Sandals at the Gate

In a nationally televised press conference, George W. Bush repeated some of his favorite lies about the Iraq War, including the canard that he was forced to invade because Saddam Hussein blocked the work of United Nations weapons inspectors in 2003.

Bush has uttered this lie in a variety of forms over more than 2 1/2 years, yet the Washington press corps has never challenged the President directly about the falsehood. He got away with it again on March 21 when no journalist followed up the question from Helen Thomas that elicited Bush's response.

Some TV commentary about the Thomas-Bush exchange even suggested that Bush had scored points with the American public for calling on - and then slapping down - the senior White House correspondent who is known for her irreverent and acerbic questions. But Bush's truthfulness wasn't questioned.

Bush reasserted his false claim about the U.N. inspectors after Thomas noted that Bush's pre-war rationales had turned out to be false, an apparent reference to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's supposed links to al-Qaeda.

"Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime," Thomas said. "Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true.

"My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?"

Bristling at the question, Bush said, "I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist - that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect. ...

"No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true."

Bush then launched into his revisionist history, saying that before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, "we used to think we were secure because of oceans" that surrounded the United States. (But no one living during the Cold War thought that the Atlantic and Pacific protected the United States from thermonuclear attack launched by Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles.)

"I also saw a threat in Iraq," Bush said. "I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it was important to pass (Resolution) 1441, which was unanimously passed.

"And the world said, 'Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.' And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it."

Iraq's Compliance

But Bush's statement is false both in suggesting that Resolution 1441 authorized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq - when it actually demanded that Iraq submit to arms inspections - and in claiming that Hussein "chose to deny the inspectors."

In reality, Hussein accepted the U.N. inspectors in November 2002, granted them unrestricted access to suspected sites and announced - accurately as it turned out - that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction.

U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating with his team and the U.N. Security Council thus refused to endorse Bush's insistence on war in March 2003. Bush then rebuffed the U.N. Security Council, forced the inspectors to leave and invaded Iraq in violation of the U.N. Charter.

Yet, Bush has been presenting his bogus pre-war history since July 2003, three months after Baghdad fell, when the absence of WMD was becoming obvious and an Iraqi insurgency was beginning to kill scores of American soldiers.

In his first version of this revisionist history, Bush said about Hussein, "we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power."

When the U.S. news media failed to object to Bush's rewritten history, he continued to spin out this lie in various forms, including at the Republican National Convention and during the presidential debates. [For more on this longstanding falsehood, see Consortiumnews.com's "President Bush, With the Candlestick..."]

Peaceful Democracies?

Bush also repeated another pleasing - but false - bromide about democracies being intrinsically peaceful.

At the March 21 press conference, Bush said: "History has proven that democracies don't war. And so, part of the issue is to lay peace, is to give people a chance to live in a peaceful world where mothers can raise their children without fear of violence."

But the history is far more complicated. Even in ancient times, democracies often were the instigators of war. Democratic Athens broke the Peace of Nicias in 418 B.C. by attacking undemocratic Sparta. The Roman Republic waged war on its neighbors for generations before it became an empire.

Even in American history, the democratic government of the United States has waged war against Native Americans, Spaniards, Mexicans and even against other Americans in the Civil War. In modern times, the United States also has gone to war without direct provocation, most notably in Vietnam in the 1960s and in Iraq now.

European democracies have a similarly spotty record. Great Britain fought to maintain its empire even after the monarchy had given way to democratic institutions. The same was true for France, which fought colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria in the years after World War II.

In Germany, Adolf Hitler exploited opportunities created by democracy in his rise to power, as his nationalist socialism resonated with voters suffering economic deprivation and harboring anti-Semitic prejudices. After winning the largest number of seats in parliament, Hitler engineered his fateful appointment as chancellor in 1933.

History also teaches that democracy is no guarantee of justice. Consider the oppression of African-Americans in the United States, first through slavery and then segregation.

Nor is moderation an inevitable byproduct. Democratic elections in some Muslim countries have boosted Islamic fundamentalists, not secular moderates, as happened during the 1990s in Algeria where fundamentalist electoral gains were so strong that the army intervened to prevent an Islamist victory.

In Iraq, too, U.S.-imposed "democratic institutions" have not been a cure-all. Indeed, they have strengthened Shiite fundamentalists and further divided the country along sectarian lines, rather than elevate moderate leaders and unite the rival religious factions.

But this mixed reality - like the real history of the Iraq arms inspections - was missing in Bush's televised news conference. The White House press corps also continued to avert its eyes from Bush's falsehoods. After Helen Thomas's question and Bush's deceptive answers, her colleagues did nothing to call the President to account.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many people were so easily fooled?

The question is important because it might help us understand why Americans--members of the media as well as the ordinary citizen--rushed to declare their support as the President was sending troops halfway around the world to Iraq.

A small example of the innocence (or obsequiousness, to be more exact) of the press is the way it reacted to Colin Powell's presentation in February 2003 to the Security Council, a month before the invasion, a speech which may have set a record for the number of falsehoods told in one talk. In it, Powell confidently rattled off his "evidence": satellite photographs, audio records, reports from informants, with precise statistics on how many gallons of this and that existed for chemical warfare. The New York Times was breathless with admiration. The Washington Post editorial was titled "Irrefutable" and declared that after Powell's talk "it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

It seems to me there are two reasons, which go deep into our national culture, and which help explain the vulnerability of the press and of the citizenry to outrageous lies whose consequences bring death to tens of thousands of people. If we can understand those reasons, we can guard ourselves better against being deceived.

One is in the dimension of time, that is, an absence of historical perspective. The other is in the dimension of space, that is, an inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior.

If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives. I am not speaking of the history we learned in school, a history subservient to our political leaders, from the much-admired Founding Fathers to the Presidents of recent years. I mean a history which is honest about the past. If we don't know that history, then any President can stand up to the battery of microphones, declare that we must go to war, and we will have no basis for challenging him. He will say that the nation is in danger, that democracy and liberty are at stake, and that we must therefore send ships and planes to destroy our new enemy, and we will have no reason to disbelieve him.

But if we know some history, if we know how many times Presidents have made similar declarations to the country, and how they turned out to be lies, we will not be fooled. Although some of us may pride ourselves that we were never fooled, we still might accept as our civic duty the responsibility to buttress our fellow citizens against the mendacity of our high officials.

We would remind whoever we can that President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to war with Mexico in 1846. It wasn't that Mexico "shed American blood upon the American soil," but that Polk, and the slave-owning aristocracy, coveted half of Mexico.

We would point out that President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba, saying we wanted to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control, but the truth is that we really wanted Spain out of Cuba so that the island could be open to United Fruit and other American corporations. He also lied about the reasons for our war in the Philippines, claiming we only wanted to "civilize" the Filipinos, while the real reason was to own a valuable piece of real estate in the far Pacific, even if we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to accomplish that.

President Woodrow Wilson--so often characterized in our history books as an "idealist"--lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a war to make the world safe for the Western imperial powers.

Harry Truman lied when he said the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it was "a military target."

Everyone lied about Vietnam--Kennedy about the extent of our involvement, Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret bombing of Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South Vietnam free of communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent.

Reagan lied about the invasion of Grenada, claiming falsely that it was a threat to the United States.

The elder Bush lied about the invasion of Panama, leading to the death of thousands of ordinary citizens in that country.

And he lied again about the reason for attacking Iraq in 1991--hardly to defend the integrity of Kuwait (can one imagine Bush heartstricken over Iraq's taking of Kuwait?), rather to assert U.S. power in the oil-rich Middle East.

Given the overwhelming record of lies told to justify wars, how could anyone listening to the younger Bush believe him as he laid out the reasons for invading Iraq? Would we not instinctively rebel against the sacrifice of lives for oil?

A careful reading of history might give us another safeguard against being deceived. It would make clear that there has always been, and is today, a profound conflict of interest between the government and the people of the United States. This thought startles most people, because it goes against everything we have been taught.

We have been led to believe that, from the beginning, as our Founding Fathers put it in the Preamble to the Constitution, it was "we the people" who established the new government after the Revolution. When the eminent historian Charles Beard suggested, a hundred years ago, that the Constitution represented not the working people, not the slaves, but the slaveholders, the merchants, the bondholders, he became the object of an indignant editorial in The New York Times.

Our culture demands, in its very language, that we accept a commonality of interest binding all of us to one another. We mustn't talk about classes. Only Marxists do that, although James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," said, thirty years before Marx was born that there was an inevitable conflict in society between those who had property and those who did not.

Our present leaders are not so candid. They bombard us with phrases like "national interest," "national security," and "national defense" as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.

Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that--not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor--is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.

If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up there--the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions pretending to be "checks and balances"--do not have our interests at heart, we are on a course towards the truth. Not to know that is to make us helpless before determined liars.

The deeply ingrained belief--no, not from birth but from the educational system and from our culture in general--that the United States is an especially virtuous nation makes us especially vulnerable to government deception. It starts early, in the first grade, when we are compelled to "pledge allegiance" (before we even know what that means), forced to proclaim that we are a nation with "liberty and justice for all."

And then come the countless ceremonies, whether at the ballpark or elsewhere, where we are expected to stand and bow our heads during the singing of the "Star-Spangled Banner," announcing that we are "the land of the free and the home of the brave." There is also the unofficial national anthem "God Bless America," and you are looked on with suspicion if you ask why we would expect God to single out this one nation--just 5 percent of the world's population--for his or her blessing.

If your starting point for evaluating the world around you is the firm belief that this nation is somehow endowed by Providence with unique qualities that make it morally superior to every other nation on Earth, then you are not likely to question the President when he says we are sending our troops here or there, or bombing this or that, in order to spread our values--democracy, liberty, and let's not forget free enterprise--to some God-forsaken (literally) place in the world.

It becomes necessary then, if we are going to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens against policies that will be disastrous not only for other people but for Americans too, that we face some facts that disturb the idea of a uniquely virtuous nation.

These facts are embarrassing, but must be faced if we are to be honest. We must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which millions of Indians were driven off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations. And our long history, still not behind us, of slavery, segregation, and racism. We must face our record of imperial conquest, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, our shameful wars against small countries a tenth our size: Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq. And the lingering memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not a history of which we can be proud.

Our leaders have taken it for granted, and planted that belief in the minds of many people, that we are entitled, because of our moral superiority, to dominate the world. At the end of World War II, Henry Luce, with an arrogance appropriate to the owner of Time, Life, and Fortune, pronounced this "the American century," saying that victory in the war gave the United States the right "to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit."

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have embraced this notion. George Bush, in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, said that spreading liberty around the world was "the calling of our time." Years before that, in 1993, President Bill Clinton, speaking at a West Point commencement, declared: "The values you learned here . . . will be able to spread throughout this country and throughout the world and give other people the opportunity to live as you have lived, to fulfill your God-given capacities."

What is the idea of our moral superiority based on? Surely not on our behavior toward people in other parts of the world. Is it based on how well people in the United States live? The World Health Organization in 2000 ranked countries in terms of overall health performance, and the United States was thirty-seventh on the list, though it spends more per capita for health care than any other nation. One of five children in this, the richest country in the world, is born in poverty. There are more than forty countries that have better records on infant mortality. Cuba does better. And there is a sure sign of sickness in society when we lead the world in the number of people in prison--more than two million.

A more honest estimate of ourselves as a nation would prepare us all for the next barrage of lies that will accompany the next proposal to inflict our power on some other part of the world. It might also inspire us to create a different history for ourselves, by taking our country away from the liars and killers who govern it, and by rejecting nationalist arrogance, so that we can join the rest of the human race in the common cause of peace and justice.

Howard Zinn is the co-author, with Anthony Arnove, of "Voices of a People's History of the United States."

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The last time I wrote a letter to the President of the United States, I was in fifth grade. I must admit, I did it only as an assignment for school, and I am reasonably sure that the President at the time (Gerald Ford) never actually read it. As I recall, he was quite busy at the time.

OK... now for a serious admission. You and I could not be more different. You are a Republican and I am a Democrat. You are admittedly a conservative. I am a liberal. You are a rather self-styled southerner and I am probably what you might call an effete, intellectual northerner. But you sir and I have one thing in common. We both claim to be Bible believing men. So, I figured, if I was going to write you a letter – I might as well start with common ground.

Speaking of common ground, sir, I recall some years ago when you ran for President, you claimed to be a "uniter and not a divider." What happened?

I know that things are not going very well for you right now. I know your poll numbers are pretty bad and that you have an awful lot on your plate... what with the War, the ports deal fallen through, the Katrina aftermath, and all of that. I imagine that you are really under the gun. But I still appreciate your taking the time to read this.

On the subject of uniting and not dividing... when all of the dust settles from the stuff I just mentioned... had it occurred to you yet that we all still have to live together in this country? I don't remember this country being so divided in all my years. And sometimes it seems that our differences are irreconcilable. I always believed that one of the primary responsibilities of our leaders was to help us find a way to live together in spite of our differences. Ronald Reagan, although not one of my favorite Presidents by a mile, managed to unite this country in a common sense of mission and purpose. And even though I didn't agree with his particular views and policies... he did manage to help us all get along. Has it occurred to you yet how you might accomplish this in your remaining time in office?

So... here we are. Two Bible-believing men, looking out at our beloved nation – I'm sure you and I can agree that we both love this country – and I wonder... have things turned out the way you wanted when you took office? I mean... the God I know has made abundantly clear his preference for justice, mercy, peace and most importantly... love of neighbor. When I look at our country today I see neighbor pitted against neighbor, a nation rife with intolerance and intransigence. Sorry sir... that means stubbornness. I know you aren't fond of fancy words and prefer straight shooting.

It seems to me that there has been a terrible break in civility in our America. People talk in terms of problems instead of solutions. Folks are edgy, angry, and uncompromising. And now, there are some pretty crazy folks out there. Emboldened by your example, they seem to envision an America that is good for some but not for others. A place where only certain folks have rights and others do not. These folks would seem to want to make certain of the rights that we have always taken for granted in this country contingent upon agreeing with their positions and policies. Is this what you had in mind when you took office?

America was founded to be an example of that shining city on a hill. You remember, that place where civic tolerance, freedom, and equality were supposed to shine so brightly that the whole world would take notice and (perhaps) truly believe that God was with us. America was supposed to be a place where everyone was welcome... a haven from persecution and oppression, a place where all were welcome at God's table and we could, at worst, agree to disagree.

A lot of people in this country (I must admit, I am not one of them) would like to see you as Moses... you know... the law giver? Someone who united us as a people, led us through dark times to a place of new freedom and security as a nation. But increasingly, you seem more like Pharaoh. For you see... God hardened his heart. Why your hardness of heart Mr. President? I do so hope it is not that we, instead of standing in for Israel in this story, are standing in for the part of the Egyptians. For we know what happened to them in the story and I am afraid I am not ready to lose our firstborn children.

Speaking of which, Mr. President, we have lost over two thousand of our beloved children already. And while you have smote the Babylonians, more than 100,000 of their own innocents (by some estimates) have also perished. And with no end in sight, and no longer any clear rationale for the continued bloodshed, I wonder how this fits in with the Gospel? Didn't Jesus say "whenever you did it to the least of these, you did it to me"?

I would like to think that, one day, the war will be over, terrorism will be diminished, and the march of freedom and prosperity for all people will prevail... in Iraq and here at home too. But when that happens, what will be the State of our Union then? What will it profit us to rule the world and remain divided at home? We all still have to learn to get along... that is unless you really do mean to make America a land of freedom and peace only for those who agree with you and your policies? And what of the rest of us, Mr. President? Will God ever be pleased unless we take care of the least among us? Will God be satisfied that we are righteous only when the powerful prevail?

At what cost, Mr. President, your stubbornness? At what cost do you invest in keeping us divided as a nation for the folly of temporary power? And what of those righteous folk who do not agree with your current policies? Remember the prophets, particularly Micah, Mr. President.

"What does the Lord require, but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."

It seems to me, sir, that this is a lesson that the whole country could use right now. And we sure could use a shining example of it, sir. And I can think of no one in a better position to show us... if you're up to the task. And if you're not...

Then I pray that God will show us mercy and forgive us... for we know not what we are doing.

Sincerely,
Br. Karekin M Yarian, BSG
an unapologetic, God-fearing, liberal follower of Jesus

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The 18th of March, 2006 will be the 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation by American forces and also the 3rd birthday of 'free Iraq'.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, we will mourn the mangled corpse of the Iraqi nationhood that America continues to drag around the vast deserts of that country, with fangs bared and claws out, in an unjustified, illegal and bloody occupation.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, we will note the fact that America threatens to lay waste to the nations next door on daily basis and considers it immoral if those countries even think of arming themselves to prevent the same fate.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, we will derive a very simple lesson from America's Iraq jaunt that if a country wants to avoid a U.S. led invasion, they had better arm themselves to the gills and with nuclear weapons too if possible. Quite plainly, it is a matter of life and death for such countries.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, we will remember that not only is America the only user of the nuclear weapon on human race in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she is also known to have contemplated using them in almost every major military conflict ever since e.g. against the people of Korea, Cuba and Vietnam.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, we will remind ourselves that as the fight for resources and markets sharpens among the various capitalist powers, the likelihood of nuclear conflicts breaking out grows exponentially and that, unless the global citizenry wakes up, all the treaties and assurances in the world will not stop this brazen display of capitalism in decay.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, we must note with irony that while the American administration is lowering the bar for going nuclear and makes 'bomb size holes' in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by signing the Indo-US nuclear deal, it continues to preach nuclear abstinence to the rest of the world and threatens to visit pre-emptive attacks upon those thought to be in non-compliance of the same treaty.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, as we listen to President George W. Bush lecturing the world on the threat from Iran and on the virtues of nuclear non-proliferation, we will remind ourselves that his position on nuclear weapons smacks of rampant hypocrisy and is laced with double standards. He is the commander-in-chief of a military force that not only possesses and maintains nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons but also boasts an array of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological arsenals.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, as the American military juggernaut continues to slam into innocent humanity and prepares itself for yet another bout of binge killing in Iran; the American citizens continue to vacillate on what to do with the criminal cabal that kills in their name. Having yo-yoed between conviction and impeachment with a lot of bombast, they finally fizzle down for a rap on the knuckle by attempting, please note, to 'censure' the lead criminal for breaking the law, trashing the US Constitution and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, as America's State Department decries the Human Rights abuses by various countries, let us remember that America herself has become the biggest patron of dark dungeons and the sessions of pain therein. Other than Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo Bay, where detainees have included children as young as 11-years-old and where some detainees have now been held for over four years without charge or trial, America's torture trail at the present weaves across the globe from Thailand and the Philippines through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan to Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, some Gulf States and an unspecified number of South Pacific island nations.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, despite President George Bush's sickeningly repetitious rhetoric of "freedom on the march" and "terrorists on the run", let us be informed that the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC), a US government funded agency of the Department of Homeland Security, tells us that "between 2001 and 2005, worldwide terrorist incidents increased by an astounding 159 percent, going from 1,733 attacks in 2001 to 4,483 last year." And that, "of the 13,403 global terror incidents that have taken place since 2001, one-third of those total took place in 2005 alone."

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, let us also acquaint ourselves with the bungling incompetence of the current US administration's economic policies that directly affect the common Americans. The numbers are out and they tell a sordid tale. "The U.S. trade deficit has soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion in 2005, up by 17.5 percent from the previous record of $617.6 billion set in 2004. The deficit with China hit an all-time high as did America's deficits with Japan, Europe, OPEC, Canada, Mexico and South and Central America. It marked the fourth straight year in a row that America's trade deficit has set a record."

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, let us recall the orchestrated 9/11, the gargantuan lies that this administration told to the American public in its aftermath and the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead and maimed souls as a result of those lies.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, as we brace ourselves from more nuclear hypocrisy from the mightiest of the nations, we will recall that this nation continues to use depleted uranium weapons on Iraqis taking a ghastly toll not just on the existing ones but also on successive future Iraqi generations who will suffer for eons to come.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, as American citizens tuck their well fed children into warm beds after affectionate hugs, we will recall that the rate of birth defects, leukemia and cancer among Iraqi children under the age of 15 in those districts where the use of DU had been the most concentrated is increasing horrendously and, if not checked soon enough, a generation of beautiful babies are going to turn into one of hideous cripples.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, with hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of dead Americans, a beat-up American image around the globe and a war tab exceeding half-a-trillion dollars, we must finally allow the reality of the repugnant rhetoric of global domination and the disgusting truth of its actual failure to finally sink in to our collective conscience.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, as the American nation dillies and dallies while their government kills people abroad with impunity and plans to start yet another anniversary series for yet another nation, one comes to a sad sad conclusion. And that is that the American nation seems to have willingly boarded itself up on a train, remote controlled by their criminal leaders, with the train careering fast towards the Cassandra Crossing. The Americans now watch their own selves in a hushed awe.

This 3rd anniversary of Iraq's occupation, let us try to understand for whom was the following said in the "Book of Isaiah" in The Bible?

"YOUR HANDS ARE STAINED WITH BLOOD, YOUR FINGERS WITH GUILT, YOUR LIPS SPEAK FALSEHOOD AND YOUR TONGUE UTTERS DECEIT"

Happy birthday free Iraq!

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Republicans are unbearable. They break the law, lie, spin, spend, invade, torture and give away our money to lobbyists. So, I'm trying my best to not disparage the Democrats, since they're our only hope left.

I don't want to perpetuate the image of them as soft, feckless and spineless. I am worried to death that will turn off some voters and have them vote for Republicans who are driving this country over a cliff instead.

But the Democrats sometimes make it impossible to not criticize them.

Senator Russ Feingold wants to introduce a resolution to censure the President for breaking the FISA statue. There is no question that the President has done this -- he admits it. The law clearly states that you must have a court order to spy on Americans. The President says he doesn't need one and won't get one. It is brazen law breaking.

The cowardly Republicans talked a big game about holding the President accountable and then buckled instantly. The big talkers like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe and Mike DeWine all threatened to keep the President in check. Then they turned around and not only voted to make sure this is not investigated but went further to try to make the illegal actions legal in retrospect. The way they put their party above their country sickens me.

These are the same guys who had the nerve to try to impeach Bill Clinton because of their "respect for the rule of law." Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

But on the other hand, the Democrats refuse to be outcowarded. In the face of overwhelming facts -- on their side for the love of God -- they will not back their fellow Senator in pressing forward with a censure.

This is not an impeachment. This is not to throw the guy out of office. This is something that is obvious -- and absolutely necessary. The President says he is going to continue to spy on Americans WITHOUT getting a warrant. I have never seen a clearer violation of a federal law in my life. If the Senate doesn't censure him, he is rightfully going to believe that he is above the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men.

So, why oh why, would the opposition party not support this move to censure -- because they are worried about the effect it is going to have on centrist voters? Are you fucking nuts? George Bush is at 36%!!!!!!!! America can't stand him. They think he is incompetent, that he has blown Iraq and Katrina and Social Security and the budget and the economy. And you're worried that you are going to alienate centrist voters by coming out against him?

This is unjustifiable. Independent voters give the President a 27% approval rating -- that is stunningly low. It's hard to imagine that number being lower for any President at any time. What are you waiting for?!!!

How in the world would it alienate these centrist, independent voters to censure a President they cannot stand?

The Democrats for the 100th time in a row have bought into a nonsense Republican talking point: Centrist voters don't like to criticize the President in any way, after all, look at how it hurt the Republicans to try to impeach Bill Clinton.

President Clinton was a wildly popular president. His approval numbers doubled this President's. That's right -- DOUBLED! On the day of his impeachment, President Clinton had an approval rating of 72%. That is exactly twice as high as Bush's approval rating today.

The Republicans went after a stunningly popular president at a time when the economy and the budget could not have been in better shape. And they went after him based on a sex scandal. Republicans could talk until they're blue in the face about how it was about perjury and the "rule of law," but voters understood then that Ken Starr had just spent millions of dollars on a fishing expedition and found a sex act.

They were on extremely weak ground against a very strong president. Right now, the situation is the exact opposite. Breaking a federal law by going around the court system and Congress is a matter that goes to the heart of our constitutional system. It is a challenge to the very core of our system of government.

We can protect Americans. We can defeat the terrorists. But we must do it without compromising our principles. It is perfectly acceptable to spy on terrorists -- there isn't a court in the country, let alone the very permissive FISA court, that wouldn't give you a warrant based on the smallest piece of evidence. But you cannot say that you will spy on any American you like without getting a court order -- not only is it illegal, but it is un-American.

If we have to get rid of our core values to try to defeat these terrorists, then what have we become?

In reality, we don't have to make these compromises, but this administration is too lazy and too power hungry to do it the right way. They want to cut corners and they want to grab as much power for the executive as possible. Terrorists are an excuse, not the cause.

In the face of this brazen unconstitutional power grab by a wildly unpopular president -- what do the Democrats do? Cower! It is hard not be repulsed by them.

The only prominent politicians I have any respect left for now are the four horsemen of the Democratic Party -- Al Gore, Russ Feingold, Howard Dean and Jack Murtha. They must rebuild this party from the ground up.

The cowards who run it now are more afraid of their own shadows, and the shadow of Fox News Channel, to ever stand up for the people who voted for them in the first place. The whole country is waiting for you stand up to these bullies. Will you, for the love of God and country, do it already?!

Copyright 2006 © HuffingtonPost.com, LLC

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Bush administration has unilaterally repealed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by demanding that Iran cease all uranium enrichment. This action overturns the central principle of the treaty which provides states with the "inalienable right" (NPT phrase) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Two years of intrusive inspections by the UN watchdog agency (IAEA) have not produced "any evidence of nuclear weapons programs" or any diversion of nuclear material. Nevertheless, the US insists that Iran be deprived of the same right that is afforded to every other signatory of the NPT.

What gives Washington the right to rescind an internationally-recognized treaty?

White House press secretary Scott McClellan summarized the administration's view saying, "We've made it clear as have many in the international community that the regime must suspend all enrichment activity. It cannot be allowed to pursue enrichment in any capacity on any scale that would allow the regime to develop technologies needed to develop nuclear weapons."

McClellan's comments are a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty which is not intended to arbitrarily deprive any member of the advantages of nuclear technology. The administration's brazen declaration puts the onus on the 35-member board of the IAEA to reject their demands. Unfortunately, most of them are already cowed by the bullying tactics of the US.

This tells us that the system is broken and cannot be expected to provide solutions to this or any of the other pressing issues that face the world community. The "superpower model" of governance allows one party to quash agreements on global warming, nuclear proliferation, chemical-biological weapons and anything else that isn't in its narrow, subjective interests.

Will the member states cave in on these species-threatening issues too, simply to please Washington?
The Iran Daily; 3-7-06

A last minute compromise by Iran's foreign-minister left IAEA-chief Muhammad ElBaradei believing that a negotiated settlement to the nuclear standoff was possible.

"I am still very much hopeful that that in the next week or so an agreement can be reached," said ElBaradei.
The administration crushed all hope of a settlement immediately.

The US State Department dismissed Iran's concessions and pushed for a quick referral to the UN Security Council.

Why?

What's the hurry? Is the administration looking for solutions or are Pentagon-planners operating on a tight timeline?

Iran's last minute compromise put Condi Rice into a frenzy; firing off a panicky phone call to ElBaradei saying, "The United States cannot support this."

Support what? Negotiation? Deliberation? Peace?

ElBaradei had merely suggested that "the standoff with Iran could be resolved in a week or so". (NY Times) He was optimistic that a deal with Russia to enrich uranium outside of Iran would allay American fears of a hidden nuclear weapons program.

Is that what made Condi so anxious?

The US reaction is instructive in many ways, and seems to indicate that Bush and Co. may have scheduled hostilities for later this month.

Certainly, the propaganda-campaign is already in full-swing with Condi, McClellan, Rumsfeld, Bolton, and Cheney all blasting-away at Iran in the last 48 hours.

The media smokescreen has obscured Iran's attempts at "confidence-building" by agreeing to forgo all "industrial scale" enrichment for two years even though it is allowed under the terms of the NPT.

The strategy now is to divert attention from Iran's 'generous offer' and ratchet up the demagoguery to full-throttle.

In the meantime, the State Dept has been busy moving the goalposts to ensure that Iran will reject its final offer.

Right after ElBaradei expressed optimism about finding a solution, Undersecretary of State, Nicholas Burns, pulled the rug out from under him saying, "The United States will not support any halfway measures. That means full suspension of all nuclear activities, and a return to negotiations on that basis."

"Full suspension"? What right does the US have to ask for full suspension?

This was the first time that US officials admitted they were repealing the NPT and brushing aside the counsel of the IAEA. Burns remarks confirm that the administration is bent on torpedoing the process.

But how will Burns and Condi derail ElBaradei's efforts for peace?

Well, for starters, the State Dept will have to make outrageous, unilateral demands that are so extreme that Iran will never agree to them. That way, the media can say that Iran is "defying the international community" and forcing a referral to the Security Council.

The administration will insist that Iran agree to a moratorium on the production of enriched uranium, comply with additional "unspecified" protocols, and allow for "transparency measures" to accommodate future inspections.

Sound familiar?

These are the same conditions that were placed on Saddam. Iran knows that the US will use these "transparency measures" to ferret through every inch of the country; rummaging through armories, military bases, palaces, barracks, private residences; anywhere that might annoy, provoke, humiliate or harass the current regime.

Then, after months of microscopically-combing through every inch of Iranian sovereign territory, the flummoxed administration will invent some shaky pretext for invasion.

True or false?

Yesterday's ham-fisted maneuverings reveal the administration's true objectives. Bush would like to conceal his attack on Iran behind a mask of international legitimacy. But even without Security Council approval the plan will move forward. The current showdown has nothing to do with "noncompliance" or imaginary nuclear weapons programs. It has everything to do with consolidating the vast resources of the Caspian Basin under the Stars and Stripes and fending off future threats to America's global domination.

Look for Shock-and-Awe "the sequel" sometime in late March.

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

United Arab Emirates is located at the center of an oil-dependent world. This tiny state forms the promontory that juts out into the famed Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world's oil passes every day. Across the narrow straights sits Iran, the next victim on the list of "axis of evil" nations. Any attack on Iran will require that military forces quickly deploy to Dubai to forestall the closing of the straits and the subsequent devastation that would cost to world oil supplies and financial markets.

This is the critical point which is being intentionally concealed by America's diversionary media. This is the reason that President Bush continues to force the Dubai port-plan even though 70% of the American people and Congress resoundingly oppose it.

The importance of UAE as a staging area for future hostilities cannot be overstated. No military strategy can hope to succeed without first establishing a beachhead across the straits in Iran so that the danger of blowing up oil tankers and blocking passage is removed. This tells us that plans for an attack may be on track for late March as originally threatened by Israel.

For its part, Iran has been trying to work out an agreement for enriching uranium with Russia, although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still insists that the NPT provides an "inalienable right" for the peaceful development of nuclear fuel.

Ahmadinejad is right, of course, but it makes little difference. The United States has already brushed aside the Iran-Russia plan and is pushing to have the Security Council censure Iran at its next meeting. So too, talks have broken off between Iran and the EU-3 without producing any positive results. The Euro-leaders are clearly abetting Washington's gambit; paving the way for another war.

Why?

Ahmadinejad has done nothing to help his cause by blurting out absurd statements that have made him look foolish and irrational. (Israel should be "wiped off the map") Still, it's doubtful that anyone could withstand the withering "swift-boating" of the western media once they commence their campaign of character-assassination, the likes of which we have seen many times before.

Ahmadinejad recently said, "We want peace, security, and progress for all the countries of the region, especially our neighbors. History has shown that Iran is a good neighbor. We are just working on nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes." His comments, of course, were not covered in the western media since they conveyed the message of a responsible leader with benign motives rather than the ridiculous blather of madman.

As far as we know, however, Ahmadinejad has been straightforward in his claims. The IAEA has consistently found that Iran has fully complied with the terms of the NPT and that there "is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program".

That hasn't stop Washington, though. The die was cast for war with Iran nearly a decade ago in policy papers drawn up by far-right political ideologues who now control all the levers of foreign policy in the Bush White House.

The situation with Iran is bound to reach crisis-level this week as the IAEA's board off governors is expected to issue a statement expressing its fears that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.

Al Jazeera reported that, "Diplomats in Washington and Vienna said the Security Council could adopt a "presidential declaration" calling on Tehran to heed IAEA calls to suspend uranium enrichment and co-operate with inspections."

A "presidential declaration"?

This is a clear admission that the IAEA has NOT found Iran in violation of its treaty obligations, but is looking for some way to accommodate the United States' insistence that Iran should be publicly scolded by the international body.

Will this public humiliation be used as a pretext for war?

A Western diplomat told AFP the European countries had "decided against a resolution" at this week's board meeting, after hearing from Russia and China that there was no support for one. (Al Jazeera)

Again, this suggests that there is no proof of foul-play.

Nevertheless, European leaders and the United States want to issue a "statement" that would call on Iran to voluntarily suspend all enrichment-activities and submit to more extensive investigations". In other words, Iran is being asked to voluntarily give up all of its rights under the terms of the NPT.

But why would Iran willingly accept being treated like a pariah when there is "no evidence" that it has done anything wrong?

The hypocrisy of this Bush-backed plan is breathtaking. Bush just finished a trip to India and Pakistan where he effectively declared himself the final arbiter of who will get nuclear technology and fuel and who won't. His actions were a clear affront to the IAEA, the UN, the NPT, and the United States Congress, who is supposed to determine such matters as treaties.

Bush has apparently elected himself the god of all-things nuclear.

He has successfully destroyed the already feeble credibility the NPT by capriciously handing out nuclear technology to friends and withholding it from enemies. He turned the notion of evenhandedness and international law into a private fiefdom where science and technology are distributed according to the whims of Washington mandarins.

The NPT is dead.

Will this final assault on international agreements clear the path for war with Iran?

It is hard to say, but the Financial Times reported that, "Iranian activists involved in a classified research project for the marines told the FT the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the Islamic government (Iran) and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault-lines that are splitting Iraq."

So, along with the $85 million Congress just voted to provide for "pro-democracy" movements in Iran; Marine Intelligence is looking for ways to exacerbate ethnic tensions to foment revolution to topple the Tehran government. The plan for "regime change" in Iran is still being aggressively pursued, even though neighboring Iraq is in utter chaos.

The UAE port deal is just more indication that an attack on Iran is forthcoming. Its location is crucial to the success of any American invasion.

For Pentagon warlords Dubai has become the strategic-epicenter of the global resource war. As peace-activist and author Uri Avnery said, "Regimes come and go, rulers rise and fall, ideologies flourish and wither, but geography stands forever. It's geography that decides the basic interest of every state."

All eyes should be focused on Dubai and the tenuous future of the Straits of Hormuz.

Posted by Br. Karekin, BSG at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)