Ray McGovern | McCarthyism: Mary and Joe: " But it is also likely that the truth telling will continue. And, in the end, the truth tellers will be glad they did. The years of Bush, Cheney, and Goss are limited, and they will not be able to repeal 18 US Code 2441 (the War Crimes Act of 1996 condemning torture) before going out the door. In addition, potential truth tellers have become increasingly aware of the seldom-mentioned 'Nuremberg obligation' to do what one reasonably can to prevent the commission of international crimes like torture.
By conducting these activities overseas, Bush's lawyers thought they might dodge the US criminal statute. Maybe so. But international sanctions also apply. Will Donald Rumsfeld be able to travel to Europe once he loses his Secret Service protection and that afforded by the office of secretary of defense? Will CIA operatives, like the notorious keystone-cops kidnapping crew in Milan, be able to vacation on the Riviera? Interpol knows who they are.
Those inside the government who become privy to - or, worse still, become responsible for - such criminal activity have a legal as well as a moral obligation to blow the whistle. So take heart, past or future truth tellers. With the polygraph, they may eventually track you down. But it is bound to be awkward indeed to take you to court for revealing war crimes. And you will have earned not only a badge of courage but also exculpatory evidence in the event there are prosecutions - here or abroad."
Friday, May 05, 2006
A Piece of the True Story
Now that they are cooking another war against Iran let us not forget the lies used to manipulate public opinion in favor of a war of agression against Iraq. Here is a piece of the true story denounced by Ray McGovern:
ajc: "Q: What's your latest mission?
A: We're trying to spread a little truth around. I've just been watching very, very closely how intelligence has been abused in the lead up to the Iraq war and, now, after the war. I fear for what this will mean for a very crucial part of our government. If the president can't turn to the CIA for straight answers, whether he knows it or not, he's in bad shape. He has nowhere to turn for a straight answer. He can't expect [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz or [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld to tell him, "Sorry boss, we didn't think of A or B or C. We thought it would be a cakewalk." He's getting slanted advice from the people running the policy toward Iraq.
Q: Who's to blame?
A: Rumsfeld and [Vice President Dick] Cheney primarily. And then George Tenet, the head of the CIA. He's not making any waves. This is an abnegation of responsibility because the CIA is supposed to make waves. The CIA [should be] completely objective. It should not promote or defend any particular policy. So, once the CIA loses its reputation for complete objectivity, it has nothing special to offer and you might as well just close it down.
[McGovern says Tenet and Cheney should resign.]
Q: What are the most egregious examples of "sexed-up" intelligence?
A: The report that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country of Niger was false on its face and has to be at the top of the list. That was the most obvious and crass lie and the only report they had in September and October of last year to raise the specter that Saddam Hussein might get nuclear weapons.
The other main thing, of course, was the alleged tie between Iraq and al-Qaida. CIA analysts spent a year and a half poring through each and every report and found none to be persuasive or reliable. Then [Secretary of State] Colin Powell made his speech to the United Nations on Feb. 5, where he produced some cockamamie evidence suggesting that al-Qaida types were roaming around Iraq with Saddam Hussein. In the period leading up to the war, the president would say that we have to go after Iraq because of 9/11. That is the way that the president played on the trauma of 9/11 to persuade the American people that we couldn't take a chance on Saddam Hussein.
Q: Do the American people care that they were misled on Iraq? Does Congress? The press?
A: There's still a lot of torpor, but there are two new elements now. No. 1: The men and women who are being killed every day in Iraq. No. 2: The fact that no one --- not even the press --- likes to be lied to. I'm an American, and I never thought the president would lie so often and so demonstrably.
The Bush administration's reasoning went like this: 'We'll deceive Congress. We'll have our war. We'll win handily. The folks in Iraq will meet us with cut flowers and open arms, and who will care at that point whether the [war's premise] was based largely on a forgery?' But there's zero chance that Congress will establish an independent judicial commission to investigate how we got into Iraq. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the president's party. There are no statesmen to rise above party affiliation and say, 'We were lied to.' No one will do that."
State Sponsors Terrorism
Democracy Now! | FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peace Group School of the Americas Watch: "ERIC LeCOMPTE: Well, with the ACLU, what we have learned is that since at least 2001, the F.B.I. has been spying on us and on our gatherings that take place at the gates of Fort Benning every year. Every year at Fort Benning, we gather there to call for a closure of the School of the Americas, a school that has graduated over 60,000 Latin American soldiers. These soldiers from Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador have returned to their home countries and committed the worst human rights abuses in Latin American history, and what we've found is that, as we’ve gathered there, the F.B.I. has been monitoring us, has been spying on us, and has been recording what we're doing."
They Are Watching!
Democracy Now! | FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peace Group School of the Americas Watch: "JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Ann, this seems almost a complete replay in the 1970s, when the government was involved in massive spying on all kinds of legitimate groups of dissent. And, obviously, there were congressional hearings at the time and new legislation passed. But how has the Bush administration been able to get away with just completely renewing this all over again?
ANN BEESON: Well, that's exactly right, and I'm glad you raise that, because one of the things that’s remarkable when you look at what’s happening today is the utter lack of imagination of the F.B.I. In fact, you see precisely the same groups being targeted now as terrorist sympathizers that used to be targeted as communist sympathizers during the Cold War. And that includes the American Friends Service Committee and other Quaker groups. It includes groups like the National Lawyers Guild. A whole range of groups that were spied on then are now being spied on again today.
And, in fact, as you say, there were protections, we had thought, put in place during that era when Americans cried out and said this is not the American way. We can't have the F.B.I. routinely spying on protesters. And right after 9/11 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft basically overturned many of the guidelines that in the last several decades had limited this kind of spying on protest groups."
ANN BEESON: Well, that's exactly right, and I'm glad you raise that, because one of the things that’s remarkable when you look at what’s happening today is the utter lack of imagination of the F.B.I. In fact, you see precisely the same groups being targeted now as terrorist sympathizers that used to be targeted as communist sympathizers during the Cold War. And that includes the American Friends Service Committee and other Quaker groups. It includes groups like the National Lawyers Guild. A whole range of groups that were spied on then are now being spied on again today.
And, in fact, as you say, there were protections, we had thought, put in place during that era when Americans cried out and said this is not the American way. We can't have the F.B.I. routinely spying on protesters. And right after 9/11 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft basically overturned many of the guidelines that in the last several decades had limited this kind of spying on protest groups."
Rumsfeld Arguably a War Criminal
RAY McGOVERN:Democracy Now! | Retired CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Takes on Rumsfeld Over Justification for Iraq Invasion: "And I suppose the good news is that finally someone had a chance to ask Don Rumsfeld -- if I were in Washington, I never would have got into a session where Rumsfeld spoke. I have to give him credit that he took questions and answers. But, you know, it's really interesting that when I walked into the place, I wrangled a ticket very surreptitiously. I was met with this little blurb on Donald Rumsfeld, and as I read it, I had to chuckle. It says, “There’s going to be a question-and-answer period, but please adhere to these guidelines. Refrain from using the word ‘lie’ in relation to the war in Iraq. Do not question the secretary’s personal responsibility for torture. And please don’t discuss first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. If you violate these guidelines, you'll be immediately removed from the auditorium, flown to an undesignated prison location somewhere in Eastern Europe and tortured. Thank you for your cooperation. The World Cannot Wait.” A wonderful, wonderful group. Those were the folks that spoke up and tried to brace Donald Rumsfeld with the lies and their charges of him being -- and he is, arguably -- a war criminal. And we shouldn't shy away from saying that."
Speaking Truth To Power
Finally, Rumsfeld is publicly confronted with the truth.
Democracy Now! | Retired CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Takes on Rumsfeld Over Justification for Iraq Invasion: "JUAN GONZALEZ: And then, it happened again.
PROTESTER 3: Serial killer! This man needs to be impeached, along with George Bush! How can you sit here tonight and listen to this criminal? You’re a war criminal, Mr. Rumsfeld!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Get out of here!
JUAN GONZALEZ: By the end of his speech, security had escorted three protesters out of the building. Then, Rumsfeld began taking questions from the audience. One of those who posed a question was Ray McGovern, who spent 27 years as a C.I.A. analyst.
RAY McGOVERN: And so, I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The President spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I'm not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.
RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were?
DONALD RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were --"
Cheney Heating the Pan
Last time it was anti-French propaganda. Now Cheney is playing the propaganda card against Russia. If Cheney is so conscerned about human rights how about realising the prisoners at Guantanamo, stop torture and eliminate the secret prisons.
That would be a good start.
In the meanwhile we are forced to see how again the Bush administration is playing the same cards it used to justify a war of agression against Iraq. This is not about human rights it is about Russia's and China's opposition to the War against Iraq.
That would be a good start.
In the meanwhile we are forced to see how again the Bush administration is playing the same cards it used to justify a war of agression against Iraq. This is not about human rights it is about Russia's and China's opposition to the War against Iraq.
Strong Rebuke for the Kremlin From Cheney - New York Times: "'In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people,' Mr. Cheney said in a speech to European leaders in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. 'Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries.'"
Don't Believe a Word Bush Says
I think that is the best advice to deal with Bush and his administration.
Don't Believe a Word He Says, as the following explains:
Don't Believe a Word He Says, as the following explains:
Why So Defensive?: "The way I see it, the Washington press corps is still appropriately embarrassed that they screwed up in the run-up to war. Now, as Bush's approval ratings fester, they are getting bolder in challenging the official White House line on any number of issues. They're justifiably proud of a handful of great investigative pieces.
But they still haven't addressed the central issue Colbert was raising: Bush's credibility. As it happens, the public is way ahead of them on this one: For more than a year, the polls have consistently been showing that a majority of Americans don't find Bush honest and trustworthy.
And yet, as I've chronicled time and again in this column, (see, for instance, my Feb. 3 column, It's the Credibility, Stupid ) the mainstream press -- the very folks in that ballroom on Saturday night, the ones who actually have access to the president and his aides -- have allowed that fundamental issue to go unexplored.
What Colbert was saying about the guy sitting a few feet away from him -- and I think this is what made so many people in that room uncomfortable -- was: Don't believe a word he says."
Once Again: Cooking War for the American Public
This article links Iran as a sucessor to Hitler, regardless of the facist policies of the Bush administration and the repressive abuses of Israel against Palestinians.
Just for the record, the US is the one who is waging wars of aggressions, attempting to control the world for its interest and is the nation responsible for destroying a democratically elected government in Iran and establishing the religious dictatorship .
Do not miss how again half truths, distortions and fear are being called upon in order to justify, yet once more, another disastrous and illegal war of aggresion: read it for yourself:
Just for the record, the US is the one who is waging wars of aggressions, attempting to control the world for its interest and is the nation responsible for destroying a democratically elected government in Iran and establishing the religious dictatorship .
Do not miss how again half truths, distortions and fear are being called upon in order to justify, yet once more, another disastrous and illegal war of aggresion: read it for yourself:
Never Again?: "But in a cruel historical irony, doing so required concentration -- putting all the eggs back in one basket, a tiny territory hard by the Mediterranean, eight miles wide at its waist. A tempting target for those who would finish Hitler's work.
His successors now reside in Tehran. The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed. Less attention has been paid to Iranian leaders' pronouncements on exactly how Israel would be 'eliminated by one storm,' as Ahmadinejad has promised."
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Peddling Democracy by Tom Engelhardt and Chalmers Johnson
Peddling Democracy by Tom Engelhardt and Chalmers Johnson: "Exporting the American Model: Markets and Democracy
By Chalmers Johnson
There is something absurd and inherently false about one country trying to impose its system of government or its economic institutions on another. Such an enterprise amounts to a dictionary definition of imperialism. When what's at issue is 'democracy,' you have the fallacy of using the end to justify the means (making war on those to be democratized), and in the process the leaders of the missionary country are invariably infected with the sins of hubris, racism, and arrogance.
We Americans have long been guilty of these crimes. On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, President Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as 'the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes.' If there is one historical generalization that the passage of time has validated, it is that the world could not help being better off if the American president had not believed such nonsense and if the United States had minded its own business in the war between the British and German empires. We might well have avoided Nazism, the Bolshevik Revolution, and another thirty to forty years of the exploitation of India, Indonesia, Indochina, Algeria, Korea, the Philippines, Malaya, and virtually all of Africa by European, American, and Japanese imperialists."
By Chalmers Johnson
There is something absurd and inherently false about one country trying to impose its system of government or its economic institutions on another. Such an enterprise amounts to a dictionary definition of imperialism. When what's at issue is 'democracy,' you have the fallacy of using the end to justify the means (making war on those to be democratized), and in the process the leaders of the missionary country are invariably infected with the sins of hubris, racism, and arrogance.
We Americans have long been guilty of these crimes. On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, President Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as 'the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes.' If there is one historical generalization that the passage of time has validated, it is that the world could not help being better off if the American president had not believed such nonsense and if the United States had minded its own business in the war between the British and German empires. We might well have avoided Nazism, the Bolshevik Revolution, and another thirty to forty years of the exploitation of India, Indonesia, Indochina, Algeria, Korea, the Philippines, Malaya, and virtually all of Africa by European, American, and Japanese imperialists."
Bush and Debt
What a Wicked, Monetary World by Bill Bonner: "The Financial Times goes on to note that it took 204 years for the U.S. government to accumulate its first $1 trillion in debt. Now, it adds that much every 18 months. George W. Bush has added more debt than any president who ever lived. In fact, he's added more debt than all the presidents who ever lived...combined."
Truth About Democracy and Freedom
Democracy Versus Freedom by Jarret B. Wollstein: "As Ivan Eland explains in The Empire Has No Clothes, “The three greatest imperial powers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – France, Great Britain, and the United States – were democracies.”
Indeed, in the 20th century, the United States attacked more countries than any other nation. Since the end of World War II, the United States has engaged in more than 200 armed conflicts, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians – waging wars or military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and Bosnia. In nearly all of these conflicts, there was no threat to the United States.
It is clear from the history of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, that democracy is no guarantee of peace.
The path to freedom and peace
Throughout the world, thugs and despots – some democratically elected, and some not – solemnly give lip-service to “democracy” and “freedom,” while doing everything in their power to destroy them.
To have a free and peaceful world, we must create societies in which the inalienable rights of the individual person are again respected, and the powers of government are strictly limited.
That means ending confiscation of property without trial, secret arrests, imprisonment without conviction, and torture of prisoners. It means abolishing sovereign-immunity laws, which exempt government agents from legal responsibility when they kidnap, steal, torture, or murder.
It means creating truly independent citizens’ grand juries with the power to investigate and indict corrupt government officials and police.
And it means ceasing government spying on its own citizens and ending foreign invasions to impose “democracy” by force.
No, democracy is not the same as liberty. All too often, building “democracy” has been used as a justification for destroying freedom.
To achieve a free and peaceful world, we must restore freedom and individual liberty, not democracy."
Indeed, in the 20th century, the United States attacked more countries than any other nation. Since the end of World War II, the United States has engaged in more than 200 armed conflicts, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians – waging wars or military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and Bosnia. In nearly all of these conflicts, there was no threat to the United States.
It is clear from the history of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, that democracy is no guarantee of peace.
The path to freedom and peace
Throughout the world, thugs and despots – some democratically elected, and some not – solemnly give lip-service to “democracy” and “freedom,” while doing everything in their power to destroy them.
To have a free and peaceful world, we must create societies in which the inalienable rights of the individual person are again respected, and the powers of government are strictly limited.
That means ending confiscation of property without trial, secret arrests, imprisonment without conviction, and torture of prisoners. It means abolishing sovereign-immunity laws, which exempt government agents from legal responsibility when they kidnap, steal, torture, or murder.
It means creating truly independent citizens’ grand juries with the power to investigate and indict corrupt government officials and police.
And it means ceasing government spying on its own citizens and ending foreign invasions to impose “democracy” by force.
No, democracy is not the same as liberty. All too often, building “democracy” has been used as a justification for destroying freedom.
To achieve a free and peaceful world, we must restore freedom and individual liberty, not democracy."
The Truth Concerning Contemporary 'Conservative' Ideology
The Great Conservative Hoax by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: "Similarly, when the whole of your intellectual enterprise has been wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state and its wars, condemning civil liberties, casting aspersions on religious liberty, and heralding the jail and the electric chair as the answer to all of society’s problems, you can't complain when your policies produce tin-pot despotic imperialists like Bush. You have no intellectual apparatus with which to beat them back.
The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.
...
For my part, I'm hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands.
If they don't crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever."
The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.
...
For my part, I'm hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands.
If they don't crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever."
Common Sense
What Congress Can Do About Soaring Gas Prices by Ron PaulFirst: We must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure “our” oil. Before the Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002 oil production in Iraq has dropped 50%. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple.
Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy – in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stir up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and create even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East. We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the impasse. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel.
Third: We must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.
...
"Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East."
Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy – in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stir up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and create even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East. We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the impasse. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel.
Third: We must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.
...
"Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East."
Partisan Blindness to Truth
This piece serves to explain the problem with American public, it is by definition unwilling to hear the other side. Left and right only reads and hears what cannot seriouly challenge its ideological persuasion.
The Fox News Effect: "On the other hand, Democrats avoided Fox when it came to political news and preferred National Public Radio and CNN. And when the news focused on controversial issues such as the Iraq war and politics, 'partisans are especially likely to screen out sources they consider opposed to their political views,' said Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar, director of the communication lab."
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Another Credibility Gap - Propaganda and Science Journals
For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap - New York Times: "Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry, say Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor of BMJ, the British medical journal, and Dr. Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, also based in Britain.
The journals rely on revenues from industry advertisements. But because journals also profit handsomely by selling drug companies reprints of articles reporting findings from large clinical trials involving their products, editors may 'face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest' in deciding whether to publish such a study, Dr. Smith said."
The journals rely on revenues from industry advertisements. But because journals also profit handsomely by selling drug companies reprints of articles reporting findings from large clinical trials involving their products, editors may 'face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest' in deciding whether to publish such a study, Dr. Smith said."
Beams on Christian Eyes
Beam Christians by Laurence M. Vance: "Beams on Christian Eyes
These beams can take many forms. For some the beam is President Bush. Because they are so blinded to Bush’s pseudo-Christianity, some Christians actually believe that Bush is "God ordained" or "God’s anointed" or "one of us." For others the beam is conservatism. Christians who are theologically conservative have made a terrible mistake in identifying with the conservative movement, with is propensity for nationalism and power at the expense of liberty. For some the beam is the Republican Party. They know the Democratic Party is too far to the left to even consider. But in spite of the bones it throws to the free market, the Republican Party is no better. It is the party of militarism, big government, plunder, compromises, and sellouts. For others the beam is the military. They actually think that the Department of Defense is defending our freedoms by meddling in the affairs of other countries all over the globe. The fact that the United States spends more on its military than Russia, China, Japan, Britain, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Brazil, India, Italy, South Korea, Iran, Israel, Taiwan, Canada, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Singapore put together doesn’t seem to raise a red flag with these people. In some cases it is the U.S. government that is the beam which blinds these Christians. They can be spotted by the sound of their mantra: "obey the powers that be." They want so much to believe that the U.S. government is a force for good in the world instead of the force for evil that it currently is because of its military adventures and its interventionist foreign policy.
Beam Christians are shallow thinkers. They foolishly reason that because some outspoken liberals are opposed to this war then they should support it. These Christians have such a beam in their eye that it has gone into their brain and affected their thinking. It doesn’t seem to have ever occurred to these people that it is the retired generals and groups like Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans against the War that oppose the war that anti-war Christians are in agreement with, not some Hollywood leftist who only opposes the war because a Republican president started it.
Some Christians are blinded by indifference. Don’t ask them their view about Bush and his war – "What difference does it make?" is their only reply. Perhaps the greatest beam that blinds some Christians is pride. They will not publicly admit that they were deceived into supporting the war and were wrong about Bush, wrong about the conservative movement, wrong about the Republican Party, wrong about the military, and wrong about the government’s foreign policy.
...
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Goering: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Unfortunately, and to their shame, it works the same way with Christians as well. From the discord-sowing, self-proclaimed champion e-mail debater to the indifferent, washed-up evangelist, to the blind government-respecting employee of a Christian ministry – it works the same way every time. They are all beam Christians."
These beams can take many forms. For some the beam is President Bush. Because they are so blinded to Bush’s pseudo-Christianity, some Christians actually believe that Bush is "God ordained" or "God’s anointed" or "one of us." For others the beam is conservatism. Christians who are theologically conservative have made a terrible mistake in identifying with the conservative movement, with is propensity for nationalism and power at the expense of liberty. For some the beam is the Republican Party. They know the Democratic Party is too far to the left to even consider. But in spite of the bones it throws to the free market, the Republican Party is no better. It is the party of militarism, big government, plunder, compromises, and sellouts. For others the beam is the military. They actually think that the Department of Defense is defending our freedoms by meddling in the affairs of other countries all over the globe. The fact that the United States spends more on its military than Russia, China, Japan, Britain, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Brazil, India, Italy, South Korea, Iran, Israel, Taiwan, Canada, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Singapore put together doesn’t seem to raise a red flag with these people. In some cases it is the U.S. government that is the beam which blinds these Christians. They can be spotted by the sound of their mantra: "obey the powers that be." They want so much to believe that the U.S. government is a force for good in the world instead of the force for evil that it currently is because of its military adventures and its interventionist foreign policy.
Beam Christians are shallow thinkers. They foolishly reason that because some outspoken liberals are opposed to this war then they should support it. These Christians have such a beam in their eye that it has gone into their brain and affected their thinking. It doesn’t seem to have ever occurred to these people that it is the retired generals and groups like Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans against the War that oppose the war that anti-war Christians are in agreement with, not some Hollywood leftist who only opposes the war because a Republican president started it.
Some Christians are blinded by indifference. Don’t ask them their view about Bush and his war – "What difference does it make?" is their only reply. Perhaps the greatest beam that blinds some Christians is pride. They will not publicly admit that they were deceived into supporting the war and were wrong about Bush, wrong about the conservative movement, wrong about the Republican Party, wrong about the military, and wrong about the government’s foreign policy.
...
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Goering: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Unfortunately, and to their shame, it works the same way with Christians as well. From the discord-sowing, self-proclaimed champion e-mail debater to the indifferent, washed-up evangelist, to the blind government-respecting employee of a Christian ministry – it works the same way every time. They are all beam Christians."
State Terrorism
Hideous Kinky by Chris Floyd: "And so it was again this week when The Washington Post outlined the Pentagon's plan to put dirty war – by death squad, snatch squad, secret armies, subversion, torture and terrorism – at the very heart of America's military philosophy. Not defense against declared enemies, not deterrence of potential foes, but conducting "continuous" covert military operations in countries "where the United States is not at war" is now the Pentagon's "highest priority," according to the new "campaign plan for the global war on terror" issued by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
What's more, the plan makes it clear that Rumsfeld, far from being politically vulnerable, has in fact been exalted above every other institution and official of the U.S. government, with the exception of the twin tyrants in the White House, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The Pentagon warlord has been given carte blanche to send the 53,000 secret soldiers of the Special Operations Command into any nation he pleases, to undertake any mission he pleases, without congressional approval, legal restraint or the authority of the target nation's U.S. ambassador. Thus America's diplomats, the ostensible representatives of the nation abroad, have been reduced to mere frontmen, pathetic beards for black ops savaging the laws, sovereignty and citizens of their hosts.
The plan is the culmination and codification of an ad hoc array of programs and powers that Bush has doled out to Rumsfeld over the years, including a series of executive orders signed after the 2004 election that essentially turned the world into a "global free-fire zone" for the Pentagon's secret armies and proxy foreign militias, as a top Pentagon official told The New Yorker. "We're going to be riding with the bad boys," another Bush insider said. Yet another courtier compared it to the glory days of the Reagan-Bush years: "Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador? We founded them and we financed them. The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren't going to tell Congress about it." The overriding ethos of the plan is brutally simple: "The rules are, 'Grab whom you must. Do what you want,'" an intelligence official told The New Yorker.
Perhaps most ominously, the plan makes copious preparations for expanding the range of the war on terror even further. The trigger for these new actions is another terrorist strike on U.S. soil. Oddly enough, the Bush faction views such an unspeakable horror as an "opportunity," Pentagon officials told the Post; it would provide a "justification," they said, for hitting already-targeted individuals, groups and states that for various political reasons have not yet been subjected to what Bush likes to call, in his bloodthirsty parlance, "the path of action."
Rumsfeld's 'campaign plan' is itself a blueprint for state terrorism, an open license to break any and every law on earth and inflict human suffering on a global scale. Yet the only controversial aspect of this sinister program noted by the Post was the potential turf battles it might spark within the national security bureaucracy. Not a single question was raised about the morality or legality of the undertaking; the Pentagon's assertion that only 'bad guys' would be hit was simply swallowed whole – despite the glaring fact that tens of thousands of innocent people have already been killed or falsely imprisoned in the so-called 'war on terror.'"
What's more, the plan makes it clear that Rumsfeld, far from being politically vulnerable, has in fact been exalted above every other institution and official of the U.S. government, with the exception of the twin tyrants in the White House, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The Pentagon warlord has been given carte blanche to send the 53,000 secret soldiers of the Special Operations Command into any nation he pleases, to undertake any mission he pleases, without congressional approval, legal restraint or the authority of the target nation's U.S. ambassador. Thus America's diplomats, the ostensible representatives of the nation abroad, have been reduced to mere frontmen, pathetic beards for black ops savaging the laws, sovereignty and citizens of their hosts.
The plan is the culmination and codification of an ad hoc array of programs and powers that Bush has doled out to Rumsfeld over the years, including a series of executive orders signed after the 2004 election that essentially turned the world into a "global free-fire zone" for the Pentagon's secret armies and proxy foreign militias, as a top Pentagon official told The New Yorker. "We're going to be riding with the bad boys," another Bush insider said. Yet another courtier compared it to the glory days of the Reagan-Bush years: "Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador? We founded them and we financed them. The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren't going to tell Congress about it." The overriding ethos of the plan is brutally simple: "The rules are, 'Grab whom you must. Do what you want,'" an intelligence official told The New Yorker.
Perhaps most ominously, the plan makes copious preparations for expanding the range of the war on terror even further. The trigger for these new actions is another terrorist strike on U.S. soil. Oddly enough, the Bush faction views such an unspeakable horror as an "opportunity," Pentagon officials told the Post; it would provide a "justification," they said, for hitting already-targeted individuals, groups and states that for various political reasons have not yet been subjected to what Bush likes to call, in his bloodthirsty parlance, "the path of action."
Rumsfeld's 'campaign plan' is itself a blueprint for state terrorism, an open license to break any and every law on earth and inflict human suffering on a global scale. Yet the only controversial aspect of this sinister program noted by the Post was the potential turf battles it might spark within the national security bureaucracy. Not a single question was raised about the morality or legality of the undertaking; the Pentagon's assertion that only 'bad guys' would be hit was simply swallowed whole – despite the glaring fact that tens of thousands of innocent people have already been killed or falsely imprisoned in the so-called 'war on terror.'"
Monday, May 01, 2006
Bushisms: True or false?
A 'Don't Misunderestimate Bush quiz"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/fungames/quizcorner.shtml
1 In July 2002, President George W Bush told Tony Blair, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." True or false?
True!
Correct! The comment was reported in The Times on 9 July, 2002.
2 While on a tour of Asia, George W used the word "devaluation" instead of "deflation" and immediately triggered a big drop in Japan's currency, the yen. True or false?
True!
Correct! He said it in February 2002. Bush aides hastened to clear up the confusion saying the president had "misspoken".
3 In June last year, the US president told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, "I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that." True or false?
True!
Correct! The comment was reported in the Washington Post on 3 June.
4 In April, George W said this about Iraq, "It will take time to restore chaos and order." True or false?
True!
Correct! He said it to reporters while talking about Iraqi POWs.
5 In September 2000, Dubya revealed to his fellow Americans that "more and more of our imports come from overseas". True or false?
True!
Correct! He came out with this gem in 2000 during his campaign for the presidency.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/fungames/quizcorner.shtml
1 In July 2002, President George W Bush told Tony Blair, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." True or false?
True!
Correct! The comment was reported in The Times on 9 July, 2002.
2 While on a tour of Asia, George W used the word "devaluation" instead of "deflation" and immediately triggered a big drop in Japan's currency, the yen. True or false?
True!
Correct! He said it in February 2002. Bush aides hastened to clear up the confusion saying the president had "misspoken".
3 In June last year, the US president told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, "I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that." True or false?
True!
Correct! The comment was reported in the Washington Post on 3 June.
4 In April, George W said this about Iraq, "It will take time to restore chaos and order." True or false?
True!
Correct! He said it to reporters while talking about Iraqi POWs.
5 In September 2000, Dubya revealed to his fellow Americans that "more and more of our imports come from overseas". True or false?
True!
Correct! He came out with this gem in 2000 during his campaign for the presidency.
Respecting the Dignity of All
What leads millions of people to transgress the law of inmigration? Could it be possible that the law itself is to blame? Is the law justifying plunder?
If people want to work and employers want the workers, isn't it the responsibility of the law to secure the means for this to happen in a just manner without plunder or explotation, respecting the dignity of all?
Most people are missing to point, Legally right does not mean Morally right.
If you want clarity concerning this issue, ask yourself the following questions: who is making a profit out of the current state of affairs?, and ask also if they have any say in setting up the laws that underlay the whole problem.
If people want to work and employers want the workers, isn't it the responsibility of the law to secure the means for this to happen in a just manner without plunder or explotation, respecting the dignity of all?
Most people are missing to point, Legally right does not mean Morally right.
If you want clarity concerning this issue, ask yourself the following questions: who is making a profit out of the current state of affairs?, and ask also if they have any say in setting up the laws that underlay the whole problem.
Control Over Higher Learning
The 'Academic Bill of Rights' by Ron Paul: "Opponents of increased federalization of higher education should be especially concerned about HR 609's 'Academic Bill of Rights.' This provision takes a step toward complete federal control of college curricula, grading, and teaching practices. While the provision is worded as a 'sense of Congress,' the clear intent is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring professors' lectures and lesson plans meet with federal approval."
Friday, April 28, 2006
The Real Up-coming Crisis
What the Price of Gold Is Telling Us by Ron Paul: "The best analogy to our affinity for government spending, borrowing, and inflating is that of a drug addict who knows if he doesn’t quit he’ll die; yet he can’t quit because of the heavy price required to overcome the dependency. The right choice is very difficult, but remaining addicted to drugs guarantees the death of the patient, while our addiction to deficit spending, debt, and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy.
Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class, or war contracts for the military industrial corporations, all agree on the so-called benefits bestowed by the Fed’s power to counterfeit fiat money. Bankers, who benefit from our fractional reserve system, likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it’s the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. And it’s true, special interests and bankers do benefit from the Fed, and may well get bailed out – just as we saw with the Long-Term Capital Management fund crisis a few years ago. In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to financial system, cannot be known for sure – but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon.
...
Foreign policy contributes to the crisis when the spending to maintain our worldwide military commitments becomes prohibitive, and inflationary pressures accelerate. But the real crisis hits when the world realizes the king has no clothes, in that the dollar has no backing, and we face a military setback even greater than we already are experiencing in Iraq. Our token friends may quickly transform into vocal enemies once the attack on the dollar begins.
...
Empires always fail, and expenses always exceed projections. Harmful unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception. Welfare for the poor is inefficient and wasteful. The beneficiaries are rarely the poor themselves, but instead the politicians, bureaucrats, or the wealthy. The same is true of all foreign aid – it’s nothing more than a program that steals from the poor in a rich country and gives to the rich leaders of a poor country. Whether it’s war or welfare payments, it always means higher taxes, inflation, and debt. Whether it’s the extraction of wealth from the productive economy, the distortion of the market by interest rate manipulation, or spending for war and welfare, it can’t happen without infringing upon personal liberty.
At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs, or foreign rulers provides an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government, rather than protect the privacy of citizens. Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today, with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights.
...
Energy prices are rising for many reasons: Inflation; increased demand from China and India; decreased supply resulting from our invasion of Iraq; anticipated disruption of supply as we push regime change in Iran; regulatory restrictions on gasoline production; government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels; and subsidies to big oil such as free leases and grants for research and development."
Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class, or war contracts for the military industrial corporations, all agree on the so-called benefits bestowed by the Fed’s power to counterfeit fiat money. Bankers, who benefit from our fractional reserve system, likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it’s the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. And it’s true, special interests and bankers do benefit from the Fed, and may well get bailed out – just as we saw with the Long-Term Capital Management fund crisis a few years ago. In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to financial system, cannot be known for sure – but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon.
...
Foreign policy contributes to the crisis when the spending to maintain our worldwide military commitments becomes prohibitive, and inflationary pressures accelerate. But the real crisis hits when the world realizes the king has no clothes, in that the dollar has no backing, and we face a military setback even greater than we already are experiencing in Iraq. Our token friends may quickly transform into vocal enemies once the attack on the dollar begins.
...
Empires always fail, and expenses always exceed projections. Harmful unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception. Welfare for the poor is inefficient and wasteful. The beneficiaries are rarely the poor themselves, but instead the politicians, bureaucrats, or the wealthy. The same is true of all foreign aid – it’s nothing more than a program that steals from the poor in a rich country and gives to the rich leaders of a poor country. Whether it’s war or welfare payments, it always means higher taxes, inflation, and debt. Whether it’s the extraction of wealth from the productive economy, the distortion of the market by interest rate manipulation, or spending for war and welfare, it can’t happen without infringing upon personal liberty.
At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs, or foreign rulers provides an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government, rather than protect the privacy of citizens. Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today, with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights.
...
Energy prices are rising for many reasons: Inflation; increased demand from China and India; decreased supply resulting from our invasion of Iraq; anticipated disruption of supply as we push regime change in Iran; regulatory restrictions on gasoline production; government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels; and subsidies to big oil such as free leases and grants for research and development."
Thursday, April 27, 2006
The Decider's Dictatorship
A Democratic Dictatorship by Jacob G. Hornberger: "Yet we now live in a nation in which the president has the omnipotent power to ignore all constitutional restraints on his power. That might not be the way the president and his legal advisors put it, but that is the practical effect of what they are saying to justify his powers. They effectively claim that the Constitution vests the president – as military commander in chief during the “war on terrorism” – with such extraordinary powers that he is able to ignore restraints on his powers imposed both by the Constitution and by Congress.
No restraints on declaring and waging war against other nations. No restraints on the power to secretly record telephone conversations of the American people. No restraints on the power to kidnap and send people into overseas concentration camps for the purpose of torture and even execution. No restraints on the power to take Americans into custody as “enemy combatants” and punish them – even torture and execute them – without due process of law and jury trials.
...
Unless the American people figure out a way to reverse what has happened to their country – and have the will to do something about it – they will earn the mark of shame reserved for those people in history who voluntarily relinquished their freedom in exchange for the aura of security. Like all others in history who have chosen such a course, they will ultimately learn that they have lost both their freedom and their security."
No restraints on declaring and waging war against other nations. No restraints on the power to secretly record telephone conversations of the American people. No restraints on the power to kidnap and send people into overseas concentration camps for the purpose of torture and even execution. No restraints on the power to take Americans into custody as “enemy combatants” and punish them – even torture and execute them – without due process of law and jury trials.
...
Unless the American people figure out a way to reverse what has happened to their country – and have the will to do something about it – they will earn the mark of shame reserved for those people in history who voluntarily relinquished their freedom in exchange for the aura of security. Like all others in history who have chosen such a course, they will ultimately learn that they have lost both their freedom and their security."
State Plunder
The President and Page County by Karen Kwiatkowski: "What happened, and what continues to happen in Page County, Virginia, demonstrates how ordinary citizens and taxpayers are abused by a notion that governments – even local governments – are sovereign, all-powerful and can join with criminals to rape the public, without the slightest fear of punishment.
Let’s review. From Washington to Richmond to the Board of Supervisors of Page County, we have government officials who don’t have to explain their actions, who operate above and outside the law, and who consort profitably with criminals in government and private industry. Taxpayers and common Americans are shafted, stolen from, lied to and wronged."
Let’s review. From Washington to Richmond to the Board of Supervisors of Page County, we have government officials who don’t have to explain their actions, who operate above and outside the law, and who consort profitably with criminals in government and private industry. Taxpayers and common Americans are shafted, stolen from, lied to and wronged."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Economist's View: Paul Krugman: CSI Trade Deficit
Economist's View: Paul Krugman: CSI Trade Deficit: "That's more or less what's going on right now among international finance experts. The crime in question is the U.S. trade deficit, which ... reached an amazing $805 billion last year. The mystery is how we've been able to run huge deficits ... with so few visible adverse consequences. And the future of the U.S. economy depends on which of two proposed solutions to the mystery is right.
Here's the puzzle: the trade deficit means that America is ... spending far more than it earns. ... To pay for the excess of imports over exports, the United States has ... borrowed more than $3 trillion just since 1999.
...
If Mr. Gros is right, the true position of the U.S. economy isn't as bad as you think — it's worse. The true trade deficit ... isn't $800 billion — it's more than $900 billion. And America's foreign debt ... is at least $1 trillion bigger than the official numbers say.
Of course, optimists have a comeback: if things are really that bad, why are so many foreign investors still buying U.S. bonds? ... But I have two words for those who place their faith in the judgment of investors...: Nasdaq 5,000.
Right now, forensic analysis seems to say that the U.S. trade position is worse, not better, than it looks. And the answer to the question, "Why haven't we paid a price for our trade deficit?" is, just you wait."
Here's the puzzle: the trade deficit means that America is ... spending far more than it earns. ... To pay for the excess of imports over exports, the United States has ... borrowed more than $3 trillion just since 1999.
...
If Mr. Gros is right, the true position of the U.S. economy isn't as bad as you think — it's worse. The true trade deficit ... isn't $800 billion — it's more than $900 billion. And America's foreign debt ... is at least $1 trillion bigger than the official numbers say.
Of course, optimists have a comeback: if things are really that bad, why are so many foreign investors still buying U.S. bonds? ... But I have two words for those who place their faith in the judgment of investors...: Nasdaq 5,000.
Right now, forensic analysis seems to say that the U.S. trade position is worse, not better, than it looks. And the answer to the question, "Why haven't we paid a price for our trade deficit?" is, just you wait."
Friday, April 21, 2006
Stephen Kinzer, Author of "All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" - A BuzzFlash Interview
Stephen Kinzer, Author of "All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" - A BuzzFlash Interview: "The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."
Another Day in the Empire
Another Day in the Empire: "Instead of asking the “pragmatist and hard-liner” Hu Jintao why he condones torture and organ harvesting of dissidents, “Bush, standing next to Hu, leaned over and whispered to Hu, ‘You’re OK,’ indicating the Chinese leader should proceed with his opening remarks…. expected to focus on trade, human rights and the diplomatic standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.”
Jintao and Bush are OK, but the rest of us are screwed. In addition to our globalist rulers selling out the country to China in return for low-interest loans (newspaper op-ed scribes like to call this “fiscal irresponsibility”) and flooding our multinational and mega-corporate chainstores and strip malls with cheap products manufactured by slaves and political prisoners, it is obvious to those of us who pay attention the United States under the rule of the neoliberal and neocon elite is in the process of transforming itself into a totalitarian state that will one day (and sooner before later) become as brutal and sadistic as China. Government—unchecked, unbalanced, and left to its own devices—always becomes a tyrannical leviathan."
Jintao and Bush are OK, but the rest of us are screwed. In addition to our globalist rulers selling out the country to China in return for low-interest loans (newspaper op-ed scribes like to call this “fiscal irresponsibility”) and flooding our multinational and mega-corporate chainstores and strip malls with cheap products manufactured by slaves and political prisoners, it is obvious to those of us who pay attention the United States under the rule of the neoliberal and neocon elite is in the process of transforming itself into a totalitarian state that will one day (and sooner before later) become as brutal and sadistic as China. Government—unchecked, unbalanced, and left to its own devices—always becomes a tyrannical leviathan."
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Bush, the infallible decider
Here's Donny! In His Defense, a Show Is Born - New York Times: "'I'm the decider, and I decide what's best,' Mr. Bush said in the Rose Garden. 'And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.'"
Monday, April 17, 2006
The One Thing a President Can Do by Tom White
The One Thing a President Can Do by Tom White: "So my challenge to Mr. Bush is: show some real strength, do the unexpected. Be brave. Be sane. Follow the way of the Lord Jesus Christ, take to heart the lesson of the Story of Stories we heard again just last week. Or was that, for all our church attendance, just foolishness?
The real sanity, the real bravery, is to oppose the warmongers, the Mammonites who worship money and violence and are nourished by the blood baths both always produce.
Bush could become the greatest of all our Presidents if he would turn about and risk all for Christ, the Prince of Peace."
The real sanity, the real bravery, is to oppose the warmongers, the Mammonites who worship money and violence and are nourished by the blood baths both always produce.
Bush could become the greatest of all our Presidents if he would turn about and risk all for Christ, the Prince of Peace."
Democracy Now! | Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Star
Democracy Now! | Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Start of Operations Already": "AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to retired Air Force colonel, Sam Gardiner. You were quoted on CNN on Friday night, saying the question isn't if we would attack Iran, that military operations are already happening. What do you mean?
COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already --
AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what?
COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN. You're catching your breath.
AMY GOODMAN: Yeah.
COL. SAM GARDINER: I think the same thing has happened, and the evidence -- let me give you two or three evidences. First of all, the Iranians in their press have been writing now for almost a year that the United States is involved inside Iran conducting and supporting those who conduct military operations, attacks on military convoys. They've even accused the United States of shooting down a couple airplanes inside Iran. Okay, so there's that evidence from their side."
COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already --
AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what?
COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN. You're catching your breath.
AMY GOODMAN: Yeah.
COL. SAM GARDINER: I think the same thing has happened, and the evidence -- let me give you two or three evidences. First of all, the Iranians in their press have been writing now for almost a year that the United States is involved inside Iran conducting and supporting those who conduct military operations, attacks on military convoys. They've even accused the United States of shooting down a couple airplanes inside Iran. Okay, so there's that evidence from their side."
Weapons of Math Destruction
The Era: Weapons of Math Destruction By Paul Krugman: "Now it can be told: President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney based their re-election campaign on lies, damned lies and statistics."
The Era: The Fear Factor
The Era: The Fear Factor: "The war has been a disaster. At the same time, the administration's unscrupulous exploitation of fear and patriotism has opened the door to such gruesome and morally indefensible activities as torture, warrantless spying on Americans and the wholesale incarceration of foreigners — perhaps for life — who have no real chance to confront their accusers or answer the charges against them.
All of this should be kept in mind as we consider the fact that the administration that once had its hostile eye on Iraq now has it trained like a laser on Iran."
All of this should be kept in mind as we consider the fact that the administration that once had its hostile eye on Iraq now has it trained like a laser on Iran."
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Lies and more lies
Paul Krugman: Weapons of Math Destruction : "And all the world now knows what I suspected from the start: an administration that lies about taxes will also lie about other, graver matters. "
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The End of Dollar Hegemony by Ron Paul
The End of Dollar Hegemony by Ron Paul: "Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged – as it already has been.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.
In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro "
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.
In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro "
The End of Dollar Hegemony by Ron Paul
The End of Dollar Hegemony by Ron Paul: "Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to – all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems."
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War: "After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?
In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.
'It was very assertive,' said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.
Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.
'I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated,' one member recalled. 'It never happened. And I just had to live with it.'"
In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.
'It was very assertive,' said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.
Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.
'I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated,' one member recalled. 'It never happened. And I just had to live with it.'"
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War: "On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile 'biological laboratories.' He declared, 'We have found the weapons of mass destruction.'
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true."
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The President’s Prayer by Laurence M. Vance
The President’s Prayer by Laurence M. Vance: " Shall I, one person, be the cause of so many calamities? Shall I alone be charged with such an outpouring of human blood; with causing so many widows; with filling so many homes with lamentation and mourning; with robbing so many old men of their sons; with impoverishing so many who do not deserve such a fate; and with such utter destruction of morals, laws, and practical religion? Must I account for all these things before Christ?
Did the president even remotely consider the potential damage to not only the United States, but civilization itself, that his war might cause? I would not want to be in Bush’s shoes at the judgment. Or in the shoes of a Christian who in any way defended, supported, promoted, apologized for, or made excuses for the president and his war. I have enough of my own sins to be concerned about without adding to them the blood of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Don’t we all?"
Did the president even remotely consider the potential damage to not only the United States, but civilization itself, that his war might cause? I would not want to be in Bush’s shoes at the judgment. Or in the shoes of a Christian who in any way defended, supported, promoted, apologized for, or made excuses for the president and his war. I have enough of my own sins to be concerned about without adding to them the blood of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Don’t we all?"
Monday, April 10, 2006
The New Yorker: Fact
The New Yorker: Fact: "The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. "
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bush dismisses 'Iran attack plan'
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bush dismisses 'Iran attack plan':
This administration is set to start another inmoral war of aggression, which will have worst consequences than even Iraq. The American people need to take a stand in outrage and oppose the irresponsible policies of president Bush.
"'I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy.Who still trusts this man when he discards serious reporting as 'wild speculation'? The downing street memo showed clearly how Bush says whatever is convenient to keep up with his agenda.
'What you are reading is just wild speculation which happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital.'"
This administration is set to start another inmoral war of aggression, which will have worst consequences than even Iraq. The American people need to take a stand in outrage and oppose the irresponsible policies of president Bush.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Democracy Now! | Robert Fisk on Iraq, Palestine and the Failure of the U.S. Corporate Media to Challenge Authority
Democracy Now! | Robert Fisk on Iraq, Palestine and the Failure of the U.S. Corporate Media to Challenge Authority: "AMY GOODMAN: Well, when you see the networks, what do you think?
ROBERT FISK: I try not to see them, and I try not to read the New York Times, and I definitely will not be reading the L.A. Times anymore. You have a major problem in the United States, in that your journalists don't challenge authority. They will not, will not, will not challenge authority, unless they think authority is lying on the ground. Then they’ll have a timid kick at it, which we're now seeing with the Scooter Libby affair. But by and large --"
ROBERT FISK: I try not to see them, and I try not to read the New York Times, and I definitely will not be reading the L.A. Times anymore. You have a major problem in the United States, in that your journalists don't challenge authority. They will not, will not, will not challenge authority, unless they think authority is lying on the ground. Then they’ll have a timid kick at it, which we're now seeing with the Scooter Libby affair. But by and large --"
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The War on Strawmen, by Harry Browne
The War on Strawmen, by Harry Browne: "There is no War on Terrorism. There is only a War on Strawmen, a War on Shadows, a War on Fantasies — allowing George Bush to do whatever he, or his advisors, choose to do.
It is time to quit pretending that the War in Iraq serves any purpose relating to world peace, democracy in the Middle East, the first line against terrorism, or any other salutary goal.
It is simply part of the War on Strawmen."
It is time to quit pretending that the War in Iraq serves any purpose relating to world peace, democracy in the Middle East, the first line against terrorism, or any other salutary goal.
It is simply part of the War on Strawmen."
Thursday, March 30, 2006
War is Their Only Hope
Israeli Electorate Rebukes Bush and Votes for Peace by Paul Craig Roberts: "Neocon propaganda has convinced ever-gullible Americans that Iran is now America’s most dangerous enemy. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice continue to make unsupported accusations against Iran, threatening military action. General John Abizaid, commander of US Middle East forces, is helping to spread the rumor that Iran is operating inside Iraq, supplying explosives to the resistance. Gareth Porter and Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell, report that neoconservative zealots, who advocate destabilization and regime change in the Middle East, were able to block diplomatic engagement with Iran in order to keep open the military option. Instead of welcoming the opportunity to work things out, the Bush regime rebuked the ambassador who brought the peace offer.
Neoconservatives don’t want 'no stinking talks.' They want war. War is their only hope.
Neoconservatives are ruthless. They have control of the US government and military. Little stands between them and their fanatical determination to widen war in the Middle East."
Neoconservatives don’t want 'no stinking talks.' They want war. War is their only hope.
Neoconservatives are ruthless. They have control of the US government and military. Little stands between them and their fanatical determination to widen war in the Middle East."
Friday, March 24, 2006
The Proverbial Elephant in the Room
LRB | John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt : The Israel Lobby: "Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests.
Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue.
Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.
There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step.
A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’"
Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue.
Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.
There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step.
A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’"
Death Squadrons
Death Squadrons: "Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, much of Latin America was under the control of brutal military juntas engaged in what they perceived as a life-and-death war against communists. The role of the United States' government in this has been well documented, but until now, France's contribution was more shadowy.
DEATH SQUADRONS: THE FRENCH SCHOOL convincingly reveals French veterans of the wars in Indochina and Algeria provided the inspiration, the training, and some of the intelligence that allowed Latin America's dictators to torture and kill thousands of their own citizens.
Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin traces the development of the theory of counter-revolutionary warfare, first tested Indochina and in Algiers (where 20,000 civilians died). Some of its foremost practitioners, like French General Paul Aussaresses, freely admit their contributions, even with a hint of pride. Others are surreptitiously captured on a hidden camera, admitting high-level political and military links between the dictators and the French government. Many of those interviewed are now either in custody or under indictment.
Though little documentary footage of these practices exists, the Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo realistically recreated the French interrogation methods in The Battle of Algiers. (The Battle of Algiers was recently shown to American officers confronted with ongoing attacks on their personnel in Iraq, and excerpts from this film illustrate DEATH SQUADRONS).
DEATH SQUADRONS also shows how, during the 1960's, the French were instrumental in training U.S. officers at Fort Bragg on counter-insurgency techniques that were later used by the U.S. military in Vietnam.
DEATH SQUADRONS serves a cautionary note about what can happen when governments and the military are convinced that enemies are everywhere, and that any means necessary can be employed to fight them. It's an important lesson to bear in mind as the war on terror continues."
DEATH SQUADRONS: THE FRENCH SCHOOL convincingly reveals French veterans of the wars in Indochina and Algeria provided the inspiration, the training, and some of the intelligence that allowed Latin America's dictators to torture and kill thousands of their own citizens.
Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin traces the development of the theory of counter-revolutionary warfare, first tested Indochina and in Algiers (where 20,000 civilians died). Some of its foremost practitioners, like French General Paul Aussaresses, freely admit their contributions, even with a hint of pride. Others are surreptitiously captured on a hidden camera, admitting high-level political and military links between the dictators and the French government. Many of those interviewed are now either in custody or under indictment.
Though little documentary footage of these practices exists, the Italian filmmaker Gillo Pontecorvo realistically recreated the French interrogation methods in The Battle of Algiers. (The Battle of Algiers was recently shown to American officers confronted with ongoing attacks on their personnel in Iraq, and excerpts from this film illustrate DEATH SQUADRONS).
DEATH SQUADRONS also shows how, during the 1960's, the French were instrumental in training U.S. officers at Fort Bragg on counter-insurgency techniques that were later used by the U.S. military in Vietnam.
DEATH SQUADRONS serves a cautionary note about what can happen when governments and the military are convinced that enemies are everywhere, and that any means necessary can be employed to fight them. It's an important lesson to bear in mind as the war on terror continues."
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Paul Krugman: Bogus Bush Bashing
When Patients Become Costumers
The Doctor Will See You for Exactly Seven Minutes - New York Times: "The problem has been sneaking up on us for almost two decades. As health-care dollars became scarce in the 1980's and 90's, hospitals asked their business people to attend clinical meetings. The object was to see what doctors were doing that cost a lot of money, then to try and do things more efficiently. Almost immediately, I noticed that business jargon was becoming commonplace. 'Patients' began to disappear. They were replaced by 'consumers.' They eventually became 'customers.'"Therefore, The poor are denied quality health services. This article good as it is, denouncing a problem, only raises an option for people with money. The poor will have no option but to suffer the seven minute visit.
The logical conclusion is that the "health" system is a failure.
The Truth About Inmigration Policy
Called by God to Help - New York Times: "The unspoken truth of the immigration debate is that at the same time our nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, we turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers. They work in industries that are vital to our economy yet they have little legal protection and no opportunity to contribute fully to our nation.
While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the passage of anti-immigrant bills.
This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to work toward positive change.
It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built."
While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the passage of anti-immigrant bills.
This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to work toward positive change.
It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built."
Blinded to Reality
Incredibly Optimistic: "'I understand how some Americans have had their confidence shaken,' President Bush said yesterday in Cleveland. 'Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they don't.'
Bush tried to explain. But in the end, what he provided was yet another example of what others see -- and he doesn't.
That would be reality."
Bush tried to explain. But in the end, what he provided was yet another example of what others see -- and he doesn't.
That would be reality."
New Rules for Propaganda
No Breach Seen in Work in Iraq on Propaganda - New York Times: "Across the Bush administration, officials are wrestling with how to counter radical anti-American messages that resonate throughout huge parts of the world. With the pace of technology, and against the backdrop of American counterterrorism efforts around the world, the role of information has been given greater prominence in Pentagon planning.What about beginning to tell the truth?
The question for the Pentagon is its proper role in shaping perceptions abroad. Particularly in a modern world connected by satellite television and the Internet, misleading information and lies could easily migrate into American news outlets, as could the perception that false information is being spread by the Pentagon."
See how they care about 'perception' not reality. Their problem is not to do 'right' but to do whatever they want and then worry about how to manipulate perception. When ever you hear the official line you better be suspicious, because they have carefully parsed their words to deceive you.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Deranged, Disconnected, and Dangerous by Paul Craig Roberts
Deranged, Disconnected, and Dangerous by Paul Craig Roberts: "The day of Bush’s delusional speech, Patrick Cockburn, present on the scene in Irbil, Iraq, gave a much more truthful account of the situation. Writing in CounterPunch, he reported: 'Iraq is a country convulsed by fear. It is at its worst in Baghdad. Sectarian killings are commonplace. . . . The scale of the violence is such that most of it is unreported. . . . Unseen by the outside world, silent populations are on the move, frightened people fleeing neighborhoods where their community is in a minority for safer districts. There is also a growing reliance on militias because of fears that police patrols or checkpoints are in reality death squads hunting for victims.'
Not a word of this reality from our delusional president.
The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up. He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that American could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy. What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush’s America must be. Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe. Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense.
Bush told his audience that 'the security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.' What victory is he talking about? Despite the huge sums of dollars paid by the Bush regime to all the leaders of all the factions, Iraq cannot form a government.
Without victory, Iraq will be 'a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.' Alas, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded the country and drew them in. The problem our troops face in Iraq is not terrorists, but resistance fighters, 'insurgents' in the Bush regimes parlance. Democracies lack the dictatorial, extra-legal powers to suppress terrorists. That is why Bush is destroying civil liberties in the US. Under Saddam Hussein, there w"
Not a word of this reality from our delusional president.
The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up. He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that American could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy. What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush’s America must be. Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe. Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense.
Bush told his audience that 'the security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.' What victory is he talking about? Despite the huge sums of dollars paid by the Bush regime to all the leaders of all the factions, Iraq cannot form a government.
Without victory, Iraq will be 'a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.' Alas, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded the country and drew them in. The problem our troops face in Iraq is not terrorists, but resistance fighters, 'insurgents' in the Bush regimes parlance. Democracies lack the dictatorial, extra-legal powers to suppress terrorists. That is why Bush is destroying civil liberties in the US. Under Saddam Hussein, there w"
US manipulated Iraqi divisions for its own sake
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civil war threatens region: "Why do you say the US manipulated Iraqi divisions for its own sake?
When the US entered Iraq, it took advantage of the sectarian divisions in the country. These divisions had already been aggravated by the rule of Saddam Hussein, but now it was being aggravated again by the US.
The US exploited these divisions by making promises to the Shia community to have a larger share of the pie - of the oil shares.
This is a policy to produce a more divided country.
The US administration hoped that by averting the rise of national unity among Iraqis, they could play one faction against another.
This policy has worked. For example, the Kurds, for all practical purposes, can be considered independent.
However, whenever we see any Shia-Sunni alliance, the US immediately considers this a threat.
So, they sometimes appease the Shia. And other times they appease the Sunnis, but never both together.
Muqtada al-Sadr, though, is a danger to the US because he appeals for national Iraqi unity across the Sunni-Shia divide."
When the US entered Iraq, it took advantage of the sectarian divisions in the country. These divisions had already been aggravated by the rule of Saddam Hussein, but now it was being aggravated again by the US.
The US exploited these divisions by making promises to the Shia community to have a larger share of the pie - of the oil shares.
This is a policy to produce a more divided country.
The US administration hoped that by averting the rise of national unity among Iraqis, they could play one faction against another.
This policy has worked. For example, the Kurds, for all practical purposes, can be considered independent.
However, whenever we see any Shia-Sunni alliance, the US immediately considers this a threat.
So, they sometimes appease the Shia. And other times they appease the Sunnis, but never both together.
Muqtada al-Sadr, though, is a danger to the US because he appeals for national Iraqi unity across the Sunni-Shia divide."
Iraqi civil war threatens region
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civil war threatens region: "As'ad AbuKhalil: The repercussions of the Iraq debacle are very likely to affect more places in the Middle East, not less. There is now an explosion, literally, of militant fanatical groups that are bent on destroying the ties of amity and brotherhood between Sunnis and Shia. One can see that this was effective.
The latest International Crisis Group [report] points out the cynical and destructive ways by which the US administration manipulated Iraqi social, sectarian, ethnic, and tribal divisions for its own sake.
Having failed to shore up support for its favourite 'secular' clients, the US occupation armed and empowered lethal sectarian Shia groups that were bent on revenge.
'Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran'
On the other side, [wanted Jordanian al-Qaida leader Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi and company found in Iraq the environment that existed in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
For such groups, the ability to register theological and ideological points on a land under US troops was too tempting.
This explains the influx of militant radicals from the entire Middle East. Ironically, the model of 'democracy' and 'secularism' that [George] Bush and the neo-conservatives were planning in Iraq had degenerated into a model of mayhem, pillage, and plunder, and the ayatollahs rule in all but name.
Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran.
The ayatollahs' regional empire will have Bush's footprints on it. The region as a whole will continue to be affected."
The latest International Crisis Group [report] points out the cynical and destructive ways by which the US administration manipulated Iraqi social, sectarian, ethnic, and tribal divisions for its own sake.
Having failed to shore up support for its favourite 'secular' clients, the US occupation armed and empowered lethal sectarian Shia groups that were bent on revenge.
'Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran'
On the other side, [wanted Jordanian al-Qaida leader Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi and company found in Iraq the environment that existed in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
For such groups, the ability to register theological and ideological points on a land under US troops was too tempting.
This explains the influx of militant radicals from the entire Middle East. Ironically, the model of 'democracy' and 'secularism' that [George] Bush and the neo-conservatives were planning in Iraq had degenerated into a model of mayhem, pillage, and plunder, and the ayatollahs rule in all but name.
Bush, far from being remembered for establishing democracy in Iraq, will most likely be remembered as the man who brought ayatollahs' rule to Iraq, next door to Iran.
The ayatollahs' regional empire will have Bush's footprints on it. The region as a whole will continue to be affected."
worst possible public relations for the US in northern Iraq
Informed Comment: "4. The US military used Kurdish and Shiite troops to attack the northern Turkmen city of Talafar in August. Kurdish troops, drawn from the Peshmerga militia, were allowed to paint lasers on targets in the city, which were then destroyed by the US air force. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed, and much of the population was displaced for some time. Shiite troops and local Shiite Turkmen informants were used to identify and interrogate alleged Sunni insurgents. Turkey was furious at the attack on ethnically related Turkmen and threatened to halt its cooperation with the US. Although the attack was allegedly undertaken to capture foreign forces allegedly based in the city, only 50 were announced apprehended. The entire operation ended up looking like a joint Kurdish-Shiite attack on Sunni Turkmen, backed by the US military. Turkmen and Kurds do not generally get along, and Turkmen accuse Kurds of wanting to ethnically clense them from Kirkuk. The entire operation was politically the worst possible public relations for the US in northern Iraq, and seems unlikely to have put a signficant dent in the guerrillas' capabilities."
'unbelievable mess'
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq three years on: A bleak tale: "He wrote about the US administration in Baghdad led by retired US General Jay Garner: 'No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis... Garner and his team of 60-year-old retired generals are well-meaning but out of their depth.'
He criticised just about everything, calling it an 'unbelievable mess'."
He criticised just about everything, calling it an 'unbelievable mess'."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq invasion: For better or worse?
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq invasion: For better or worse?: "Abiding anger
What you don't see is building work. You would expect the capital city of a country which is undergoing a programme of major reconstruction to be full of cranes. It simply isn't happening. Baghdad is not being transformed; it's scarcely changed from the time of the first Gulf War, except for the buildings which the coalition bombed.
Children in Baghdad
Building work is scarce: Baghdad is not being transformed
If you see a US patrol, you should brake sharply and keep away from it. The gunners on the vehicles kill people every day for getting too close to them. Every Iraqi has a horror story about a friend or relative who misunderstood an instruction, often in English, and was shot at.
But there's one unquestioned success for the coalition: every available wall has a tattered election poster on it. True, three months after the last election Iraq still has no government, but the old terror of authority has evaporated."
. . .
But there is a real, abiding anger that the richest nation on Earth should have taken over their country and made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before.
What you don't see is building work. You would expect the capital city of a country which is undergoing a programme of major reconstruction to be full of cranes. It simply isn't happening. Baghdad is not being transformed; it's scarcely changed from the time of the first Gulf War, except for the buildings which the coalition bombed.
Children in Baghdad
Building work is scarce: Baghdad is not being transformed
If you see a US patrol, you should brake sharply and keep away from it. The gunners on the vehicles kill people every day for getting too close to them. Every Iraqi has a horror story about a friend or relative who misunderstood an instruction, often in English, and was shot at.
But there's one unquestioned success for the coalition: every available wall has a tattered election poster on it. True, three months after the last election Iraq still has no government, but the old terror of authority has evaporated."
. . .
But there is a real, abiding anger that the richest nation on Earth should have taken over their country and made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before.
Bush defines himself
BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush denies Iraq is in civil war: "'The terrorists haven't given up. They're tough-minded. They like to kill,' he said."
BBC NEWS | Americas | Death raises concern at police tactics
BBC NEWS | Americas | Death raises concern at police tactics: "'I have no problem with using these paramilitary style squads to go after known violent, armed criminals, but it is an extreme tactic to use against other sorts of suspects,' he said.
Mr Kraska believes there has been an explosion of units in smaller towns and cities, where training and operational standards may not be as high as large cities - a growth he attributes to 'the hysteria' of the country's war on drugs.
'I get several calls a month from people asking about local incidents - wrong address raids, excessive use of force, wrongful shootings - this stuff is happening all the time,' he adds."
...
"The problem is that when you talk about the war on this and the war on that, and police officers see themselves as soldiers, then the civilian becomes the enemy."
Mr Kraska believes there has been an explosion of units in smaller towns and cities, where training and operational standards may not be as high as large cities - a growth he attributes to 'the hysteria' of the country's war on drugs.
'I get several calls a month from people asking about local incidents - wrong address raids, excessive use of force, wrongful shootings - this stuff is happening all the time,' he adds."
...
"The problem is that when you talk about the war on this and the war on that, and police officers see themselves as soldiers, then the civilian becomes the enemy."
'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times
'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review - New York Times: "The American press in the first days of the Iraq war reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to post American troops in front of the National Museum in Baghdad, which, as a result, was looted of many of its great archaeological treasures. Less widely reported, but to Phillips far more meaningful, was the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. Phillips fully supports an explanation of the Iraq war that the Bush administration dismisses as conspiracy theory — that its principal purpose was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and to lower prices. ('Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath,' an oil analyst said a couple of years ago. 'You can't ask for better than that.') Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were, Phillips says, simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion.
And while this argument may be somewhat too simplistic to explain the complicated mix of motives behind the war, it is hard to dismiss Phillips's larger argument: that the pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years been one of the defining elements of American policy in the world; and that the Bush administration — unusually dominated by oilmen — has taken what the president deplored recently as the nation's addiction to oil to new and terrifying levels. The United States has embraced a kind of 'petro-imperialism,' Phillips writes, 'the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force,' and which 'puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes) and seeks to secure, protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs.'
Philli"
And while this argument may be somewhat too simplistic to explain the complicated mix of motives behind the war, it is hard to dismiss Phillips's larger argument: that the pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years been one of the defining elements of American policy in the world; and that the Bush administration — unusually dominated by oilmen — has taken what the president deplored recently as the nation's addiction to oil to new and terrifying levels. The United States has embraced a kind of 'petro-imperialism,' Phillips writes, 'the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force,' and which 'puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes) and seeks to secure, protect, drill and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs.'
Philli"
Monday, March 20, 2006
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary: "Iraq, three years after the war, is nearing the spectre of civil war and US plans have made conditions for Iraqis more difficult than at any time before the invasion. Americans have begun to uncover the game played by their administration and its involvement in the Iraqi quagmire... Despite all this, President Bush still thinks that he did the right thing... Tragedy has struck and its repercussions confirm the opposite of what Bush and his administration are saying."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary: "The third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq earns scornful press comment across the Middle East, with many papers angry at what they see as the gap between President Bush's rhetoric and the Iraqi reality.
There is outrage at the conditions on the ground, with one paper asking 'is the daily discovery of bodies the freedom President Bush says Iraqis are living in?'
There is also widespread disbelief at President Bush's continued assertion that the ousting of Saddam Hussein has made the world a safer place."
There is outrage at the conditions on the ground, with one paper asking 'is the daily discovery of bodies the freedom President Bush says Iraqis are living in?'
There is also widespread disbelief at President Bush's continued assertion that the ousting of Saddam Hussein has made the world a safer place."
Intel Allegedly Falsified to Justify Weapons Purchases -- 03/16/2006
Intel Allegedly Falsified to Justify Weapons Purchases -- 03/16/2006: "Cruse said he pointed out that the misleading data could cause 'serious ramifications,' including the harming of NGIC's credibility and the misapplication of military resources. 'Ultimately it could cause the lives of U.S. service personnel,' warned Cruse.
'The use of this type of flawed information could cause superiors and national policy makers to incorrectly prioritize, and put resources against the wrong, or even non-existent, threats,' he said."
'The use of this type of flawed information could cause superiors and national policy makers to incorrectly prioritize, and put resources against the wrong, or even non-existent, threats,' he said."
Iraq is a mess: Bush is Upbeat
Back to Iraq 3.0: The Big Lie: "Everyone of us is looking for any angle — any! — that will break news, make our stories stand out or otherwise distinguish ourselves. That’s what journalists do, and the corps here comes from the entire ideological spectrum, from the conservative to the socialist. But weirdly, this herd of cats — which is what we could be best be compared to — have all come to the same conclusion: Iraq is a mess."
Friday, March 17, 2006
Fool me once. . .
Preemptive Strike Out: "This morning's news that President Bush is reasserting his doctrine of preemptive war is a bit of a surprise because, well, I think most people thought the Bush Doctrine was dead.
How can Bush still argue for attacking another country based on his suspicions about their intentions -- when the first time he tried it, his public case turned out to be so utterly specious?
The idea that the American public or the international community would tolerate such behavior once again seems highly unlikely at this point in time. The American people, for one, won't be keen on putting troops in harm's way again on spec anytime soon.
Winning support for the application of a doctrine of preemption requires enormous credibility. It requires public trust in intelligence and motives. And that trust isn't there.
The rearranging of the intelligence community's deck-chairs has not resulted in any great surge of confidence in the nation's intelligence gathering or, more importantly, any assurance that policymakers will not abuse that intelligence.
In fact, the more we know about the run-up to war in Iraq, the more evidence there is that the doctrine of preemption (and the cherry-picking and manipulation of intelligence used to make the case for it) was just a pretext for an invasion that Bush and his top aides had already decided on for other reasons.
See, for instance, the recent Foreign Affairs article by Paul R. Pillar, the former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year.
He wrote: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
How can Bush still argue for attacking another country based on his suspicions about their intentions -- when the first time he tried it, his public case turned out to be so utterly specious?
The idea that the American public or the international community would tolerate such behavior once again seems highly unlikely at this point in time. The American people, for one, won't be keen on putting troops in harm's way again on spec anytime soon.
Winning support for the application of a doctrine of preemption requires enormous credibility. It requires public trust in intelligence and motives. And that trust isn't there.
The rearranging of the intelligence community's deck-chairs has not resulted in any great surge of confidence in the nation's intelligence gathering or, more importantly, any assurance that policymakers will not abuse that intelligence.
In fact, the more we know about the run-up to war in Iraq, the more evidence there is that the doctrine of preemption (and the cherry-picking and manipulation of intelligence used to make the case for it) was just a pretext for an invasion that Bush and his top aides had already decided on for other reasons.
See, for instance, the recent Foreign Affairs article by Paul R. Pillar, the former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year.
He wrote: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Scoundrel/Patriot Act!
Unfathomed Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization by Paul Craig Roberts: "A provision in the 'Patriot Act' creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.
Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 eads:
This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."
The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including 'an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance' (SENS).
"A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion.
The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?
You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.
The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.
Many naïve Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law’s good intentions.
Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naïve will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on.
In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?
By Stalin’s time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.
It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?"
Now, Why this did not make it into public debate concerning the "Patriot Act"? (from now on better known as the "Scoundrel Act"?
Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 eads:
"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’."
This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."
The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including 'an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance' (SENS).
"A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion.
The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?
You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.
The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.
Many naïve Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law’s good intentions.
Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naïve will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on.
In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?
By Stalin’s time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.
It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?"
Now, Why this did not make it into public debate concerning the "Patriot Act"? (from now on better known as the "Scoundrel Act"?
Bush Threatens the World in the name of "Self Defense"
BBC NEWS | Americas | US backs first-strike attack plan: "However, likening the current international situation to the early years of the Cold War, the new document insists on the right of the US to protect its interests using force.That the US is still saying such nonsense after the war in Iraq is mind boggling!
'If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,' it says.
'When the consequences of an attack with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise.' "
"Preemptive war" is just a name to cover up blatant, inmoral, and illegal wars of aggression created by the Bush administration to futher its own imperial interest.
The 'preemptive' rational is morally bankrupt. If applied generally it would justify, US enemies attacking the US as soon as possible, since they know they will be attacked by the US sooner or later.
It is madness.
Such rational is setting the scene for war without end. Self-defence implies that one is actually being attacked. One cannot shoot somebody because he seemed suspicious, while the time and place of his possible attack remains uncertain. If I did that, my 'self-defense' would actually be murder. It is not any different for a State.
International law and internationally adopted moral standards require nations to abstain from agression of other Nations. The US is once more setting the stage for using its power against other nations in their agenda. That Is morally unacceptable. and will trigger a state of war with no end in the world.
From such presumption and foolishness
Good Lord Deliver Us!
Friday, March 10, 2006
BBC NEWS | News Front Page
BBC NEWS | News Front Page: "inquiry after an open verdict into the death of a young soldier"
Democracy Now! | Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal
Democracy Now! | Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal: "Well, you see, the United States and Britain are in total breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Non-Proliferation Treaty says three things. One, the nuclear powers will agree to disarm collectively. Secondly, that other countries can develop nuclear technology. And thirdly, that nuclear powers will give absolute assurances they will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. And both the United States and Britain have now said that if their security was at stake, they would use nuclear weapons. What Bush has done -- I don't think you realize it -- that make the case for the spread of nuclear weapons, because I tell you this, if Iran had nuclear weapons now, he would not dare to attack it. So, actually, Bush is encouraging the spread, and when he went to India the other day, which isn’t a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, he signed an agreement. So, I mean, the thing is total hypocrisy. I think if we could get that clear, then we can consider how we deal with the situation that faces us."
Democracy Now! | Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal
Democracy Now! | Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal: "It wasn’t put to ministers. I mean, this is the trouble with the nuclear industry, I came not to believe what I was told, and that throws a doubt on more than nuclear power: the question of democracy, if officials can operate as a state within a state. Where is the democratic control of policy? So it was a very, very serious thing to happen. And, of course, it also comes up at a time when, as you've been pointing out, there's a lot of pressure now on Iran not to develop nuclear technology in any form."
Hypocrisy and lies behind Nuclear Power and Weapons.
Democracy Now! | Former Labour MP Tony Benn on how Britain Secretly Helped Israel Build Its Nuclear Arsenal: "But if you look at the story of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, it's very interesting. What I remember, as a navy pilot, hearing at Hiroshima, and I visited it later and Nagasaki, then Eisenhower said, “atoms for peace.” And that moved me, I thought a classic case of swords into plowshares, if you remember the Bible. And I a became an advocate of civil nuclear power. I was told it was cheap, safe and peaceful. And having been responsible for it for many, many years, I learned from experience, it wasn't cheap, with the cost of storage of nuclear waste and the research; it isn't safe, because Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and Windscale and so on; and it wasn't peaceful. But all the time it was motivated by the desire to build nuclear weapons.
And, I mean, the example we're just discussing was one. But I discovered after I left office, that without telling me, the plutonium from our civil power stations, what we called “atoms for peace power stations,” all the time was going to the United States for its weapons program. So, I’ve learned a lot from this. I’m now a passionate opponent of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, always was against nuclear weapons. But this story highlights the hypocrisy that lie behind so much of the comment about the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
And, I mean, the example we're just discussing was one. But I discovered after I left office, that without telling me, the plutonium from our civil power stations, what we called “atoms for peace power stations,” all the time was going to the United States for its weapons program. So, I’ve learned a lot from this. I’m now a passionate opponent of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, always was against nuclear weapons. But this story highlights the hypocrisy that lie behind so much of the comment about the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Terrifying tactics
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Musharraf's al-Qaeda hunt crisis: "The American missile strike that killed many civilians in a Pakistani border village is the latest in a series of failed attempts by the US intelligence and military to eliminate al-Qaeda's top two men.
The attack destroyed three houses in Bajaur agency near the Afghan border - with or without the knowledge of Islamabad.
It has strengthened the widely-held view in Pakistan that in their sheer desperation to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri the Americans have decided not to care about collateral damage.
It's a marked departure from the policy of a few years ago when the fear of civilian deaths discouraged the Americans from bombing suspected Bin Laden hideouts in and around the tribal region.
And the new policy certainly means more trouble for Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, who is already perceived by many to be surviving mainly on American life-support."
The attack destroyed three houses in Bajaur agency near the Afghan border - with or without the knowledge of Islamabad.
It has strengthened the widely-held view in Pakistan that in their sheer desperation to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri the Americans have decided not to care about collateral damage.
It's a marked departure from the policy of a few years ago when the fear of civilian deaths discouraged the Americans from bombing suspected Bin Laden hideouts in and around the tribal region.
And the new policy certainly means more trouble for Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, who is already perceived by many to be surviving mainly on American life-support."
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Condi on Iran: More War based on Lies
VDARE.com: 09/20/03 - Neo-Jacobins Push For World War IV: "'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' If neoconservatives have their way, Americans will soon be repeating this refrain.
The identical lies used to deceive Americans about Iraq are now being recycled to justify invading Syria and Iran.
Before exploring this fact, first understand that there is nothing conservative about neoconservatives. Neocons hide behind 'conservative' but they are in fact Jacobins."
The identical lies used to deceive Americans about Iraq are now being recycled to justify invading Syria and Iran.
Before exploring this fact, first understand that there is nothing conservative about neoconservatives. Neocons hide behind 'conservative' but they are in fact Jacobins."
Democracy Now! | Lawless World: Bush Considered Flying US Spy Planes Painted With UN Colors Over Iraq In 2003 to Provoke War
Democracy Now! | Lawless World: Bush Considered Flying US Spy Planes Painted With UN Colors Over Iraq In 2003 to Provoke War: "British international law professor Philippe Sands, author of “Lawless World,” reveals President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair secretly agreed in January 2003 to invade Iraq in mid-March 2003 regardless of the outcome of diplomatic efforts. [includes rush transcript] New evidence has emerged that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in January 2003 to attack Iraq regardless of whether diplomatic efforts succeeded. The revelation comes in a newly updated version of the book “Lawless World” by British international law professor Philippe Sands. According to the book, Blair offered Bush his full support of the war during a meeting at the White House in January 2003. Sands says his account is based on a summary of the meeting prepared by one of the participants. According to the book, Bush is recorded as saying that 'the start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March. That was when the bombing would begin. The military timetable meant that an early resolution was needed.'
Bush also reportedly said the 'diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning'. In addition the book reveals President Bush told Blair that the United Stated was considering flying U2 spy planes disguised as United Nations planes over Iraq in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein. If Iraq fired on the planes, it would help justify a U.S.-led invasion."
Bush also reportedly said the 'diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning'. In addition the book reveals President Bush told Blair that the United Stated was considering flying U2 spy planes disguised as United Nations planes over Iraq in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein. If Iraq fired on the planes, it would help justify a U.S.-led invasion."
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
A terrible catastrophe awaits.
Catastrophe Looms by Paul Craig Roberts: "What does it say for democracy that half of the American population is unable to draw a rational conclusion from unambiguous facts?
Americans share this disability with the Bush administration. According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished?
The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government.
Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty-year war that will bankrupt the United States.
The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.
America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits."
Americans share this disability with the Bush administration. According to news reports, the Bush administration is stunned by the election victory of the radical Islamist Hamas Party, which swept the US-financed Fatah Party from office. Why is the Bush administration astonished?
The Bush administration is astonished because it stupidly believes that hundreds of millions of Muslims should be grateful that the US has interfered in their internal affairs for 60 years, setting up colonies and puppet rulers to suppress their aspirations and to achieve, instead, purposes of the US government.
Americans need desperately to understand that 95 percent of all Muslim terrorists in the world were created in the past three years by Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
Americans need desperately to comprehend that if Bush attacks Iran and Syria, as he intends, terrorism will explode, and American civil liberties will disappear into a thirty-year war that will bankrupt the United States.
The total lack of rationality and competence in the White House and the inability of half of the US population to acquire and understand information are far larger threats to Americans than terrorism.
America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits."
How Conservatives Went Crazy by Paul Craig Roberts
How Conservatives Went Crazy by Paul Craig Roberts: "When I was on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, the editorials were analytical and reformist. Sometimes we broke news stories. The page’s attention to the Soviet Union was based on the rulers’ aggressive posture and suppression of civil liberties. Today the editorial page is a fount of neoconservative war propaganda. All intelligence has vanished.
Consider the Review & Outlook of February 3, which declares Iran to be 'an intolerable threat.' Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country’s new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel. But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn’t occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the US as intolerable threats.
Unlike Iran, Israel does have nuclear weapons. In view of this overpowering fact, it is difficult to see why Bush and Wall Street Journal editorialists think the US needs to protect Israel from Iran.
But what if Iran were to succeed in fooling the International Atomic Energy Agency’s nuclear inspectors and develop a bomb. Might not crazed mullahs drop it on Israel or give it to an al Qaeda terrorist, who might use it to blow up Washington DC or New York?
What would Iran gain aside from its own immediate destruction? If mutual assured destruction worked for decades against a powerfully armed communist state every bit as hostile to American 'bourgeois capitalism' as Iran is to the 'Great Satan,' why would it fail against a state that is puny compared to Soviet standards?
Iran does not require nuclear weapons in order to do all the things the editorialists marshall in their case against Iran. Indeed, a US or Israeli attack on Iran is likely to precipitate the dire deeds that the editorialists fear: a Shia uprising in"
Consider the Review & Outlook of February 3, which declares Iran to be 'an intolerable threat.' Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country’s new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel. But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn’t occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the US as intolerable threats.
Unlike Iran, Israel does have nuclear weapons. In view of this overpowering fact, it is difficult to see why Bush and Wall Street Journal editorialists think the US needs to protect Israel from Iran.
But what if Iran were to succeed in fooling the International Atomic Energy Agency’s nuclear inspectors and develop a bomb. Might not crazed mullahs drop it on Israel or give it to an al Qaeda terrorist, who might use it to blow up Washington DC or New York?
What would Iran gain aside from its own immediate destruction? If mutual assured destruction worked for decades against a powerfully armed communist state every bit as hostile to American 'bourgeois capitalism' as Iran is to the 'Great Satan,' why would it fail against a state that is puny compared to Soviet standards?
Iran does not require nuclear weapons in order to do all the things the editorialists marshall in their case against Iran. Indeed, a US or Israeli attack on Iran is likely to precipitate the dire deeds that the editorialists fear: a Shia uprising in"
One Party Politics Covering Their Tracks
Senate Panel Blocks Eavesdropping Probe:
"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted along party lines yesterday to reject a Democratic proposal to investigate the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program and instead approved establishing, with White House approval, a seven-member panel to oversee the effort."We are living through a soft dictatorship in which one leader of one party can act above the law and use the party to get away with it. So much for democracy and freedom, what about the consitution, the rule of law and accountability?
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Adulation of Ignorance by Paul Craig Roberts
The Adulation of Ignorance by Paul Craig Roberts: "In view of the available facts, how can Bush in his state of the union address tell Congress and the world that the US is winning in Iraq? Why did Congress stand and applaud? What does it mean to win a war that should not have been started?
Having admitted that his invasion of Iraq is based on incorrect intelligence, why did Bush claim in his state of the union address that his war in Iraq is central to the war against terrorism? He must mean that his mistake created terrorism where it did not exist, and, having created the terrorism, he must now fight it even if doing so creates yet more terrorists.
A rational response to Bush’s mistake would be to remove the cause of the insurgency by apologizing for the mistake and withdrawing US military forces. Neoconservatives say that the US cannot withdraw because Iraq would fall into civil war. This is an admission that by removing Saddam Hussein, Bush created the conditions for civil war in Iraq. How, then, was removing Saddam Hussein a good thing?"
Having admitted that his invasion of Iraq is based on incorrect intelligence, why did Bush claim in his state of the union address that his war in Iraq is central to the war against terrorism? He must mean that his mistake created terrorism where it did not exist, and, having created the terrorism, he must now fight it even if doing so creates yet more terrorists.
A rational response to Bush’s mistake would be to remove the cause of the insurgency by apologizing for the mistake and withdrawing US military forces. Neoconservatives say that the US cannot withdraw because Iraq would fall into civil war. This is an admission that by removing Saddam Hussein, Bush created the conditions for civil war in Iraq. How, then, was removing Saddam Hussein a good thing?"
Thursday, March 02, 2006
BBC NEWS | Americas | Video shows Bush Katrina warning
BBC NEWS | Americas | Video shows Bush Katrina warning: "Clear warning
No new news here. Once more, Bush lied. The question is: Why the inaction against New Orleans?
The footage does the president no favours, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington.
Cars stream out of New Orleans on eve of Katrina disaster
Citizens were fleeing New Orleans as Mr Bush was being briefed
It shows plainly worried officials telling Mr Bush very clearly before the storm hit that it could breach New Orleans' flood barriers.
In the past, the president has said nobody anticipated a breach but the video shows Michael Brown, the top emergency response official who has since resigned, saying the storm would be 'a bad one, a big one'."
No new news here. Once more, Bush lied. The question is: Why the inaction against New Orleans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)