WAR'S A DIFFICULT BUSINESS WHEN YOU'RE FACING THE ENEMY--AND HE'S TEN YEARS OLD.
Killing a child: 'I did what I had to do'
08.04.2003
REUTERS
When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a rocket propelled grenade
off the body of a dead paramilitary, US Army Private Nick Boggs made
his decision.
He unloaded machinegun fire and the boy, whom he puts at about 10
years old, fell dead on a garbage-strewn stretch of waste land at
Karbala.
Boggs, a softly spoken 21-year-old former hunting guide from Alaska,
says he knew when he joined the army 18 months ago he might someday
have to make a decision like that.
He hoped it would never come and, although he has no regrets about
opening fire, it is clear he'd rather it wasn't a child he killed.
"I did what I had to do. I don't have a big problem with it but anyone
who shoots a little kid has to feel something," he said after fierce
weekend fighting in this Shi'ite Muslim holy city that left dozens of
Iraqis and one American soldier dead.
As US troops take the Iraq war out of the desert and into the main
cities, they are increasingly seeing children in their line of fire.
Many are innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time and
military officers concede that some may have been killed in artillery
or mortar fire, or shot down by soldiers whose judgment is impaired in
the "fog of war".
But others are apparently being used as fighters or more often as
scouts and weapons collectors. US officers and soldiers say that turns
them into legitimate targets.
"I think they're cowards," Boggs said of the parents or Fedayeen
paramilitaries who send out children to the battlefield.
"I think they thought we wouldn't shoot kids. But we showed them we
don't care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and
keep ourselves safe."
The boy he killed was with another child of around the same age when
they reached for the RPG and came under fire. Boggs thinks the second
boy was also hit but other soldiers think he escaped and that he
dragged his friend's dead body away.
Boggs' platoon leader, Lieutenant Jason Davis, said the young soldier
struggles with what happened even if he had no choice but to shoot.
"Does it haunt him? Absolutely. It haunts me and I didn't even pull
the trigger," he said. "It blows my mind that they can put their
children into that kind of situation."
Although Boggs plays down suggestions he was upset by the incident, he
also says his view of combat has changed since Saturday, when his
platoon came under intense RPG and rifle fire from the moment they
entered Karbala until way after nightfall.
Before - like many young soldiers - he says he was anxious to get his
first "kill" in a war. Now, he seems more mature.
"It's not about killing people. It's about accomplishing a mission ...
When we talk, we don't say how scared we were. But we found out how
you feel when an RPG hits the wall just up from you and you think
'Damn, I could have been right there'," he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567660897.html
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=6796
EXCERPT:
"This is a reading of an extraordinary document by the Project for the New American Century, no less than a blueprint for US military world rule. In order to convince the American public to support these policies, the authors say, a new Pearl Harbor would be needed to speed up the transformation of the US military into a Global Strike Force. By coincidence or design a year after the document was written the events of 9/11 became that "catalyzing event."
The poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti says in his introduction:
There is a document everybody should read. Developed by the Project for the New American Century it is called: Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New American Century. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXCERPT:
"This is a reading of an extraordinary document by the Project for the New American Century, no less than a blueprint for US military world rule. In order to convince the American public to support these policies, the authors say, a new Pearl Harbor would be needed to speed up the transformation of the US military into a Global Strike Force. By coincidence or design a year after the document was written the events of 9/11 became that "catalyzing event."
The poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti says in his introduction:
There is a document everybody should read. Developed by the Project for the New American Century it is called: Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New American Century. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, May 05, 2003
Are Saddam's forces now in Vermont?????
Get THIS one!!! YIKES!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2642368,00.html
Get THIS one!!! YIKES!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2642368,00.html
Pentagon dominates US foreign policy with dubious intelligence
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030504185707.eazyi7tf.html
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030504185707.eazyi7tf.html
FIRM INVOLVED IN BUSH'S FLORIDA THEFT GETS MILLIONS FROM BUSH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,949696,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,949696,00.html
Layoffs Grew 71 Percent in April
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20030505/bs_nm/economy_usa_jobs_challenger_dc
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20030505/bs_nm/economy_usa_jobs_challenger_dc
A VIRTUAL PANDORA'S BOX
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/inside/la-war-rebuild5may05,1,1251302.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
U.S. Struggles in Quicksand of Iraq
Continuing disorder is fueling skepticism and allowing competing
political forces to fill the void.
By Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD --
Nearly a month after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, the reconstruction
effort is struggling to gain visibility and credibility, crime is a
continuing problem, Iraqis desperate for jobs and security are
becoming angry and the transition to democracy promised by President
Bush seems rife with risk.
The continuing disorder in a country accustomed to the repressive but
absolute stability provided by Saddam Hussein is fueling at least a
deep skepticism about U.S. intentions and at worst a dangerous
anti-Americanism.
As competing religious, tribal and territorial political forces move
to fill the void, they threaten to divide the country rather than
unite it.
Interviews with political analysts, exile figures and ordinary Iraqis
throughout the country, coupled with developments on the ground,
indicate that the United States' power to control Iraq and shape its
future is increasingly threatened by the pervasive uncertainty.
On many fronts, U.S. officials appear to have been unprepared for what
awaited them in Iraq, from mundane concerns such as how to cope with
the lack of telephones to philosophical questions such as how to
respond to the desire of many Iraqis for an Islamic state.
"The Americans and the British became obsessed with getting rid of
Saddam; they thought he was responsible for all the catastrophes in
Iraq," said Wamid Nadmi, a political science professor at Baghdad
University.
"But they have opened a Pandora's box."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/inside/la-war-rebuild5may05,1,1251302.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
U.S. Struggles in Quicksand of Iraq
Continuing disorder is fueling skepticism and allowing competing
political forces to fill the void.
By Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD --
Nearly a month after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, the reconstruction
effort is struggling to gain visibility and credibility, crime is a
continuing problem, Iraqis desperate for jobs and security are
becoming angry and the transition to democracy promised by President
Bush seems rife with risk.
The continuing disorder in a country accustomed to the repressive but
absolute stability provided by Saddam Hussein is fueling at least a
deep skepticism about U.S. intentions and at worst a dangerous
anti-Americanism.
As competing religious, tribal and territorial political forces move
to fill the void, they threaten to divide the country rather than
unite it.
Interviews with political analysts, exile figures and ordinary Iraqis
throughout the country, coupled with developments on the ground,
indicate that the United States' power to control Iraq and shape its
future is increasingly threatened by the pervasive uncertainty.
On many fronts, U.S. officials appear to have been unprepared for what
awaited them in Iraq, from mundane concerns such as how to cope with
the lack of telephones to philosophical questions such as how to
respond to the desire of many Iraqis for an Islamic state.
"The Americans and the British became obsessed with getting rid of
Saddam; they thought he was responsible for all the catastrophes in
Iraq," said Wamid Nadmi, a political science professor at Baghdad
University.
"But they have opened a Pandora's box."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-newsbrief,0,4876546.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines
"WHAR'S THE BOOM????"
"War's Quick End Produces No Economic Boom "
WASHINGTON (AP) --
The hope had been that a fast and successful war in Iraq would set off
an economic boom that would quickly translate into falling
unemployment for American households and fatter order books for U.S.
businesses.
But so far, the boom has been a bust. U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad
in the second week of April, but the military victory did not stem a
wave of new job layoffs in the United States.
"WHAR'S THE BOOM????"
"War's Quick End Produces No Economic Boom "
WASHINGTON (AP) --
The hope had been that a fast and successful war in Iraq would set off
an economic boom that would quickly translate into falling
unemployment for American households and fatter order books for U.S.
businesses.
But so far, the boom has been a bust. U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad
in the second week of April, but the military victory did not stem a
wave of new job layoffs in the United States.
Friday, May 02, 2003
A "DIFFERENT LIGHT", EH?
Excerpt:
"President George Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is now acknowledging that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is less clear-cut, and probably more difficult to establish, than the White House portrayed before the war.
She has no doubt that the US-led coalition, assisted by experts from Britain and Australia, will find Iraq's WMD programs. But for the first time, Dr Rice is saying publicly that it is less likely many actual weapons will be found. Rather, she described the programs as being hidden in so-called "dual use" infrastructure. In other words, chemicals and biological agents could be in plants, factories and laboratories capable of being used for legal and prohibited purposes.
Almost three weeks since the fall of Baghdad, with senior Iraqi scientists and officials in US custody, no chemical or biological weapons stockpiles have been found. Neither has any evidence been uncovered that Iraq had restarted a nuclear program.
In explaining the gap between the prewar and postwar claims on Iraq's WMD, Dr Rice said the US was now seeing the programs in a different light.
Monday, April 28, 2003
In retrospect, Dr. Nayyer Ali was not far off the mark:
**(And if the people of the US are not reaping the benefit, who IS? )**
"By Dr. Nayyer Ali
December 13, 2002
Iraq and Oil
Ignore everything that is going on with the weapons inspectors. Bush will strike Saddam in the first three months of 2003 and the US will find itself occupying Iraq. The inspections game is being played out of a desire to appease the rest of the world by creating at least an impression of showing deference to the UN Security Council, but the US will not be constrained by anything the weapons inspectors find or don¹t find.
Iraq is a vast country, and a few weapons inspectors cannot possibly thoroughly inspect the place, even if they had years. The vast majority of the finds that the inspectors had in the early and middle 1990s were based on tips and information gathered from high-ranking Iraqi defectors. Very little was found by driving around the country and looking in random buildings of interest. Which is why Saddam is willing to comply with the current inspection regime and also why the US has no faith in it.
Given the coming war, there is much confusion as to why the US has decided to pursue it. The reasons are complex, but one that is put forth by many critics of US policy is of course oil. Iraq has oil reserves of 113 billion barrels, which is the second largest reserve in the world, and almost half of the leader, Saudi Arabia. Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq¹s production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day.
Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.
What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.
The benefit to the American economy will be 75 billion dollars, which is not huge, but is certainly significant. Lower global oil prices will lead to faster growth in most developed and developing nations, which will benefit American exporters selling to these economies.
Some have argued that the US wants to take over the oil fields. Actually, that is of little value to the American economy. Even if the US simply confiscated all of Iraq’s oil and sold it, it would only add about 20 billion dollars to the US treasury each year. In addition, the US would have to pay for maintenance and investment in the fields, and provide security.
20 billion dollars is a lot of money, but given that the US government spending is over 150 times greater than that, and the entire US economy is 500 times larger, the 20 billion is just pocket change. In the last twelve months, in which the economy has been growing slowly, the US still added over 300 billion dollars to its economy. So the idea that the US is going to war to literally grab barrels of crude does not withstand analysis.
On the flip side, the war itself is projected to cost 50-100 billion dollars. In addition the occupation after the war will take at least 50,000 peacekeepers, each of which cost 100,000 dollars to maintain per year, which adds up to 5 billion dollars per year. And that is if everything goes without a hitch. The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment can take place."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**(And if the people of the US are not reaping the benefit, who IS? )**
"By Dr. Nayyer Ali
December 13, 2002
Iraq and Oil
Ignore everything that is going on with the weapons inspectors. Bush will strike Saddam in the first three months of 2003 and the US will find itself occupying Iraq. The inspections game is being played out of a desire to appease the rest of the world by creating at least an impression of showing deference to the UN Security Council, but the US will not be constrained by anything the weapons inspectors find or don¹t find.
Iraq is a vast country, and a few weapons inspectors cannot possibly thoroughly inspect the place, even if they had years. The vast majority of the finds that the inspectors had in the early and middle 1990s were based on tips and information gathered from high-ranking Iraqi defectors. Very little was found by driving around the country and looking in random buildings of interest. Which is why Saddam is willing to comply with the current inspection regime and also why the US has no faith in it.
Given the coming war, there is much confusion as to why the US has decided to pursue it. The reasons are complex, but one that is put forth by many critics of US policy is of course oil. Iraq has oil reserves of 113 billion barrels, which is the second largest reserve in the world, and almost half of the leader, Saudi Arabia. Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq¹s production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day.
Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.
What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.
The benefit to the American economy will be 75 billion dollars, which is not huge, but is certainly significant. Lower global oil prices will lead to faster growth in most developed and developing nations, which will benefit American exporters selling to these economies.
Some have argued that the US wants to take over the oil fields. Actually, that is of little value to the American economy. Even if the US simply confiscated all of Iraq’s oil and sold it, it would only add about 20 billion dollars to the US treasury each year. In addition, the US would have to pay for maintenance and investment in the fields, and provide security.
20 billion dollars is a lot of money, but given that the US government spending is over 150 times greater than that, and the entire US economy is 500 times larger, the 20 billion is just pocket change. In the last twelve months, in which the economy has been growing slowly, the US still added over 300 billion dollars to its economy. So the idea that the US is going to war to literally grab barrels of crude does not withstand analysis.
On the flip side, the war itself is projected to cost 50-100 billion dollars. In addition the occupation after the war will take at least 50,000 peacekeepers, each of which cost 100,000 dollars to maintain per year, which adds up to 5 billion dollars per year. And that is if everything goes without a hitch. The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment can take place."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEY ALL WANT A PIECE OF THE "CAKE"
Indian companies eye Iraqi oil contracts
Excerpt:
"NEW DELHI, Apr 27: Indian industry is vying for a pie in the billions of dollars worth of Iraqi oil industry reconstruction cake by taking sub-contracts for refinery revamp and pipeline construction.
E&P Company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Oil Refiner Indian Oil, Engineering Consultancy Firm Engineers India Ltd, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and construction major Larsen and Toubro together with help from Ministry of External Affairs are vying for sub-contracts from the main contracts which are likely to be for US and British firms."
"Saddam’s Government has, since the late 1990s, signed production sharing or development agreements with oil companies from Russia, France, China, Romania, Vietnam, Syria and Turkey for the rehabilitation and development of vast swathes of its upstream oil wealth. Given the UN embargo, the companies have not acted on the contracts.
But in recent weeks, the US has signalled that its military-led interim authority will be the dispenser of oil field contracts. It already has awarded a repair and restoration deal, without competitive bids, with the Kellogg, Brown & Root unit of oil field services major Halliburton. That is tentatively estimated at up to 7 billion dollars in revenues for Halliburton or its sub-contractors, but might not necessarily interfere with the other international PSCS.
Iraqi opposition figures also have made little secret of their desire to void the contracts from the Saddam era and sign new upstream deals.
Ramachandran said the US military is expected to solicit competitive bids in the next two months to modernise and update Iraqi’s oil infrastructure.
Indian companies eye Iraqi oil contracts
Excerpt:
"NEW DELHI, Apr 27: Indian industry is vying for a pie in the billions of dollars worth of Iraqi oil industry reconstruction cake by taking sub-contracts for refinery revamp and pipeline construction.
E&P Company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Oil Refiner Indian Oil, Engineering Consultancy Firm Engineers India Ltd, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and construction major Larsen and Toubro together with help from Ministry of External Affairs are vying for sub-contracts from the main contracts which are likely to be for US and British firms."
"Saddam’s Government has, since the late 1990s, signed production sharing or development agreements with oil companies from Russia, France, China, Romania, Vietnam, Syria and Turkey for the rehabilitation and development of vast swathes of its upstream oil wealth. Given the UN embargo, the companies have not acted on the contracts.
But in recent weeks, the US has signalled that its military-led interim authority will be the dispenser of oil field contracts. It already has awarded a repair and restoration deal, without competitive bids, with the Kellogg, Brown & Root unit of oil field services major Halliburton. That is tentatively estimated at up to 7 billion dollars in revenues for Halliburton or its sub-contractors, but might not necessarily interfere with the other international PSCS.
Iraqi opposition figures also have made little secret of their desire to void the contracts from the Saddam era and sign new upstream deals.
Ramachandran said the US military is expected to solicit competitive bids in the next two months to modernise and update Iraqi’s oil infrastructure.
IF TURKEY DOES IT, IT'S OK. BUT IF SYRIA TRIES IT........
Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline boost oil revenue
WASHINGTON, Feb 19: The newly opened Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline enabled Baghdad to get a sum of three million dollars per day for the last three months, dramatically boosting the oil revenue it gets outside the UN sanction, American media reports has said.
The United States proposed to take up this issue when its Secretary of State Colin Powell visits Damascus next week as part of his week long trip to the Middle East.
Oil industry analysts quoted by the Washington Post said the 552 mile pipeline which connects Iraq with Syria’s mediterranean port of Banias has been receiving 120,000 to 150,000 barrels of crude oil a day since it reopened in November last year. The latest turn over in the pipeline is estimated at 200,000 barrels a day.
Iraq is offering Syria at a sharply discounted price of 15 dollars a barrel nearly fifty per cent of the market cost. This oil sale yields around three million dollars a day for Iraq.
US officials have taken up this issue with their Syrian counterparts about the pipeline which was closed nearly nineteen years ago during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Bush administration is encouraging Syria to bring the oil sale through the pipeline into conformity with the sanctions. The revenue accrued through the sale should be deposited in the UN account for purchase of food and medicines for the Iraqi people.
The newspaper said Syria is not the only ‘offender’ as about 150,000 barrels a day of oil and diesel fuel are being smuggled from northern Iraq into Turkey aboard hundreds of trucks that ply in the border. Since Turkey provides a crucial airbase used by the American aircraft patrolling over Iraq, US officials are reluctant to take up the issue with Ankara to crack down on the lucratived trade.
The US analysts said Baghad has been asking petroleum companies to pay 25 to 30 cents per barrel directly to Iraqi Government coffers, bypassing the United Nations oil for food account and giving Saddam Hussein revenue he could spend without international supervision. The UN account provides for part of the money to be transferred to Kuwait for reparations for damage done during the Iraqi invasion of the country in 1990. (UNI)
Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline boost oil revenue
WASHINGTON, Feb 19: The newly opened Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline enabled Baghdad to get a sum of three million dollars per day for the last three months, dramatically boosting the oil revenue it gets outside the UN sanction, American media reports has said.
The United States proposed to take up this issue when its Secretary of State Colin Powell visits Damascus next week as part of his week long trip to the Middle East.
Oil industry analysts quoted by the Washington Post said the 552 mile pipeline which connects Iraq with Syria’s mediterranean port of Banias has been receiving 120,000 to 150,000 barrels of crude oil a day since it reopened in November last year. The latest turn over in the pipeline is estimated at 200,000 barrels a day.
Iraq is offering Syria at a sharply discounted price of 15 dollars a barrel nearly fifty per cent of the market cost. This oil sale yields around three million dollars a day for Iraq.
US officials have taken up this issue with their Syrian counterparts about the pipeline which was closed nearly nineteen years ago during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Bush administration is encouraging Syria to bring the oil sale through the pipeline into conformity with the sanctions. The revenue accrued through the sale should be deposited in the UN account for purchase of food and medicines for the Iraqi people.
The newspaper said Syria is not the only ‘offender’ as about 150,000 barrels a day of oil and diesel fuel are being smuggled from northern Iraq into Turkey aboard hundreds of trucks that ply in the border. Since Turkey provides a crucial airbase used by the American aircraft patrolling over Iraq, US officials are reluctant to take up the issue with Ankara to crack down on the lucratived trade.
The US analysts said Baghad has been asking petroleum companies to pay 25 to 30 cents per barrel directly to Iraqi Government coffers, bypassing the United Nations oil for food account and giving Saddam Hussein revenue he could spend without international supervision. The UN account provides for part of the money to be transferred to Kuwait for reparations for damage done during the Iraqi invasion of the country in 1990. (UNI)
Today's YukYuk from the land of Maybe/Maybe NOT
I've learned (as rumor only, mind you) that this was overheard at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Apr. 26, 2003:
Al Franken: "Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?"
Paul Wolfowitz: " **** you."
Which makes me think:
*Tsk Tsk* ...no swearin' now, Paul...get your people on the phone and order up some more cruise missiles and
some of that Crusader artillery for our next magical militaristery tour. Carlyle needs you, boy. Leave no defense contracter behind!
This was REALLY said by Mr Wolfowitz:
"I think the right goal is to move as quickly as we can to a government that is, if I can paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, of the Iraqis, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis." -- Paul Wolfowitz, April 6
...which is a tad puzzling when you hear his administration-mate saying:
"If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, April 24
I mean...what if the Iraqi people decide the clerics are "for them...by them....of them"?
Who made Rumsfeld final judge of Iraqi hearts and minds?
And for Pete's sake, who made Wolfowitz an Abe Lincoln already?? *(gag)*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned (as rumor only, mind you) that this was overheard at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Apr. 26, 2003:
Al Franken: "Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?"
Paul Wolfowitz: " **** you."
Which makes me think:
*Tsk Tsk* ...no swearin' now, Paul...get your people on the phone and order up some more cruise missiles and
some of that Crusader artillery for our next magical militaristery tour. Carlyle needs you, boy. Leave no defense contracter behind!
This was REALLY said by Mr Wolfowitz:
"I think the right goal is to move as quickly as we can to a government that is, if I can paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, of the Iraqis, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis." -- Paul Wolfowitz, April 6
...which is a tad puzzling when you hear his administration-mate saying:
"If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, April 24
I mean...what if the Iraqi people decide the clerics are "for them...by them....of them"?
Who made Rumsfeld final judge of Iraqi hearts and minds?
And for Pete's sake, who made Wolfowitz an Abe Lincoln already?? *(gag)*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush has called for the removal of UN embargo on Iraq, and let's face it, it is not only to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people but also to permit U.S. oil companies to move into a country with the world's third largest oil reserves! Of course, there can be no trade with Iraq for oil until UN sanctions are lifted. (Oh--Bush hates that nasty UN!)
See how easy it is?
All it took was a great "liberation" for Bush and his family and his corporate benefactor/benefactees to be in the money as soon as those sanctions disappear.
Remember, Poppy's Carlyle Group has already done right well for themselves as a result of this "great liberation", too.
What have YOU gained, American people?
Not a friggen thing except a new allocation in your tax-debt for rebuilding the mess Bush made in that nation for his own self-interest and that of his corporate friends.
Is all this "liberation" altruism?
Or could it be self-interest?
I say it's self-interest..without reservation.
Do you believe that Russian, French and Germans are squabbling about lifting sanctions simply because they
"hate" the US? If so, go bury yourself back under those turnips in the back of the turnip truck. It's ALL about self-interest, babe.
And you can bet..somewhere along the line, there will be concessions made to Russia, France and Germany in order for those sanctions to be lifted..even in the face of the fact that those three countries believed this war was illegal.
Money cures just about anything.
And when we "liberated" Iraq....that's when the American oil companies laid their hands on Iraq. That's when the real looting began.
See how easy it is?
All it took was a great "liberation" for Bush and his family and his corporate benefactor/benefactees to be in the money as soon as those sanctions disappear.
Remember, Poppy's Carlyle Group has already done right well for themselves as a result of this "great liberation", too.
What have YOU gained, American people?
Not a friggen thing except a new allocation in your tax-debt for rebuilding the mess Bush made in that nation for his own self-interest and that of his corporate friends.
Is all this "liberation" altruism?
Or could it be self-interest?
I say it's self-interest..without reservation.
Do you believe that Russian, French and Germans are squabbling about lifting sanctions simply because they
"hate" the US? If so, go bury yourself back under those turnips in the back of the turnip truck. It's ALL about self-interest, babe.
And you can bet..somewhere along the line, there will be concessions made to Russia, France and Germany in order for those sanctions to be lifted..even in the face of the fact that those three countries believed this war was illegal.
Money cures just about anything.
And when we "liberated" Iraq....that's when the American oil companies laid their hands on Iraq. That's when the real looting began.
THE WAR HAPPENED WHILE I WAS ON VACATION EARLIER THIS MONTH
WHILE I WAS AWAY.......
While I was away.... by Iddybud
So much to talk about.
Such as how a quickie end to sanctions on Iraq are worth billions to Bush..
and how it would give U.S. oil companies control over Iraq oil.
Or how the UN (that Bushie so hates) condemns "incredible" numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq..
most killed by U.S. bombs and rockets.
Or how the U.S. controls only a square mile of Baghdad at present while
looters are now turning to private homes instead of museums.
Or how Bush is under pressure to prove the existence of significant traces of Iraqi WMD...(substantially
threat-posing substances to Americans since this was about our security)..
while suspicion is also growing because the UN weapons inspectors that Bushie hates so much are being kept out.
Or how the U.S. is rushing to install a puppet Iraqi government to rival
the Punch and Judy show.
A U.S.-favored "Iraqi National Congress" has little to do with Iraq, doncha know.
Or how Hans Blix claims the U.S. wanted UN inspection teams to spy on Iraq..while U.S. intelligence services also faked WMD "evidence" ..even back then. (No one wanted to listen to Ritter--and Bushie tried to destroy Ritter..par for the course...the low-sinking Bushie's even trying to destroy fellow-Republicans like Sen Voinivich).
Or how Bushie's planning to appoint an arms merchant as viceroy of Baghdad..
This retired Army general was a key player in Israeli weapon deployment, doncha know.
Or about the new Iraq leadership picked by U.S...definitely a motley crew ..and some want to bring back the old monarchy!!
How about that Arab world all abuzz with rumors of a Bush - Saddam deal on this war... some conspiracy theorists believe a deal was struck to save Saddam...hmmm.....thry say the Saudis may have brokered a deal for quick Iraqi surrender...and the speedy fall of Baghdad has Arab media buzzing with rumors!!
Then there was that brutal murder of that cleric--which shows Iraqi ethnic tensions are rather high..yes?
More religious violence is predicted in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.
And dagnabbit, there's no grateful cheering over liberation at Baghdad hospitals...where doctors are performing operations without full anaesthesia! What you imagine to be cheers are actually howls of friggen pain.
Then there's life in Iraq "after Saddam": carpetbaggers everywhere!
Religious rivals, ex-pats, zany locals all jockeying for political power! Woot!
Did we expect the fall of Saddam to deepens the Russia-U.S. rift?
Who was forced to deny rumors that their Baghdad embassy was hiding Saddam?
Coudl it be that the anarchy is keeping aid-workers from entering Iraq? While aid for food, water, medical system collapses??
And just how hard is it to hide a
6-foot, 4-inch diabetic Arab with a $25 million bounty on his head? Pretty easy, it turns out -- if you know the right people!!!
What??? The U.S. moves to block an emergency UN war session?
Who woulda thunk it???
Threatening diplomats not to vote for General Assembly session on Iraq? The UN-hating Bushie? Nah! Couldn't be!
How about those media groups condemning the U.S.- killing of reporters in Iraq?
Do we dare ask questions about non-"embedded" journalists killed by U.S. military fire?
What happens when an investigation of possible U.S. war crimes in Iraq begins? Gathering data to present to International Criminal Court, are they? The bastards!
Those fragile money markets watch Iraq with unease...the entire global economy is in flux..and it isn't SARS!
Bush wants to make it clear to the much-hated UN: IRAQ BELONGS TO US!!!
Hands off..we stomped on 'em..back off! The Pentagon will be calling the shots in Iraq, even in defiance of other bureaucracies that, in contrast to the Defense Department, have real experts on Iraqi politics, history, and culture who could prove helpful in carrying out an occupation. "You can call this another aspect of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's pre-emption strategy," said one administration official. "You can call this a coup d'etat." But right-wing hawks in the Bush administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, want the United Nations to provide the clean-up crew to tidy up the war-devastated country, feed the hungry, and care for the wounded and the dying.
Have I mentioned Bush is all set to snub the UN (whom he hates) for a meaningful role in postwar Iraq??
Did you hear Bush say to Blair: "Nopers, no lead role for the UN in Iraq, Tony baby, 'cuzzin' I hates 'em"?
Have you noticed the Iraq "liberation" looks more like "Coup d'Etat"?
So...will the UN become another League Of Nations because Bush and the chickenhawks hate the UN??
There are some unsettling comparisons between Iraq and events of 1936.
Here's some more stuff to talk about.... (why aren't we talking about it???)
U.S. hopes a Europe split is forever, some experts say.. a dispute over Iraq war is just one example of EU-American differences and the Bush admin couldn't be happier with this thought.
Watch them exacerbate it in days to come.
The disgrace and failure of George W. Bush is that he lied, he bribed, he forged and, finally, he tried spying
in order to get his war on.
Bush hawks are now moving the crosshairs to Syria..the exact-same neo-con chickenhawk crowd that fomented attack on Iraq is hoping for the same with Syria...bet your britches on it.
No matter how Fox tries to apple-pie the whole deal, Arabs are seeing "occupation," not "liberation" of Iraq... comparisons are being made to Soviet efforts to colonize Afghanistan.
Arab Youth are still heading towards Iraq to be "Freedom Martyrs"....and the
Iraq invasion has spurred feelings of Arab nationalism. DOH...Who woulda thunkit?
Bush's short-span war, in reality, may span generations, kids....
Religious issues on both sides have made this anything BUT a conventional war.
We need to expect a long-haul stay in Iraq. Even right-wing thinktanks behind the Iraq invasion want no early fixation on exit strategies. Take off the seatbelts, ye anti-nation-builders. Dig deep into your tax-paying pockets. Iraqis need your
hard-earned dough-re-mi while Bechtel and other corporations make a lot of those policy-makers rich, rich and more rich!
What did Bush delete from an Iraq inspector's Report?
There are a missing 8000-pages..which is said to probably link U.S. companies to Iraq weapons. Who woulda thunkit?
Postwar Iraq profiteering has begun.
Over $1.5 billion in Iraq contracts have been offered to private U.S. companies. Thanks, liberators!
And the U.S. will reap an oil windfall now that Saddam's been oustered (for all intents and purposes).
Oil had practically everything to do with it..contrary to Fox-ular beliefs.
I'm confident that history will show that Iraq and the Arab world has been RADICALIZED by the attack on Iraq.
I fully believe the government of Iran is expecting to war with the US soon.
North Korea, BECAUSE of the war on Iraq, has learned a lesson. To desire a speedy race to nuclear power so we cannot do the same to them. It may be an unreasonable assumption on their part, but this is only part of what Bush's poor foreign policy has caused.
So much more to say...so little time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHILE I WAS AWAY.......
While I was away.... by Iddybud
So much to talk about.
Such as how a quickie end to sanctions on Iraq are worth billions to Bush..
and how it would give U.S. oil companies control over Iraq oil.
Or how the UN (that Bushie so hates) condemns "incredible" numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq..
most killed by U.S. bombs and rockets.
Or how the U.S. controls only a square mile of Baghdad at present while
looters are now turning to private homes instead of museums.
Or how Bush is under pressure to prove the existence of significant traces of Iraqi WMD...(substantially
threat-posing substances to Americans since this was about our security)..
while suspicion is also growing because the UN weapons inspectors that Bushie hates so much are being kept out.
Or how the U.S. is rushing to install a puppet Iraqi government to rival
the Punch and Judy show.
A U.S.-favored "Iraqi National Congress" has little to do with Iraq, doncha know.
Or how Hans Blix claims the U.S. wanted UN inspection teams to spy on Iraq..while U.S. intelligence services also faked WMD "evidence" ..even back then. (No one wanted to listen to Ritter--and Bushie tried to destroy Ritter..par for the course...the low-sinking Bushie's even trying to destroy fellow-Republicans like Sen Voinivich).
Or how Bushie's planning to appoint an arms merchant as viceroy of Baghdad..
This retired Army general was a key player in Israeli weapon deployment, doncha know.
Or about the new Iraq leadership picked by U.S...definitely a motley crew ..and some want to bring back the old monarchy!!
How about that Arab world all abuzz with rumors of a Bush - Saddam deal on this war... some conspiracy theorists believe a deal was struck to save Saddam...hmmm.....thry say the Saudis may have brokered a deal for quick Iraqi surrender...and the speedy fall of Baghdad has Arab media buzzing with rumors!!
Then there was that brutal murder of that cleric--which shows Iraqi ethnic tensions are rather high..yes?
More religious violence is predicted in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.
And dagnabbit, there's no grateful cheering over liberation at Baghdad hospitals...where doctors are performing operations without full anaesthesia! What you imagine to be cheers are actually howls of friggen pain.
Then there's life in Iraq "after Saddam": carpetbaggers everywhere!
Religious rivals, ex-pats, zany locals all jockeying for political power! Woot!
Did we expect the fall of Saddam to deepens the Russia-U.S. rift?
Who was forced to deny rumors that their Baghdad embassy was hiding Saddam?
Coudl it be that the anarchy is keeping aid-workers from entering Iraq? While aid for food, water, medical system collapses??
And just how hard is it to hide a
6-foot, 4-inch diabetic Arab with a $25 million bounty on his head? Pretty easy, it turns out -- if you know the right people!!!
What??? The U.S. moves to block an emergency UN war session?
Who woulda thunk it???
Threatening diplomats not to vote for General Assembly session on Iraq? The UN-hating Bushie? Nah! Couldn't be!
How about those media groups condemning the U.S.- killing of reporters in Iraq?
Do we dare ask questions about non-"embedded" journalists killed by U.S. military fire?
What happens when an investigation of possible U.S. war crimes in Iraq begins? Gathering data to present to International Criminal Court, are they? The bastards!
Those fragile money markets watch Iraq with unease...the entire global economy is in flux..and it isn't SARS!
Bush wants to make it clear to the much-hated UN: IRAQ BELONGS TO US!!!
Hands off..we stomped on 'em..back off! The Pentagon will be calling the shots in Iraq, even in defiance of other bureaucracies that, in contrast to the Defense Department, have real experts on Iraqi politics, history, and culture who could prove helpful in carrying out an occupation. "You can call this another aspect of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's pre-emption strategy," said one administration official. "You can call this a coup d'etat." But right-wing hawks in the Bush administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, want the United Nations to provide the clean-up crew to tidy up the war-devastated country, feed the hungry, and care for the wounded and the dying.
Have I mentioned Bush is all set to snub the UN (whom he hates) for a meaningful role in postwar Iraq??
Did you hear Bush say to Blair: "Nopers, no lead role for the UN in Iraq, Tony baby, 'cuzzin' I hates 'em"?
Have you noticed the Iraq "liberation" looks more like "Coup d'Etat"?
So...will the UN become another League Of Nations because Bush and the chickenhawks hate the UN??
There are some unsettling comparisons between Iraq and events of 1936.
Here's some more stuff to talk about.... (why aren't we talking about it???)
U.S. hopes a Europe split is forever, some experts say.. a dispute over Iraq war is just one example of EU-American differences and the Bush admin couldn't be happier with this thought.
Watch them exacerbate it in days to come.
The disgrace and failure of George W. Bush is that he lied, he bribed, he forged and, finally, he tried spying
in order to get his war on.
Bush hawks are now moving the crosshairs to Syria..the exact-same neo-con chickenhawk crowd that fomented attack on Iraq is hoping for the same with Syria...bet your britches on it.
No matter how Fox tries to apple-pie the whole deal, Arabs are seeing "occupation," not "liberation" of Iraq... comparisons are being made to Soviet efforts to colonize Afghanistan.
Arab Youth are still heading towards Iraq to be "Freedom Martyrs"....and the
Iraq invasion has spurred feelings of Arab nationalism. DOH...Who woulda thunkit?
Bush's short-span war, in reality, may span generations, kids....
Religious issues on both sides have made this anything BUT a conventional war.
We need to expect a long-haul stay in Iraq. Even right-wing thinktanks behind the Iraq invasion want no early fixation on exit strategies. Take off the seatbelts, ye anti-nation-builders. Dig deep into your tax-paying pockets. Iraqis need your
hard-earned dough-re-mi while Bechtel and other corporations make a lot of those policy-makers rich, rich and more rich!
What did Bush delete from an Iraq inspector's Report?
There are a missing 8000-pages..which is said to probably link U.S. companies to Iraq weapons. Who woulda thunkit?
Postwar Iraq profiteering has begun.
Over $1.5 billion in Iraq contracts have been offered to private U.S. companies. Thanks, liberators!
And the U.S. will reap an oil windfall now that Saddam's been oustered (for all intents and purposes).
Oil had practically everything to do with it..contrary to Fox-ular beliefs.
I'm confident that history will show that Iraq and the Arab world has been RADICALIZED by the attack on Iraq.
I fully believe the government of Iran is expecting to war with the US soon.
North Korea, BECAUSE of the war on Iraq, has learned a lesson. To desire a speedy race to nuclear power so we cannot do the same to them. It may be an unreasonable assumption on their part, but this is only part of what Bush's poor foreign policy has caused.
So much more to say...so little time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, April 26, 2003
A MUST-READ!
The Dark Night Of The American Soul
by Joseph R. Stromberg
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg53.html
The Dark Night Of The American Soul
by Joseph R. Stromberg
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg53.html
FOR THE MANY PRO-IRAQ-WAR CONS WHO ARE NOW TELLING ME TO "SHUT UP" and "CRY UNCLE" BECAUSE I "LOST"
This war isn't over
by Jim Wallis
EXCERPT:
"Now that the war was such a "success," we are left with a number of problems. It appears the Bush administration is choosing an American military occupation of Iraq instead of an internationally supported U.N. lead in humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Already we see street demonstrations against that occupation. So far, the U.S. military hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and The Washington Post reported this week that administration officials are becoming less confident about doing so. Whoops. The imminent threat of those weapons was a central justification for the war.
They also haven't yet found Saddam Hussein. There are speculations now that he and his Baath Party and Republican Guard didn't put up a fight for Baghdad because they decided to disappear in order to live to fight another day, perhaps in an eventual guerrilla war against the American occupiers. That would certainly be a horrible prospect for everybody. And the triumphant optimism of the administration's leading warriors about installing a pro-American democracy in Iraq that would transform the Middle East seems to fade with each passing day. We're also finally adding up the few thousand civilian casualties and seeing their human faces, along with the many more dead Iraqi soldiers - a lot of whom were just young kids conscripted by a dictator. More than 100 American families also are mourning the loss of a loved one. And the disastrous consequences of the war in Iraq for domestic needs in America - where the poor are also becoming war casualties - is a subject worth another whole column."
This war isn't over
by Jim Wallis
EXCERPT:
"Now that the war was such a "success," we are left with a number of problems. It appears the Bush administration is choosing an American military occupation of Iraq instead of an internationally supported U.N. lead in humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Already we see street demonstrations against that occupation. So far, the U.S. military hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and The Washington Post reported this week that administration officials are becoming less confident about doing so. Whoops. The imminent threat of those weapons was a central justification for the war.
They also haven't yet found Saddam Hussein. There are speculations now that he and his Baath Party and Republican Guard didn't put up a fight for Baghdad because they decided to disappear in order to live to fight another day, perhaps in an eventual guerrilla war against the American occupiers. That would certainly be a horrible prospect for everybody. And the triumphant optimism of the administration's leading warriors about installing a pro-American democracy in Iraq that would transform the Middle East seems to fade with each passing day. We're also finally adding up the few thousand civilian casualties and seeing their human faces, along with the many more dead Iraqi soldiers - a lot of whom were just young kids conscripted by a dictator. More than 100 American families also are mourning the loss of a loved one. And the disastrous consequences of the war in Iraq for domestic needs in America - where the poor are also becoming war casualties - is a subject worth another whole column."
War and peace and God Rev. Stanley will have devil of a time convincing Lord battle is holy
BY JOHN SUGG
When I was 8-years-old, living in Orlando, my mom took me every night for a week to a Billy Graham crusade. Forty-some years later, I remember it vividly -- the flowers, the hymns, the dusty concrete smell of a large municipal auditorium, even the detestable yellow shirt Mom made me wear because it was my "finest."
Religion, I would conclude many years later, is largely a matter of geography. Had I been born in Bombay, I'd likely be Hindu. Egypt or Indonesia, and I'd be praying to Allah. If I called many parts of Asia home, Gotama would be my Main Man. It gets a little cramped in the Middle East, where your chances of being born Jew, Christian or Muslim are defined by feet and inches as opposed to continents. Nonetheless, "where" is quite likely the major "what" with faith.
Unlike many people -- for example, the Rev. Charles Stanley, a gentleman we'll come back to -- I don't claim to speak for the Deity. So I don't know why we have all of these religions, each anchored to a different part of the globe. My personal conclusion is that God truly is great and infinitely imaginative -- and He (and/or She) demonstrates this by showing there are many, many ways to come to Him (and/or Her).
Whatever, it was my lot to be from the South, in the United States, continent of North America. That meant, religionwise, it was almost inevitable I would be raised a Southern Baptist, which makes it not at all surprising that I was sitting at the Billy Graham revival.
On the fourth night of the crusade, as the choir sang "Just As I Am" and with my mother rapturously beaming approval, I marched forward, accepted Jesus as my savior and grabbed Graham's hand (I can still see the blue suit he was wearing). I didn't want to let go. I later had my soul cleansed in the blood of the Lamb, via baptism, and despite my age, I made a perfect score on a Graham correspondence course.
By the time I was 14, I was on my way to becoming apostate. Still, I believed much of what I learned in Sunday school -- including the bit about whether your faith's foundations were rock or sand. I became a committed Civil Rights activist in my teens, and when I found out that Southern Baptists had, in 1845, split from the denomination because they believed God approved of slavery, and that many in the church had been founders and leaders of the Klan, I decided to look elsewhere for a spiritual home. I felt the church's foundations were rooted in sludge -- but I don't deny the goodness and faith of most of the 16 million Southern Baptists (including Mom).
I never forgot the Rev. Graham, and his resonant voice, which seemed able to move the world and simultaneously touch the heart of a little boy. Even when he became pals with Richard Nixon, even (much later) when it was revealed that the preacher and the president indulged in anti-Semitic banter, I was and am awed by Graham's majesty.
But not his son Franklin's. Or his son's pals -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and our own Charles Stanley.
George Bush had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq that he could rally the nation around. So, he scammed America. If there were weapons of mass destruction -- and so far none have turned up -- the U.N. was well on the way to cleansing Iraq. Saddam Hussein was murderously horrible, but he was long a client of the United States, especially beloved by the CIA, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld -- and our history is much more about propping up bloodthirsty dictators than taking them down.
Bush's and his neocon mentors' real reasons were and are the hardly marketable goals of conquest, hegemony, empire and oil.
And, praise the Lord, since this is in every material respect a Christian crusade against Muslims, the missionaries are massed to be the second wave into Iraq. They will use the old proselytizing ruse of bringing humanitarian aid, but what they want the Iraqis to swallow is the cross.
Clearly (at least to the Christian soldiers), Muslims are much in need of the Holy Brigade. Falwell has declared Mohammed a "terrorist." Jerry Vines, a prominent Jacksonville, Fla., Baptist preacher, said Islam's prophet was "a demon-possessed pedophile." Robertson declared the Muslim faith a "monumental scam." And Franklin Graham, who just last week presided over a come-to-Jesus session for crusaders at the Pentagon, has said Muslims pray to "a different God" and that Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion."
Overlooked by these men of God is that no faith rivals Christianity for the blood it has spilled. The eradication of the indigenous American civilizations and people -- in the name of God -- has no parallel. The crusades, the genocides, the Inquisition -- the litany goes on. I don't believe that current events signal "The End Is Near," but I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus wanted to hurry his Second Coming in order to clear his name, besmirched most recently by the arrogance, intolerance and hatred of the not-so-very-Christian right wing.
Leading the Church Militant will be generals such as Franklin Graham with his Samaritan's Purse -- a "here's food and water, but first you gotta hear a sermon" outfit. Atlanta's Stanley will field his divisions, dubbed In Touch Ministries, whose messages are broadcast in 14 languages worldwide. According to an article this month in Salon.com, "In Touch is just one of a phalanx in an army of Christian soldiers who see Muslim Iraq as an extraordinary new marketplace for their theology."
Stanley runs the 15,000-member First Baptist Church of Atlanta. Apparently overlooking Jesus' admonition to sell all, live in poverty and follow him, Stanley commands a $40 million empire. As a leader (past president) of the Southern Baptist Convention, Stanley helped spearhead a Taliban-style assault on women, banning them from the ministry and declaring them subservient to men.
Moreover, he is a theological contortionist, able on the one hand to condemn divorce, forbidding it to his followers, yet survive his own marriage's disintegration. He averred in 1995 to resign if he did get divorced, but, shucks, God just needs him so darn much that he had to break his vow.
And he just loves war. Oh, sure, he gives a half-hearted disclaimer in an online sermon, "A Nation at War," that "God is not excited about war." Stanley is divinely enlightened about what turns God on. The rest of the sermon is a hymn of adulation about slaughter. "God battles with people who oppose him," the reverend says. "So, even though he hates war, God is not against it."
Stanley's evidence is citations from the Old Testament. The preacher must have missed the theology classes where Jesus told his followers: "Whosoever smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also ... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you ..."
Stanley tells his faithful that God only forbids individual killing, but that the mass slaughter of warfare isn't really murder. "When a man in combat shoots his enemy under the command of the government, without personal hatred, he is not committing murder." That is a novel variation on "I was only following orders." If Stanley's spin on God's will is correct, every military butcher in history is exonerated -- as long as their massacres didn't involve "personal hatred."
The preacher's rationalizations should certainly shake the heavenly palaces where St. Augustine (4th century) and the 16th-century monk Erasmus are spending eternity. Augustine decried combat: "It is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word than to slay men with the sword, and to maintain peace by peace, not by war."
Erasmus opined that "there is nothing more wicked, more disastrous, more widely destructive, more deeply tenacious, more loathsome (than war). Once war has been declared, then all the affairs of the State are at the mercy of the few."
Preachers such as Stanley are enthralled by the Bush regime. Stanley thunders: "God clearly establishes the government's responsibilities and authority over us. ... The government is ordained by God with the right to promote good and restrain evil. This includes wickedness that exists within the nation, as well as any wicked persons or countries ... ."
The basis for that is a passage from Romans. Unfortunately, what Paul was doing was trying to deflect the anger of that earlier, pre-Bush Empire.
Jesus, I hate to remind the reverend, was a revolutionary who challenged the authority of both Rome and the ruling Jewish classes. He told Peter to put away his sword, forgave his killers, and died the Prince of Peace.
Senior Editor John Sugg -- who previously has confessed to practicing theology without a license -- can be reached at 404-614-1241 or at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com. His daily Web log is at www.cln.com/fishwrapper/suggreport.html
Copyright © 1996-2003 Creative Loafing Inc.
All rights reserved.
Friday, April 18, 2003
A GREAT ARTICLE ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF INTERNET NEWS OVER TELEVISION
Internet Kills the Television Blahs
By Farai Chideya, AlterNet
April 14, 2003
A few days after the start of the war, I was sitting in a hotel restaurant having breakfast. At night, the eatery was a sports bar. But that morning, fifteen television sets, some as large as five feet square, broadcast war coverage.
Over my eggs, toast, and coffee, I watched the last night’s bombing raids, big red blooms of fireballs. Interspersed were animated graphics of military maneuvers and equipment, like a sophisticated, nihilistic video game.
As hard as I tried, I couldn’t look away. Television is mesmeric, engaging, and according to scientific research, addictive. Last February in Scientific American, award-winning researchers Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi presented their findings on television addiction. It’s a term they reluctantly came to accept because the viewing patterns of Americans (who average 3+ hours per day) fit the classic definition. No shocker here: We feel relaxed while we’re channel surfing. But Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi were surprised that "the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue." In other words, we end up feeling slodgy and powerless right after a big TV binge.
But online news consumers have found a very different – and highly active – way of getting their information. Some of the most sophisticated news consumers, including progressives worldwide, have become the "blog"-era equivalent of news editors. By both receiving and distributing information via email, they vote with the click of a mouse on what information matters.
"It's nice to have these `intelligent agents’ – my friends and list neighbors – passing along the worthiest columns and news stories," says musician and radio producer David Gans. He receives information via listservs, discussions boards, and the online community The Well, whose Media conference he hosts. Individuals like Gans, informed and discerning about what they send out, become hubs in this distributed information network.
Net use has grown exponentially since the first Gulf War – the "television war" – a decade ago. Says Australian writer Richard Evans, "I prefer [online news] to watching television as I have more control of the kinds of images and stories I read. I also use the Google news service as a way of getting a quick overview of a variety of sources." Studies also show that Americans find the web outlets of major media (like CNN.com) more trustworthy than their parents.
Print and online publications that make it easy for readers to forward material have seen a jump in traffic. The New York Times sends out 3.7 million headline alerts each day. But their "Most Emailed Articles" feature – which allows online readers to see what other readers have forwarded – has come into its own. New York Times Digital spokesperson Christine Mohan says that in March, the highest-traffic month so far, the average number of articles emailed was about seventy-five thousand per day. But in the days preceding the war, readers emailed up to 120,000 stories daily. "When you send something to your colleague, the person is much more likely to open it. It’s that inherent trust," says Mohan.
Novelist Danzy Senna ("Caucasia") uses the New York Times’ system to email articles to friends and family. She also passes on alerts about upcoming peace marches and acts of civil disobedience. Judging by online outreach for recent peace rallies, the ability to customize and control the flow of information produces action as well as education. And alternative news sources may have benefited from the online news surge even more than major-media ones. In my admittedly unscientific survey of individuals who received and forwarded war-related news, most (including Senna) sent and received more independent than major-media coverage.
The downside? Not all information is credible. Web producer Emily Gertz finds some people on progressive listservs passing bad information on. "As part of harnessing the power of networked information," she says, "there needs to be a steady level of education about net resources and etiquette from those of us who've been online for a long time (in my case, over ten years)."
People who forward too much volume or too little of interest find people begging off their lists. And unique or "sticky" information, like Tamim Ansary’s letter about Afghanistan after 9/11, travels the world lightening quick, which opens the door for clever hoaxes.
The system is largely self-correcting, however – and growing. The only thing that could block news "intelligent agents" from their mission is the question of revenue. For now, most outlets don’t charge for accessing or forwarding information, happy simply that they’re getting more eyeballs. In this world, readers and publishers share the burden of distribution. Online information fans have turned Fox News’s slogan on its ear, telling outlets "You Report, The World Decides."
Farai Chideya is the founder of PopandPolitics.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Internet Kills the Television Blahs
By Farai Chideya, AlterNet
April 14, 2003
A few days after the start of the war, I was sitting in a hotel restaurant having breakfast. At night, the eatery was a sports bar. But that morning, fifteen television sets, some as large as five feet square, broadcast war coverage.
Over my eggs, toast, and coffee, I watched the last night’s bombing raids, big red blooms of fireballs. Interspersed were animated graphics of military maneuvers and equipment, like a sophisticated, nihilistic video game.
As hard as I tried, I couldn’t look away. Television is mesmeric, engaging, and according to scientific research, addictive. Last February in Scientific American, award-winning researchers Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi presented their findings on television addiction. It’s a term they reluctantly came to accept because the viewing patterns of Americans (who average 3+ hours per day) fit the classic definition. No shocker here: We feel relaxed while we’re channel surfing. But Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi were surprised that "the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue." In other words, we end up feeling slodgy and powerless right after a big TV binge.
But online news consumers have found a very different – and highly active – way of getting their information. Some of the most sophisticated news consumers, including progressives worldwide, have become the "blog"-era equivalent of news editors. By both receiving and distributing information via email, they vote with the click of a mouse on what information matters.
"It's nice to have these `intelligent agents’ – my friends and list neighbors – passing along the worthiest columns and news stories," says musician and radio producer David Gans. He receives information via listservs, discussions boards, and the online community The Well, whose Media conference he hosts. Individuals like Gans, informed and discerning about what they send out, become hubs in this distributed information network.
Net use has grown exponentially since the first Gulf War – the "television war" – a decade ago. Says Australian writer Richard Evans, "I prefer [online news] to watching television as I have more control of the kinds of images and stories I read. I also use the Google news service as a way of getting a quick overview of a variety of sources." Studies also show that Americans find the web outlets of major media (like CNN.com) more trustworthy than their parents.
Print and online publications that make it easy for readers to forward material have seen a jump in traffic. The New York Times sends out 3.7 million headline alerts each day. But their "Most Emailed Articles" feature – which allows online readers to see what other readers have forwarded – has come into its own. New York Times Digital spokesperson Christine Mohan says that in March, the highest-traffic month so far, the average number of articles emailed was about seventy-five thousand per day. But in the days preceding the war, readers emailed up to 120,000 stories daily. "When you send something to your colleague, the person is much more likely to open it. It’s that inherent trust," says Mohan.
Novelist Danzy Senna ("Caucasia") uses the New York Times’ system to email articles to friends and family. She also passes on alerts about upcoming peace marches and acts of civil disobedience. Judging by online outreach for recent peace rallies, the ability to customize and control the flow of information produces action as well as education. And alternative news sources may have benefited from the online news surge even more than major-media ones. In my admittedly unscientific survey of individuals who received and forwarded war-related news, most (including Senna) sent and received more independent than major-media coverage.
The downside? Not all information is credible. Web producer Emily Gertz finds some people on progressive listservs passing bad information on. "As part of harnessing the power of networked information," she says, "there needs to be a steady level of education about net resources and etiquette from those of us who've been online for a long time (in my case, over ten years)."
People who forward too much volume or too little of interest find people begging off their lists. And unique or "sticky" information, like Tamim Ansary’s letter about Afghanistan after 9/11, travels the world lightening quick, which opens the door for clever hoaxes.
The system is largely self-correcting, however – and growing. The only thing that could block news "intelligent agents" from their mission is the question of revenue. For now, most outlets don’t charge for accessing or forwarding information, happy simply that they’re getting more eyeballs. In this world, readers and publishers share the burden of distribution. Online information fans have turned Fox News’s slogan on its ear, telling outlets "You Report, The World Decides."
Farai Chideya is the founder of PopandPolitics.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?
The News We Kept To Ourselves
Eason Jordan-CNN
Various Opinions
From NY Times 4-15-03
"A recent acknowledgment by Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, that he withheld some accounts of Saddam Hussein's brutality for years to protect the lives of Iraqi sources came in for some withering criticism yesterday.
Several journalism professors and commentators said Mr. Jordan had compromised CNN's journalistic mission so the cable network could continue to report from Iraq. In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Friday, Mr. Jordan revealed his knowledge of the Iraqi regime's use of torture and murder, information that he said he could not divulge until the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today, Mr. Jordan said the issue was not about access, but about life and death.
"It's very simple," he said. "Do you report things that get people killed? The answer is no."
According to the article, Mr. Hussein's secret police subjected an Iraqi CNN cameraman to weeks of electroshock torture in the mid-1990's as they tried to elicit confirmation that Mr. Jordan was an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. (Mr. Jordan called the allegation against him ludicrous.)
Mr. Jordan also wrote that Uday Hussein, Mr. Hussein's eldest son, told him in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two brothers-in-law who had defected to Jordan, as well as King Hussein of Jordan. Mr. Jordan said he told this to the king, who shrugged it off. The two brothers-in-law were later assassinated.
The revelations were harshly criticized by commentators, both conservative and liberal, including Rush Limbaugh and Juan Williams. Bill McLaughlin, an associate professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said CNN could have found a creative way to report the anecdotes Mr. Jordan had collected without jeopardizing people in Iraq.
Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute, said CNN had traded its ability to report the truth for a continued presence in the Baghdad. "In essence, he was caught over a long period of time dealing with the devil," he said.
Mr. Jordan said that CNN had made no such deal, nor would it, and that CNN's reporting about the regime was fair and tough-minded.
Mr. Jordan's admission pointed up a problem that many news organizations wrestled with in the months leading up to war, and during it.
Until the first statue of Mr. Hussein fell, Western journalists in the Iraqi capital often could not report detailed accounts of government brutality for fear of jeopardizing interview subjects.
In the end, Mr. Jordan said he came to a conclusion that others had as well: for all of the restrictions and dangers in Baghdad, it was better to be there than not.
Some of Mr. Jordan's colleagues at other networks indicated sympathy for his predicament. "If we thought that we were endangering somebody we had hired to help us to report, that would be something that we would weigh very heavily," said Michele Grant, BBC's director of development in the United States.
Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, said Mr. Jordan was being unfairly singled out. "I think every news organization has to make those kinds of calls from time to time," he said."
The News We Kept To Ourselves
Eason Jordan-CNN
Various Opinions
From NY Times 4-15-03
"A recent acknowledgment by Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, that he withheld some accounts of Saddam Hussein's brutality for years to protect the lives of Iraqi sources came in for some withering criticism yesterday.
Several journalism professors and commentators said Mr. Jordan had compromised CNN's journalistic mission so the cable network could continue to report from Iraq. In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Friday, Mr. Jordan revealed his knowledge of the Iraqi regime's use of torture and murder, information that he said he could not divulge until the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today, Mr. Jordan said the issue was not about access, but about life and death.
"It's very simple," he said. "Do you report things that get people killed? The answer is no."
According to the article, Mr. Hussein's secret police subjected an Iraqi CNN cameraman to weeks of electroshock torture in the mid-1990's as they tried to elicit confirmation that Mr. Jordan was an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. (Mr. Jordan called the allegation against him ludicrous.)
Mr. Jordan also wrote that Uday Hussein, Mr. Hussein's eldest son, told him in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two brothers-in-law who had defected to Jordan, as well as King Hussein of Jordan. Mr. Jordan said he told this to the king, who shrugged it off. The two brothers-in-law were later assassinated.
The revelations were harshly criticized by commentators, both conservative and liberal, including Rush Limbaugh and Juan Williams. Bill McLaughlin, an associate professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said CNN could have found a creative way to report the anecdotes Mr. Jordan had collected without jeopardizing people in Iraq.
Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute, said CNN had traded its ability to report the truth for a continued presence in the Baghdad. "In essence, he was caught over a long period of time dealing with the devil," he said.
Mr. Jordan said that CNN had made no such deal, nor would it, and that CNN's reporting about the regime was fair and tough-minded.
Mr. Jordan's admission pointed up a problem that many news organizations wrestled with in the months leading up to war, and during it.
Until the first statue of Mr. Hussein fell, Western journalists in the Iraqi capital often could not report detailed accounts of government brutality for fear of jeopardizing interview subjects.
In the end, Mr. Jordan said he came to a conclusion that others had as well: for all of the restrictions and dangers in Baghdad, it was better to be there than not.
Some of Mr. Jordan's colleagues at other networks indicated sympathy for his predicament. "If we thought that we were endangering somebody we had hired to help us to report, that would be something that we would weigh very heavily," said Michele Grant, BBC's director of development in the United States.
Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, said Mr. Jordan was being unfairly singled out. "I think every news organization has to make those kinds of calls from time to time," he said."
It is time to get fierce
"...in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago. (Applause.) With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot- one comedian has more guts than most politicians. (Applause.) We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who can understand the Constitution, congressman who don't in a moment of fear abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war to the executive branch. And, please, can we please stop the congressional sing-a- longs?
In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce."
Tim Robbins
From a speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003
"...in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago. (Applause.) With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot- one comedian has more guts than most politicians. (Applause.) We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who can understand the Constitution, congressman who don't in a moment of fear abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war to the executive branch. And, please, can we please stop the congressional sing-a- longs?
In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce."
Tim Robbins
From a speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003
In whose interest is it for Iraq to be deconstructed, divided, burnt, de-historied, destroyed?
--It's easy for a reporter to predict doom, especially after a brutal war that lacked all international legitimacy. But catastrophe usually waits for optimists in the Middle East, especially for false optimists who invade oil-rich nations with ideological excuses and high-flown moral claims and accusations, such as weapons of mass destruction, which are still unproved. So I'll make an awful prediction. That America's war of "liberation" is over. Iraq's war of liberation from the Americans is about to begin. In other words, the real and frightening story starts now.--
--Why, Iraqis are asking, did the United States allow the entire Iraqi cabinet to escape?--
--Were they monsters, these men? Yes. Are they sought by the Americans? No. Are they now working for the Americans? Yes, quite possibly -indeed some of them may well be in the long line of ex-security thugs who queue every morning outside the Palestine Hotel in the hope of being re-hired by the US Marines' Civil Affairs Unit.--
--At the end of the Second World War, German-speaking British and US intelligence officers hoovered up every document in the thousands of Gestapo and Abwehr bureaux across western Germany. The Russians did the same in their zone. In Iraq, however, the British and Americans have simply ignored the evidence.--
--Even the unshredded files contain a wealth of information. But again, the Americans have not bothered -or do not want -to search through these papers. If they did, they would find the names of dozens of senior intelligence men, many of them identified in congratulatory letters they insisted on sending each other every time they were promoted. Where now, for example, is Colonel Abdulaziz Saadi, Captain Abdulsalam Salawi, Captain Saad Ahmed al-Ayash, Colonel Saad Mohammed, Captain Majid Ahmed and scores of others? We may never know. Or perhaps we are not supposed to know.--
--Iraqis are right to ask why the Americans don't search for this information, just as they are right to demand to know why the entire Saddam cabinet -every man jack of them -got away. The capture by the Americans of Saddam's half-brother and the ageing Palestinian gunman Abu Abbas, whose last violent act was 18 years ago, is pathetic compensation for this.--
--Now here's another question the Iraqis are asking, and to which I cannot provide an answer. On 8 April, three weeks into the invasion, the Americans dropped four 2,000lb bombs on the Baghdad residential area of Mansur. They claimed they thought Saddam was hiding there. They knew they would kill civilians because it was not, as one Centcom mandarin said, a "risk free venture" (sic). So they dropped their bombs and killed 14 civilians in Mansur, most of them members of a Christian family.--
--The Americans said they couldn't be sure they had killed Saddam until they could carry out forensic tests at the site. But this turns out to have been a lie. I went there two days ago. Not a single US or British official had bothered to visit the bomb craters. Indeed, when I arrived, there was a putrefying smell and families pulled the remains of a baby from the rubble.--
--No American officers have apologised for this appalling killing. And I can promise them that the baby I saw being placed under a sheet of black plastic was very definitely not Saddam Hussein. Had they bothered to look at this place-as they claimed they would- they would at least have found the baby. Now the craters are a place of pilgrimage for the people of Baghdad.--
--Because there is also something dangerous and deeply disturbing about the crowds setting light to the buildings of Baghdad, including the great libraries and state archives. For they are not looters. The looters come first. The arsonists turn up later, often in blue-and-white buses. I followed one after its passengers had set the Ministry of Trade on fire and it sped out of town.
The official US line on all this is that the looting is revenge ..an explanation that is growing very thin ..and that the fires are started by "remnants of Saddam's regime", the same "criminal elements", no doubt, who feature in the marines' curfew orders. But people in Baghdad don't believe Saddam's former supporters are starting these fires. And neither do I.
The looters make money from their rampages but the arsonists have to be paid. The passengers in those buses are clearly being directed to their targets. If Saddam had pre-paid them, they wouldn't start the fires. The moment he disappeared, they would have pocketed the money and forgotten the whole project.
So who are they, this army of arsonists? I recognised one the other day, a middle-aged, unshaven man in a red T-shirt, and the second time he saw me he pointed a Kalashnikov at me. What was he frightened of? Who was he working for? In whose interest is it to destroy the entire physical infrastructure of the state, with its cultural heritage? Why didn't the Americans stop this?--
--Why, for example, did Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, claim last week that there was no widespread looting or destruction in Baghdad? His statement was a lie. But why did he make it?--
--In whose interest is it for Iraq to be deconstructed, divided, burnt, de-historied, destroyed?--
Robert Fisk
The Independent UK
--It's easy for a reporter to predict doom, especially after a brutal war that lacked all international legitimacy. But catastrophe usually waits for optimists in the Middle East, especially for false optimists who invade oil-rich nations with ideological excuses and high-flown moral claims and accusations, such as weapons of mass destruction, which are still unproved. So I'll make an awful prediction. That America's war of "liberation" is over. Iraq's war of liberation from the Americans is about to begin. In other words, the real and frightening story starts now.--
--Why, Iraqis are asking, did the United States allow the entire Iraqi cabinet to escape?--
--Were they monsters, these men? Yes. Are they sought by the Americans? No. Are they now working for the Americans? Yes, quite possibly -indeed some of them may well be in the long line of ex-security thugs who queue every morning outside the Palestine Hotel in the hope of being re-hired by the US Marines' Civil Affairs Unit.--
--At the end of the Second World War, German-speaking British and US intelligence officers hoovered up every document in the thousands of Gestapo and Abwehr bureaux across western Germany. The Russians did the same in their zone. In Iraq, however, the British and Americans have simply ignored the evidence.--
--Even the unshredded files contain a wealth of information. But again, the Americans have not bothered -or do not want -to search through these papers. If they did, they would find the names of dozens of senior intelligence men, many of them identified in congratulatory letters they insisted on sending each other every time they were promoted. Where now, for example, is Colonel Abdulaziz Saadi, Captain Abdulsalam Salawi, Captain Saad Ahmed al-Ayash, Colonel Saad Mohammed, Captain Majid Ahmed and scores of others? We may never know. Or perhaps we are not supposed to know.--
--Iraqis are right to ask why the Americans don't search for this information, just as they are right to demand to know why the entire Saddam cabinet -every man jack of them -got away. The capture by the Americans of Saddam's half-brother and the ageing Palestinian gunman Abu Abbas, whose last violent act was 18 years ago, is pathetic compensation for this.--
--Now here's another question the Iraqis are asking, and to which I cannot provide an answer. On 8 April, three weeks into the invasion, the Americans dropped four 2,000lb bombs on the Baghdad residential area of Mansur. They claimed they thought Saddam was hiding there. They knew they would kill civilians because it was not, as one Centcom mandarin said, a "risk free venture" (sic). So they dropped their bombs and killed 14 civilians in Mansur, most of them members of a Christian family.--
--The Americans said they couldn't be sure they had killed Saddam until they could carry out forensic tests at the site. But this turns out to have been a lie. I went there two days ago. Not a single US or British official had bothered to visit the bomb craters. Indeed, when I arrived, there was a putrefying smell and families pulled the remains of a baby from the rubble.--
--No American officers have apologised for this appalling killing. And I can promise them that the baby I saw being placed under a sheet of black plastic was very definitely not Saddam Hussein. Had they bothered to look at this place-as they claimed they would- they would at least have found the baby. Now the craters are a place of pilgrimage for the people of Baghdad.--
--Because there is also something dangerous and deeply disturbing about the crowds setting light to the buildings of Baghdad, including the great libraries and state archives. For they are not looters. The looters come first. The arsonists turn up later, often in blue-and-white buses. I followed one after its passengers had set the Ministry of Trade on fire and it sped out of town.
The official US line on all this is that the looting is revenge ..an explanation that is growing very thin ..and that the fires are started by "remnants of Saddam's regime", the same "criminal elements", no doubt, who feature in the marines' curfew orders. But people in Baghdad don't believe Saddam's former supporters are starting these fires. And neither do I.
The looters make money from their rampages but the arsonists have to be paid. The passengers in those buses are clearly being directed to their targets. If Saddam had pre-paid them, they wouldn't start the fires. The moment he disappeared, they would have pocketed the money and forgotten the whole project.
So who are they, this army of arsonists? I recognised one the other day, a middle-aged, unshaven man in a red T-shirt, and the second time he saw me he pointed a Kalashnikov at me. What was he frightened of? Who was he working for? In whose interest is it to destroy the entire physical infrastructure of the state, with its cultural heritage? Why didn't the Americans stop this?--
--Why, for example, did Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, claim last week that there was no widespread looting or destruction in Baghdad? His statement was a lie. But why did he make it?--
--In whose interest is it for Iraq to be deconstructed, divided, burnt, de-historied, destroyed?--
Robert Fisk
The Independent UK
TODAY'S TIDBITS FROM THE OP-EDS
"While we've been watching the Iraq show, many past achievements of U.S. foreign policy have been disintegrating. Through neglect and arrogance, the United States has squandered the good will it built up in Latin America in the 1990's. For half a century the U.S. has regarded the drive toward free trade as a key part of its global strategy; now trade negotiations are falling apart from lack of attention.
Even in Iraq, we're starting to see that winning the war was the easy part, and U.S. officials — previously dismissive of "old Europe" — are suddenly talking about an international peacekeeping force. But to be effective, such a force, like the one in Afghanistan, would surely have to include French and German soldiers.
The truth is that we can't go it alone. But by the time that truth sinks in, there may be a lot of pieces to pick up. "
Paul Krugman
NYTimes
"For the overwhelming political lesson of the last year is that war works — that is, it's an excellent cover for the Republican Party's domestic political agenda. In fact, war works in two ways. The public rallies around the flag, which means the President and his party; and the public's attention is diverted from other issues.
As long as the nation is at war, then, it will be hard to get the public to notice what the flagwavers are doing behind our backs. And it just so happens that the "Bush doctrine," which calls for preventive war against countries that may someday pose a threat, offers the possibility of a series of wars against nasty regimes with weak armies.
Someday the public will figure all this out. But it may be a very long wait."
Paul Krugman
NY Times 4-15-03
"While we've been watching the Iraq show, many past achievements of U.S. foreign policy have been disintegrating. Through neglect and arrogance, the United States has squandered the good will it built up in Latin America in the 1990's. For half a century the U.S. has regarded the drive toward free trade as a key part of its global strategy; now trade negotiations are falling apart from lack of attention.
Even in Iraq, we're starting to see that winning the war was the easy part, and U.S. officials — previously dismissive of "old Europe" — are suddenly talking about an international peacekeeping force. But to be effective, such a force, like the one in Afghanistan, would surely have to include French and German soldiers.
The truth is that we can't go it alone. But by the time that truth sinks in, there may be a lot of pieces to pick up. "
Paul Krugman
NYTimes
"For the overwhelming political lesson of the last year is that war works — that is, it's an excellent cover for the Republican Party's domestic political agenda. In fact, war works in two ways. The public rallies around the flag, which means the President and his party; and the public's attention is diverted from other issues.
As long as the nation is at war, then, it will be hard to get the public to notice what the flagwavers are doing behind our backs. And it just so happens that the "Bush doctrine," which calls for preventive war against countries that may someday pose a threat, offers the possibility of a series of wars against nasty regimes with weak armies.
Someday the public will figure all this out. But it may be a very long wait."
Paul Krugman
NY Times 4-15-03
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
Monday, March 31, 2003
The Independent Online - News
DSEA/Patriot Act II:
This is why the "Anti-American" rhetoric is being passed on and abused by the NeoConservative Right and the Media that Loves Them:
Excerpt:
"If massive protests continue after U.S. bombs start pounding Iraq, expect the anti-war movement to be lambasted by President Bush’s pro-war minions. Radio and television pundits will crank up the volume, labeling protests un-patriotic and anti-American. Some may equate dissent with treason. Expect long-winded, one-sided debates on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN focusing on the nature of treason.
With even the mildest congressional condemnation of war with Iraq stifled, the Bush administration will take advantage of a jingoist climate and try to rush through the Justice Department’s newly drafted “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” aka PATRIOT Act II. This draconian measure would expand the government’s powers to gather intelligence on the home front; increased surveillance and the prosecution of American citizens could become the order of the day."
DSEA/Patriot Act II:
This is why the "Anti-American" rhetoric is being passed on and abused by the NeoConservative Right and the Media that Loves Them:
Excerpt:
"If massive protests continue after U.S. bombs start pounding Iraq, expect the anti-war movement to be lambasted by President Bush’s pro-war minions. Radio and television pundits will crank up the volume, labeling protests un-patriotic and anti-American. Some may equate dissent with treason. Expect long-winded, one-sided debates on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN focusing on the nature of treason.
With even the mildest congressional condemnation of war with Iraq stifled, the Bush administration will take advantage of a jingoist climate and try to rush through the Justice Department’s newly drafted “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” aka PATRIOT Act II. This draconian measure would expand the government’s powers to gather intelligence on the home front; increased surveillance and the prosecution of American citizens could become the order of the day."
My Thoughts On Bush's Poorest Choice
Excerpt from My Post:
"I think we should discuss the fact that
this president was far too hasty in getting the US into this war...for the wrong reasons...based upon very bad counsel..and rest assured, I am not blind to the fact that there are sound moral reasons...for you are now witnessing a "choosing" (if you will) of a final "reason" after all the other myriad (failed)reasons were laid upon us day after day after day. I think Bush may have finally landed on a good reason to justify a perfectly horrid one.
While he may be credited in history for helping out some Iraqi citizens and creating new jobs for them (which is better than can be said about him in his own nation), we will have increased the propensity for great violence from the Islamic world toward our very own people.
Since we have entered this unwise
war-adventure, I would not wish to see Saddam Hussein stay in power.
There are perfectly sound moral reasons for his removal.(And always have been).
The poorly planned and anti-UN war is my complaint...as well as the blatant ignorance of the man that is supposed to be leading us...he has relied upon the wrong counsel...ADMITTEDLY so! He's letting his AIDES take the fall for him!! He admits he's been a puppet.
We fire brutally honest men like Peter Arnett who state the obvious (granted, I'm sure talking to Iraq TV was NOT in his contract!!)"
Link to Charlotte Observer story
Excerpt from My Post:
"I think we should discuss the fact that
this president was far too hasty in getting the US into this war...for the wrong reasons...based upon very bad counsel..and rest assured, I am not blind to the fact that there are sound moral reasons...for you are now witnessing a "choosing" (if you will) of a final "reason" after all the other myriad (failed)reasons were laid upon us day after day after day. I think Bush may have finally landed on a good reason to justify a perfectly horrid one.
While he may be credited in history for helping out some Iraqi citizens and creating new jobs for them (which is better than can be said about him in his own nation), we will have increased the propensity for great violence from the Islamic world toward our very own people.
Since we have entered this unwise
war-adventure, I would not wish to see Saddam Hussein stay in power.
There are perfectly sound moral reasons for his removal.(And always have been).
The poorly planned and anti-UN war is my complaint...as well as the blatant ignorance of the man that is supposed to be leading us...he has relied upon the wrong counsel...ADMITTEDLY so! He's letting his AIDES take the fall for him!! He admits he's been a puppet.
We fire brutally honest men like Peter Arnett who state the obvious (granted, I'm sure talking to Iraq TV was NOT in his contract!!)"
Link to Charlotte Observer story
D. Allan Kerr: Unused freedom isn’t worth much
Excerpt:
"Leaders have long known that one of the best methods of uniting a people is to have a common enemy upon which we can focus our hate, as illustrated famously in George Orwell’s "1984." A certain segment of the U.S. population seems to have a wealth of targets for their hate these days, be it the Axis of Evil, our old ally France, or Hollywood celebrities speaking out against the nation’s policy on Iraq.
Country singer Charlie Daniels, who hasn’t had a decent song in 20 years and surprised me by being alive, called these celebrities "some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I’ve ever had the displeasure to hear about." The other day I heard a bunch of morons on a local radio station talking about obtaining a French-made car for the sole purpose of demolishing it, in order to express their displeasure with France’s opposition to this war. I don’t know if they ever did it, because I got tired of listening to them.
These people were, at least, treating the situation as something of a joke. But when stations organize the destruction of someone’s recorded music because she has voiced an opinion on international events, it’s not just stupid, it’s scary. Hearing stories of CDs publicly destroyed and music censored sounds to me too much like the old Nazi book burnings of a few decades ago."
Excerpt:
"Leaders have long known that one of the best methods of uniting a people is to have a common enemy upon which we can focus our hate, as illustrated famously in George Orwell’s "1984." A certain segment of the U.S. population seems to have a wealth of targets for their hate these days, be it the Axis of Evil, our old ally France, or Hollywood celebrities speaking out against the nation’s policy on Iraq.
Country singer Charlie Daniels, who hasn’t had a decent song in 20 years and surprised me by being alive, called these celebrities "some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I’ve ever had the displeasure to hear about." The other day I heard a bunch of morons on a local radio station talking about obtaining a French-made car for the sole purpose of demolishing it, in order to express their displeasure with France’s opposition to this war. I don’t know if they ever did it, because I got tired of listening to them.
These people were, at least, treating the situation as something of a joke. But when stations organize the destruction of someone’s recorded music because she has voiced an opinion on international events, it’s not just stupid, it’s scary. Hearing stories of CDs publicly destroyed and music censored sounds to me too much like the old Nazi book burnings of a few decades ago."
Saturday, March 29, 2003
THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST TACTICAL IDEAS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE YOU'RE CRUSADERS
"EVANGELICALS READY TO REBUILD IRAQ FOR CHRIST
MARK O'KEEFE, RELIGION NEWS SERVICE - Two leading evangelical Christian
relief and missionary organizations say they have teams of workers
poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of its
large Muslim population. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest
Protestant denomination in the United States, and the Rev. Franklin
Graham's Samaritan's Purse said Tuesday that workers are near the Iraq
border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The
relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both
Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of
controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's
second-largest religion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
"EVANGELICALS READY TO REBUILD IRAQ FOR CHRIST
MARK O'KEEFE, RELIGION NEWS SERVICE - Two leading evangelical Christian
relief and missionary organizations say they have teams of workers
poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of its
large Muslim population. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest
Protestant denomination in the United States, and the Rev. Franklin
Graham's Samaritan's Purse said Tuesday that workers are near the Iraq
border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The
relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both
Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of
controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's
second-largest religion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Thich Nhat Hanh:
"Fear is born from ignorance. We think that the other person is trying to take away something from us. But if we look deeply, we see that the desire of the other person is exactly our own desire—to have peace, to be able to have a chance to live. So if you realize that the other person is a human being too, and you have exactly the same kind of spiritual path, and then the two can become good practitioners. This appears to be practical for both.
The only answer to fear is more understanding. And there is no understanding if there is no effort to look more deeply to see what is there in our heart and in the heart of the other person. The Buddha always reminds us that our afflictions, including our fear and our desiring, are born from our ignorance. That is why in order to dissipate fear, we have to remove wrong perception."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
"Fear is born from ignorance. We think that the other person is trying to take away something from us. But if we look deeply, we see that the desire of the other person is exactly our own desire—to have peace, to be able to have a chance to live. So if you realize that the other person is a human being too, and you have exactly the same kind of spiritual path, and then the two can become good practitioners. This appears to be practical for both.
The only answer to fear is more understanding. And there is no understanding if there is no effort to look more deeply to see what is there in our heart and in the heart of the other person. The Buddha always reminds us that our afflictions, including our fear and our desiring, are born from our ignorance. That is why in order to dissipate fear, we have to remove wrong perception."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
From the "GEEZ- WHO KNEW??" Department :
--TELEGRAPH, UK - Fueled by graphic television pictures of wounded Iraqi
civilians and text messages on mobile phones, a tidal wave of fury
against Britain and America is sweeping the Arab world."
--"All these images have led Arabs with no sympathy for Saddam to rally behind his regime. "I acknowledge that Saddam is a dictator," said Hisham Bustani, a 27-year-old dentist in Amman. "But at the moment, I am with Saddam against the imperialist aggression.
"You will not find a single person here who feels differently. We are against the aggression not out of any particular sympathy with the Iraqi regime but because it violates the territory of the Arab nation and Islam."--
Go to link for full story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related story about Arab Fury
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC27Ak05.html
The 'Palestinization' of Iraq
By Pepe Escobar
EXCERPT:
"One of the most extraordinary developments of the war so far is how the resistance of the Iraqi population against a foreign invasion has galvanized this sentiment of anger in the Arab world. "We are all Palestinians now," as a Bedouin taxi driver puts it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
--TELEGRAPH, UK - Fueled by graphic television pictures of wounded Iraqi
civilians and text messages on mobile phones, a tidal wave of fury
against Britain and America is sweeping the Arab world."
--"All these images have led Arabs with no sympathy for Saddam to rally behind his regime. "I acknowledge that Saddam is a dictator," said Hisham Bustani, a 27-year-old dentist in Amman. "But at the moment, I am with Saddam against the imperialist aggression.
"You will not find a single person here who feels differently. We are against the aggression not out of any particular sympathy with the Iraqi regime but because it violates the territory of the Arab nation and Islam."--
Go to link for full story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related story about Arab Fury
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC27Ak05.html
The 'Palestinization' of Iraq
By Pepe Escobar
EXCERPT:
"One of the most extraordinary developments of the war so far is how the resistance of the Iraqi population against a foreign invasion has galvanized this sentiment of anger in the Arab world. "We are all Palestinians now," as a Bedouin taxi driver puts it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
TOO ILLEGIT NOT TO QUIT!
HALLIBURON' S OUT *well..for the most obvious part, anyhow*
Halliburton out of the running
Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq
March 28, 2003: 7:45 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuilt post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development.
The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism.
A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said.
Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role.
Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive." ****HMMM...I WONDER WHICH?****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HALLIBURON' S OUT *well..for the most obvious part, anyhow*
Halliburton out of the running
Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq
March 28, 2003: 7:45 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuilt post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development.
The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism.
A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said.
Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role.
Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive." ****HMMM...I WONDER WHICH?****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HOWARD DEAN IN WASHINGTON TIMES TODAY
Democrat catches antiwar wave
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Former Gov. Howard Dean is riding a surge of strong antiwar support for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the latest polls show him running even in New Hampshire with his party's front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Top Stories
Democratic strategists and pollsters say the Vermont liberal's swift rise in the polls in the nation's first presidential primary state is due entirely to his opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq.
"There is absolutely no question that the war is what's fueling his jump in the polls. Our polling not only shows very good numbers for him in New Hampshire, but also the potential to grow," said John Zogby, who is polling extensively in the early primary states.
"In addition to the candidate horse-race questions in Iowa and New Hampshire, we've matched nameless candidate positions on the issues and clearly what Democratic voters say they want is a candidate who is unequivocally against the war," Mr. Zogby said.
But in a telephone interview as he was driving to a campaign appearance in Iowa, Mr. Dean said, "I truly don't believe that my antiwar position is drawing people to me. I think that gets people's attention and I'd say that about 50 percent of the Democrats are against the war.
"But that's not what's fueling the candidacy. There are other candidates that are against the war. I think it allows people to give me a look that might not ordinarily look at me," the former Vermont governor said.
What Democrats like about him "was the willingness to be a Democrat again. They want you to stand up and be proud of what we Democrats have traditionally stood for, things like health insurance," he said.
Still, Mr. Dean has made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign. He has been aggressively attacking his nearest rivals in the race for supporting the president's war to topple Saddam Hussein from power.
Mr. Dean has said that the campaign in Iraq is "the wrong war at the wrong time." He said that he would not have voted for the war resolution in Congress that his rivals for the nomination helped to pass last year.
More recently, Mr. Dean has focused all of his attacks on Mr. Kerry, accusing the senator of straddling the issue of war in Iraq and deliberately trying to obscure his continued support for Mr. Bush's military policies.
"I think everybody has made themselves clear except John," Mr. Dean said at a campaign appearance in Iowa earlier this week. "Senator Kerry to this day continues to be ambivalent about his position."
Mr. Dean, who began his campaign more than a year ago, has made more than 40 trips into neighboring New Hampshire, running in part on his opposition to war with Iraq, his support for universal health insurance and calling for the repeal of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. He remained in the middle tier in the polls until last week when the U.S.-led war against Iraq began. That's when his poll numbers shot up by 6 points and moved him to within 1 point of Mr. Kerry, who leads with 23 percent.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri is in third place with 15 percent, followed by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut at 12 percent. The other candidates are in the low single digits, according to a survey of 600 registered Democratic voters by the American Research Group that was taken between March 16 and 19.
Mr. Dean has criticized not only Mr. Kerry, but also Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards were overheard recently on the Senate floor complaining about Mr. Dean's attacks and have been mounting a counterattack that is giving their little-known rival even more visibility in the crowded field of nine candidates.
"Senator Kerry has been clear and consistent on his policy on Iraq and many Democrats are disappointed Howard Dean has decided to put politics first and attack other candidates in a negative, divisive and personal way," Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday.
Mr. Dean refused to respond to Mr. Gibbs' criticism.
The biggest political hurdle that Mr. Dean will have to clear in the months ahead will be getting enough campaign contributions to compete with the heavy fund raising that Mr. Kerry's advisers say he has been drawing lately. Democratic fund-raisers say Mr. Kerry could easily raise the $40 million that it will take to finance a national campaign for the nomination.
Even so, Mr. Dean believes that an effective message — and not money — will be the critical factor in the 2004 primary contests.
"We're raising money and we'll raise a significant amount of money, about $10 million by the end of the year, but money can't buy exciting the Democratic base," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat catches antiwar wave
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Former Gov. Howard Dean is riding a surge of strong antiwar support for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the latest polls show him running even in New Hampshire with his party's front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Top Stories
Democratic strategists and pollsters say the Vermont liberal's swift rise in the polls in the nation's first presidential primary state is due entirely to his opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq.
"There is absolutely no question that the war is what's fueling his jump in the polls. Our polling not only shows very good numbers for him in New Hampshire, but also the potential to grow," said John Zogby, who is polling extensively in the early primary states.
"In addition to the candidate horse-race questions in Iowa and New Hampshire, we've matched nameless candidate positions on the issues and clearly what Democratic voters say they want is a candidate who is unequivocally against the war," Mr. Zogby said.
But in a telephone interview as he was driving to a campaign appearance in Iowa, Mr. Dean said, "I truly don't believe that my antiwar position is drawing people to me. I think that gets people's attention and I'd say that about 50 percent of the Democrats are against the war.
"But that's not what's fueling the candidacy. There are other candidates that are against the war. I think it allows people to give me a look that might not ordinarily look at me," the former Vermont governor said.
What Democrats like about him "was the willingness to be a Democrat again. They want you to stand up and be proud of what we Democrats have traditionally stood for, things like health insurance," he said.
Still, Mr. Dean has made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign. He has been aggressively attacking his nearest rivals in the race for supporting the president's war to topple Saddam Hussein from power.
Mr. Dean has said that the campaign in Iraq is "the wrong war at the wrong time." He said that he would not have voted for the war resolution in Congress that his rivals for the nomination helped to pass last year.
More recently, Mr. Dean has focused all of his attacks on Mr. Kerry, accusing the senator of straddling the issue of war in Iraq and deliberately trying to obscure his continued support for Mr. Bush's military policies.
"I think everybody has made themselves clear except John," Mr. Dean said at a campaign appearance in Iowa earlier this week. "Senator Kerry to this day continues to be ambivalent about his position."
Mr. Dean, who began his campaign more than a year ago, has made more than 40 trips into neighboring New Hampshire, running in part on his opposition to war with Iraq, his support for universal health insurance and calling for the repeal of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. He remained in the middle tier in the polls until last week when the U.S.-led war against Iraq began. That's when his poll numbers shot up by 6 points and moved him to within 1 point of Mr. Kerry, who leads with 23 percent.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri is in third place with 15 percent, followed by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut at 12 percent. The other candidates are in the low single digits, according to a survey of 600 registered Democratic voters by the American Research Group that was taken between March 16 and 19.
Mr. Dean has criticized not only Mr. Kerry, but also Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards were overheard recently on the Senate floor complaining about Mr. Dean's attacks and have been mounting a counterattack that is giving their little-known rival even more visibility in the crowded field of nine candidates.
"Senator Kerry has been clear and consistent on his policy on Iraq and many Democrats are disappointed Howard Dean has decided to put politics first and attack other candidates in a negative, divisive and personal way," Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday.
Mr. Dean refused to respond to Mr. Gibbs' criticism.
The biggest political hurdle that Mr. Dean will have to clear in the months ahead will be getting enough campaign contributions to compete with the heavy fund raising that Mr. Kerry's advisers say he has been drawing lately. Democratic fund-raisers say Mr. Kerry could easily raise the $40 million that it will take to finance a national campaign for the nomination.
Even so, Mr. Dean believes that an effective message — and not money — will be the critical factor in the 2004 primary contests.
"We're raising money and we'll raise a significant amount of money, about $10 million by the end of the year, but money can't buy exciting the Democratic base," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, March 28, 2003
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.
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."
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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."
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)