THE BEST OPINION I'VE READ TODAY!

On Native Ground
A DUTY TO SPEAK UP
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.
DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle expressed the views of many in America when he said: "I am saddened that this President failed so miserably
at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life, because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Predictably, the Republicans went berserk over this mild criticism of the failure of the Bush administration to avoid war.
"Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" House Majority Leader Tom DeLay asked. "Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he that he "was disappointed to see his comments. Those comments may not undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."
We'll hear lots more comments like that in the coming days. We're all supposed to shut up and support this war.

My response to this kind of thinking is simple.

I will not keep quiet as I watch the land that I love turn into a rogue nation.

I will not keep quiet as I watch scheming men profit economically and politically from blood shed by others.

I will not keep quiet as I watch as nearly six decades of international law and institutions are crushed in an effort to bring a Pax Americana to the world.

I will not keep quiet as I watch my government manipulate the fears of the citizenry to grab more power for itself.

I will not keep quiet as we wage a war that is - by any objective standard - unjust, immoral, illegal and just plain stupid.

And I will not allow anyone to attempt to silence me, for I and others who are opposed to this unjust, immoral, illegal and stupid war still have the right to dissent and the obligation to speak up when our nation is doing something that is terribly, terribly wrong.

Dissent is the essence of democracy. The suppression of dissent is the essence of tyranny. Those who wish to shut up those who oppose this war do democracy a disservice.

This is a frightening time. Dissent is rarely appreciated in times of peace, but it is equated with treason in a time of war. We are but one terror attack away from martial law and a suspension of the Constitutional guarantees that have been in place for more than two centuries. And that attack became more likely to happen the moment the bombs and cruise missiles started falling on Baghdad.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the federal government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution.
"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Scalia didn't say what rights he believed are constitutionally protected, but said that in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Given the record of Scalia and his conservative allies on the Supreme Court, I would say that the Bush administration has a blank check to do whatever it wishes to our civil liberties in the name of national security.
But we don't have to see this happen. It's not over yet.
The former governor of my adopted state of Vermont, Howard Dean, made these remarks after Bush's Mar. 17 speech that started the final countdown to Gulf War II. Dean is one of the few Democrats running for president that has the guts to challenge the Bush administration on this stupid war. Dean's remarks are words all of us should remember in the coming weeks.
"Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
"This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced - this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so."
As will I. And, I hope, as will every other American who right now is grieving for the death of the principles that once guided this once-great nation.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.

U.S. becoming censored police state?

A Tough time in America for Musicians

Soldiers at the Door
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
March 27, 2003
EXCERPTS:

One day after performing at an anti-war rally, relatives of one of Franti's bandmates got an unexpected visitor. Franti told Democracy Now!:
"His mother received a visit from two plain clothes men from the military and this band member of mine has a sibling who is in the gulf. And they came in and talked to her and said you have a child who's in the Gulf and you have a child who's in this band Spearhead who's part of the 'resistance' in their words. They had pictures of us performing the day before at the rally, they had pictures of us performing at some of our annual concerts that we put on that are in support of peace and human rights."
"They had his flight records for the past several months, they had the names of everybody who works in my office, our management office Guerilla Management, they had his checking account records. They asked his mother a lot of questions about where he was, what he was doing in this place, why he was going here. They confiscated his sibling's CD collection that they had brought over to listen to while they were in the Gulf, and basically were intimidating, told her which members of the press she could talk to and which members of the press she should not speak to…"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And for musicians in particular it's a really hard time. Last week our label received a letter, a mass email from MTV instructing the fact that no videos could be shown that mentioned the words "bombing" or "war." No videos could be shown that had protesters in it. Any footage from military – they gave a list of prior videos that could not be shown, yet MTV has aired videos that show troops saying goodbye to their loved ones and going off to war in a very heroic fashion and troops which are gonna be coming home traumatized, wounded and dead and then be treated and thrown onto the scrap heap of veterans, as we've seen veterans treated in this country.
And at the Academy Awards, there were also letters and talk that went around saying not to speak out. Radio – mainstream radio, Clear Channel in particular, of course – has put the word out not to air songs that are in opposition to the war and in support of peace. Meanwhile, our song "Bomb Da World" which we just put out is now in heavy rotation on a top youth radio station in Australia and in Denmark and it's expected to get added to a lot of stations in other countries.
A few days ago, Democracy Now correspondent Jeremy Scahill and I were at the Ani DiFranco concert at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center to talk about Democracy Now and the importance of independent media in a time of war, just before she went on. And Clear Channel, which owns New Jersey Performing Arts Center, runs that venue, told her no political information could be given out and threatened – it seemed the venue threatened to close down the concert if there was any political speech.
It's incredible, it's outrageous and I think it's something that we all need to be aware of and need to support the art, you know, whether it's music, whether it's films, whether it's dance performances or whatever, this is the last place, apart from Pacifica and a few other stations around the country, where these voices are being heard.
And Clear Channel that runs 1,200 radio stations now, runs many of the big venues in this country for musicians.
So it's important that we call these stations and demand that these voices be heard."

Here's an article related to my blog entry of March 12, 2003:

Date: 2003-03-15
Is Bush Too Christian? Or Not Enough?
Scrutiny over Religion's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 15, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The United States is governed by a dangerous religious fanatic. That's how many opinion writers, domestic and foreign, are describing President George W. Bush.
For Georgie Anne Geyer, writing in the Chicago Tribune on March 7, the president's intention to invade Iraq "is based primarily on religious obsession and visions of personal grandiosity."
"The president of the United States of America," she alleged, "sees himself as part of God's divine plan."
Newsweek dedicated its March 10 cover to Bush's religiosity. And in a separate opinion article, Martin E. Marty acknowledged that "few doubt that Bush is sincere in his faith," but fretted about the president's "evident conviction that he's doing God's will."
Likewise, Jackson Lears, in a March 11 opinion article for the New York Times, worried that Bush's certitude about his carrying out "divine purpose" can promote dangerous simplifications and "slide into self-righteousness." As Lears sees it at the White House, "faith in Providence frees one from having to consider the role of chance in armed conflict, the least predictable of human affairs. Between divine will and American know-how, we have everything under control."
In the London Times on March 1, Stephen Plant wrote: "Bush's supporters have inherited the idea of manifest destiny. For them war on Iraq is not about oil, it is America's next date with salvation."
These and similar criticisms have not gone unanswered, even by Bush foes. In the New York Post on Feb. 18, E.J. Dionne noted that he doesn't have problems in criticizing the president. But he added: "Can we please stop pretending that Bush's regular invocations of the Almighty make him some sort of strange religious fanatic? In this, he is much more typically presidential than he's painted, especially by our friends abroad."
In a Business Week Online commentary, Stan Crock admitted he was not always in agreement over the president's use of religious language, but disagreed that religious fanaticism is behind White House strategy. One of the administration's leading strategists on Iraq, he observed, is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not "speaking in tongues as he talks to General Tommy Franks about war plans."
Fred Barnes, in the March 17 issue of the Weekly Standard, explained that while Bush readily invokes God, he avoids mention of Jesus Christ, and calls for tolerance of all faiths. "His comments have been confined to four specific areas: comforting people in grief, citing faith's ability to improve lives, commenting on the mysterious ways of providence, and mentioning God's concern for humanity."

Road map of statecraft

Yet, some commentaries contend that Bush is setting a dangerous precedent by allowing his faith to influence foreign policy. But even if Christian principles are behind his decisions, this would be nothing new for the country.
Religion and foreign policy, in fact, have long been entwined in the United States, notes Leo P. Ribuffo in a collection of essays, "The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy," edited by Elliott Abrams and published in 2001. Ribuffo, a history professor at George Washington University, explained that foreign policy debates throughout the 19th century included religious themes such as a desire to spread Christianity and fears over undue Catholic influence.
In 1898, President William McKinley told Congress that intervention in Cuba would fulfill American aspirations as a "Christian, peace-loving people," quoted Ribuffo. During World War I a pair of prominent Presbyterians -- President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan -- were "convinced that the United States had a special mission in the world," the essay noted.
Religion continued to play a part in foreign policy debates during World War II and beyond. Yet Ribuffo believes that religion had more of an indirect, and not a determining, role in foreign policy.
In another essay, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington affirms that "politics and religion cannot be disentangled." He notes the high correlation between Christianity and democracy. In many Christian and non-Christian countries, he observes, religion is central to a nation's identity, in both positive and negative forms.
Conventional wisdom in past decades has argued that U.S. foreign policy should avoid entanglement with religion, observed Mark Amstutz, political science professor at Wheaton College. But religion and religious institutions still play a vital role in people's lives. Churches and faith-based organizations also play a role, albeit indirect, in foreign policy, concludes Amstutz. Through offering ethical perspectives and moral values, churches and religious organizations can help formulate a foreign policy "road map," he notes.
A previous collection of essays, published in 1994, agreed that basing U.S. foreign policy on purely material and secular grounds, while ignoring the importance that religion plays in many countries, is a big mistake. In "Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft," experts such as Edward Luttwak and Barry Rubin called for greater focus on the role of religious factors by those responsible for determining foreign policy.
To say that President Bush is motivated in part by his Christian faith does not mean that he is pursuing a policy dictated by the churches. The president worships in the Methodist Church. But, in the opinion of Bishop Melvin Talbert, the United Methodists' top ecumenical official, expressed in a Newsweek online interview March 7, "it's clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a 'just war' theory."
Nor does Bush's religious belief mean that Christians will necessarily agree on political strategy. Former President Jimmy Carter, well known for his invocation of Christian principles when in power, expressed his strong disagreement with the U.S. policy regarding Iraq, in a New York Times article March 9.
Paradoxically, Bush's policy on Iraq is being strongly criticized for ignoring moral principles, while at the same time secular commentators attack him for being a religious fanatic.
Outside observers can only speculate as to how much weight religion plays in the president's decisions. What is clear is that he finds in his faith a source of personal and moral comfort and strength, along with a series of principles that help guide his actions. Other considerations -- political, economic, military, etc. -- also play a role in decisions, of course.
To argue that a politician should decide policy in a religious and moral vacuum is to ignore long-standing American traditions of its presidents and political leaders who have frequently used religious language.
Moreover, seeking to deny the legitimacy of a Christian's political involvement because of his convictions about the common good is a form of "intolerant secularism," observed the doctrinal note on religion and politicians, recently published by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Marginalizing Christianity "would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization," it said.
In his address Jan. 13 to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, John Paul II observed: "In effect, the indispensable professional competence of political leaders can find no legitimation unless it is connected to strong moral convictions." Many Christian leaders -- who think U.S. policy toward Iraq needs more religious input, not less -- might agree on that point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"In the last two years Mr. Cheney and other top officials have gotten it wrong again and again — on energy, on the economy, on the budget. But political muscle has insulated them from any adverse consequences. So they, and the country, don't learn from their mistakes — and the mistakes keep getting bigger."
Paul Krugman/NY Times

PRINCE OF DARKNESS STEPS AWAY....BUT NOT FAR ENOUGH AWAY
"In a brief written statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and made no mention of why Perle resigned. He said he had asked Perle to remain as a member of the board."

The 'weapon of hatred' is facing America

EXCERPT:
"Hatred, more importantly, is the godfather of terrorism. It produces terrorists on the one hand and provides them with support on the other.
Do wise Americans understand the potential results of their country's aggressive policies, not only against the people of Iraq, but against the
entire world, now that it has initiated a destructive war?"

ENTIRE OPINION:
The US has launched it war on Iraq not because the country has developed nuclear weapons, but because it has not. America deals quite differentlywith countries that have succeeded in developing a nuclear potential. America was irritated when India and Pakistan held nuclear tests a few years ago. But all Washington did was issue a few statements condemning the two states, as well as slapping relatively mild sanctions on both of them. These were subsequently lifted when the US realized it needed their cooperation in its war against Al-Qaeda. At that point, having nuclear weapons ceased to be a problem and became a legitimate pursuit.
The world knows that Israel has more than 400 nuclear devices, but America has never protested; Israel is, after all, a law unto itself and is allowed what is denied to others.
Most recently, North Korea announced it was resuming its nuclear program. There is every reason to believe the North Koreans already have a nuclear
capability. So what did Washington do? It chose to settle the issue through diplomacy.
America will never attack Israel, its 51st state but what about the rest? What about India, Pakistan and North Korea? The US will never attack them either, for the simple reason that they already have deterrents. Iraq, on
the other hand, is being attacked precisely because it has no weapons of mass destruction with which to retaliate.Nuclear powers should not have the right to prevent other countries from possessing them; this is immoral. If America were serious in protecting the world from the threat posed by nuclear weapons, it should not distinguish between those who have such weapons now and those who might have them in
future. No Arab country has nuclear weapons; but should America have the right to prevent Arab states from arming themselves to the same level as Israel? How
long should the Arabs be expected to sit by and watch a nuclear-armed Israel threaten them?
Nuclear nonproliferation is impossible to achieve so long as there are countries that possess such weapons. What is required is nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons production, possession and use must be outlawed. This cannot be achieved unless the big five nuclear powers declare their intention to disarm and implement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The least they could do is declare that they would never use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries that have signed up.
This same approach should be adopted regarding other forms of weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons. There are already
international treaties in force that ban the use of such weapons, but many countries including the US continue to stockpile large quantities. What
moral justification is there to use such weapons? It is sad to see the 21st century world moving inexorably towards adopting the law of the jungle, where brute force is the primary means of settling disputes. Is force the only suitable instrument for world domination? What
weapon can smaller and weaker nations employ to respond to the use of overwhelming force?
In his book Le Cri de la Gargouille, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin wrote that force alone could never dominate the world. Leadership,
De Villepin wrote, needs more than brute force. The world had already conceded American leadership before the neo-conservative Bush administration came to power. Each US president has long been considered to be the leader of the "free world." Everyone saw America as the only superpower to oppose, which is in the interests of no
country. Moreover, the US projected itself as a defender of freedom and human rights.
Yet, in an extremely short period of time, the Bush administration managed to turn the world against America, anger old allies, divide the EU and NATO
and paralyze the international coalition against terrorism. All this just to wage war on a country that poses no threat to the US or to its allies.
If a regime needs to be changed to ensure world peace and security, then the regime in Washington is the one that should go. The Bush regime came to
power in dubious circumstances, and since then has been relying on brute force in its conduct.
What can the world do to confront the overwhelming superiority of the US Air Force? Nothing more than face up to it with hatred of America, its policies
and the Bush administration. It is possible that the weapon of hatred will prove more effective and more enduring than that of the American air force.The destruction wrought by American warplanes even if they use their new 10-ton "mother of all bombs," officially called the MOAB, or Massive Ordnance Air Burst can be repaired. Damage to US reputation and credibility needs far longer to put right, and then only after Washington admits the
error of its ways. Hatred, more importantly, is the godfather of terrorism. It produces terrorists on the one hand and provides them with support on the other.
Do wise Americans understand the potential results of their country's aggressive policies, not only against the people of Iraq, but against the
entire world, now that it has initiated a destructive war?
Amman-based Fahed Fanek is an economics and media consultant. He wrote this
commentary for The Daily Star

IDDYBUD'S THOUGHTS--

Anyone with even half a heart and soul wants this war-madness to end.....and never even wanted it to happen to BEGIN with.
It's amazing that many people from the right attempt to lay all these deaths at the left's doorstep (blaming them for protests) when they were the ones calling for the preemptive strike nearly every single day. If this unpopular Hussein-regime falls soon..and let's hope it does, fewer people will have to die..not merely because of Hussein....also because of our OWN responsibility in making the conscious choice to preemptively strike with a coalition of willing.
In any case, hoping for peace through an end to this war is NOT an endorsement of the war as the "right answer". It never has to be equated to that.
I shall always believe, as many others do, that a better way to resolve the threat might very, very well have been possible. The best wisdom of most religious leaders, Nobel Peace laureates, and the majority of international political figures and diplomats around the entire world was that alternatives to a full-scale preemptive military assault on Iraq were not adequately tried, and that this was not a war of last resort.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No one should be very surprised that our vastly superior American fighting force will vanquish this vastly inferior Iraq army. However, one of our nation's absolute worst character-faults is this: actually hoping that our assured success will ERASE all the moral questions!
At the end of the day.. at the end of this bloody war, it won't. Ever.
War is always ugly.. and this current one is showing no sign of being any different.

http://electroniciraq.net/uploads/nada-adman-250.jpg

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO PROTEST WAR DURING WAR?

--A DISCUSSION---- FOUR PEOPLE ON AN INTERNET BOARD--

PERSON 1- "[their protest is] annoying. ... in their persistence in hating Bush and anything associated with him..."

PERSON 2: "The time has come when we can no longer dismiss questions or concerns as merely Bush-Bashing.While that is true for some, it does not reflect the basis for many questions being asked. It is not as much as a minority as you would think. Many are reticent to voice their concerns since they know they will be branded as unpatriotic and not supporting of the troops. No one wants to be perceived as such during this difficult time. Emotion and psychology does play a great role in all of this. That is unavoidable. I have enough faith in my country that hard questions can be asked without destroying it.It is too bad that others feel that our country cannot withstand any scrutiny or discourse at this time."

PERSON 3- "This is NOT the time.
Please refer to following 2 posts:

A. True Patriots: As we all know, the war on Iraq is fully underway. The time for protests against action by the United States is past. The opinions of all Americans, both pro and con, have been heard by our elected representatives and they have made decisions with the full legal authority of the United States government.
This does not imply that there are not or will not be issues that can be debated after this conflict is over. Do weapons of mass destruction exist? How will we handle the problem of the Kurds? How will we rebuild Iraq? How will we set up self-government?
All of these questions will need serious discussion in the times ahead and the voices of Americans should be heard; AT THAT TIME.
However, NOW, voices of protest only give aid and comfort to our enemy. It encourages Iraq to fight on, in hopes that the protests will cause the Government of the United States to turn back from this course of action. This encouragement places our men and women in the service at risk. Every minute that an armed Iraqi fights longer because of the protests of Americans is a minute that they might take the lives of our service people.
For those who have consistently argued that to protest does not mean that someone is not a patriot, I say that you WERE correct but you are NOT now.

------------------

B.- The Necessary War - There are times politics needs to be put aside and this is why a liberal like me supports this war effort. I don't know how much proof of the evil of Saddam Hussein anyone needs but mine is quite satisfied. There seems little doubt he has chemical weapons he plans on using. This is not the sign of a leader who intended on cooperating with the UN. The distruction, or at the very least, the disclosure of all chemical weapons would have been one of the easier things for Hussein to have done with the UN inspectors but he chose otherwise.
There are substantial reports of Iraqis in Southern Iraq rising up against Hussein. That this has yet to happen in Bagdad should come as no surprise though. Hussein has led by terror. He has shown he has no problem with killing his own people so where he is still in power, albeit precarious, should serve as reason why the people of Bagdad haven't risen up against him. They need more, wouldn't you? To his credit Bush has stated that we are closer to the beginning of this war than the end. That's not surprising. Hussein has a substantial military force that needs defeating, not something that happens over night or in 5 days. History is littered with large standing armies being defeated by much smaller ones and the reason is always the same, underestimation and lack of respect for your opponent. I don't believe either of these things is happening now. I want this war to end quickly but properly."

MY OWN REPLY: "I think this is a time when it is most important to respectfully make your case.
We individual Americans are free to express what we morally believe and we each possess the opportunity to do so in a civilly disobedient manner.
The onset of war with Iraq did not demonstrate a failure of the peace movement, but rather the failure of democracy. We were dismissed as a focus group while thousands of bogus polls with dubious statistics came out each day before the war began..and continue today.
Millions of people around our nation have become engaged in active citizenship against the policies of pre-emptive war for resolving the threats to peace and security.
It is not time to gag that movement,
but to civilly build upon it.
Rather than withdrawing from collective action, it is a time to reinforce what we morally believe as American citizens. There are a lot of feelings we each have to individually work through before we decide how we will protest, however.
We each must learn and contemplate differences between our grief and our despair, between hope and hostility.
Civil disobedience is key to a peace movement and wanting for peace does not equate to desiring one hair on one of our serviceperson's heads to be harmed. The peace movement is stronger now..not weaker. Peace action has just begun."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MORE ABOUT THE PAKISTAN POWDERKEG-
Stratfor.com
In Pakistan, a Delicate Political Dance
Summary
Pakistan's main opposition Islamist coalition, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has declared March 28 a "nationwide protest day," and it plans massive rallies in Peshawar and Quetta shortly thereafter. MMA has called for the removal of U.S. forces from Pakistan and warned that Washington will target Pakistan after it defeats Iraq. But both the MMA and the Pakistani government are walking carefully to prevent tipping their hand to the other.
Analysis
After holding a large-scale and peaceful march in Lahore on March 23 to denounce U.S. military action in Iraq, Pakistan's main opposition Islamist coalition, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has declared March 28 a "nationwide protest day." Coalition leaders also plan follow-on marches in Peshawar on March 30 and in Quetta on April 2. The MMA is using the demonstrations to strengthen its position domestically and to challenge the ruling Pakistani Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam) (PML-QA), which backs President Pervez Musharraf.
But while the MMA calls on the U.S. military and FBI personnel to leave Pakistan and warns that Washington will set its sights on the country after it defeats Iraq, the coalition is still being careful not to overstep its limits. The Musharraf government, too, is carefully balancing its relations with the United States, its anti-war stance and its handling of the MMA. Both the MMA and the government are playing a delicate game -- one that could be tipped into chaos should either side misstep."

"While birds can fly, only humans can argue. Argument is the affirmation of our being. It is the principal instrument of human intercourse. Without argument the species would perish. As a subtle suggestion, it is the means by which we aid another. As a warning, it steers us from danger. As exposition, it teaches. As an expression of creativity, it is the gift of ourselves. As a protest, it struggles for justice. As a reasoned dialogue, it resolves disputes. As an assertion of self, it engenders respect. As an entreaty of love, it expresses our devotion. As a plea, it generates mercy. As charismatic oration it moves multitudes and changes history. We must argue -- to help, to warn, to lead, to love, to create, to learn, to enjoy justice, to be." Gerry Spence

The War Comes Alive in the Living Room
Maha Akeel, Arab News Staff

JEDDAH, 26 March 2003 — The streets of Jeddah have been unusually quiet throughout the day and night over the last few days. People wake up to images of war on their television screen. Those who stayed up all night in the run up to the war on Iraq, saw the strikes on Baghdad live. But how “live” was it?
No matter how emotionally involved and mentally focused we are on those ugly scenes of destruction, they remain scenes from a distant place, almost like watching a movie. Modern information technology gives us instant, clear pictures of events as they are unfolding on the ground in a real place far removed from us. Modern warfare technology gives us precision bombing and weapons of mass destruction operated by button as the military men and women sit comfortably in their bunkers.
Yes, the hot bunkers, heavy equipment and cumbersome gear are comfortable compared to the old days of face-to-face combat when a man killed another man and saw the blood, smelled the decaying flesh and heard the awful noises of the dying and the equally awful silence of the dead.
We know that US President George W. Bush has never experienced war. But his ignorance does not excuse his indifference. On the other hand, we also know that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has no conscience, causing the death and destruction of his people and that his country is ultimately irrelevant to him. So who do we blame for this terrible, unjustifiable, unnecessary and unprovoked war?
We listen to the political analysts, the military experts, and the economic gurus, and it all seems like a show to us. But the fact remains that there are people dying, and that they may be fortunate compared to those who are maimed and will suffer life-long disability or illness. It is a shame that we can watch in awe as all this power destroys Baghdad, and forget that it is a city with a long history of civilization and culture that should be protected by all means and by the whole international community.
Unfortunately, all the millions of protesters around the world could not stop a few warmongers from executing their plans.
Watching the events on television with some family members, the reaction varied. The grandmother’s eyes filled up with tears thinking of the innocent lives particularly of children. “War is always terrible no matter what the reasons for it,” she said.
The 12-year old boy clapped his hands in excitement. “They’ve blown up a building,” he exclaimed. To him it’s like a video game, he does not comprehend the reality of it.
The 14-year old girl realized what was going on but what she really cared about was whether her school would be closed. The rest watched mostly in silence, except for a few words of grief for the Iraqis, a few words of anger toward Saddam and few words of disappointment for the US.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PRINCE OF DARKNESS SELLING U.S. OUT TO THE CHINESE---WILL THE GOP HEROES CALL HIM ON THIS --"A LA CLINTON"?? :)

Harvesting Pearls

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, March 26, 2003; Page A15

There's been some to-do of late about Defense Department adviser Richard N. Perle working to get federal approval for bankrupt Global Crossing Ltd.'s sale to two Asian companies, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Singapore Technologies Telemedia.
Perle is selling his services at bargain-basement rates: $125,000 for his time, and $600,000 if the sale is successful. Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, told the New York Times's Stephen Labaton that there's no conflict of interest or other ethical problem as long as he doesn't give advice to the board on something in which he has an interest. The deal must be approved by a government committee that reviews foreign investment in this country.
But Perle's going to have to do some very heavy lifting to snag those 600 large. The FBI and Pentagon reportedly are opposed to the sale because a Chinese company would control Global Crossing's state-of-the-art fiber-optic network, which is used by the federal government.

An even greater hurdle doubtless will be intense opposition to his effort on the Hill, most likely from a number of influential GOP senators, perhaps Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Trent Lott (Miss.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.).
About 31/2 years ago, that group and others pushed for a resolution asking Panama to review a contract it awarded for operating container ship terminals at both ends of the canal. That contract had been awarded to none other than Hutchison Whampoa, which Lott said at the time had "reported Chinese military and intelligence ties."
"It alarms me that these Chinese companies, frankly, they do what the government tells them to do," Lott said then at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to look into this alarming situation, which he had said "could, in fact, be a threat to our national security."
"This administration [the Clinton administration] is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas," Lott wrote the Pentagon, saying, "We have given the farm away without a shot being fired."
Former defense secretary Caspar W. Weinberger told the committee that the canal's operations would always be threatened if the Chinese controlled the ports.
Hutchison Whampoa, is controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. He and his empire, according to the Miami Herald, are linked to several companies known as fronts for Chinese military and intelligence agencies. One of the companies has been indicted for smuggling automatic weapons into the United States for sale to Los Angeles street gangs, the paper reported and "Li himself has been accused of helping to finance several deals in which military technology was transferred from American companies to the Chinese Army."
Nothing has happened at the canal, of course, but that may be only because the Chicoms haven't issued orders for their troops there to march north. Remember, it's only a two-day drive from there to Harlingen, Tex. -- in a Ferrari.
And if the Senate was worried about Communist Chinese control of the canal, imagine how senators will feel when they find out about possible commie control of a huge chunk of the communications infrastructure, not of Panama, but of the American homeland.
Copyright 2003NYTimesCompanies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :) :) :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who Seeks to Profit From This War?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A665-2003Mar20.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=top

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12239%2C919897%2C00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24074-2003Mar25.html

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/F68AFEB9F4C424BB86256CF100533492?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2CBILL%2CLAMBRECHT&headline=Iraq's+oil+fields+garner+intense+interest

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/business/0303/23holsen.html

AND AFTER THE WAR, WHO WILL REBUILD AMERICA????????????????

"Who could have guessed that barely a decade later the United States, forsaking the very legal, democratic traditions that were its most admired characteristics, would be going to war to impose its will by force upon an alarmed, angry, frightened world united against it?"

A fantastic article by Jonathan Schell/ The Nation.

Excerpt:
"The tragedy of America in the post-cold war era is that we have proved unequal to the responsibility that our own power placed upon us. Some of us became intoxicated with it, imagining that we could rule the world. Others of us--the Democratic Party, Congress, the judiciary, the news media--abdicated our obligation to challenge, to check and to oppose, letting the power-hungry have their way. The government of the United States went into opposition against its own founding principles, leaving it to the rest of the world to take up our cause. The French have been better Americans than we have. Because the Constitution, though battered, is still intact, we may still have time and opportunity to recoup. But for now, we will have to pay the price of our weakness. The costs will be heavy, first of all for the people of Iraq but also for others, including ourselves. The international order on which the common welfare, including its ecological and economic welfare, depends has sustained severe damage. The fight for "freedom" abroad is crippling freedom at home. The war to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has provoked that very proliferation in North Korea and Iran. More ground has already been lost in the field of proliferation than can be gained even by the most delirious victory in Baghdad. Former friends of America have been turned into rivals or foes. The United States may be about to win Iraq. It has already lost the world."

News Release

SEPTEMBER 11th FAMILIES FOR PEACEFUL TOMORROWS STATEMENT ON THE IRAQ WAR

Information:
Colleen Kelly, 646-408-5676
Kelly Campbell, 415-518-1991
David Potorti, 919-608-7322

"The past is prophetic in that it asserts that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows. One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. How much longer must we play at deadly war games before we heed the plaintive pleas of the unnumbered dead and maimed of past wars?"

--Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows condemns unconditionally the illegal, immoral, and unjustified US-led military action in Iraq. As family members of September 11th victims, we know how it feels to experience "shock and awe," and we do not want other innocent families to suffer the trauma and grief that we have endured. While we also condemn the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, it does not justify the brutality, death and destruction being visited upon Iraq and its citizens by our own government.

What others may view as a policy decision, we see clearly as the murder of innocent people. Death among the civilian population in Iraq will be immediate: the result of bombing that kills indiscriminately. Especially at risk are the children who make up 50% of Iraq's population. Death will also come later, from malnutrition and disease caused by the interruption of vital relief services and the destruction of infrastructure for supplying food and medicine. More deaths will occur years from now, as a result of the horrendous environmental impacts of waging war using lethal contaminants such as depleted uranium, a substance banned by the European Union.

We are also concerned about this war’s consequences for America's military personnel, brave women and men who enlisted to defend our country, only to find themselves sent to fight an unjust war of aggression. Our prayers are with them and their families, and our hopes are that they will return soon.

Meanwhile, American citizens will bear the staggering costs of military action and the resulting reduction in spending on domestic infrastructure and social programs. We assert that Congress's lack of accountability for this war is a serious threat to our Democracy. We call on the House and the Senate to fulfill their Constitutional roles, both as representatives of the public will and as a check against the abuse of power by the Executive branch. And we call on them to defend America from all of the threats—economic, political, and military—that gather against it.

This war will not make America safer. On the contrary, it has already resulted in heightened anti-American sentiment around the world, and is likely to promote further terrorist attacks, not just today, but years from today. It will not protect American families from another September 11th

Therefore, members of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows will continue to oppose this war and to draw attention to its civilian victims. We will demand compensation for them, as we did for innocent civilians killed and injured by our bombs in Afghanistan. These casualties must be included as we tally the costs of choosing to wage war.

Finally, we will keep the faith with millions of people across the United States and around the world who have formed a truly international community favoring peace and declaring this war immoral. We are confident that, in spite of the events of today, the wisdom of their views will prevail as the 21st century unfolds, and as we continue to build a global community that honors humanity, keeps families whole, and renders war obsolete.

Candidates tangle over Iraq
John Edwards and John Kerry dispute deception accusations by Howard Dean.
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
03/25/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean on Monday accused rivals John Edwards and John Kerry of being intentionally deceptive about their positions supporting the Bush administration's war with Iraq.

"It seems to me he has changed his position," Dean said of Edwards. "Senator Kerry to this day continu0es to be ambivalent about his position."

Edwards and Kerry said they have been clear and consistent on Iraq. They accused Dean, who opposes the war, of distorting their positions for political purposes.

Dean was in Des Moines on Monday for the second day of a two-day campaign trip.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While Baghdad burns, the real powderkeg edges up closer to explosion

Excerpts:
"ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – US forces may have ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan more than a year ago, but their influence still permeates across the border in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province. Last weekend, a new fundamentalist government there announced plans to establish a version of sharia (Islamic law) similar in many ways to the rigid code practiced by the Taliban."

"In a state founded on religious ideology, it is impossible to revert laws or any other thing for that matter, that's brought forward and imposed on the basis of religion. Questioning the law becomes questioning the religion" says a human rights activist, Amir Murtaza.
Observers say fundamentalists have intentionally decided to go ahead with their plans, hoping to avoid criticism while the world is diverted toward Iraq."


In the 1980s China transferred the key technologies required to give Pakistan the capability to build an "Islamic Bomb".
"China now faces a nuclear India to its south-west, a potentially nuclear Japan and South Korea to its east, and a Taiwan ready to go nuclear to its south - apart from the Russian arsenal to the north, and an American capability everywhere. Arizona Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican, said on Jan. 5 that the best way to make it in China’s interests to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to change his mind on nuclear weapons would be “to remove our objections to Japan developing nuclear weapons”. Almost certainly an early sign of things to come."

The prospect for the future spread of nuclear technology from Pakistan is increasing as the political power balance shifts towards Islamist parties. President Musharraf and his spokesman Lt. Gen. Rashid Qureshi have stated that Pakistan would never proliferate such technology; Musharraf has personally given a 400% non-proliferation guarantee to US Secretary of State Colin Powell and a 500% assurance to the Japanese government (a differential that has perplexed some official Japanese observers). Yet over the past decade, Pakistan has either transferred or proposed to transfer nuclear technology and/or know-how to all three countries listed in US President George Bush's "axis of evil" - Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Some Pakistani scientists are currently under detention on suspicion of supplying information on how to build nuclear weapons to Al Qaida and the Taliban, while others are reported to have fled to Burma (another "rogue" state), or simply "disappeared" to unknown destinations.

I think we need to carefully consider the daily-changing reasons, fabrications and innuendo our own government has thrown out into the ether in order to justify this war.
The visions of cheering, dancing sugar-plums and Iraqis waiting with open arms and open hearts for their liberation.
People were led to believe this would be the case. The media reinforced that vision every day.

It just isn't so.

A lot of things the government has been telling us haven't turned out to be "so".

When we fail to question, we fail as a democracy.

We just can't assume a sense of blind loyalty and think our best interests are at the heart of all this.

HOWARD DEAN ON THE IRAQ WAR ..this week in Iowa.

"Dean declined to say whether he supported the bombing of Baghdad, but renewed his criticism of the war. "It's a conflict I prefer we not be in. I think we could have contained Saddam Hussein without resorting to a pre-emptive strike," he said.
Dean said he will offer his support for American troops while criticizing Bush for attacking Iraq.
"The president has made his choice, and I certainly think we want to be in a position where we don't criticize the soldiers because they are there doing what their duty is under the Constitution," he said.


STATEMENT FROM HOWARD DEAN on Friday
"I'm very hopeful there will be minimal civilian casualties. Any time you carpet-bomb a place, you risk killing an enormous number of innocent people. Once the president went in, which as you know I do not support, I was hoping this would go very quickly and with minimal civilian casualties. It looked like we were making pretty good progress. You never want to see wholesale carnage of civilians."
Gov. Howard Dean



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Outcome of war will dictate impact on Iowa caucuses
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
DesMoines Register
03/21/2003

Depending on the war's outcome, the Democrats running for president in Iowa could be helped or haunted by their positions on Iraq.
If the war goes well, it's good news for the House and Senate members who cast their lot behind the war last fall by supporting broad authority for President Bush to launch an attack.
But an unsuccessful invasion could cripple their chances to win the Democratic nomination to challenge Bush in 2004.
"The war's successes will fade quickly, but failures will mark those seen as being complicit," said Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller.
The odds favor those who supported the resolution, he said.
"It's got to go on for months, with high American casualties, for that to occur," Mueller said of the disaster scenario, "and, by all estimates, the war is supposed to be over in a couple weeks."
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and U.S. Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut all voted for a resolution last fall giving President Bush the authority to pursue war without United Nations backing.
On the other side, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York opposed the Bush war resolution.
Democrats backing the president already were getting the cold shoulder from some caucus activists weeks before Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"It is certainly causing strong feelings among a lot of Democratic activists," said caucus activist Teri Goodmann, the former Dubuque County Democratic Party chairwoman. "It's forced me to look for someone who does have experience in foreign relations."
Caucus voters tend to be a little more liberal than the average Democrat, caucus experts say. To cast a vote in a caucus, one has to be willing to attend a precinct meeting, typically on a cold winter's night. It's no place for the faint-hearted.
Discovery by troops of atrocities linked to Saddam or evidence he obstructed U.N. weapons inspectors would make the anti-war candidates' calls for continuing inspections and diplomacy seem out of touch, said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University.
"If the war goes well, it could help the Democrats who sounded most like George Bush. If it doesn't go well, it could benefit someone like Howard Dean or Bob Graham," she said.
Bystrom doesn't expect a clear-cut political winner or loser to emerge, based strictly on the war. But she says the war has cast a shadow over the early caucus campaign.
"This is a whole different election than we've had in many years because of the situation with Iraq," she said.
Retired Drake University political science professor Hugh Winebrenner said not since George McGovern's 1972 campaign have anti-war Democrats been such a factor in setting the tone of the Iowa caucuses.
"In 1972, McGovern attempted to make an issue of the (Vietnam) war," and finished second to U.S. Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, building momentum that helped propel the South Dakota senator to his party's nomination, said Winebrenner, a caucus historian.
The war could have another potential impact on the caucuses. It could expand the field of candidates.
Retired NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark is a good bet to get in if the war goes poorly, Bystrom said. Clark, who retired in 2000, has spent much of the past year as a guest military expert on CNN, traveling with an Arkansas financial firm and meeting influential Democrats. He has said he is not a candidate, but is widely believed to be considering a run. Clark's staff made introductory calls to Iowa Democratic operatives late last year.
"I think we are going to see people getting into this race after Iraq," Bystrom said. "We might see people drop out if it goes well and Bush is flying high. We just don't know right now."
If the Iraqi invasion goes well, it's possible that by the time of the caucuses, scheduled for Jan. 19, 2004, war won't be a dominant campaign issue.
Winebrenner said no one knows better than President Bush's father how quickly a successful war can fade from the minds of American voters. The elder Bush enjoyed huge popularity at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, but lost his re-election bid a year later.
"Obviously, victory in the Gulf didn't have much of a lasting effect for Bush senior," Winebrenner said. "A similar scenario is possible now."
Copyright 2003DesMoinesRegister

From the "You Know You're Living in a Parellel Universe When..."-Department:

PRINCE OF DARKNESS THANKS GOD FOR DEATH OF UN

Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.
A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.
This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".
But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.
In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.
Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.
This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.
Copyright 2003GuardianCoUK