Last night I had a conversation with a friend of mine. One of the kindest women I have known in my lifetime. Keep in mind this woman has had to listen to me for more than three years. Like a lot of Americans, she is sick of hearing about Iraq. Last night she said something to the effect of "Why don't we just kill them all!"
She was in a bad mood, and she did not mean it, of course. But because the war is not going well, because the American people are sick of bad news - especially regarding a war that was sold to the American people as something that would be simple, over in a few months - something that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people, would only cost $50 billion dollars most of which cost would be offset by Iraqi oil revenue -- the whole episode leaves a bad "taste" in her mind. And she has projected that bad taste onto the whole concept of Iraq, the war, the coverage of it. Everything that has to do with the Iraqi "adventure."
The frightening thing is a lot of people are thinking like that. A lot of redneck Bush supporters, among others, are actually saying it. My friend is a Republican, but she is neither stupid nor willfully delusional. She voted for Kerry.
Because of their frustration, many Americans are beginning to blame the people of the Mideast, and, let's be honest here, Muslims, for the fact that the rosy picture the people in the administration painted about what the war would entail has turned out to be lies. What is frightening is that is exactly what happened under Hitler. The Jews became the scapegoats. Over a period of years, they became the reason for all bad things that had happened to Germany, anyone who lived in Germany and also in the rest of the world.
Hitler fostered those ideas and fanned the resentment and hatred of the masses. And, after Hitler had successfully dehumanized the Jewish people the Germans could be made more willing to rationalize the fact that these people who they had been conditioned to perceive as less than human were being exterminated. After all, as Hitler had reminded them, it was the Jews who had killed Jesus Christ.
Whether they admit it or not, to many Christians, Muslims are not equal to Christians because they don't believe "Jesus saves." To most fundamentalist Christians, that is blasphemy. They would convert Muslims by force if they could. If they cannot be converted, then, many believe, they are destined for "Hell" anyway. How much "conditioning" over how long of a period of time would it take for them to believe that killing Muslims is actually okay? More "conditioning" than Hitler used to convince good Germans it was somehow sort of "okay" to kill Jews?
Militant Christians and militant Muslims are nearly identical in that kind of thinking. Both sects believe (although some do not admit it publicly) that the "enemies" of "Christianity/Islam" the "heathens/infidels" must be eliminated because their false beliefs contaminate the world for the "true believers."
Bush's ability to feed his greed, expand his power trip and satiate his blood lust has been made easier for him because our irresponsible media, particularly the broadcast media, has been very careful not to show us the truth of what Bush, in our name, is doing. They did not question the words and the motivation of the people who occupy the seats of power before the people were misled into war. Almost no voices against the wisdom of war -- and there were many experts who said invading Iraq would be the worst thing we could do if we wanted to cut down on terrorism -- were featured in the run up to war. Additionally, the media has not made us witness the truth of the misery of war for the Iraqi people. We have not seen photos of dogs eating bloated, rotting corpses in Fallujah. We have not seen bits and pieces of our own soldiers scattered over a foreign landscape, nor have we been introduced to the lives of the soldiers who have come home to "live" as vegetables.
In the beginning, the media portrayed the war as a pretty Nintendo light show. "Shock and awe." We saw no video of terrified children screaming in fear at the other end of the missile tracers.
Because it has protected us from truth, the media is implicit in the fact that we went to war, and implicit in all the death and misery brought about because of that war. They have now been found implicitly guilty by an international tribunal. link
Before the Iraq War began, 1000 veterans, many of them high-ranking, wrote a letter to the president telling him that going to war with Iraq would be the worst thing he could do if he wanted to stabilize the Middle East. Leaders of the Clergy tried to meet with Bush before the war to tell him they believed war with Iraq was not a "just" war, and so would be against God's will? Bush refused to meet with them. How many reading this article remember seeing either of those important stories covered by the media before the war?
And now in covering the situation with Iran the media is once more being complicit more in what it is omitting than what it is reporting. Physicists have written a letter to Bush telling him bombing Iran would be madness. How many people reading this article have seen these people or their letter featured on the news?
Interestingly enough, Langer also blamed the press for its part in Hitler's success. "When we try to formulate a conception of Adolph Hitler as the German people know him we must not forget that their knowledge of him is limited by a controlled press." (L. p. 47.) "In addition the press, newsreels, and so forth, are continually flooded with carefully prepared photographs showing Hitler at his very best." (L. p. 49.)
Think of Bush in uniform before cheering soldiers, always in front of an American flag, or standing with Mt. Rushmore in the background, or with a cross and a crown behind and above him. Think of the "journalists" paid to spout the party line. Think of Jeff Gannon, planted to ask softball questions of Bush and McClellan even though Bush holds almost no press conferences and very seldom speaks spontaneously because when he does the results are often disastrous. IF they are not ignored by the press.
Clinton should have been so lucky.
In 2003 in answer to a reporter's question about the justification for war when no WMD's had been found, Bush said "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Almost no press was given to that outrageous lie. Had it been uttered by a Democrat, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have feasted on it, and ridiculed the person who said it for weeks. Virtually everyone in the country would have been made aware of it. But, because talk radio and television is made up almost entirely of voices from the right, almost no one knows about it. Most people do not even know about the purging of names from the Florida voter rolls prior to the 2000 election. Again, had such a travesty been committed under a governor who was a Democrat, Rush and Sean would have been on it, to borrow a phrase from Jim Hightower, "like a gator on a poodle," and most Americans would be aware of it, at least in a vague way. As it is, if they know about it at all, they think it had something to do with the recount, which they perceive as being dishonest because of machinations by the Democrats.
Military analyst Bill Arkin attended the Veterans' Day commemoration at Arlington National Cemetery in 2003. He said that Bush talked and laughed and bopped his head to the music during the presentation of the colors. Had that been shown on television, Bush would have lost not only the veterans' vote, but the election. But, it was not shown.
Bush seems unable to realize what war entails. Or else he simply does not care. Before the war, the BBC (but not American television) showed video of Bush clowning before his entourage minutes before he went on television to make the announcement America was about to invade Iraq. He actually pumped his arm and said "feels good," before he announced the beginning of a bombardment which undoubtedly meant the death and maiming of thousands of people, including many of our own soldiers, and the destruction of the infrastructure and homes and businesses of the Iraqi people. He is in such denial about war that, according to Pat Robertson, Bush told him there would be no casualties. According to the White House, Bush said he never said that. But, why should we believe him? His modus operandi is deliberate deception, and his lies fill volumes. He has consistently lied or side-stepped questions about his past. He was indisputably - authenticity of CBS documents notwithstanding -- AWOL - absent for 30 days - from his National Guard service. He delights in his "cunning" and ability to be devious. His fortune was built on unethical business deals. Honesty and a high standard of ethics is nowhere to be found in his life's history. We now know from Weade's tapes that had he lost the primary to Steve Forbes, he would have done nothing to help Forbes defeat Gore. He also said Forbes could forget Florida as well as Texas, which indicates Jeb would have done nothing to help Forbes. Hmm. Perhaps the Florida voter rolls would not have been purged. Of course it is extremely unlikely Forbes would have defeated Gore. After all, even Bush did not defeat Gore in the popular vote, and Bush does have a tad more charisma than Forbes. But, can anyone imagine a candidate with any decency acting in such a manner?
Contrast the differences in the 2004 presidential campaign between Bush and Kerry.
A former Republican Judge and Senator from Kentucky, Marlowe Cook, repudiated Bush's morals in an article for the Courier-Journal before the election:
"I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all..."
Even the Washington Post in "He Ought to Know" said it took a lot of "chutzpah" for the Bush campaign to accuse the Kerry campaign of being beholden to special interests when the Bush campaign was at least four times more beholden to special interests than was Kerry. "During the 2000 contest, the Bush campaign assigned an industry code to givers so it would know precisely how much it was beholden and to whom. As electric utility lobbyist Thomas Kuhn explained in a 1999 letter to fundraisers, putting the code on the check "does ensure that our industry is credited, and that your progress is listed among the other business/industry sectors." Mr. Kuhn's progress may well have been noted; he met at least 14 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force."
However, even Bush was not as arrogant in the early days of his presidency as he has become since. Hitler, also, did not begin his rule by killing people. First (and Bush suffers in this part of the comparison) Hitler lifted people out of a depression. He greatly reduced unemployment. He built roads and buildings. He seemed to work miracles. Because he did, the German people began to perceive him as almost godlike. They began to look upon him as a kind of Messiah. So did he. "His references to the Bible became more frequent, and the movement took on a religious atmosphere." (L. p. 36.)
"It is not clear from the evidence whether the new State religion was part of Hitler's plan or whether developments were such that it became feasible...it may be that his series of successes were so startling that the people spontaneously adopted a religious attitude toward him...In any case he has accepted this Godlike role without any hesitation or embarrassment...when he is addressed with the salutation, "Heil Hitler, our Saviour," he bows slightly and believes it." (L. p. 40.)
"All the stagings were designed to create a supernatural and religious atmosphere, and Hitler's entry was more befitting a god than a man. Notes appeared in the press to the effect that, "As he spoke, one heard God's mantle rustle through the room!,, On the side of a hill in Odenwald... "We believe in Holy Germany. Holy Germany is Hitler! We believe in Holy Hitler."" (L. p. 62.)
With Bush, we have had all the religious and patriotic "God equals America" speech and imagery from the very beginning. Recall how the news covered the man in Florida who said 'for the first time he felt God was in the White House.'
"At the Nuremburg Nazi Party Rally in September 1937, there was a huge photograph of Hitler underneath which was the inscription, "In the beginning was the Word..."The Mayor of Hamburg assured him, [Teeling] "We need nor priests or parsons. We communicate direct with God through Adolph Hitler. He has many Christ-like qualities." (L. p. 62.)
"A Rhemish group of German "Christians" in April 1937 passed this resolution: "Hitler's word is God's law, the decrees and laws which represent it possess divine authority." And Reichsminister for Church Affairs, Hans Kerrl, says: "There has arisen a new authority as to what Christ and Christianity really are - that is Adolf Hiter... is the true Holy Ghost." (L. p. 63.)
After his stunning successes, and the fact that he seemed to lead a simple life almost wholly dedicated to his work, and, to all appearances, almost sexless, the Germans came to perceive Hitler in much the same way.
"He [Hitler] is the acme of German honor and purity; the Resurrector of the the German family and home." (L. p. 59.)
But, based on testimony by people who knew him well, including some of his sex partners, Langer describes a very sick and perverted sex life.
Bush was the "family values" candidate. Many people perceive his "piety" as an antidote to the "godlessness" they see all around them, and believe he will lead us back to the values of our "Christian" past - a past that itself is largely a myth. link
I have written in many articles, one of them being "Standing in Awe of Bush's Christianity," that I believe Bush is sincere in his belief in God and Christ. However, GREED, which is the linchpin of this administration, concern for the rich at the expense of the poor, war-mongering, fear-mongering, constant lies and deceit, bearing false witness against one's "enemies," always putting profits for corporate campaign contributors ahead of the environmental concerns of the earth God commanded us to be good stewards of, are not generally considered Christian principles.
What this religiosity in the White House is actually leading us to of course, is the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, pride, selfishness, greed and lack of concern for our fellow man which are the only aspects of human nature Christ ever really railed against.
To be continued...
[Read Part One]
Comment on this Article
Is Bush Adopting Hitler's Approach to Children and Education?
by Judy Aron
OpEdNews.com
May 4, 2006
I have heard it said that once you bring the name of Hitler into an argument that you have lost the argument. The notion is that his regime was so horrible and so extreme, that one could never make an accurate comparison. I am sorry, but I disagree with that theory. I do believe that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Hitler's government serves us well as an example of how not to do things. Bad repressive government is always bad repressive government, no matter who is at the helm.
Coming from a family comprised of some Holocaust survivors, I have heard repeatedly in my life what warning signs to look for and how easily people can be propagandized, as well as how easily government can be taken over and people can be suppressed.
That being said, some of the laws coming out of Congress and our States are getting pretty scary.
Some have evolved over the course of many administrations, some come as a result of legislators who are really clueless, and others come from a purposeful agenda. Sometimes that agenda may come from corporate America, as evidenced by heavy campaign financing and lobbying of their interests. I am not talking about any kind of conspiracy to enslave us all, but perhaps it is time for our legislators to re-read our Constitution and stop relying on the judiciary to tell them when something is wrong, unethical, or unconstitutional. Unfortunately, people are asleep enough and busy dealing with their own problems that they don't have time to see what's going on, or even check up on the people they voted for, if they voted at all.
It is necessary to recognize that there are very real socialist and fascist factions working in our government, and they can take a miserable idea and make it look like a really good one. It's easy enough to build a socialist infrastructure if you lay the groundwork under the guise of helping those in need. After all, programs designed to help the sick and needy could benefit us all, right? Propaganda done well can push any agenda, especially if there is money behind it. Taking a look at even a few things like eminent domain, education, immigration, surveillance, and censorship, and a picture begins to unfold that is not very pretty, and it certainly doesn't come close to what our founding fathers intended.
Just examining education and its relation to healthcare, we ought to be very mindful of the path we are traveling in this country. As we speak, legislatures around the country are considering legislation
1. that establishes health center and clinics in our schools
2. that deals with "early intervention" of mental health issues of children - utilizing screening programs for all
3. that deals with "school readiness" and universal pre-school, which is government run/funded education and institutionalization of 3 and 4 year olds
4. that places more psychologists, therapists and other "psych" professionals in our schools
5. that removes certain authority and rights of parents
6. that places more government mandates on education
On top of this, the federal government is exercising the power of the purse to mandate how education should be run overall.
Let's take a look at some examples based on a paper describing the Third Reich:
"Even during the war, there was so much unrest and so many appeals that in 1941, Hitler intervened with an edict that prohibited parents from bringing charges against hospitals and asylums."
Are we not seeing "middle of the night legislation" inserted to protect pharmaceutical companies and institutions from lawsuits for autism", etc? Parents are being forced to medicate their kids in some cases, and then they can't turn around and do anything when the drugs damage their child.
"Nazi bioscience and racialism were woven into all aspects of the social, health, and educational policies."
Are we not seeing states like Illinois instituting Social/Emotional Learning Standards for the purpose of having children be "school ready"? Who decides these Social/Emotional Learning Standards? What studies are they based on? Is anyone interested in the conflict of interest and questionable ethics of these studies, some of which were funded by pharmaceutical companies?
"In 1934, 181 Genetic Health courts and appellate Genetic Health Courts were created for the sole purpose of enforcing Nazi health laws and decrees (Peukert, 1987). These courts were attached to local civil courts and presided over by two physicians and a lawyer. All physicians were required to register every case of genetic pathology with the courts and failure to do so was punishable. The reports were filed in specially created data banks (Burleigh, 1994). Public health officials, teachers, and social workers were also required to report children suspected of having a disability or emotional problem. The search for people with hereditary illnesses was relentless; every large institution became a regional catchment area and sent officials to the homes of every person reported to have a hereditary illness (Burleigh, 1994)."
Does the program/mandate of Child Find fit this description? The inter-agency networking of government entities per the New Freedom Commission, and No Child Left Behind legislation offers up some very unsavory comparisons here. Schools are implementing screening tools like Wested, and TeenScreen and a host of other programs to identify kids with problems.. even if they don't really have one. And no one seems to take notice that these programs were funded in part by the pharmaceutical industry in order to get more customers and sell more medication. Additionally, databases are being set up to keep track of information. Parents are being coerced into putting their children into treatment. Some lose custody and their children become wards of the state.
"Public health officials, responsible for enforcing the institutionalization of children with disabilities, persuaded dubious parents with promises that their children would receive the most advanced and expert therapy on open wards (Heiniansberg and Schmidt, 1993).
Parents who refused to put their children into institutions were accused by these same officials of neglecting and depriving their children of needed treatment. Persistent refusal often resulted in threats; parents were told that if they did not institutionalize their children they would lose their guardianship rights (Burleigh, 1994). Single mothers who refused to part with their children found themselves assigned to contractual labor, which in the end, forced them to surrender their children (Freidlander, 1994)."
Parental rights and guardianship have been removed from many parents by the courts in this country for similar charges. IDEA legislation allows the school districts and State departments of Children and Family Services to coerce parents into treating children, despite clauses regarding parental consent. In this country a parent does not necessarily have the last word, and they are usually dragged through court in "due process hearings" with little financial resources behind them to sustain them through relentless charges. Of course school districts and state agencies have enormous financial resources, your tax dollar, at their disposal to pay for ongoing legal fees. Parents will most likely succumb to school and DCF demands and hope for the best for their child. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen and children end up drugged, institutionalized, or both. We are constantly reminded that the "experts" know best.
"Under the Nazis schools were a primary target for control and their administration was placed in the hands of the party faithful. By 1938, the German school system was brought under the total control of the central government and removed from the jurisdiction of the individual states or Lander (Huebner, 1962)."
One cannot ignore No Child Left Behind and the pervasiveness of federal mandates on state and local schools. We may say that we still have states rights in this country, but what state is willing to give up the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Title 1 money and not institute the federal mandates? There is no freedom here for states as long as they are being coerced and bribed to put federal mandates in place. Now states are so sucked into the flow of money that they cannot give it up even if they wanted to without an extreme cut in their operations. They have become slaves to the federal government.
"Comprehensive schools that included classes for children with learning problems were closed, parent-teacher associations were made powerless, corporal punishment was reintroduced and progressive teaching methods were discouraged. Early childhood and kindergarten systems were also brought under government control and church and privately sponsored kindergartens were banned. The Froebel Association which pioneered early childhood education in Germany was forced to disband (Tietze, Rossback and Ufemann, 1989). It was a common sight to see three year olds marching and waving flags in a military parade. "
Universal preschool and efforts to have state sponsored, taxpayer funded, public education for 3 and 4 year olds, in addition to state funded birth to three programs, are now being pushed nationally. You might be interested as to what is included in the curriculum planned for these kids. It isn't just crayon drawings and how to hold a scissor. While we may not be banning church and privately sponsored programs, we will be mandating that they possess certain credentials through the National Association for the Education of Young Children. The fact that the state is feeding, and in some instances clothing and caring for these kids the majority of the day, is of concern. Where is parental control and responsibility? Why is the state becoming so involved in taking care of our young? Have we really embraced outsourcing our parenting to the government?
Oh yeah, maybe they are unfounded comparisons and way too extreme, or maybe they aren't, but lets check the roadmap and see where we are headed. Are legislators looking to pass laws based on their campaign contributions or because of ideology, or because of a vision of how things should work? Are we passing laws to control people, or help people? Perhaps we are passing laws to control people under the guise of helping them. Should we be passing these kinds of laws at all? When is government "help" voluntarily received and when is it forced upon us? Should we allow laws that will dictate mental screening, recording and even perhaps micro-chipping of our population? How does that measure up to what our founders intended in the name of freedom? You decide.
Comment on this Article
'We the People': Don't Want To Hear It!
By Don Nash
10/05/2006
Give us liberty to live in denial
We don't want to hear about dying and death. We don't want to hear about ethnic cleansing. We don't want to hear about detention or torture and we don't want to hear about atrocity. We don't want to hear about napalm or uranium be it depleted or otherwise. We don't want to hear about terrorists, even when the terrorists are our own creation. Remember 9/11 and Flight 93 and give us a rousing myth we can cherish.
Screw us and delude us. Gouge us and remove us from the ravages of destructive hurricanes. Chocolate cities and not anymore, white makes right then reconstruction. The South WILL rise again. Lie to us, spy on us, and take away our rights. Freedom is just another word for border security.
Give us liberty to live in denial, then take away our pensions. Health care is for the rich and son-of-a-bitch, my child has cancer. Give us prescription relief and affirm the belief that legislation only benefits big pharmaceuticals. Corporate coronations and severance packages walk hand in hand with corrupt politicians. Special interest is concerned, but not with Americans and isn't that what makes America great.
Give us our military and the ravages of war that is far from our glorious shining shores. Sacrifice the children and America has lots of those that are expendable as the cost for preemptive war. Kill the enemy but do it over there and by the way, my child's not available. Take my neighbor's child to defend America's freedom, there's a budding little criminal already. Take the Mexican kid and take the black kid and take that white trash girl lives over there. My child's in school and plays at soccer and the little darling is on a fast track to Harvard.
Pile on America massive consumer debt. We couldn't pay it all off were it necessary. Deficit spending is the wave of a future that looks bleak even on a good day. Out source the jobs and slash all the taxes especially for America's well to do.
Give us a "decider" that way we don't have to think about the consequences or repercussions that are inherent in political insanity. Give us an illusion and the politics of compassionate conservatism. Our "decider" speaks with 'God' and isn't that marvelous. 'In God We Trust' and all the rest will surely rust on an altar of Islamite heresy.
Give us 'ten commandments' dummied down and gussied up in the finest marble we can plant on public display. Give us evangelicostal intelligent design and never mind if it flies in the face of sound science. Science is for unbelieving heretics and there's inquisition waiting at the next political convention. Burn them at the stake the godless disbelieving and of course the gays and liberals and Democrats and United Arab Emirates.
'We the people' don't want to hear it and not from a lying liberal media. Give us violent video and survivors on parade and tell us again about the pedophiles preying on our children. Give us distractions, any damn distractions that can hide the reality we should face. Presidential treason and corrupt politicians and the failure of America's Congress. Lies about illegal war and more illegal war and this next one will uncork the nuclear nightmare. Dangers to the left of us and dangers to the right of us and Israel says so and the president says so and some deranged politician with a shotgun.
In order to form a more perfect delusion, we can surrender whatever it takes.
Comment on this Article
Rumsfeld Protester Injured, Gives Insider Account
by Matthew Cardinale
Atlanta Progressive News
May 6, 2006
ATLANTA - Protester Gloria Tatum, 62, was injured at a protest against Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, today, from when she was shouting at Rumsfeld, and has a bruise on her back, Tatum says. The noted local activist gave her first hand account of the heckling of Rummy to Atlanta Progressive News.
"I had a bruise and I thought someone hit at me from behind. When I look at the tape, the woman was pulling me down, but I don't know if she was in the crowd or with security. At the time, it felt I had been hit from behind and I do have a bruise on my body. It sure felt like someone hit me. Someone said that they saw a woman hitting me, I think Wendy said that. Maybe I just got injured being drug out," of the auditorium, she said.
She didn't file a police report because she said it all happened very fast and she was worried about getting arrested herself for shouting at Rumsfeld.
About 10 activists from the peace community were inside the auditorium where Rumsfeld had come to speak to an audience of 400, Tatum said, adding that there were an additional 30 outside. The audience consisted of mostly "very elderly, White, prosperous people," she said.
"The majority of people were Republicans who were supporters of Bush and his policy and supporters of Rumsfeld," Tatum said.
The activists represented the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, World Can't Wait, and the International Action Center, among other groups.
Rumsfeld sounded "defensive against someone with authority [Ray McGovern], a CIA person, someone he can't lied to, someone who calls him on it. Someone he couldn't just flippantly lie to. Of course he said he's not lying, but I've read several places were the Niger uranium that they talked about, they got that from someone named Curveball that the CIA told them that that information wasn't credible and they used it anyway," Tatum told Atlanta Progressive News.
"So it's not so much they got bad intelligence, the Bush administration," Tatum explained of her protest.
"It's that they chose intelligence that fit their policy. The Downing Street Memos state that they were going to do that and they did that. Some of the intelligence came from some rightwing graduate student thesis paper. They came from sources that weren't credible that they were told they weren't credible but they used it anyway because they fit their policy," Tatum said.
"I don't know why the news media didn't talk about this," Tatum said.
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern questioned Rumsfeld at length during the unusual public question and answer session. McGovern asked Rumsfeld why he lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and Rumsfeld said he didn't lie, CNN clips show.
"Well, if he's saying that he's a psychopath, that he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies, then I don't know what to think of that. If he tells a lie and he thinks it's the truth. Does he not know they difference between a lie and the truth?" Tatum remarked.
McGovern's exchange with Rumsfeld was fascinating.
Rumsfeld started talking about how Colin Powell and President Bush said Iraq had WMDs and how the troops believed it. So, implicitly, it's not a lie if you believe it?
McGovern asked about Rumsfeld saying he knew where the weapons were. Rumsfeld first denied saying that, but the quote has been confirmed.
McGovern asked about the purported tie between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld replied that Al- Zarqawi had been in Iraq. McGovern stated he had only been in a desolate area in the north and only went to Baghdad once to visit a hospital.
"Well, this is the first time to my knowledge in Atlanta that the public has been able to buy tickets and enter one of the events, when Bush or Cheney or someone like that is in town," Tatum told Atlanta Progressive News.
"Normally it is by invitation only. So only people who give money to the Republican party and are hardline supporters of Bush," Tatum said.
"This is what happened when they opened it up to the public and the people who have been locked out for the past few years get in," Tatum said.
The tickets cost $40.00, Tatum said.
"I got mine about 2 weeks in advance, the minute I heard about it. I mean, I couldn't believe they were going to let non-Republicans in," Tatum said.
"The Republican crowd, they were very pro-Rumsfeld. They don't want to hear what other people have to say. They kept telling us to shut up. One man told me as I was leaving, he said, you go home and stay at home " Tatum recalled.
"The media coverage has been unbelievable. I never expected this. I feel like a genie has been let out of the bottle or something. It's taken on a life of its own. Normally, we work so hard to do stuff and we get such limited coverage," Tatum said.
"I mean, like the April first march, we worked 4 to 5 months on that, most of the coverage was really good, and the AJC said only a couple hundred people were there and they mostly interviewed this Rightwing woman from Marietta. She didn't do any of the work and she got most of the coverage," Tatum said.
"Hopefully, what comes out of this, the media starts talking about, well, what about the prewar intelligence? Are they saying the prewar intelligence wasn't credible? I hope that's where the debate starts going," Tatum said.
"I think they all lied, I think they deliberately lied," Tatum said. "If we all believe it, it must be true. If we all say it, and we all say it enough, and we all believe it, it must be true," Tatum said of Rumsfeld's insistence he didn't lie.
"I heard a mother of a soldier who said, Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. And I feel bad for them [the people who think that]. And I support the soldiers, but I feel heartbroken that they believe this, I want them to get the truth," Tatum told Atlanta Progressive News.
"I screamed, You lied to the American public You lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction. You lied about Iraq having a nuclear program. You lied about Iraq having ties to Al-Qaeda. You lied about Iraq oil paying for the war. And the CIA told you that these were not credible stories but you chose to cherry pick intelligence..." Tatum recalled.
"I was out in the hall at that point. Above the roar of the boos," she said.
"They didn't call on us, we stood up and interrupted Rumsfeld," she said.
"He was interrupted three times by people. One was accusing him of war crimes and torture. Another person stood there with his back to Rumsfeld and stood there the entire time with his back to him. Every 10 minutes he was interrupted. It was about an hour," Tatum said.
"The police told me to leave or they would put me in jail. They allowed me to leave," Tatum said.
"I had my toothbrush. I had some socks, so my feet wouldn't get cold. I was planning on going to jail. And I was very happy when they didn't [arrest me]," she said.
"I hope that the discussion in this country is going to start about prewar intelligence," Tatum said.
Matthew Cardinale is Editor of Atlanta Progressive News. He has written previously for the Sun-Sentinel Newspaper, Shelterforce Magazine, The Advocate Magazine, The San Francisco Bay View, and the Berkeley Daily Planet Newspaper. He has also written for numerous online publications including OpEdNews, BuzzFlash, CommonDreams, AlterNet, RawStory, and TruthOut. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com
Comment on this Article
Stephen Colbert: New American Hero
Don Hazen
AlterNet
May 9, 2006
When Colbert turned up the heat on Washington's elite, he revealed the big
split between those basking in power and those fighting for change.
Virtually overnight, Stephen Colbert became a hero to countless Americans,
following his April 30 performance at the White House Correspondents' Association
dinner.
Since then, millions of people have either watched the video or
read the transcript of his skewering of both the president and the press corps,
and have discussed it avidly. Tens of thousands of people have gone to the
website ThankYouStephenColbert.com and
written letters of appreciation. Talk about water-cooler chatter; the event
crashed internet servers across the land. It truly was one of those moments
of media shock and delight.
And then, an odd but revealing thing happened. Some of the chattering class
commentators, mainstream media writers and columnists, and Democratic officials
didn't get it: Not very funny, rude, not respectful of the president, and so
on. Are they kidding? How could they not understand they were witnessing one
of the bravest, most subversive performances in memory, which thrilled and
gave hope to untold viewers and readers, and will be a huge marker when people
look back on the Bush era?
Colbert's speech had a huge impact for two reasons: First, he spoke truth
to power right to the face of the president, in front of the entire news media.
No one could miss, sidestep or deny it. It wasn't a scene from a movie, book
or talk show -- it was live. It reminded me of Edward R. Murrow's famous
address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association (recently
depicted in the film "Good Night and Good Luck"). It gave me goose
bumps. Colbert's performance shamed every Democrat or columnist who has been
too afraid, too timid, or just too worried about losing his or her own power
and access to go out on a limb and tell the truth that this administration
is a disaster beyond our wildest nightmares. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove have
gotten away with murder … and worse. And many of the people in that
room that night who squirmed in their seats -- it was in part because of the
internal indictment they were feeling for not doing what they should have done,
countless times, long before. Maybe now they will do the right thing, but I
won't be holding my breath.
The second reason Colbert made such a huge splash is the rapid advance of
video on the web. Almost overnight, the media world has irrevocably changed
as video is increasingly becoming as important as print and still images on
the web. When, in a matter of hours, dozens of websites can post or link to
a video and get the word out about a spectacular event, the role of the gatekeepers
and the corporate media shrinks big-time. And it doesn't matter if the networks
or CNN or Fox decides that they don't want you to see it -- they can't stop
it. The people's network is now in working order. Progressives now have a television
capacity; still rudimentary, perhaps, but powerfully effective.
The press leaks
The press coverage of the Colbert performance was illuminating, according
to the popular blog, democratic
underground: "Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media.
This demonstrates powerfully the ability of the media to choose the news, and
to decide when and how to shield Bush from negative publicity. Sins of omission
can be just as bad as sins of commission."
The AP's first
stab at it, as well as Reuters and
the Chicago Tribune, tell us everything we need to know: In these reports,
Colbert's performance is sidestepped and marginalized, while President Bush
is depicted as lighthearted, humble and witty.
Salon's Joan Walsh points out, "Colbert's deadly performance did more
than reveal, with devastating clarity, how Bush's well-oiled myth machine works.
It exposed the mainstream press' pathetic collusion with an administration
that has treated it -- and the truth -- with contempt from the moment it took
office. Intimidated, coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the press corps
that for years dutifully repeated Bush talking points was stunned and horrified
when someone dared to reveal that the media emperor had no clothes. Colbert
refused to play his dutiful, toothless part in the White House correspondents'
dinner -- an incestuous, backslapping ritual that should be retired. For that,
he had to be marginalized. Voilà: 'He wasn't funny.'"
On the Democratic political front, as John Aravosis wrote on AmericaBlog,
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., actually stepped up to defend President
Bush, saying, according to The Hill:
"I thought some of it was funny, but I think it got a little
rough … He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some
respect."
"I'm certainly not a defender of the administration," Hoyer
reassured stunned observers, but Colbert "crossed the line" with
many jokes that were "in bad taste."
Criticizing Colbert for being rude would be pretty funny if it weren't so
depressing. Rude? Since when has politics in this administration used the Marquis
of Queensbury rules? Is Dick Cheney sweet and accommodating? When, in their
march to power, has the right wing had good manners -- about abortion or gay
marriage, or in the push for invading Iraq? Sure, mention decorum and one thinks
immediately of Karl Rove, of Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of
Hugo Chavez, of Jerry Falwell blaming America's bad morals for 9/11.
The fact is, Stephen Colbert is at the acme of rising independent voices --
in the blogosphere, on the internet, in publishing and independent filmmaking
-- who are being aggressive and playing hardball the way the right does. And
guess what? The establishment is getting nervous. The powers-that-be know that
people respond to passion, anger and resistance, emotions that convey meaning
and seriousness, and the will to fight hard for important issues.
In a smaller way, but showing similar guts, Cindy Sheehan spoke truth by traveling
to Texas and demanding that the president explain, please, just what "noble
cause" her son died for. Ray McGovern did it recently when he publicly challenged Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Atlanta, and so did Harry Taylor, the man who confronted George
W. Bush at a town meeting in North Carolina.
Perhaps the most important lesson we have learned from the divisions laid
bare by Stephen Colbert is that the big split isn't so much between Democrats
and Republicans or between the media and the people and events they cover,
but rather between the powerful and the angry, between those basking in power
and those fighting for change. The kiss-ass media, the revolving-door congressmen,
the sycophant lobbyists and congressional staffers, the greedy media consultants
-- all are dependent on and addicted to the trappings of power, whether it's
their next book, TV appearance, consulting contract, ride on Air Force One
or junket to play golf at St. Andrews. Stephen Colbert turned the heat up on
them all:
… let's review the rules. Here's how it works: The president
makes the decisions; he's the decider. The press secretary announces those
decisions, and you people, the press, type those decisions down. Make, announce,
check. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family
again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kickin' around in your
head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage
to stand up to the administration? You know: fiction!
It's getting hotter in the kitchen, and some of those who have the most to
hide are getting closer to a meltdown.
Comment on this Article
Veteran protesters face jail under new anti-terror laws
By Ian Herbert
The Independent
10 May 2006
It takes a brave - or foolhardy - law enforcer to drag Helen John before the courts. The Metropolitan Police tried it seven years ago after the peace campaigner had daubed the 18in-high message "Ban Trident", referring to the nuclear warhead of that name, on to the Houses of Parliament. The jury, which convicted her of criminal damage, also said it "unanimously agreed that the defendant had a reasonable cause for her action".
Today, Mrs John will discover whether the Government will try its luck again, by making her and fellow veteran peace protester Sylvia Boyes the first individuals to face charges under a little-noticed clause in the Government's Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which came into force last month.
Mrs John, 68, and Mrs Boyes, 62, who have been told to report to Harrogate police station to hear their fate, were arrested on 2 April after setting out to highlight the law, which civil liberties groups believe will criminalise free speech and undermine the right to peaceful demonstration, under the guise of the war on terror. If the Attorney General does exercise his right to charge them, he will hand the women a welcome boost to what has become an increasingly lonely struggle to highlight concerns about Menwith Hill, the shadowy American communications interception unit in the Yorkshire Dales where they were arrested.
Mrs Boyes demonstrated her disdain for the threat of charges, which could bring a year's imprisonment or £5,000 fine, by returning to Menwith for a "celebration picnic" within a week of her arrest. Mrs John has equal resolve - though it has been constrained by problems with her van, which gets her to Menwith from her small terraced home in Keighley, west Yorkshire.
"This will not stop me, whether they charge me or not," said Mrs Boyes, a Quaker whose philosophy is more pacifist and less overtly political than her friend's. "I am still utterly dumbfounded that we were arrested like that, straight away, under legislation designed to counter international organised crime and international terrorism. Terrorists attack buses and the Underground - places where people are - not remote bases. And since when did drug traffickers go to military bases?"
Mrs Boyes also has a track record for making a fool of prosecuting barristers. After going on trial in 2001 for causing criminal damage to a Trident submarine docked at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, she argued that her actions were preventing a greater evil and was acquitted.
Mrs John, a former midwife, moved to Yorkshire in 1993 and set up a permanent women's peace camp at Menwith Hill to try to draw attention to claims that commercial espionage was being pursued there.
Comment on this Article
Ray McGovern & Cindy Sheehan to lead March on the White House
Ben Frank
March 9, 2006
Thursday May, 18th Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern are meeting at Lafayette park near the White House, then Marching to Rumsfeld's personal residence. Wouldn't it be great if someone brought a video cameda, and it's thousands of people standing outside Rummy's house, singing along to #3 from Neil Young's new album, "Don't Need- No More Lies!" In fact that ought to be on repeat over at the big protest camp going up on the DC Capitol Mall- with the speakers turned to Congress and cranked to 11.
The DC Capitol Mall was created as a place for citizens to gather and protest their grievances to the government- that is it's purpose.
Isn't it time to use that space for an extended protest?
If not now when?
World Can't Wait just announced their next major protest - October. Anyone else think that's a little funny?
Last year the Downing Street Memo came out on May 1st, soon after UFPJ announced the big rally for Sept 24th. Why do they always skip over the summer months? Because that's when the weather is nice, and people might actually have the time to camp and stay.
The crooks in power don't care if we schedule another weekend protest- the one thing they don't want is an extended protest like the Ukranians had. Several weeks of peaceful demonstration led to their President stepping down. That's what we need.
We sure as hell don't need this pathetic Congress to investigate anything else - at this point asking for another committee is just plain insanity.
Let's think about this - do George Bush and Dick Cheney and the complicit fools in Congress want 500,000 Americans camping out on their front porch? No. So why are we appeasing them? They don't want us camping on the Capitol mall- so we should do just that.
Thursday May, 18th Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern are meeting at Lafayette park near the White House, then Marching to Rumsfeld's personal residence. Wouldn't it be great if someone brought a video cameda, and it's thousands of people standing outside Rummy's house, singing along to #3 from Neil Young's new album, "Don't Need- No More Lies!" In fact that ought to be on repeat over at the big protest camp going up on the DC Capitol Mall- with the speakers turned to Congress and cranked to 11.
The DC Capitol Mall was created as a place for citizens to gather and protest their grievances to the government- that is it's purpose.
Isn't it time to use that space for an extended protest?
If not now when?
Comment on this Article
Chicago's Abu Ghraib
Democracy Now
10/05/2006
UN Committee Against Torture Hears Report on How Police Tortured Over 135 African-American Men Inside Chicago Jails
For nearly two decades a part of the city's jails known as Area 2 was the epicenter for what has been described as the systematic torture of dozens of African-American males by Chicago police officers. In total, more than 135 people say they were subjected to abuse including having guns forced into their mouths, bags places over their heads, and electric shocks inflicted to their genitals. Four men have been released from death row after government investigators concluded torture led to their wrongful convictions. [includes rush transcript] Extraordinary rendition. Overseas prisons. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Practices and places that have become synonymous with the abuse of detainees in US custody are getting renewed attention at the United Nations this week, where the UN Committee Against Torture is holding hearings on U.S. compliance with its international obligations. But there is one name expected to arise this week that few people in this country will have heard about - and it's the one that's closest to home.
It's called Area 2. And for nearly two decades beginning in 1971, it was the epicenter for what has been described as the systematic torture of dozens of African-American males by Chicago police officers. In total, more than 135 people say they were subjected to abuse including having guns forced into their mouths, bags places over their heads, and electric shocks inflicted to their genitals. Four men have been released from death row after government investigators concluded torture led to their wrongful convictions.
Yet the case around Area 2 is nowhere near a resolution -- to date, not one Chicago police officer has been charged with any crime.
The most prominent officer, former police commander Jon Burge, was dismissed in the early 1990s. He retired to Florida where he continues to collect a pension. Today, a special prosecutor is now in the fourth year of an investigation. Just last week, a group of Chicago police officers won a court ruling to delay the release of the prosecutor's preliminary report.
David Bates, one of dozens of men to come forward with allegations of abuse at the hands of the Chicago police.
Flint Taylor, an attorney with the People's Law Office in Chicago, which he helped found in the late 1960s. He has represented many of the torture victims and was directly involved in spearheading the special prosecutor's investigation.
John Conroy a journalist and author who has covered the case for over a decade. He has written several articles for the Chicago Reader, and is the author of the book "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture."
Comment on this Article
Government Gone Mad
Ex-Bush Official Exposes 9/11 As Inside Job
Monday, May 8th, 2006
RINF
An enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd packed the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium Saturday to hear ex-Bush Administration insider Morgan Reynolds prosecute top administration and military officials for the 9/11 inside job.
Reynolds indicted Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Meyers, confessed WTC demolisher and insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, and others for mass murder, Conspiracy, and other charges including high treason. The enthusiastic response from the overflow crowd was a de facto vote for conviction on all counts.
The former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, showed that the defendants conspired to create a false cover story of suicide hijackings in order to "blow the World Trade Center to kingdom come" with explosives-a shock-and-awe psy-op designed to coerce the American people into supporting a pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East, massive increases in military spending, and the rollback of Constitutional civil liberties.
Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin's work on 9/11.
Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush's Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon. He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon "give it up" and come forward with what they know, saying "Remember, you heard it here first." He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward. Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: "We need a Constitutional crisis!"
Reynolds argued that 9/11 truth is a matter of extreme urgency, since the perpetrators seem to be preparing another 9/11-style terror hoax as a pretext for attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. He said that exposing the 9/11 fraud is the best way to stop Cheney's plan to stage an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran, and the military draft and Pinochet-style prison camps and death squads for dissenters that might accompany it.
Reynolds urged the audience to help educate the American public about the 9/11 inside job. Personal contact with family and friends, the internet, alternative Media, and public events like this are all good educational strategies, he said, adding that a demonstration of 100,000 9/11 truth supporters at Ground Zero next year would be hard for the Media to ignore.
Politicians and the Media will help expose the 9/11 inside job, he said, only after the growing grassroots movement reaches critical mass. The organizers of Reynolds' talk urged audience members to come to the upcoming international 9/11 truth conference in Chicago, 9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, June 2nd-4th, 2006: http://911revealingthetruth.org
Comment: To all those that dismiss the idea of an inside job on 9/11, ask yourself this: do you know more about the workings of the US government and what it would and would not do than a former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis?
By the way, try and find this story in the mainstream news via a google news search for example.
Comment on this Article
The Best Little Whorehouse in Washington
By Molly Ivins
AlterNet
May 9, 2006.
Who can pass up a scandal involving poker, hookers and the Watergate building?
Of course I am above sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. So serious a servant of the public interest am I, I can fogey with the best: On my better days, I make David Broder look like Page Six.
I don't care what anyone smoked 20 years ago, I approve of those who boogie till they puke, and I don't care who anyone in politics is screwing in private, as long as they're not screwing the public.
On other hand, if you expect me to pass up a scandal involving poker, hookers and the Watergate building with crooked defense contractors and the No. 3 guy at the CIA, named Dusty Foggo (Dusty Foggo?! Be still my heart), you expect too much. Any journalist who claims Hookergate is not a legitimate scandal is dead -- has been for some time and needs to be unplugged. In addition to sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, Hookergate is rife with public-interest questions, misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance, and many splendid moral points for the children. Recommended for Sunday school use, grades seven and above.
But for starters, let us consider the unenviable record of Porter Goss at the CIA. From the beginning of his tenure, Goss has been criticized for politicizing the agency. He brought a bunch of political hacks with him for staff, one of whom turns out to be the poker player called "Nine Fingers." And in the end, he was probably fired for not having politicized the agency sufficiently.
What is the point of politicizing an intelligence agency? So the CIA officials would get a report from some agent in Iraq saying, "Looks bad." The first thing they'd ask was, "Is this agent a Republican or a Democrat?"
Maybe there really are conservatives who believe everything in Iraq is hunky-dory and there's a giant media conspiracy to hide the joyous tidings. But as you may recall, the ever-nimble minds at Donny Rumsfeld's shop have already tried paying public relations people to invent good news about Iraq and then plant it in newspapers there -- it didn't work. In fact, it was so stupid it was humiliating. Fortunately, the Pentagon was once again able to investigate itself and determine it had done nothing illegal.
So now they're turning the CIA over to a general who not only ran the warrantless wiretap program but still can't figure out that it's unconstitutional. Why do I get the feeling this is W. and Karl again flipping the finger at some grown-up they don't like?
Gen. Michael Hayden had mixed reviews as director of the National Security Agency -- he's evidently not a good manager, which makes him a perfect Bushie. But is he straightforward enough to have admitted that some warrantless spying has been done for political reasons? None of the usual Washington insiders seems to have a bead on this. Hayden would theoretically report to John Negroponte, Bush's supposed intelligence czar. Negroponte is widely considered worthless. His major achievement so far seems to be organizational charts and buying furniture.
You know me, no conspiracy theories here, but the Bush administration, which doesn't seem to be able to run much, set out to retool the CIA after 9/11 and the Iraq war. Problem is, everything that worked at the CIA -- that it warned about 9/11 and said the Iraq war was a bad idea -- was on the hit list. The Bushies wanted to eliminate the people who were right and promote those who were wrong. This is no way to shape up an intelligence agency, not to mention the White House spit fit over Joe Wilson's wife.
Next, we need to contemplate sincere, old-fashioned, non-ideological greed, theft and bribery. In the beginning, there was only Duke Cunningham, the high-living, fun-loving super-patriot congressman from San Diego. His yacht was called The Duke-Stir, and he had nice taste in 19th century French commodes. While we all are happy to see our elected representatives enjoying themselves in Washington, that's real people's money. Actually, the yacht and commode were paid for by defense contractor Brent Wilkes (keep an eye on that player). It was people's money that paid for the defense contracts Wilkes allegedly bribed public officials into landing for his clients.
The former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, Clark Kent Ervin -- that would be the DHS equivalent of a police department's internal affairs chief -- tried to blow the whistle on shady contracts at DHS and instead was thrown overboard himself. Folks, we'll never get government straightened out again if we don't keep the IGs strong and independent.
If the Bush administration continues to fall apart at this clip, I think we'll be grateful for incompetence as an excuse.
Comment on this Article
NYC Real Time Crime Center Tracks Suspects
By TOM HAYS
Associated Press
May 10, 2006