Haygazun's call

This blog contains anything that comes to my attention, whenever I want to share or just drop my bile out on the world. It may cover anything, from my everyday life to issues concerning Turks and Armenians, to Lebanon, Palestine and Israeli-US barbarism...

Name: Haygazun

"Haygazun" in Armenian means "son of Hayg", the mythological hero who killed the Balbylonian tyrant Bel in a battle for the freedom of his tribe. He is considered to be the forefather of Armenians by tradition. So, all that you need to know about me is that I am Armenian by blood and by heart equally Lebanese, to some degree Syrian, Palestinian and Iranian... All grandparents are genocide survivors (committed by the bloodthirsty Ottomans, the prototype of contemporary Turks)...

17 October, 2006

Conversations with Armenians and Turks about the Genocide

BY LINE ABRAHAMIAN


The human rights organization PEN, an association of writers and supporters, defends freedom of expression and opposes censorship. PEN Canada works on behalf of writers at home and abroad “who have been forced into silence for writing the truth as they see it.” They lobby governments internationally; work for the release of persecuted writers and conduct awareness campaigns about freedom of expression.

PEN American Centre has a “freedom to write program.” Visit their site for more information on Elif Shafak’s trial and the charges against her. They also sponsor a letter-writing campaign in support of Turkish authors/publishers brought to trial for speaking out about the Genocide or mentioning it in their books. There you will find sample letters of support for Elif Shafak and Ragip Zarakolu should you wish to join the campaign.

“My Journey From Hate to Hope” in the October issue of Reader’s Digest is my attempt to deal with the hatred I’ve felt for Turks because of the 1915 Armenian Genocide that killed 1.5 million men, women and children. Here, I speak with some Turks and some well-known Armenians about the Genocide.

In 2005 the first conference on the 1915 killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks took place in Istanbul. However, just as these voices were being raised, others were trying to silence them. “This conference was first postponed because there were threats against us, and when it did finally happen, people accused us of being traitors and threw eggs,” says novelist Elif Shafak. “But the fact that it even took place is a sign that things are changing in Turkey in a positive direction. But the bigger the change, the deeper the panic of those who want to preserve status quo. That’s why the Turkish judiciary is bringing us to court one by one.

“There are four approaches among Turks regarding the 1915 atrocities,” Shafak explains. “The most common is ignorance and collective amnesia. The second is deliberate rejection and denial. That viewpoint is shared by a smaller group, but their voices are louder because they’re in influential positions. The third is shared by Turkish youth, who say: ‘Whatever happened is in the past. Why am I being held responsible for something my grandfather did, if he did it?’ The fourth is shared by intellectuals and open-minded people like myself. We need to face our past, because the past lives within the present. Only then can our society become democratic. If we had brought to justice those guilty of the massacres and atrocities in the past, it would’ve been harder for the state to oppress other minorities and critical voices.”

There are now about 60 writers and publishers before the Turkish courts. Most recently Shafak, for her book The Bastard of Istanbul, which refers to the massacres*. Why does Turkey have a hard time acknowledging the Genocide? “They believe you can’t slander the Turkish nation by putting it on the same level as the Nazis,” explains Taner Akçam, visiting professor of history at the University of Minnesota. “There’s also a fear of consequences—that Turkey will have to pay compensation in land and money. But I think their primary fear is psychological. Armenians are a constant reminder of Turkey’s most traumatic historical event—the collapse of their empire. The Turks think of themselves as the phoenix rising from the ashes of the Armenians. Some of the founders of the Turkish state were members of the party who organized the Genocide. And the Turks have glorified them as heroes. If you call them murderers or thieves, you question the very existence of the state and identity.

“But Turkish society wants to know what really happened in 1915. And for the first time in history, it’s breaking its silence to challenge the official state rhetoric.” This may be due to the books circulating in Turkey about the Genocide. The man responsible for publishing many of them: Ragip Zarakolu. He now stands on trial for publishing two books on the massacres.

“I learned about the Genocide through my mother,” recalls Zarakolu. “In 1915 Turkish soldiers collected her Armenian neighbours. While the Armenians were crying in the streets, my mother and her family were crying inside their homes. Her grandmother saved two Armenian girls from deportation, but soldiers later picked them up again. This made a big impression on me.”

Zarakolu and his late wife, Ayse Nur, founded Belge International Publishing House in Istanbul in 1977 and have published ten books on the Armenians. “The first book was Yves Ternon’s History of a Genocide, in 1993. It was banned and confiscated, and we were accused of making terrorist propaganda. My wife was sentenced to two years in prison. In 1994, our office was firebombed. Now I’m on trial. The state fears these books will open discussion in Turkey, but that has already begun. These books have helped change the minds of Turkish intellectuals, and now there are more courageous people in Turkey.”

That’s crucial in this struggle for recognition, says Fatma Müge Göçek, associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. “It’s important for Turks like us to speak out because only then will Turkish society listen. If we close ranks with the Armenians, then what nationalists see isn’t the other—it’s the Turk with the Armenian.

“As long as human rights are important to the world, I don’t see anything short of recognition emerging,” says Göçek. “At least that’s what I, as a human being, strive for. Whether it happens in my lifetime, I cannot tell. But at least I’ll leave this place and this problem in a better condition than I found it in.”

Canadian and American Armenians have also been touched by the Genocide. Here is what some of them have to say:

Canadian director Atom Egoyan, whose movie Ararat, about the Genocide, won a Genie for best movie.

“I was doing a film review of Midnight Express for a student paper. Outside the theatre, Turkish students were giving out pamphlets refuting the images in the film. And that was a trigger for me. I became really involved politically and wrote the script for Ararat. But I wasn’t ready to turn it into a movie: I was full of rage and demonized Turks who hadn’t come to terms with this. I didn’t know that there’s a generation of Turks who know nothing about this. If there’s to be dialogue, we have to understand the overwhelming nature of the admission for a people who’ve had no preparation from their government. We can’t just expect someone to accept they’re genocidal.

“Can a human-rights transgression that happened so long ago and has been systematically denied be brought to justice? That’s the enduring question. Do these things go away with time? I don’t think they do.”

Canadian singer Isabel Bayrakdarian.

“My father’s father was forced to march in the desert. He survived, but his wife and two-year-old son died of starvation. My mom’s parents also survived. Turks captured her grandfather and tortured him by pressing a branding iron all over his body. He escaped but was later killed.

“So I grew up with this fierce loyalty to my culture and this need to know what my grandparents went through to make sure I remain Armenian. That’s what colours my singing. When I sing the Armenian song “Deleyaman,” non-Armenian musicians have told me, ‘I don’t know what it is about that song, but it broke my heart.’ It was written as a love song, but after the Genocide, the lyrics ‘I miss my beloved’ acquired a different meaning. ‘I miss my beloved’ not because he’s late from tending the sheep in the mountains. No, he was massacred.

“My mother’s the reason I have such a strong Armenian identity. I saw so much fire in her that this tragedy had happened and still isn’t recognized, but that as long as we don’t forget, we will have justice.

“The pain will never heal because this was a plot to annihilate us. The fact that I’m here and singing Armenian songs, it’s like rising from the ashes and rebuilding.”

American musician Serj Tankian from System of a Down, an Armenian band that is the subject of Screamers, a documentary about their worldwide campaign for Genocide recognition.

“My grandfather and grandmother are survivors of the Genocide. My grandmother has passed away, but my grandfather is still alive—he’s 96. He was five during the Genocide. His father, uncles and grandfather were taken away to a ‘work camp’ but were exterminated. Later Turkish soldiers took him and others out of their village. They were robbed, raped, starved and some were killed. He lost his eyesight for two weeks

“When I heard these stories, my heart opened up and I felt like crying. It’s mind-blowing that man could do that to man in the 20th century. Any time you allow an injustice to occur, you’re encouraging others to think they can get away with it. Hitler did. And genocide is still occurring in Darfur. It’s ridiculous! We haven’t learned our lessons.

“Some of our songs, like ‘Pluck’ and ‘Holy Mountains,’ touch upon the Genocide and the victims and are in homage to them. It’s part of our lives; it’s a part of who we are.

“I’m blown away by Turks who say they’re not only fans of our music but also of the stand we take and what we talk about. It means the tide is turning, that we’re breaking through barriers—and people are realizing the truth.”

* An Istanbul court recently dropped the charges against Elif Shafak of insulting Turkish identity, originally brought because an Armenian character in her novel speaks of "Turkish butchers" who killed his ancestors, and uses the term "genocide." The court found that evidence was lacking.


Read Line Abrahamian's article "My Journey From Hate to Hope"

My Journey from Hate to Hope

The Armenian Genocide almost annihilated my ancestors. How could I not hate Turks?

By Line Abrahamian

When I heard in April that Turkey threatened economic sanctions against Canada and recalled its ambassador because Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly recognized the Armenian Genocide, all the anger I’ve felt towards Turks came rushing back. Why do they use scare tactics on anyone who acknowledges that, between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians in the first genocide of the 20th century? Twenty-one countries have recognized it, and the European Union has been urging Turkey to face up to its past if it wants to join. I know you should never hate, but how else am I supposed to feel about a nation that tried to annihilate my ancestors—and is still denying it?

Instinctively I cringed when a co-worker first told me his wife was Turkish. As an Armenian-Canadian, I’d been raised with stories of the Genocide. I was five when I first saw a black-and white photo from the massacre, of a crying Armenian boy so emaciated his ribs were sticking out. That kid could’ve been me. So at age five, I decided to hate all Turks. At my Armenian school in Montreal, the worst insult you could hurl at another kid wasn’t a four-letter word, it was "Turk lover."

Three years ago, at 28, I met my co-worker’s wife. She was the first Turkish person I had ever met. I shook her hand and smiled. She was lovely, but when we sat down and talked, it was not about the past. And that bothered me. I think I expected her to apologize profusely for what her ancestors did in 1915 or to slam her government for nearly a century of denial. She didn’t. So I decided to hate her, too.

It might have been irrational, but I wasn’t alone in feeling this way. When I asked an educated Jewish woman how she felt whenever she met a German, she offered up a guilty smile. "Whenever I meet an older German, I wonder, Were you the one who pushed my aunt into the oven? And if it’s a young German, I can’t help but think, Did your grandparents kill any Jews during the Holocaust? In my mind, I know I shouldn’t feel this anger. But my heart won’t let me forgive."

This, even after Germany apologized and made restitutions. All over the world, Holocaust deniers are shunned and put on trial. Yet Turkey has gotten away with denying the Genocide for 91 years because most of the world doesn’t know that before Sudan, Rwanda, Cambodia and Nazi Germany, the Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians in massacres and deportation marches through the deserts of Mesopotamia (parts of today’s Turkey, Syria and Iraq). Many people don’t even know what an Armenian is—"So you speak Arabic?" "No, I speak Armenian." "Right. Your country is Russia." "No, my country is Armenia." The victims are largely unmourned. And last year Turkey dragged its most renowned novelist, Orhan Pamuk, to court for "insulting Turkishness" after he was quoted as saying a million Armenians were killed in his country.

Can you blame me for holding a grudge?

I walk into Manoug Khatchadourian’s apartment and hug him. We’ve never met, yet I feel an instant connection. Manoug, 104, is a Genocide survivor.

He asks me to make Armenian coffee, expecting that since I’m Armenian, I must know how to brew it—like baking choereg (Armenian bread) or cooking dolma (stuffed vegetables). I don’t. Still, I have a go, but it turns out thick and gloppy. Manoug takes a sip and cringes, not subtly. I smile apologetically. But he has survived far worse than bad coffee.

My eyes fix on a painting above Manoug’s head. A Turkish soldier is stabbing an Armenian woman. Another is ripping a baby from his pleading mother’s arms. An Armenian mother is cradling her dead daughter.

"How could I not hate them?" says Manoug, his body trembling. "They killed our mothers, fathers, children! No, I can’t forgive them. I still live it today." His mind races back to a day in his childhood, on the deportation march in Mesopotamia, in July 1915.

"Have you seen Mama?" 13-year-old Manoug asked pleadingly, but the haggard Armenians mutely trudged past him, their tongues lolling, and threw themselves into a puddle of rain mingled with animal urine. They hadn’t had a drop for two days. Manoug had wriggled through the throng to fetch water for his family but had now lost them. "Have you seen Mama?" he asked anyone who would listen. But no one had.


The caravan set off once more. It had been four weeks since they’d been dragged from their homes in Kharpert, and every day marchers died of hunger, thirst, heat—or the dagger of a guard. Now Manoug was alone.

Suddenly a band of Turkish and Kurdish marauders came riding down with a roar. The frightened marchers scattered, but many were trampled under crushing hooves. Horsemen snatched up pretty girls and looted marchers; a few fell on a woman and began breaking out her gold teeth with a hammer.

Then a Turk started chasing Manoug. The boy ran, but his legs were weak. His assailant caught up, throwing Manoug to the ground, beating him fiercely with his bayonet, then stripping off his clothes.

Bloody and naked, Manoug staggered behind a boulder and collapsed. Some Armenian boys rushed to help him. "Leave me," Manoug breathed. "I’ve lost my family. This is where I want to die."

The phone rings in Manoug’s apartment. As he answers it, I think, How could he not hate the Turks? My eyes stray back to the painting. I hate them all over again.

As I enter the Ararat carpet store in Montreal, I can almost hear the giggle of my six-year-old self, climbing up carpet mountains and through carpet tunnels with store owner Kerop Bedoukian while Dad was with clients.

"This place hasn’t changed much since you were last here, has it?" asks Kerop’s son, Harold, who inherited Ararat when Kerop died in 1981. But it has. The carpets are neatly displayed on the floor instead of rolled into fun tunnels for the pint-sized and pigtailed. Kerop’s office looks different, but his original desk is still there. And tucked in a bookshelf is The Urchin, the book he wrote about his experiences on the deportation march. When I was a girl, I had no idea the man who playfully scaled carpet hills with me had climbed different kinds of mountains in the summer of 1915.

Nine-year-old Kerop couldn’t remember the last time they were allowed to rest. They clambered up yet another mountain, flanked by a steep drop. His eyes were fixed on a donkey swaying dangerously under its load. It lost its footing and toppled over the edge. The boy peeked down to see if donkeys land like cats do. They don’t. But he wondered why the lady who’d been leading it hadn’t let go of its halter when it fell. So many marchers tripped and toppled, reminding Kerop of shooting stars.

It was almost dusk. Still they ploughed on. Kerop noticed a Turkish guard creep over. He seemed intensely interested in someone in the caravan. The guard quickened his pace, slunk deep into the crowd—and pounced on a girl, drag-ging her behind a boulder as she kicked and screamed. Soon, the guard reappeared, pulling up his pants, and strode away. Kerop waited for the girl to emerge, too. But she didn’t. She must have been 15.

"I hated them for destroying an innocent and beautiful girl," Kerop later wrote in The Urchin.

Harold tells me now, "That was the first time my dad said he felt hatred for Turks. But he didn’t hate all Turks." His family had Turkish friends who trudged with them as far as they could on the deportation road, Harold explains. "I’m less generous in my anger than he was. Still, your generation seems to feel the strongest. When my son was ten, he came home one day with ‘Death to all Turks’ written on his arm. We were stunned. We’d told him about the Genocide but hadn’t taught him to hate."

Every April 24—Genocide commemoration day—thousands of Armenians converge in front of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa and chant, "Recognize the Genocide!"

I was there as a five-year-old. At that age, do we even know what we’re fighting for? We do. Every one of the 27 years she has been a teacher at an Armenian kindergarten, my mom has taught children about the Genocide.

I ask her if she thinks five is too young to hear about this. "You have to put it in their blood early on," she says, "otherwise they won’t grow up with that fire in their belly to fight for our cause. That’s what we did with you."

"So would I be less loyal to my heritage if I didn’t hate Turks?" I ask her.

"Yes," my mom replies unflinchingly.

"So it’s okay for me to hate another human being?"

"No, not just anyone," she says. "But after what they did, how could you not hate a Turk?"

"But is it fair not to distinguish between the generations?" I venture.

"Fair?" she snaps. "When they were massacring the Armenians, did they distinguish between the women, the children, the elderly? And today’s Turk is just as bad, for denying it happened."

I’m watching the documentary The Genocide in Me, in which 32-year-old Armenian-Canadian filmmaker Araz Artinian tries to understand her father’s obsession with his heritage through a personal journey that leads her back to the roots of it all.

Five-year-old Vartan Hartunian clutched his father’s hand as Turkish soldiers herded hundreds of Armenians into a church in Marash, in the southern Ottoman Empire. Suddenly, horrifying shouts issued from nearby. Vartan peered outside and saw Turkish soldiers pouring kerosene on a neighbouring church and setting it on fire, ignoring


the cries of the men, women and children inside.

A woman emerged from the flames. A soldier shot her down. The fire soon silenced the voices within the church.

Now, inside Vartan’s church, thick smoke was filling the air. The men madly tried to contain the blaze, but it was too wild. Suddenly, bullets whizzed overhead—Turkish soldiers had opened fire. The Armenians flung themselves to the floor, but the gunfire intensified. There was no escape. Tears streaming down his face, Vartan’s father huddled with his family and cried, "My dear ones, don’t be frightened, soon all of us will be in heaven together."

"I’ll never forget that," Vartan, 86, recalls. His voice trails off. The camera keeps rolling. A moment later Artinian asks, "Do you hate the Turks?"

I listen closely, expecting to hear "Of course! They tried to burn us alive!"

"No," he says. "I don’t hate the Turks. Hatred is like putting poison in your own psyche. If you hate a Turk, you don’t hurt a Turk; you hurt yourself. My criticism of the Turks is in their [government’s] official denial of the Armenian Genocide. I think this hurts the Turks because it prevents them from coming up into the class of civilized nations who are admitting past errors. I don’t feel angry. I feel sorry for them.

"Armenians must learn that there are good Turks, and many Armenians will testify that Turks helped them survive. Unless we break through the walls of hatred, the question of Genocide is never going to be resolved."

I couldn’t believe it. How could this survivor feel no hatred, yet I do?

Since my first meeting with his wife had soured, my co-worker found me a new Turkish friend. Born in Istanbul, she moved to Canada three years ago. "You’re going to love her!" he said. I doubted it.

I call her, and she immediately invites me to her apartment. Walk into the enemy’s turf? "Sure, I’ll see you soon," I say hesitantly.

I knock on her door, and a short brunette with a warm smile opens it. "Come in," she stretches out an enthusiastic hand. The apartment is Bohemian and homey—save for a mannequin in her living room. She chuckles, saying she often dresses it and it has become part of the family.

I laugh—I never imagined a Turk could have a sense of humour. My anxiety melts. I tell her of my reservations about coming over and ask if she feels any animosity towards Armenians.

The woman (who agreed to use her name but later changed her mind) tells me her parents never brought her up to hate, but in school there was an implicit hatred. She hadn’t even heard about the Genocide there; no teacher dared talk about it, and history books taught them that during World War I, the Armenians were stirring for independence, revolting against an already crumbling Ottoman Empire by joining forces with the Russians. So in self-defence the Ottoman Turks "relocated" these rebellious Armenians.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. If they were deporting the "rebellious" Armenians, why deport women and children? Why were Armenians deprived of food and water? Why were girls raped and babies killed? If they were being "relocated," why had most Armenians in the Ottoman Empire disappeared?

I finally find my voice. "How did they justify what happened on the deportation marches?"

"They say, ‘It was wartime, you have to accept that.’ But," she presses on, "I found myself questioning, Why are we supposed to hate Armenians? If [their deaths] were a terrible consequence of a terrible war, why cover it up?"

She found the answers in university, during the classes taught by influential Turkish historian, Halil Berktay.

"Then it started to dawn on me that it really was genocide," she reveals. "I realized there wasn’t one single interpretation of history, as the nationalist ideology claimed. What do nationalist leaders do? They choose a scapegoat. In this case, the Armenians. The other side is, the Ottomans were responsible for what went wrong, which is true, but the government is having a hard time saying that because the Ottomans are where we come from; how can we be associated with murderers?"
"Has any Armenian told you, ‘Your ancestors killed my ancestors’?" I ask.
"No. And if they did, I don’t know how I’d react. If you dismiss me like that, you’re closing dialogue forever."

The problem, she says, is the majority thinks the Ottomans back then are the same as Turks today. "Now when I meet an Armenian, I feel like making an explanation that I’m not associated with Ottoman Turks or people who deny the Genocide."

I must have a look on my face somewhere between admiration and confusion that Turks like her exist: She asks, "Hasn’t it occurred to you that not all Turks are bad? That there might be Turks who recognize the Genocide?"

"Honestly…no," I reply.

She tells me there are more of them than I think. "Then, why don’t we hear more from you guys?" I ask heatedly.

"When you talk about this in Turkey, there’s the danger of going to prison or being persecuted. But I do feel responsible for doing something in Turkey to open up discussion."

Still, many Turkish youth know nothing about the Genocide, "because the only side they’ve been exposed to is what’s in their history books," she says. "Should they be blamed? Perhaps, for not being curious about all sides, for blindly accepting as truth what they’re being told."

We talk for hours, about everything from the Genocide to our careers to relationships. As I leave, she asks, "It was strange to hear that you hated all Turks. So when you meet a Turk you actually like, do you start questioning hating all of them?"

The word Turk still sends chills up my spine. But when I left the young Turkish woman’s apartment, I didn’t hate her.

In her I no longer saw that soldier in Manoug’s painting, ripping the baby from his mother’s arms; I saw a friend.

But later, when she told me she couldn’t be part of this article, my heart sank. My first instinct was to dismiss her as being "like every other Turk." But then I read that another Turkish scholar is facing trial for referring to the Genocide in her book. How can I dismiss an entire nation when there are some fighting for us? How can I hate a Turk who tells me she’s striving for Genocide recognition—even if it’s in the privacy of her living room?

I’m not ready to say I don’t hate Turks in general. But I don’t want to hate. I don’t want to teach my kids to hate. In this violent world, I don’t want to believe blind hatred is the solution. Hopefully that makes me no less of an Armenian—but more human.

Robert Fisk: Let me denounce genocide from the dock

The Independent (London)
October 14, 2006 Saturday
First Edition

By ROBERT FISK

This has been a bad week for Holocaust deniers. I'm talking about those who wilfully lie about the 1915 genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turks. On Thursday, France's lower house of parliament approved a Bill making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered genocide. And, within an hour, Turkey's most celebrated writer, Orhan Pamuk - only recently cleared by a Turkish court for insulting "Turkishness" (sic) by telling a Swiss newspaper that nobody in Turkey dared mention the Armenian massacres - won the Nobel Prize for Literature. In the mass graves below the deserts of Syria and beneath the soil of southern Turkey, a few souls may have been comforted.

While Turkey continues to blather on about its innocence - the systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of male Armenians and of their gang-raped women is supposed to be the sad result of "civil war" - Armenian historians such as Vahakn Dadrian continue to unearth new evidence of the premeditated Holocaust (and, yes, it will deserve its capital H since it was the direct precursor of the Jewish Holocaust, some of whose Nazi architects were in Turkey in 1915) with all the energy of a gravedigger.

Armenian victims were killed with daggers, swords, hammers and axes to save ammunition. Massive drowning operations were carried out in the Black Sea and the Euphrates rivers - mostly of women and children, so many that the Euphrates became clogged with corpses and changed its course for up to half a mile. But Dadrian, who speaks and reads Turkish fluently, has now discovered that tens of thousands of Armenians were also burned alive in haylofts.

He has produced an affidavit to the Turkish court martial that briefly pursued the Turkish mass murderers after the First World War, a document written by General Mehmet Vehip Pasha, commander of the Turkish Third Army. He testified that, when he visited the Armenian village of Chourig (it means "little water" in Armenian), he found all the houses packed with burned human skeletons, so tightly packed that all were standing upright. "In all the history of Islam," General Vehip wrote, "it is not possible to find any parallel to such savagery."

The Armenian Holocaust, now so "unmentionable" in Turkey, was no secret to the country's population in 1918. Millions of Muslim Turks had witnessed the mass deportation of Armenians three years earlier - a few, with infinite courage, protected Armenian neighbours and friends at the risk of the lives of their own Muslim families - and, on 19 October 1918, Ahmed Riza, the elected president of the Turkish senate and a former supporter of the Young Turk leaders who committed the genocide, stated in his inaugural speech: "Let's face it, we Turks savagely ( vahshiane in Turkish) killed off the Armenians."

Dadrian has detailed how two parallel sets of orders were issued, Nazi-style, by Turkish interior minister Talat Pasha. One set solicitously ordered the provision of bread, olives and protection for Armenian deportees but a parallel set instructed Turkish officials to "proceed with your mission" as soon as the deportee convoys were far enough away from population centres for there to be few witnesses to murder. As Turkish senator Reshid Akif Pasha testified on 19 November 1918: "The 'mission' in the circular was: to attack the convoys and massacre the population??? I am ashamed as a Muslim, I am ashamed as an Ottoman statesman. What a stain on the reputation of the Ottoman Empire, these criminal people???"

How extraordinary that Turkish dignitaries could speak such truths in 1918, could fully admit in their own parliament to the genocide of the Armenians and could read editorials in Turkish newspapers of the great crimes committed against this Christian people. Yet how much more extraordinary that their successors today maintain that all of this is a myth, that anyone who says in presentday Istanbul what the men of 1918 admitted can find themselves facing prosecution under the notorious Law 301 for "defaming" Turkey.

I'm not sure that Holocaust deniers - of the anti-Armenian or anti-Semitic variety - should be taken to court for their rantings. David Irving is a particularly unpleasant "martyr" for freedom of speech and I am not at all certain that Bernard Lewis's one-franc fine by a French court for denying the Armenian genocide in a November 1993 Le Monde article did anything more than give publicity to an elderly historian whose work deteriorates with the years.

But it's gratifying to find French President Jacques Chirac and his interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy have both announced that Turkey will have to recognise the Armenian death as genocide before it is allowed to join the European Union. True, France has a powerful half-million-strong Armenian community.

But, typically, no such courage has been demonstrated by Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara, nor by the EU itself, which gutlessly and childishly commented that the new French Bill, if passed by the senate in Paris, will "prohibit dialogue" which is necessary for reconciliation between Turkey and modern-day Armenia. What is the subtext of this, I wonder. No more talk of the Jewish Holocaust lest we hinder "reconciliation" between Germany and the Jews of Europe?

But, suddenly, last week, those Armenian mass graves opened up before my own eyes. Next month, my Turkish publishers are producing my book, The Great War for Civilisation, in the Turkish language, complete with its long chapter on the Armenian genocide entitled "The First Holocaust". On Thursday, I received a fax from Agora Books in Istanbul. Their lawyers, it said, believed it "very likely that they will be sued under Law 301" - which forbids the defaming of Turkey and which right-wing lawyers tried to use against Pamuk - but that, as a foreigner, I would be "out of reach". However, if I wished, I could apply to the court to be included in any Turkish trial.

Personally, I doubt if the Holocaust deniers of Turkey will dare to touch us. But, if they try, it will be an honour to stand in the dock with my Turkish publishers, to denounce a genocide which even Mustafa Kamel Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state, condemned.

15 October, 2006

The Dumbing Down of America

By Manuel Valenzuela

10/12/06 "Information Clearing House" - Something is amiss in the great nation called America. Ominous sirens warning this reality can be heard emanating loudly through invisible winds of change circulating our towns and cities. The American people are being strangulated; unbeknownst to the masses they are being transformed and conditioned, becoming the entity the elite have long sought, the culmination of decades of social engineering designed to make of hundreds of millions the slaves of times past and the automatons of the future.

Yet in this present day we find ourselves in, struggling to comprehend a world gone mad, unable to discern neither the direction we are headed nor the inevitable course time is guiding us on. It is because of what has been done to us, and is presently being done to our children, that we fail to comprehend the severity of the road that lies ahead. Quite successful have the elite become in shifting the balance of power from the masses to themselves. How, one might wonder, has this been accomplished, especially when we are the many and they the few?

It is through the dumbing down of America, the methodical destruction and purposeful elimination of the means by which a society educates and enlightens itself. The evisceration of a system that extols accountability and dialogue, opens up the gates of opportunity with the keys of ability, questions authority and seeks debate, creates a wealth of knowledge and illuminates talent and that births an informed citizenry and creates free thinking, analytical minds has been slowly implemented for the last several decades. The dumbing down of America continues into the present, unrelenting and unhindered, squashing the masses for the benefit of the elite.

A giant threat to the system is being disposed of, systematically and without remorse, making of America and its citizens yet one more cog in the engine called capitalistic exploitation of humanity.

What has happened to the Pax Americana?

Here stands the Pax Americana, the most imposing Empire that ever rose from the short reign of human civilization, responsible for placing the entire manifestation of world citizens at the threshold of perilous danger. It is the Pax Americana that has unwound the stitches holding a volatile world together, the nation that has over the last fifty years caused so much damage to the peoples of the globe. The karma of ceaseless negative energy is coming back to haunt an empire whose actions, while helping enrich its own belly and those residing in its entrails, have decimated untold millions whose only crime was being born in lands destined to suffer the harsh exploitation of America and its capitalistic pandemic.

How has a once admired and loved leader of nations fallen from grace in such a short period of time? What has happened to a populace living in the wealthiest nation in human civilization? Why has the United States transformed itself into the malicious beast the world sees through frightful eyes?

Gluttony and materialism have enveloped all corners of the United States, from Pacific to Atlantic Oceans, from the border with Canada to the one with Mexico. The principles of consumerism and greed are all-encompassing, years ago having replaced virtues long since gone. The clandestine enslavement hidden in mass production and ever-longer working hours has in the last few decades become the value by which we measure one’s worth to society.

The ability to question authority has vanished in a haze of indifference, even as the evaporation of the American mind continues unabated. Government has been transformed right in front of our eyes, becoming not democracy but corporatism, the marriage between the corporate and government elite. Our freedoms and liberties are in shambles, now fragile porcelain being decimated by the thundering herd of bulls in Washington.

The government of, by and for the people is now comprised of leaches flourishing in rotten swamps, prostitutes roaming bordellos masquerading as palaces of governance and fecal matter prospering in the nation’s sewers. Corporations and their minions we help elect dominate and transform society, leading us into the black holes they easily maneuver us into. We are being used and abused, yet with the dumbing down of America easily controlled beings we have turned into, comatose to the danger we have embraced and oblivious to the strings attached to our appendages.

Something eerie seems to have engulfed us in the land of the free and the home of the brave. From the land where all men are created equal has equality disappeared; from a nation espousing freedom has freedom been eviscerated. Once brave dissenters and seekers of accountability have gone missing, allowing free reign to those endowed with power. Free-thinking and analytical minds are as rare as the great apes humanity is making extinct. Rare is the citizen not captive to fear, insecurity and intimidation. The ability to question authority or to seek accountability has collapsed along with the towers of the World Trade Center. A world existing beyond the borders and shores of America, containing six billion fellow humans, has been forgotten and disregarded as ignorance to cultures, nations, beliefs and ethnicities is conditioned into our minds practically from birth.

Something is amiss in a nation where one would expect the plenitudes of Empire to trickle down into every man, woman and child. To bestow upon its citizens the tools needed to seek true freedom of thought and a path towards enlightenment would be expected of an American utopia that is more often preached rather than practiced. Yet the question arises as to the cause of why hundreds of millions continue to fall downwards into empty wells of promises unkept instead of reaching for the zenith of those fulfilled.

What mechanisms left to erode the citizenry of free thought and freedom of mind have been allowed to linger in American society, and how have they been allowed to remain when the reality of what has occurred continues to degrade the Pax Americana from the inside out?

Conditioned Producers and Consumers

Spawned from the assembly line called human procreation we open our eyes to a world ready to transform our life energies into expendable disseminators of the patterns of production and consumption that will mark our time on Earth, in essence becoming the reason for our existence. To the system called capitalism we become nothing more than a number which will in time be exploited to the full extent envisaged by man. We are given social security numbers, digits that will follow us through the journey from newborn to cadaver. To the system we are this number, easily traceable, easily conditioned.

Television begins to inculcate us with rampant bombardments of advertisements, thereby beginning to condition the young, innocent mind to a life trained for consumption. The foods we eat and the products we buy begin establishing the tastes we will forever enjoy. Associations of pleasure, ingrained tastes and smells, nostalgia of fantasy and perfection enter the young brain. It is because of this that corporations want to hook us from the first moments of infancy so loyal lifelong consumers we become. To the innocent and pure mind television thus becomes the window to a world that is neither real nor easy. The virgin brain sees in the shows it is blitzkrieged with a fiction that in reality does not exist. It sees perfection, fantasy, beauty, consumption and loyal acquiescence, and, with the passage of time, seeks to emulate this world in a false belief that it can be attained. Ingrained in this principle is the belief, channeled by corporations, that to achieve what can never be a person must consume and produce, be obedient to authority, friendly to her corporate masters and eager to embrace what society dictates. The dumbing down of America thus begins.

As television becomes parent, teacher, role model, babysitter and entertainer to the child, given the abandonment of historical parental roles thanks to society’s pressure to produce and consume, everything shown becomes everything learned, thus habituating a child to the role corporations have decided to bestow onto him. When everything seen on the screen is created, controlled, manipulated and disseminated by the corporate world the child’s perception of what reality encompasses will indeed also conform to the corporate vision. After image after image, fantasy after fantasy, conditioning after conditioning, the young human mind has no choice but to accept the commands of the brainwashing taking place right in front of his or her baby eyes.

It follows that children learn every behavior from their parents as well. From the very beginning entrenched behaviors to produce and consume become ingrained in the young brain. The long hours at work, the short amount of time spent with the child, the abandonment of parental roles and supervision, the incessant drive for consumption, the wasting of money and pursuit of material possessions, the behaviors of stress, depression, unhappiness, anger and frustration are all absorbed by a mind that in infancy acts like a sponge, learning human society from those closest to its environment, whether it is family or television.

In adulthood, these same behaviors will be manifested, thereby helping fulfill the role of producer and consumer the corporate world has reserved for yet one more human energy sprouting from the conveyor belt of procreation. Thanks to the television and parental subservience to the same system of their youth, one’s progeny will become the bogged down producer of the same products he or she will later voraciously and seemingly without conscious consume.

The vicious circle that is the virus of American capitalism infects seemingly from birth, inoculating children to the vices of exploitation from which they will forever derive their existence. It is at the height of innocence that the forces of capitalism attack, attaching themselves in the depths of a human brain, dissolving precepts not in tune with its compulsive and exploitive self. Once attached the virus is not easily displaced, thereby becoming personality as well as behavior. From the cradle to the grave, destiny in today’s America is guided by the corporate world and its sinister virus, helping not its host but its disseminator, unleashing wave after wave of unhappy and exploited producer and easily conditioned and controlled consumer.

Consequences of a Controlled Populace

Education in the United States has become an exercise in government and corporate brainwashing, used to achieve a citizenry devoid of analytical and free-thinking minds. The purpose, quite simply, is to retain the class warfare structure that has marked American society for decades. Education has become a tool used to make the wealthy richer and the poor more indigent. It is now a mechanism to separate the have nots from the haves, the higher castes from the untouchables. As it stands today, though certainly being eviscerated more and more daily, education is making of the masses impotent creatures of indifference, happily droned into complacency and deprived of a knowledge that once served to curtail the power of the elite that run the nation.

The result is the age of corporatism, the age of unfettered and unaccountable power and the control of the masses through media manipulation, societal fabrication and education eradication. As the world slowly passes through the sands of time the people of the United States, those living inside what has become a most hated geopolitical entity, are seeing the result of being dumbed down and of letting incompetents, warmongers, profiteers and deranged zealots run unfettered and unopposed, ransacking the globe, its people and land in the process.

Today we see the ramifications of a citizenry that has allowed itself to be made ignorant through its submission to those in power whose purposeful malfeasance continues to destroy the very essence of knowledge that grants freedom to enslaved minds. Iraq and the coming disaster in the Middle East are a consequence to the decimation of education in the United States. George W. Bush is a consequence of the dumbing down of America, to which he owes his very position perched like the vulture he is atop the dying tree of America that has been contaminated by his inept and infected claws smeared in human blood.

Those in power have succeeded in making the masses a herd of sheep following the shepherd straight into the slaughterhouse, unaware of the destiny that awaits them nor of their role in the furthering of death, destruction and violence now gripping the world. Like a deer caught in headlights, the masses are hypnotized, unable to see beyond the sight of their own meeting with a fate conditioned into our brains from infancy that is destroying freedom, knowledge and our ability to question the evils being done in our name. America today and the world tomorrow are a manifestation of this truth.

Ignorance has replaced knowledge, resulting in power running amok, incapable of being restrained, mutating and growing, feeding off our inability to escape the debacle currently gripping our collective mind.

Brainwash Education

The education system in America has been carefully eroded over the course of time, altered in such a way as to make creative and curious children barren and submissive adults indifferent to the world around them. The system now in place begins robbing a child’s ability to think for himself or herself from the very start of the education process. The class structure itself eliminates individuality, personality and energetic ability, as one teacher must educate many students competing for attention. It is here when talents that need to be discovered get ambushed instead. Yet with a class structure that has endured for decades, the child must become part of the whole, learning from books laced with government and/or corporate propaganda.

In many school districts, mostly poor ones strapped for cash, books can be dozens of years old, lacking modern thought or progress. Many books are tools created by entities with special interests that have as a purpose the teaching of their ideology or the furthering of their goals. The absurd teaching of creationism is one such example. Many corporations now create and donate books to school districts that contain references and examples to their brand names and product descriptions. Even in school children cannot escape the growing omnipresence of the corporate Leviathan which thirsts to program the innocent the way it sees fit.

Indeed, the young mind is needlessly brainwashed with a history of a nation that in many instances contradicts and even subverts the true historical reality of the United States. Only the ‘good’ that America has fostered during its rapid and short rise is taught, without ever dealing with the requisite bad inherent in an Empire that has laid claim to land and man during years of brutal conquest, both militarily and economically. Glossing over national heroes, mythifying them into deities and transforming them into perfect human beings is the role of the school book, brainwashing the young to a fictional perfection when reality begs to differ. Yet humanity must be balanced and its reality etched in stone so that future generations learn the human condition as well as its civilization.

The genocide of indigenous Americans is whitewashed; the slavery of blacks that lasted hundreds of years, oftentimes suffering barbaric treatment at the hands of their white masters is easily covered up in a few paragraphs, deceiving readers to the true horrors their ancestors committed or suffered. The subservient role women were placed under for centuries is hardly mentioned, and the great civil rights movement that helped change history for the better never gets the coverage it deserves.

The war crimes and crimes against humanity America has perpetrated worldwide to millions of anonymous people under the rubric of freedom and democracy is never mentioned, rather, they are sugarcoated and glamorized, serving as examples of America’s ‘great history.’ Also, the corrosive and damaging effects of American capitalism disguised as democracy that has condemned untold millions to the dustbins of history is manipulated to look like a chivalrous attempt to save lives and free nations.

Brainwashing unquestioned patriotism into our young one’s minds government controlled education furthers the squashing of dissent and the questioning of our sovereign’s motives. We are conditioned that our elected leaders are gods walking among men, to be trusted and never to be questioned. Their intentions are always noble, their reasoning pure. Dissent and debate, protest and curiosity are seen not as patriotic manifestations of an informed citizenry but rather as an alien afterthought not worthy of nationalistic pride.

The ingraining of loyalty to flag and country, even when committing evil worldwide, is to be allowed to continue, eventually becoming the means by which the state is allowed to declare war, economic genocide and market colonialism, without so much as a whisper from its constituency. The elite therefore bask in the glow of the radiant bean called patriotic fervor, indoctrinated from childhood, lasting until death.

Preaching the noble deeds yet hiding or disguising the evil ingrained in empire building serves only to alter history and manipulate the young, eroding our future in the process. To understand humanity in past, present and future an entire history must be taught, both good and bad, thereby creating in our future citizens the ability to grow wise to the mistakes of times past in order to comprehend the ever-changing and oftentimes complex conditions of the present. To not teach the truth of what has come before is to leave behind the keys to unlocking the door of the human condition, essentially condemning our children into repeating the errors that continue to bear witness to unnecessary suffering, death, destruction, violence and war.

The fruits of our past mistakes can be seen in our history; the essence of the human condition lies written for all to see. American education serves no purpose if the result of its actions leads to a replay of years gone by; it becomes an exercise in futility when our future repeats the blunders of their ancestors and the follies of those who once led.

Brainwash education is the means to an end, a device that entraps rather than make free. It is a valuable tool to exert hegemony over the populace. When begun from the first years of youth, becoming attached and most difficult to extract, brainwashing to suit the state and the elite’s goals is a dangerous device. When combined with the 9/11’s of history, it takes on a life of its own, becoming a Molotov cocktail ready to explode in seething rage. The system would not have it any other way.

Made Ignorant to a World Beyond our Borders

American education makes no attempt to expose the wonders of a world existing beyond its borders to its children. The outside world and its plethora of diverse people are hardly mentioned, easily summarized in brief mentions of world history. The ignorance of cultures, religions, ethnicities, nationalities and beliefs that has ensued has made America a nation neither curious to a grand spectrum of peoples nor understanding to the vast complexities of an ever-changing world. Failing to understand what exists beyond our oceans, American children, through the damaging effects of the nation’s dilapidated educational system, become isolated from the world community and the fraternity of peoples.

It is understanding the world and becoming part of it that prevents the Iraq’s and Vietnam’s of history from ever arising. It is knowledge of a world and its people that creates peace and good-will. Ignorance, on the other hand, fosters only exploitation, indifference and arrogance. Iraq today is the result of this failure in American education. Abu Ghraib and its war crimes is the result of a system that isolates, indoctrinates and makes ignorant to the lives and realities of six billion people whose world is larger than that of our own borders. The debacle in Iraq is a manifestation of American ignorance to a world and its diverse peoples; Iraq’s daily explosions are testament to its failure to understand the people it is occupying and the anger emanating from the arrogance and ignorance of its soldiers.

The failure of American education to teach about a world existing beyond the confines of its own grandeur is exemplified today by an Iraq that is the catalyst to a most dangerous era in American history. Societies that are ignorant to the greater world around them suffer a dereliction of humanity and the far reaching implications their actions tend to unsettle. From the actions of ignorance rise the reactions of those ignored.

America’s failure to educate its children to a world beyond its shores, in a world coming closer together is a travesty, and an error, especially for an Empire whose grip is all-encompassing, its power circulating around the globe. A leader of nations and an Empire such as America must learn and understand the world it dominates and the people it controls. For it to govern wisely its citizens must be brought into the sphere of a world community that is both heterogeneous and aware of the dangers the Pax Americana is capable of releasing. For it to avoid the wrath seen today its ambassadors and representatives must be educated to the songs of the world and the tunes of human civilization.

In order to prevent the never-before seen levels of hatred, animosity and anger directed at the United States and the blowback that is now being manifested the American education system must open itself up to the outside world. If it remains isolationist and ignorant, preferring to enclose itself in the bubble it continues to lock itself into, the karma we are witnessing will be but the tip of the iceberg. Ignorance leading to exploitation can only go so far; a world beyond our borders exists, and must be taught, learned and understood.

For if the Empire’s people fail to grasp the lands and peoples beyond their borders, preferring instead to live in the comfort of their own existence and the ignorance of their upbringing a world that was never known will be once more forgotten, and the blowback birthed by our ancestors will be made that much more difficult to comprehend.

Separate and Unequal

The purposeful inequality inherent in American education is created by design, fostered by an elite that manipulates in society a separation between rich and working class. It is abundantly clear that education systems in America are nowhere near to being equal. On the contrary, their inequality stems from a government and the elite that control it that seek to maintain the status quo of preventing millions of children from ever advancing beyond the caste they are born into. Without opportunity, ability is wasted and those capable of threatening the power structure as it exists at present are left to rot in the cesspool created by those social engineers sealing the destiny of millions of Americans.

Maintaining separate and unequal education systems assures the elite, government and corporations of millions of exploitable slaves that through no fault of their own are condemned to a life stuck in the working class, living off low wages, surviving on a day to day basis, uneducated and ignorant to the exploitation they are subjected to. The millions that fate has placed in corrosive school districts starving for pennies from the government are subjected to an education that is shameful at best and a crime against humanity at worst. Unequal distribution of tax schemes makes it impossible for children born into poor neighborhoods from ever getting the education the few elite children of privilege are guaranteed.

With rotting school districts that cannot afford good teachers, books, buildings, administrators and a semblance of hope children receive substandard education levels that forever alter their ability to learn and advance in society. When this is compounded year after year the ramifications are severe, serving to quash all ability and potential opportunity. It is this level of education most American children, both urban and rural, are subjected to, forced to endure the worst inequality of teaching found in the developed world.

When the elite that run the nation are deciding futures, however, this is to be expected. Their corporations need low-class workers; their armies need soldiers; their government needs slaves. By maintaining separate and unequal education systems, in essence two completely different systems, one reserved for privilege, the other for future serfs, the elite are assured of control, exploitation, power and growing wealth, mostly at the hands of the slaves they have created. The masses, having been trained from birth to become the slaves of the nation’s capitalists, are subjected to years of subservient education mechanisms that encourage and indeed guide us toward exploitation. The dreams and hopes of childhood are thus eviscerated as the reality of the environment and education we are born into collides with once creative talents and utopian goals.

Born into environments offering the worst in American education creates in the masses ignorance to the plight our government is subjecting us to. We are made unaware and become indifferent to the massive crime being perpetrated by government officials who help foster separate and unequal education and even encourage it by their unwillingness to make right what has been made wrong. The continued apathy of our government to the vastly different levels of education is proof that it is complicit in the manufacturing of an entire class of slaves produced to be exploited by the powerful few. To continue a system that is so dastardly in its scope and so damaging to millions is to acknowledge the purposeful disregard our government has in alleviating a reality that in this nation at least does not need to exist. It is shameful, it is wrong, it is a crime.

An assembly line of slaves has been created, socially engineered through years of manipulations and exploitations, breeding ignorance, robbing opportunity, erasing talent and harvesting entire generations of worker bees. For America the beautiful needs slaves to work and enrich the elite, it needs soldiers to wage war in the name of capitalism, it needs ignorance to continue its sovereignty and castes from which to maintain the balance that has kept those in power at the top for generations.

Separate and unequal, the secret ingredients to the American juggernaut; separate and unequal, the oil that assures the mighty engine of capitalism from ever corroding and malfunctioning. Through the backs of the masses the elite survive; through the exploitation of the many the few thrive.

Leaving all Working and Middle Class Children Behind

The dumbing down of America continues its injurious path through the policies of George Bush, who is quietly decimating the talents and energies of the nation’s youth. Wishing all children to become the bumbling idiot that characterizes his existence, his policies have washed away what remained of viable education. The dumbing down of America has only picked up its pace as children today are being deprived of the tools necessary to think for themselves. Forced by the government to teach to standardized tests, school districts are erasing the arts and other important classes from curriculum. Instead, teachers are being forced to prepare their students to passing the test that determines financial reward or punishment.

This form of education is leveling critical thinking, analytical skills and free-thinking minds. It is destroying education as we know it, along with the futures of millions of children who are being made automatons lacking a mind to question the world around them. This sinister mechanism is purposefully being implemented to dumb down American children. It is yet another tool those in power are using to create a nation devoid of free thought.

Teaching to the test entails sacrificing all subject matter not included in the test itself. As a result, vital tools such as music, art, languages, social sciences, philosophy, health and other liberal arts are being ignored, thrown away into dark closets of indifference. Worthy teachers now have their hands tied down, unable to bring out the blossoms of talent from their students. Instead, they must partake in the manipulation of America’s children, becoming the instructors to a new generation of students those in power want desperately to transform into unthinking sentinels easily manipulated and controlled.

America’s teachers, already underpaid and under funded, battling a system eager to destroy youth, must now see the seeds they sow become homogenous crops succumbing to ignorance, eroding all semblance of individuality and wasting away once fruitful and talented lives. All children are being left behind, and American society will pay the ultimate and most severe price.

Fostering Ignorance, Creating Sheep, Cementing Decline

Children are brainwashed at a very early age to follow the dictates of the state, to become the obedient drones the state needs in order to survive. Curriculum programs prevent the free-thinking mind from ever emerging even as such paramount subject matter such as art, foreign language, music and philosophy are being eliminated or never implemented. It is at a very early age when these classes can make a such a vital difference in children, in essence granting an enormous head start towards a long lasting, happy life. It is at early youth that the human brain absorbs everything that is taught, it is at this stage in development when positive and all-inclusive education bears fruit. Yet American children, living in the wealthiest nation on the planet, are being denied the essential tools needed for human progress to move forward, individuals to prosper and for a nation to thrive.

Becoming an exercise in futility, education has become a weapon to militarize millions of children to the tune of the government, robbing them of the free-thinking and analytical mind whose questioning of government and individual thought the elite want eliminated. In today’s America, no child must be allowed to think or understand what is being done to them and the society they inhabit. Every child being taught must march in lock-step with millions more, becoming benign drones made ignorant to a process robbing them of their existence, neither challenging those in power or absorbing the ingredients necessary to develop a mind that may one day become the ultimate weapon for freedom and salvation.

As in all state systems, in order to have subservient citizens, the young must be programmed early on to the dictates of those in power. In America, these entities are the elite capitalists that have transformed democracy into corporatism. Entire generations of people have become an enormous herd of sheep, unaware of the slavery that grips them and the exploitation that befalls every waking hour. The corporatist state has accomplished the ignorance of its citizens, now ruling unobstructed and unaccountable, free to unleash wave after wave of crimes, both upon those it rules and those it conquers.

The majority of the American people now fail to question authority, debate policy, seek accountability or demand answers. Indifferent we have become to the dangerous ways of our government or to our own plight. Every generation has seen its ability to understand, question and analyze dwindle with each subsequent decade that passes. Soon the day will arrive when complete drones our descendants become, completely subservient to the will of the rulers, shackled in chains of ignorance, transformed into exploitable energies deficient of free-thinking minds.

The only vestige of freedom left is that of the mind, a realm never before touched by the claws of the state and the powerful. Yet this freedom is disappearing, for the state has found a way to annihilate a freedom once thought untouchable. Free-thought is fading fast from an American psyche that once espoused the belief in the power of the individual. In its wake lie hundreds of millions of energies whose minds have been captured in a war we failed to realize we were being subjected to. Free-thinking minds are being made extinct, suffering from years of social engineering and artificial conditioning.

More and more we are failing to understand what is being done to us and our children. With each passing day the corporate Leviathan absorbs more of our collective brain, inculcating us with garbage, conditioning us to its version of what American society should be. The wretched symptoms of capitalism are devouring our very existence, making us the sheeple the system feeds off of. We are being herded to the slaughterhouse, ready to be gutted and mass produced, sold to the hungry wolves and vultures concomitantly ready to feast off our once vibrant energies.

Tell the Children the Truth

The time has come to tell the children the truth. The time has come to tell them that most are condemned to castes, unable to escape, destined to be exploited, destined for modern man’s version of slavery. The time has come to tell the children of privilege that they are being trained to become the exploiters of the masses, becoming condoners of subservience, inequality, injustice, corruption and thievery.

We must awaken from this lethargy catapulting us into a future missing freedom and individuality, happiness and a worthy existence. The dumbing down of America cannot be allowed to continue, for if it does, George Bush’s vision will become George Orwell’s reality. It is time to tell the children the truth. It is time to liberate ourselves from a system that is making us all automatons. Freedom of thought, freedom of mind and freedom to live are our goals. The elimination of the virus inflicting ignorance and enslavement upon us and our children should be our mission.

The time to retake the American mind is upon us, and this starts with telling our children the truth of what our indifference, subservience and inability to act is condemning them to. For knowledge is power, the kryptonite that weakens the energy leading us to nothingness. They know this, which is why the dumbing down of America is taking place. Knowledge is a threat to their existence and continued control, which is why they want it destroyed. Education is liberation, something they want desperately to avoid. An enlightened populace is their nightmare; an ignorant citizenry their wet dream.

It is through the awakening of the masses that mountains are moved and canyons crossed. It is through the slumber of the masses that evil awakens. It is through our collective energy that those in power have no future and no place left to hide. The future of America is in our hands: either the dumbing down continues or the awakening commences.

Essay originally published June 2004

Manuel Valenzuela is a social critic and commentator, international affairs analyst and Internet essayist. His articles as well as his archive can be found at his blog, http://www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com and at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info as well as at other alternative news websites from around the globe. Mr. Valenzuela is also author of Echoes in the Wind, a fiction novel. Mr. Valenzuela welcomes comments and can be reached at manuel@valenzuelas.net.

Turkey's European Dagger

GMT 10-13-2006 17:17:38
Assyrian International News Agency

(AINA) -- Nobel Prize in literature to Orhan Pamuk will strongly divide the public opinion in Turkey. His liberalism is more for public consumption to the west of Bosporus strait. The Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Genocide (1915-1917) during the Young Turk government in Ottoman Empire is too well documented to be denied by Turkey. There is an Armenian National Institute in Washington to study the Genocide. 1.5 Armenians, 750,000 Assyrians and 400,000 Greeks -- all Christians -- were killed. It was first brought to light by Henry Morgenthau, Senior, the US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913-1916. The Turkish government tries to attribute these deaths to hunger, pestilence and the turmoil of World War I -- which seems to have affected only Christians -- rather than genocide. But, of late, several Turkish scholars have broken their silence and spoken on the issue.

But to speak of the Genocide with regard to Turkey is like trimming the leaves but overlooking the roots. Is it not a fact that there was not a single Turk in today's Turkey before 1050? Has this nation of 67 million materialized in north-east Mediterranean without any genocide or displacement of population? The homeland of Turks is not Turkey; but Turkmenistan in Central Asia. Before the hostile advent of Turks in the region, the territory belonged to the Byzantine Empire. It had pronounced Hellenic connection dating back to 1100 B.C. It was referred to as Anatolia, or the land of sunrise, in Greek. The Ionian School of Greek Philosophy arose from its soil; in 800 B.C., 12 of Ionian Greek cities were organized in Ionian League. Greeks continued to live in Smyrna (Izmir) until 1922, when they were massacred and driven out.

Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV lost most of Anatolia (Asia Minor) to Turks in 1071 in the battle of Manzikert. Exactly five hundred years later in 1571, the Holy League cobbled by Pope Pius V stonewalled Turks in sea-battle of Lepanto. Islam in the Balkans, forcibly introduced by the Turks, has made the region the tinderbox of Europe. With Kosovo surfacing as a sovereign nation in the near future, and western Macedonia subsumed into 'Greater Albania', the historic Turkish dagger planted in the heart of Europe is working its way even after five hundred years.

The territory of Turkey, less than five percent of inside Europe, is not proof of its Europeanness, it is a residue of the Ottoman Empire's historic aggression. The bulk of Turkey is an oriental Islamic country. Why should Europe recognize the phoney Europeanness of Turkey in the EU, when Kemal Ataturk changed all the historic Greek city names into Turkish viz. Constantinople to Istanbul, Smyrna to Izmit and Nicea to Iznik? History can't be undone; but nor can future be done away with.

By Priyadarsi Dutta

Priyadarsi Dutta is based in New Delhi and writes for the multi-edition newspaper The Pioneer.

Copyright (C) 2006, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved.

07 October, 2006

The October Surprise

By Gary Hart

10/03/06 "HuffingtonPost" --- -- It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election.

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.

And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. "Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction....." In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets.

But the authors of the war on Iraq have "regime change" in mind in Iran. According to Colonel Sam Gardiner (author of "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing U.S. Military Options in Iran," The Century Foundation, 2006) to have any hope of success, such a policy would require attacking at least 400 targets, including the Revolutionary Guard. But even this presumes the Iranian people will respond to a massive U.S. attack on their country by overthrowing their government. Only an Administration inspired by pre-Enlightenment fantasy could believe a notion such as this.

Embracing this reverie requires believing in the Iranian Ahmed Chalabi, or perhaps even Mr. Chalabi himself since he has been working both sides of the street in both countries for some time.

It does not involve much imagination to understand the timing. The U.S. is poised to adopt a Congressional regime change of its own in November. A political strategy totally based on fear can offer few other options to prevent this. Besides, occupation by Democrats of even one house of Congress in January would make this scheme more difficult (one would certainly hope).

Further, time for super-power military conquest may be running short in the emerging age of fourth generation warfare. "...the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end." ("No Win," Andrew Bacevich, The Boston Globe, August 27, 2006).

The consequences? The sunny neoconservatives whose goal has been to become the neo-imperial Middle Eastern power all along will forcast few. But prudent leaders calculate all the risks, and they are historic.

These include: violent reaction throughout the Islamic world; a dramatic increase in jihadist attacks in European capitals and the U.S.; radicalization of Islamic youth behind a new generation of jihadist leaders; consolidation of support for Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and a rapidly spreading malignant network; escalating expansion of anti-American sentiment throughout the world, including the democratic world; and the formation of WWIII battle lines between the U.S. and the Arab and Islamic worlds.

In more rational times, including at the height of the Cold War, bizarre actions such as unilateral, unprovoked, preventive war are dismissed by thoughtful, seasoned, experienced men and women as mad. But those qualities do not characterize our current leadership.

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

Copyright 2006 © HuffingtonPost.com, LLC

America the Tyranny

The Road to Authoritarianism

By Manuel Valenzuela

10/03/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Behold and bear witness to what has become of America, in this era of uncertainty and bewilderment, in this time of fear and intimidation, that since towers were brought down and demolished has methodically fallen into the viper pit of neocon decadence, becoming, as it stands today, an authoritarian’s heaven and a corporatist’s promised land, its people ignorant, as always, to the barrage of waves systemically eroding centuries of rights, freedoms and liberties. From sea to shining sea, despotism is what today those who pay attention see.

The road to fascism is being paved at a clandestine yet alarming velocity, across valleys, prairies and forests, surrounding cites, towns and states, from Atlantic to Pacific, immersing 300 million individuals into a fog of engendered tyranny, who without a care or whisper or concern remain trapped by comfortable surroundings born through perpetual indebtedness. Even as their rights and freedoms and liberties are made to disappear, even as their Constitution is burned, even as their nation hangs on the precipice of despotism, even as their collective destiny is being destroyed those residing inside the belly of the beast hear no evil, see no evil and feel no evil, preferring to gossip about pedophile politicians and celebrity failings than informing themselves to the last throes of the American republic.

The waves of autocracy are upon the shores of America, the demons of the past find themselves resurrected once again, free to unleash fear, intimidation and enslavement onto hundreds of millions of human beings. The high tide of tyranny has returned from the unlearned lessons of history, again engulfing humankind with human wickedness and Machiavellian rule, soon to subjugate the masses in the slavery endemic throughout man’s brief – yet thoroughly destructive – reign over Earth.

Authoritarianism has woken from its dormant slumber, ready to terrorize yet one more human generation, for while it meticulously rises and stretches out its arms, ready to spread its omnipotent disease, it has lived and thrived since the dawn of man, accompanying humankind wherever we might go, since man alone creates and grants it life. Indeed, it is those who have seen it rise before that today see it birthed again. Its symptoms are apparent, its dangers known; the stages of tyranny are remembered, for they are never forgotten. It is those who have been witness to and victims of its malevolence that see the approaching storm clearest; it is they whose experienced eyes and mature minds that are sounding alarms. Fascism, under the guise of protection, freedom and security, is upon us.

To those paying attention, the evolution of the coming tyranny has been apparent since 9/11, when the Twin Towers, America’s Reichstag Fire, were pulverized into nothingness by demolition explosives, in a declaration of psychological war upon the American people. On 9/11 the Earth stood still, as if the collective consciousness of the world awoke to a most ominous catastrophic and catalyzing event that would send the world entire down a vicious circle of death, destruction and despotism. On that day, the future course of human civilization was altered, spawning the birth pangs of authoritarianism rising, freedom dying, and of perpetual warfare breathing its devastating repercussions onto the realities of six billion human beings.

Almost immediately after those in power had imploded and brought down the World Trade Center towers upon their own footprints the initial stages of imposing authoritarianism upon the people were implemented, beginning first with a Patriot Act whose sheer volume and length betray its existence pre-dating 9/11. Brought out of the fascist closet and dusted, it was rushed through the Congress even as the Twin Towers still smoldered and, for good measure, in the terrifying wake of the still unsolved anthrax attacks that served both to threaten legislators into compliance and scaring the populace even further into obedience. The assault on the lives of Americans had begun and, out of the bowels of our collective fear, despotism once more breathed life.

In Enemies Tyrants Find Life

What was 9/11 but a direct declaration of war against the freedoms, rights and liberties of America’s most cherished documents and principles? What was it if not the death throes of the Bill of Rights? The New Pearl Harbor was as much an opportunity to wage war in the Middle East as it was to eradicate tyranny’s impediments in America. The complete assault on the U.S. Constitution and on 200 years of laws has been possible by the inside job of 9/11, for it became the catalyst needed to introduce fear into the populace and authoritarianism into government.

What was the passage of the original Patriot Act if not the first shots fired in the half-decade long war against our rights and liberties and freedoms? Make no mistake, for the last five years we have been shocked and awed into remaining passive and acquiescent automatons as the fascists in power eradicate – slowly but surely – what was once a plethora of enumerated and implied rights, freedoms and liberties. A government concerned with preserving freedoms and liberties would not try to eradicate them under the rubric of fighting terrorism. A government wanting to protect our way of life would not try its hardest to destroy it as well.

Conveniently, then, in typical fascist behavior, it is the Bush cabal that tells us terrorists hate us for our freedoms and rights, that they want us destroyed for our way of life, even as it is the cabal itself that hates us for our freedoms and rights, wanting to destroy our way of life. By imputing their desires and wishes onto the fictional barbarian horde, an unknown dark-skinned entity of alien religion, and knowing the ignorance and gullibility of the American masses, the fascist cabal can at once generate fear and hatred among the people while acting to devastate the nation’s freedoms and liberties under the guise of fighting the evildoers.

In reality, terrorism is but the excuse used to curtail our rights; the dismantling of the Constitution is justified by the fictional threat of dark-skinned bogeymen, and explains why the government, as well as its corporate media collaborators, has been relentless in the perpetual dissemination of propaganda trying to convince us of our imminent peril. The tyrants and their collaborators depend on the fear of the masses to grant sustenance to the momentum used to demolish the foundations of the republic. The emotional fortification created by fear thus ensures that the primitive human brain will cease to think logically and analytically, enabling the wisdom of reason to be usurped by the reptilian and mammalian desire for survival. Without some semblance of thinking by the masses, who by fear are relegated to the role of sheep, the authoritarians in power are free to pursue the evisceration of all burdensome rights and freedoms that interfere with their long-held goals.

Under the guise of fighting terrorism – a terrorism the government itself creates, perpetuates, expands, nurtures and helps grow – the Constitution as we know it is being dismantled, not by terrorist evildoers intent on destroying us, but by our own government intent on destroying our way of life. For a government need not eviscerate a nation’s laws, protections, guarantees, rights, freedoms and liberties to guarantee security. It need not introduce a police state that destroys the way of life for 300 million individuals. This government is pursuing the dismantling of the Constitution and our laws not for fighting terror but to fight the American people. It is doing this in a methodical, some would say obsessive, desire to erode rights and freedoms, grant unlimited powers to the executive and silence dissent because in doing so it is removing the barriers that have for decades impeded authoritarians and corporatists from implementing their vision of the world. As such, the last remaining vestiges of American freedoms and rights are all that stand between fascists and their despotic nirvana. With the relative ease by which they have eviscerated so many laws and rights since 9/11, it is these few liberties left that will be targeted next, becoming easy pickings on the road to full fledged American tyranny.

Already, the government has been granted the right to enter our homes without a warrant and without our knowledge. It can ask for and get library records when it chooses. It has the right to pick us off the street and take us into custody without probable cause. It can wiretap any phone it wants, as well as listen in to any voice message in the country, monitoring our private conversations. Today we are regularly surveilled upon, our histories deciphered, our lives dissected. Our Internet activities are frequently monitored, our emails read and scrutinized. Technology has allowed the government the capacity to overlook our movements using the ever-expanding public cameras, as well as each and every activity we do using our credit or debit cards. It can track our financial records as well as our purchases, all the while gathering files with our complete, bio-metric information. It can do all this in secrecy, without transparency, without accountability, without needing the color of law as a guiding instrument nor the legality of honest governance for inspiration. Activists and dissidents are spied upon and harassed, their activities monitored. Enemies of the state have their names placed on various lists, prohibiting them from enjoying the daily rights afforded to millions.

Free speech is oftentimes relegated to small corrals, called free speech zones by the fascists. The right to assemble is oftentimes denied, as the state tries to prevent the people from protesting and massing in numbers. More and more, to question the actions of governance is to be called a traitor, treasonous, an abettor of the enemy, a terrorist appeaser. To dissent and protest is to risk being labeled unpatriotic, un-American, an enemy of freedom. Yet it is those few thousands, out of a total population of 300 million, scattered in small clusters throughout the vast lands that comprise America, that are the true patriots, the true Americans, fighting for their nation, their rights and freedoms, fighting the real evildoers and terrorists. They are the real brave heroes of the republic, escaping the culture of cowardice, sacrificing beautiful minds full of Kool-Aid and comfort in order to confront the distressing truths of emerging tyranny. It is they fighting evil, trying to stop its carnage upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, trying to prevent it from triumphing, from destroying everything we hold dear, and take for granted. It is they who are Americans and they who are the new patriots. Yet it is also they who will be first to suffer the ramifications of a despotic America, for authoritarians hate dissent, protest and truth.

For those paying attention to the reality of America today and not to the distractions of a 500 ring circus saturated with distraction, gossip, celebrity, inconsequential political news of typical Republican debased behavior, and mind-numbing entertainment, the road to tyranny has continued on its seemingly unstoppable momentum, with each new year since 9/11 presenting new attacks on civil liberties, human rights and our cherished freedoms.

Every year has seen an attempt at expanding the powers of the executive, to the point where the President is today, for all intents and purposes, a dictator. He is free to interpret the law as he sees fit, using the over 700 signing statements to ignore laws passed by the legislature. He has reigned over an era of untold secrecy, where the state is no longer transparent and accountable. He has expanded greatly illegal wiretaps, warrants and domestic spying, increasing the mechanisms needed by a budding police state to thrive and grow. Congress has become but a rubber stamp legislature, as has the Supreme Court, itself now controlled by Bush yes-men. Using the presidential bully pulpit, he has transformed millions of Americans into quasi-authoritarians, followers one and all, ready to follow tyrant’s folly straight into human wickedness.

Today, the president claims himself the unitary executive, the Dictator in Chief, possessing absolute power, doing what he wants, when he wants and without a care in the world that he will ever be held to account. This is dictatorship. This is the end of America as we knew her and the birth of an America we wish never to know.

Tyranny Nurtured Through the Bosom of Lady Liberty

Such is the power of the president that the corporate media – today’s Ministry of Truth – serves his every wish, protecting him from truth being exposed, incompetence being discovered and his authority being questioned. The executive branch has not seen this level of unfettered and untouched power since the establishment of the republic. Indeed, it is the executive branch that has facilitated the rise of fascism since 9/11, from the Department of State to the Attorney General to the Department of War, through the CIA, NSA and FBI, with authoritarians at the helm prevalent in the various departments pursuing the establishment of despotic policies.

It is inside the executive branch where tyranny is being nurtured and raised, where it is feeding off the bosom of Lady Liberty, making her weaker by the day, growing ever stronger from its parasitic usurpation of governance, protected and guided until that time when its strength and maturity is ready to extend its power into omnipresent perpetuity. In the halls of power fascism rises; throughout Washington the last vestiges of freedom are under direct assault. Despotism is being set in motion, it is being prepared and orchestrated, slowly yet surely being implemented throughout the mechanisms of the state. It is being molded according to American culture, according to American thought, growing at its own pace and under different conditions, evolving like organisms do, differing from other forms of despotism according to blood and environment, according to time and place. Yet approaching it remains, like a gathering storm of unnerving energy ready to strike relentlessly throughout the landscape, transforming an America we knew into a nation of wickedness and malevolence, of the worst in the human condition. Its tentacles are now in place, freedoms and rights have been made weak, it is now only a matter of time before what has arrived makes itself fully known and what is about to be made fully known eradicates an America that has only existed in the delusions and dreams of the brainwashed.

Unlike Hollywood reality and events move at their own accord and pace, possessing the patience fictional movies cannot afford, developing fully in time and through the magic of fantasy, their creation almost never the perfection portrayed by acting and editing. As we can see, American fascism is both completely different than its Nazi counterpart yet eerily similar in its characteristics. No two forms of tyranny are crafted out of the same mold. No two systems are born under the same stars, and each takes into history’s cauldron its own personality and traits, its own crimes and punishments. Yet under the guise of "freedom and democracy," under the illusion of the so-called "war on terror," tyranny is being birthed inside America, born through the hemorrhaging of the World Trade Center and reared by the incessant fear of hundreds of millions of American citizens. In the death of 3,000 humans, fascists found new life; in the demolition of two 110 story monoliths to the nadir of Ground Zero, criminals and murderers reached the zenith of their power. From Reichstag Fire to World Trade Center demolition, the more things change the more things stay the same, and again and again New Pearl Harbors will be orchestrated from which to usurp power from the People and once again granting sustenance to tyranny.

Despotism arrives in many forms, under many disguises, and in America, along with all previous carriers of the disease, the virus has infiltrated into the consciousness of the ignorant masses under the rubric of waging peace, bringing security, and under the false assumption that scapegoat enemies must be defeated in battle, lest they destroy everything we stand for. That tyranny fails to achieve each measure is never discussed, nor the fact that authoritarians rely on waging war, fostering insecurity, concocting ever-newer enemies and destroying everything the people stand for in order to assure for themselves of greater and absolute power. It is fascism, after all, that enables authoritarians to control entire populations through the oppression and subjugation of the citizenry, usually at the behest of the state and usually using the intimidating presence of the barrel of the gun and the brute force of the omnipresent police state.

At no point have American freedoms, rights and liberties been under such duress than in the last five years, as the Bush cabal has taken full advantage of 9/11 to wage perpetual, preemptive, illegal and immoral war upon both Afghanistan and Iraq, the former with its geostrategic location and pipeline accessibility, the latter with its vast petroleum fields and geopolitical circumstance, each of vital importance to the Pax Americana in its pursuit of imperial hegemony, their conquest a long held goal of the military-energy-industrial complex. Of course, using 9/11 as the perfect Pearl Harbor-like event from which to launch imperial invasions in lands deemed vital and strategic, the fascists and corporatists in power lay claim to both nations under the rubric of the fictional war on terror.

The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with fighting terrorism – since 9/11 was an inside job – and everything to do with American controlled oil and gas pipelines running through Afghan territory. In the same way, Iraq’s decimation and occupation by America’s military had nothing to do with WMD or with bringing freedom or democracy – to give just two of the myriad number of lies to justify invasion – and everything to do with control of Iraq’s petroleum, Israel’s hegemony and strategic gamesmanship.

Just as Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought to fruition based on lies, deceptions, manipulations and distortions, so too has the erosion of American rights and freedoms been implemented based on lies, manipulations and cynical deceptions of the American people, with the lies of war and the lies of authoritarianism oftentimes intertwined in an enormous knot of convenience. Thanks to the two invasions and subsequent occupations of Arab and Muslim lands, the executive branch has been able to expand its power in the homeland through the methodical erosion of rights and liberties, both of citizens and foreigners, using as pretext the prosecution and imprisonment of captured or kidnapped "unlawful enemy combatants," as well as all ambiguous yet unfound evildoer terrorists, to destroy the basic tenets and principles of the American republic.

Under the rubric of the so-called war on terror, therefore, the executive has laid claim to supreme powers in the detention, treatment and prosecution of those deemed "unlawful enemy combatants," invariably dismantling the freedoms and rights and liberties of the American people. For in lowering and ultimately altering the rights of so called enemy combatants, the executive branch has in essence also destroyed those same rights afforded American citizens. In pursuing the so called enemy combatant, who in any civilized society invariably must, in his prosecution by the state, be afforded the same rights and privileges as any suspect charged in the nation, the Bush cabal has instead ignored the rule of law as well as the central tenets of the Bill of Rights. This, of course, is not by accident.

In the last five years, Bush and his cabal of corporatists have triumphed, legislatively and through the sheer powers of the executive, to rewrite the laws of the nation enumerated for two centuries in the founding documents of the republic, as always arguing that the Constitution stands in the way of prosecuting enemy combatants and waging the perpetual war on terror. It has argued that to maintain security, to protect the American people from the Arab evildoers, the laws of the land, the cherished rights and liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the precedent of the judiciary, must all be altered according to the vision of the executive. The Bill of Rights, after all, interferes severely in the successful waging of war against the terrorists. It has thus rewritten laws and regulations, ignored statutes and rules, created new standards of law and enforced, without opposition, any and all opinions and laws it has unilaterally decided to enact. The Bush cabal has used the prosecution of enemy combatants to both erode the Bill of Rights as well as to give life to its totalitarian mechanisms for dealing with enemies of the state.

Once the "unlawful enemy combatant" excuse to destroy the Constitution is complete, all done in the name of national security, what is left of the Bill of Rights and of the freedoms and rights Americans once had will be insignificant, leaving it anemic and impotent, and what was once considered a vital "tool" for fighting the so called terrorist will fall like a gauntlet at the neck of the American people, severing at once the last vestiges of an America we once thought everlasting. For what is being done today to prisoners in the vast American gulag system will tomorrow be done to Americans themselves. The experiment is first perfected upon the guinea pigs, then it is unleashed upon the intended victims.

For the last five years the Bush cabal has successfully conditioned the population to its "New Normal," the new America. It has manipulated both society and laws to accept gross violations of human rights, a suppression of liberties, and an authoritarian paradigm of disturbing wickedness. It is preparing us to incorporate into American law and culture the mechanisms used in totalitarian states. Using the incomprehensible ignorance and apathy of the American people against us, it has clandestinely destroyed the foundation of our principles and virtues. Using its vast power, its legions of authoritarians, its army of stenographers and it great arsenal of tools at its disposal, it has inexplicably made the American people tolerant and even acceptant of torture, rape, humiliation, illegal imprisonment, disappearances and criminal malfeasance, something thought unthinkable just years ago. The New Normal has become a reality, the new America now routinely tortures and inflicts horrible pain and suffering on human beings, all to the indifference and acceptance of the American people.

Without the notice or attention of the vast majority of Americans, most too busy addicted to the television and its 500 ring circus, the Congress, being the bunch of idiots, prostitutes, pedophiles and criminals that they usually are, have granted the executive, and by consequence the state, the unfettered power to make extinct the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. In one giant swoop of criminal culpability, in one hypnotized vote during a fascist’s wet dream, our so-called representatives eviscerated habeas corpus, the centuries old right to challenge the state regarding imprisonment, as always under the fictional guise of protecting national security from enemy combatants, as well as destroying the judicial review needed to fight and appeal detention. In an orgy of despotic glee, our elected leaders gave the Bush cabal the ability to detain suspects or "enemy combatants" into perpetuity, without ability to challenge incarceration, and to keep in ignorance those it chooses to detain, without ever divulging any information. Of course, the executive itself decides who and what is an "enemy combatant".

Due process and right to counsel have been thrown into the heap of waste, as has the right to question and analyze the state’s evidence. Evidence based on hearsay, forced confession and torture can now be used against the accused, even, as likely, it has no merit in truth. Trials must be held in military tribunals, using only military attorneys. Regarding the Geneva Convention, that stalwart monument protecting human rights, the executive now has complete discretion in deciding what constitutes torture as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The president, it appears, can now torture when he wants, whoever he wants, whenever he wants, without concern or transparency.

The Decider in Chief has become the Torturer in Chief. Suspects deemed enemies of the state can, for all practical purposes, be sent to rot in the dungeons of the Commander in Chief, without ever seeing the light of day, without ever challenging their imprisonment and without ever to hear or fight the charges against them. In short, enemies of the executive can be made to disappear.

American Enemy Combatants

In an even more ominous development, the definition of "enemy combatant" has been expanded to include those who "have purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." As has been mentioned in many other recent articles, this devolution into classifying those hostile to the executive branch, or to the policies of the state, as possible enemy combatants, in many cases regardless of citizenship, is the weapon the fascists need to silence dissent, protest and debate throughout the nation. The threat of new ideas and opinions, which tyrants abhor, can now be managed and controlled, for in the broad language of the law virtually anyone can now be imprisoned and disappeared, forever. Since the executive branch determines who is being hostile against the United States, or who materially supports these so-called hostilities, it is easy to see that anyone at odds with the president, his administration or the government of the United States can be persecuted for expressing views no longer protected. Under this provision, any speech or activity deemed hostile to the state can be used to permanently imprison a person indefinitely.

This new interpretation and expansion of police powers virtually assures that American dissent and opposition to the state’s policies will be seen as hostile to the national security of the nation. What other reason exists to include such broad language into this provision other than to declare a war on dissent and on the opposition. Ostensibly this law is being marketed by the Ministry of Truth as a necessary tool to fight the evildoers, but in reality, can the imprisonment of dissenters and protestors, activists and intellectuals be far behind?

This gigantic step in the direction of totalitarianism is clear evidence the direction the Bush cabal is heading towards, with the American people being hijacked straight into despotism, our ankles slowly being shackled to the instruments of oppression. Already dissent is equaled to treason and of being unpatriotic in an age when being patriotic is almost compulsory. In certain authoritarian circles dissent and activism is seen as rendering aid and comfort to the enemy, while in others challenging the state is seen as wrongfully aiding the enemy. Activists seeking accountability and the truth are labeled terrorists, while others are seen as appeasers of terror. With such exaggerated language being used, oftentimes under complete levels of seriousness, can the accusations of supporting hostilities against the state be far behind, possibly leading to now legal and permanent imprisonment and torture?

The road less traveled is being paved with the concrete tablets of tyranny, and slowly, but most certainly surely, the caravan of authoritarians is approaching our towns and cities, eager to unleash their chained beast of oppression onto the most powerful nation on Earth. The momentum is theirs, as is the power and control to determine events and circumstances that can accelerate the approaching storm. Our destiny is in their hands, for they can do as they wish, counting the days when their plans and goals can be fully implemented. America as we once knew her is no more, thanks to the tyrants in power, thanks to our own ignorance and indifference.

Soon it will matter not that 9/11 was an inside job, for any talk of its truth will be severely punished, even banned, to be whispered in closets or over the sound of loud music. In fact, so much momentum is the movement gaining, so much traction among the People is its truth creating, that sooner rather than later the authoritarians may begin imprisoning truth seekers under the guise of "purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States." Such is the threat of exponentially growing numbers of Americans taking the red pill of reality, that the state’s handlers may very well deem the entire movement a terrorist organization, the easier to suppress and intimidate the truth from ever being exposed. It is only a matter of time until tyranny unleashes its instruments of repression against both truth seekers and America’s real patriots, dissenters and activists.

Already the Constitution has been dealt a death knell, meaning it has no more significance or worth. The Constitution has become, for all intents and purposes, just "another god damn piece of paper," a relic of history, an obstacle overcome by America’s authoritarians. It will soon be said, as it always is, that at first the state came for the scapegoats, the marketed enemy, the chalice used to make drunk the masses, the bread used to destroy the system. Later it will come for its citizens, its threats, its People. Once everything is in place, once all the kinks have been ironed out, once all obstacles have been erased, the totalitarian evisceration of the Constitution will devastate a population conditioned to follow the letter of the law, now left unprotected, bewildered and condemned for the gross negligence it has allowed itself to perpetuate. Ironically, the People’s anger and hatred at the enemy scapegoat are themselves the catalysts for its own decimation, oppression and enslavement. In the end, we are our own worst enemies, both our Judas and our cyanide, not knowing what we do to ourselves, and each other.

When the masses finally see what has transpired in their country, when they finally wake to the morning fog, unable to see beyond the limits of their existence, they will see a landscape dark and ominous, a police state under the control of tyranny, a nation under the grip of repression. The America of their past and present gone, ignorant as any society has ever been, the masses will evolve to their new reality, their new normal. Most will welcome authoritarianism, for most are followers. The brainwashed will become tools of despotism, adapting to the brave new world of sheep oppressed and subjugated. Many will never really notice that freedom and rights and liberties no longer exist. Millions will teach their children to be good Americans, as fate has decided tyranny should rule. Imprisoned in their own minds, the masses will inevitably be conditioned to follow and obey the dictates of their masters.

Those who question authority, those who use their mind and those who see the slavery and oppression that has been birthed at the expense of liberty will become enemies of the state, threats to the system of tyranny, dissidents aiding and abetting the enemy, commissioned to never see light again. These dissidents the state will imprison and make disappear, to be erased from memory and time, their quest for truth and accountability buried six feet underground. To the obedient sheeple whose blind faith guides them in myth and state, totalitarianism will come naturally, becoming a nirvana to life-long followers; to free thinkers, independent minds, progressives and those who have escaped the incessant brainwashing from birth, it will be hell on Earth.

The approaching storm has reached the warm waters of America, rapidly gaining speed, ready to unleash its torrent of tyrannical laws and regulations upon our shores, its police state arriving with the sudden flash of thunder and lightning. The giant tempest has been building for over five years, granted life through death, rising high and mighty thanks to destruction and demolition, our own ignorance and sheer indifference granting it oxygen, our fear giving it power, our hatreds helping seal our own fate. America the Tyranny has risen to be born, the wickedness of humankind once more resurrected from the annals of history, free to repress and subjugate, eager to shackle and control. The destruction of the World Trade Center has made tyranny a reality; our continued impotence will allow it to flourish.

We Reap What We Sow

Perhaps it is fitting that a People that has cared not an ounce for systemic torture, preemptive war, illegal invasion, brutal occupation, mass murder, depleted uranium use, incessant rape, constant humiliation of human beings, destruction of Iraqi and Afghani society, renditions, illegal detentions, disappearances and untold levels of suffering should be made to suffer the realities of living in totalitarianism, under a police state, under constant paranoia and fear of both the state and your neighbors. Perhaps it is fitting that a People possessing such levels of ignorance, indifference and comfort be made to experience a reality that afflicts hundreds of millions of human beings. Perhaps in time we will learn humility and suffering, wisdom and the virtues of honor and peace.

America is a land so arrogant it calls itself and usurps as its own the name belonging to two entire continents; it is the country whose ego has been so aggrandized that it thinks itself the only nation blessed by the Christian god; it was a nation once cherished now thoroughly reviled; the land of the free now a land of tyranny, the home of the brave now nothing but the culture of cowardice, its bowels putrid with the smell of authoritarianism; its people enraptured by ignorance and fear, its moral foundations crumbling under the weight of pervasive corruptions and the evils of capitalism. The gluttony of comfort and the greed of excessiveness have made the American people the laughing stock of the world, our inability to escape the bubble of grandeur condemning us to be the spoiled child of wealth, unwise, unlearned and arrogant, never forced to confront suffering or trouble, condemning us to be the mirror image of our President.

The shining beacon on a hill has had its bright light extinguished, becoming in the span of half a decade a banana republic rotting from within, governed by incompetent dictatorship, its national elections routinely manipulated through the systemic impulses of blatant fraud, with representatives now nothing more than prostitutes bending over to receive the full gyrating assault of the corporate world, cannibalized by its own people addicted to consumerism and materialism, an army of ignorant sheep unaware of the future destiny they have helped chart, a population betraying their children’s future happiness for their short-term gratification.

The land of freedom and rights has ceased to exist, replaced by ever-growing authoritarianism. Perhaps, in the cosmic laws of the universe, where karma intertwines with fate, we are entering into the other side of midnight, journeying into exactly what we deserve, a taste of our own medicine, a taste of what we have exported to tens of dozens of other nations. We are reaping what we have sowed, and upon our shores now stands America the Tyranny, perhaps meant to suffer through another Hitler, another Stalin or Mao, or perhaps simply another Pinochet, Shah, Suharto or Saddam. America has entered its darkest hour, and as the clock approaches midnight the nation we once knew vanishes from the grip of the People. Nobody knows where we are headed, yet we do know in which direction we go, for the path has been paved, the pattern has begun to emerge, and through the horizon, no salvation can be found.

Instead of the world confronting the evil emblem of the swastika we must realize that it is the emblazoned red, white and blue that now represents despotic thinking and tyrannical rule. It was Old Glory that sprung up like a giant field of weeds in the aftermath of 9/11, flowing from every vehicle and every home, every business and every street, giving America the aura of jingoism and nationalism undoubtedly similar to 1930’s Germany, giving it the appearance, to anyone who cared to look and think, of what Germany’s streets in the 1930’s certainly looked like, right before society turned into barbarism. Perhaps this orgy of fanatical and jingoistic revelry was but the first sign of things to come, the birth pangs of America the Tyranny.

Five years later, the red, white and blue still flows proudly in the minds of followers and quasi-authoritarians, with knuckle dragging proto-patriots brainwashed to stand behind it in fear and terror of concocted enemies, their blind loyalty to anybody in power, even a little man with even smaller understanding. The stars and stripes has become the new symbol of jingoism, nationalism, xenophobia and blind loyalty and faith in tyrants, just as the swastika once did, even as it stands smeared in the blood of thousands, protecting torturers, rapists, war criminals, murderers and human rights violators, even as it has been besmirched by the destruction of innocent life and that of entire societies.

Old Glory now stands for the worst abuses of human rights, representing Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram, the destruction of the Constitution and of Lady Liberty, the loss of habeas corpus and of the Geneva Convention. The red, white and blue, sadly enough, has become the symbol of what we most hate, of what we swore to never become. It has become a flag hijacked by tyrants, with the American People unconcerned and unwilling, to the point of embarrassment, to free it from its dungeon, with most too lazy or apathetic to care, most too ignorant to know. As a result, it has become, like the wretched symbol of the Nazis, a most reviled and despised emblem, an image of tyranny rising, wickedness growing and criminality evolving. Only Americans know how much more reviled and hated it will become in the coming years.

Manuel Valenzuela is a social critic and commentator, international affairs analyst and Internet essayist. His articles as well as his archive can be found at his blog, http://www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com and at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info as well as at other alternative news websites from around the globe. Mr. Valenzuela is also author of Echoes in the Wind, a fiction novel. Mr. Valenzuela welcomes comments and can be reached at manuel@valenzuelas.net.

04 October, 2006

Global Leaders Call for Action on Arab-Israeli Settlement


INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW REPORT


Brussels/Washington/New York/London/Amman, 4 October 2006: 135 respected global leaders -- former presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defence ministers, congressional leaders and heads of international organisations ­-- have today joined in a call for urgent international action to comprehensively resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Their statement (full text and signatories below) says there is a “desperate need for fresh thinking and the injection of new political will” if the conflict, “with all its terrible consequences”, is ever to be settled. They say that ideally there would be a new all-in international conference to kick-start detailed negotiations, but that whether or not this can happen soon, there should be:

  • International support for a Palestinian national unity government, with an end to the political and financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority;
  • Talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, on both the immediate issues of mutual security and revival of the Palestinian economy, and on the core final-status political issues;
  • These talks to be mediated or sponsored by the Quartet (UN, US, EU and Russia) -- reinforced by participation of the Arab League and key regional countries -- who would also initiate talks on the outstanding issues between Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

“There is a real hunger out there for present-day political leaders to take hold of this catastrophically divisive issue and resolve it once and for all,” said Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, which organised the statement.

“It is remarkable how much immediate support there was for this statement from so many highly experienced, top-level former public sector leaders from around the world and across the political spectrum. Like the great majority of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, they just want to get things moving now, cut through the obstacles, and put in place the elements of a sustainable peace.”

This statement is part of Crisis Group’s new global advocacy initiative, announced on 22 September, designed to generate fresh political momentum behind a comprehensive settlement following the chaos of the last few months. Other elements involve brainstorming sessions on strategy with UN, Quartet and regional experts, led by Middle East Program Director Rob Malley; a particular effort to stimulate a bipartisan rethink of US policy; task force visits to key capitals; and a continuing stream of Crisis Group reports and briefings containing detailed analysis and policy recommendations.

A detailed new Crisis Group report, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: To Reach a Lasting Peace, is scheduled for publication on Thursday, 5 October 2006.


Contacts: Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) 32 (0) 2 541 1635
Kimberly Abbott (Washington) 1 202 785 1601

To contact Crisis Group media please click here
For a display copy of the statement and signatories in PDF format, click here



Towards a Comprehensive Settlement of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

With the Middle East immersed in its worst crisis for years, we call for urgent international action towards a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Everyone has lost in this conflict except the extremists throughout the world who prosper on the rage that it continues to provoke. Every passing day undermines prospects for a peaceful, enduring solution. As long as the conflict lasts, it will generate instability and violence in the region and beyond.

The outlines of what is needed are well known, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973, the Camp David peace accords of 1978, the Clinton Parameters of 2000, the Arab League Initiative of 2002, and the Roadmap proposed in 2003 by the Quartet (UN, US, EU and Russia). The goal must be security and full recognition to the state of Israel within internationally recognized borders, an end to the occupation for the Palestinian people in a viable independent, sovereign state, and the return of lost land to Syria.

We believe the time has come for a new international conference, ideally held as soon as possible and attended by all relevant players, at which all the elements of a comprehensive peace agreement would be mapped, and momentum generated for detailed negotiations.

Whether or not such an early conference can be convened, there are crucial steps that can and should be taken by the key players, including:

  • Support for a Palestinian national unity government, with an end to the political and financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority.
  • Talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, mediated by the Quartet and reinforced by the participation of the Arab League and key regional countries, on rapidly enhancing mutual security and allowing revival of the Palestinian economy.
  • Talks between the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli government, sponsored by a reinforced Quartet, on the core political issues that stand in the way of achieving a final status agreement.
  • Parallel talks of the reinforced Quartet with Israel, Syria and Lebanon, to discuss the foundations on which Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese agreements can be reached.

Nobody underestimates the intractability of the underlying issues or the intensity of feelings they provoke. But if the Arab-Israeli conflict, with all its terrible consequences, is ever to be resolved, there is a desperate need for fresh thinking and the injection of new political will. The times demand no less.

Morton Abramowitz, Former US Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand
Adnan Abu-Odeh
, Former Political Adviser to King Abdullah II and King Hussein, Jordan
Esko Aho
, Former Prime Minister, Finland
Ali Alatas
, Former Foreign Minister, Indonesia
Abdul-Kareem Al-Eryani
, Former Prime Minister, Yemen
Raúl Alfonsín
, Former President, Argentina
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
, Former UN High Representative for Bosnia & Herzegovina
Lloyd Axworthy
, Former Foreign Minister, Canada
Peter Barry
, Former Foreign Minister, Ireland
Shlomo Ben-Ami
, Former Foreign Minister, Israel
Alexander Bessmertnykh
, Former Foreign Minister, Soviet Union
Carl Bildt
, Former Prime Minister, Sweden
Valdis Birkavs
, Former Prime Minister, Latvia
James Bolger
, Former Prime Minister, New Zealand
Kjell Magne Bondevik
, Former Prime Minister, Norway
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
, Former Secretary-General, UN
Lakhdar Brahimi
, Former Foreign Minister, Algeria, and UN Special Representative
Gro Harlem Brundtland
, Former Prime Minister, Norway
Zbigniew Brzezinski
, Former National Security Advisor to the President, United States
Kim Campbell
, Former Prime Minister, Canada; Secretary General, Club of Madrid
Ingvar Carlsson
, Former Prime Minister, Sweden
Frank Carlucci
, Former Secretary of Defense, United States
Jimmy Carter
, 39th President, United States; Nobel Peace Prize 2002
Maria Livanos Cattaui
, Former Secretary-General, International Chamber of Commerce
Naresh Chandra
, Former Indian Cabinet Secretary and Ambassador to US
Claude Cheysson
, Former Foreign Minister, France
Jean Chrétien
, Former Prime Minister, Canada
Wesley Clark
, Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Gerard Collins
, Former Foreign Minister, Ireland
Pat Cox
, Former President, European Parliament
Jacques Delors
, Former President, European Commission
Gianni De Michelis
, Former Foreign Minister, Italy
Ruth Dreifuss
, Former President, Switzerland
Roland Dumas
, Former Foreign Minister, France
Shirin Ebadi
, Nobel Peace Prize 2003; Iran
Uffe Ellemann-Jensen
, Former Foreign Minister, Denmark
Gareth Evans
, President, International Crisis Group; Former Foreign Minister, Australia
Mark Eyskens
, Former Prime Minister, Belgium
José María Figueres
, Former President, Costa Rica
Vigdís Finnbogadóttir
, Former President, Iceland
Joschka Fischer
, Former Foreign Minister, Germany
Malcolm Fraser
, Former Prime Minister, Australia
Anil K Gayan
, Former Foreign Minister, Mauritius
Leslie H Gelb
, President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations, United States
Bronisław Geremek
, Former Foreign Minister, Poland
Kiro Gligorov
, Former President, Macedonia
Richard Goldstone
, Former Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Felipe González Márquez
, Former Prime Minister, Spain
Mikhail S Gorbachev
, Former President, Soviet Union; Nobel Peace Prize 1990
I K Gujral
, Former Prime Minister, India
Tenzin Gyatso
, 14th Dalai Lama; Nobel Peace Prize 1989
Vahit M Halefoğlu
, Former Foreign Minister, Turkey
Lee Hamilton
, Former Congressman, United States; Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Bob Hawke
, Former Prime Minister, Australia
Bill Hayden
, Former Governor-General and Foreign Minister, Australia
Carla Hills
, Former Trade Representative, United States
Lena Hjelm-Wallén
, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Sweden
Raffi K Hovannisian
, Former Foreign Minister, Armenia
Lord Howe of Aberavon
, Former Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, UK
John Hume
, Former First Minister of Northern Ireland; Nobel Peace Prize 1998
Lord Hurd of Westwell
, Former Foreign Secretary, UK
George Iacovou
, Former Foreign Minister, Cyprus
Anwar Ibrahim
, Former Deputy Prime Minister, Malaysia
James Ingram
, Former Executive Director, UN World Food Programme
Asma Jahangir
, Chair, Pakistan Human Rights Commission; UN Special Rapporteur
Max Jakobson
, Former Ambassador of Finland to the UN
Lionel Jospin
, Former Prime Minister, France
Marwan S Kasim
, Former Foreign Minister, Jordan
Kim Dae-jung
, Former President, Republic of Korea; Nobel Peace Prize 2000
F W de Klerk
, Former President, South Africa; Nobel Peace Prize 1993
Wim Kok
, Former Prime Minister, Netherlands
Bernard Kouchner
, Founder, Médecins Sans Frontières; Former Minister, France, and UN Special Representative
Milan Kučan
, Former President, Slovenia
Aleksander Kwaśniewski
, Former President, Poland
Ricardo Lagos
, Former President, Chile
Zlatko Lagumdžija
, Former Prime Minister, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Anthony Lake
, Former National Security Advisor to the President, United States
Lee Hong-Koo
, Former Prime Minister, Republic of Korea
Ahmed Maher
, Former Foreign Minister, Egypt
Abdul Salam Majali
, Former Prime Minister, Jordan
John Major
, Former Prime Minister, UK
Barbara McDougall
, Former External Affairs Secretary, Canada
Matthew F McHugh
, Former US Congressman and World Bank Counselor
Robert McNamara
, Former Secretary of Defense, United States
Rexhep Meidani
, Former President, Albania
Najib Mikati
, Former Prime Minister, Lebanon
Mike Moore
, Former Prime Minister, New Zealand; Former Director-General, WTO
Marwan Muasher
, Former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Jordan
Klaus Naumann
, Former Chairman, North Atlantic Military Committee of NATO, Germany
Boyko Noev
, Former Minister of Defence, Bulgaria
Ayo Obe
, Chair, World Movement for Democracy, Nigeria
Sadako Ogata
, Former UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Lord Owen of the City of Plymouth
, Former Foreign Secretary, UK
Anand Panyarachun
, Former Prime Minister, Thailand
Andrés Pastrana
, Former President, Colombia
Lord Patten of Barnes
, Co-Chair, International Crisis Group; Former European Commissioner for External Relations
Thomas Pickering
, Co-Chair, International Crisis Group; Former US Ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador and Nigeria
Josep Piqué
, Former Foreign Minister, Spain
Surin Pitsuwan
, Former Foreign Minister, Thailand
Yevgeny Primakov
, Former Prime Minister, Russia
Jorge Quiroga
, Former President, Bolivia
Augusto Ramírez Ocampo
, Former Foreign Minister, Colombia
Fidel V Ramos
, Former President, Philippines
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen
, Former Prime Minister, Denmark
Abdur-ra’uf Rawabdeh
, Former Prime Minister, Jordan
Malcolm Rifkind
, Former Foreign Secretary, UK
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
, Former Defence Secretary, UK, and NATO Secretary-General
Mary Robinson
, Former President, Ireland, and High Commissioner for Human Rights
Michel Rocard
, Former Prime Minister, France
Petre Roman
, Former Prime Minister, Romania
Adam Daniel Rotfeld
, Former Foreign Minister, Poland
Nafis Sadik
, Former Executive Director, UN Population Fund
Mohamed Sahnoun
, Former Algerian Ambassador; UN Special Adviser
Ghassan Salamé
, Former Culture Minister, Lebanon
Salim Ahmed Salim
, Former Secretary General, OAU, and Prime Minister, Tanzania
Jorge Sampaio
, Former President, Portugal
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada
, Former President, Bolivia
Mario Soares
, Former President, Portugal
Stephen Solarz
, Former Chair, Africa & Asia Subcommittees, US Congress
Cornelio Sommaruga
, Former President, International Committee of the Red Cross
George Soros
, Chairman, Open Society Institute
Pär Stenbäck
, Former Foreign Minister, Finland
Thorvald Stoltenberg
, Former Foreign Minister, Norway
HRH El Hassan bin Talal
, Founder, Arab Thought Forum, Jordan
Leo Tindemans
, Former Prime Minister, Belgium
Alex S Trigona
, Former Foreign Minister, Malta
Desmond Tutu
, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town; Nobel Peace Prize 1984
Cassam Uteem
, Former President, Mauritius
Hans van den Broek
, Former Foreign Minister, Netherlands, and European Commissioner for External Relations
Ed van Thijn
, Former Minister and Mayor of Amsterdam, Netherlands
George Vassiliou
, Former President, Cyprus
Hubert Védrine
, Former Foreign Minister, France
Richard von Weizsäcker
, Former President, Germany
Baroness Williams of Crosby
, Former Cabinet Minister, UK
Ernesto Zedillo
, Former President, Mexico

Organized by Crisis Group with assistance from the Club of Madrid and placed with support from the Radcliffe Foundation, Iara Lee & George Gund Foundation and Hamza Al Kholi.

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

Crisis Group reports and briefing papers are available on our website: www.crisisgroup.org

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

You can help Crisis Group by telling your colleagues, friends, and family about us. Click here to go to our tell-a-colleague page.

03 October, 2006

Bush Rages: "I am not Beelzebub, Lord of Sulfur"

By Mike Whitney

"The devil is right at home…. The devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came right here…And it still smells of sulfur today." Hugo Chavez; address to the UN General Assembly 9-20-06

My oh my, has Hugo Chavez caused a furor. Looking at the news reports filed in the last 24 hours, one would think that he snuck a dirty-bomb into the United Nations rather than gave a speech. In fact, the plucky Chavez may have delivered the finest 30 minute presentation that august assembly has ever heard. In that short span of time he publicly throttled the Global Emperor in front of 6 billion people and left his bruised and bloodied carcass splattered across the canvas like Roberto Duran in Round 9 of the middleweight championship match…..

"No mas, no mas no mas"…

And what about the performance? Is Chavez part of a theatre troupe or is he just earning his chops as a method actor?

Whatever it is; it seems to be working. After skewering Bush as "the devil" and sniffing around for sulfur (the traditional sign of Lucifer) Chavez performed his ablutions with a sign of the cross and an angelic expression worthy of Botticelli.

If you’re a lefty, it just doesn’t get any better than this.

Chavez should give lessons in public speaking. His appearance was like a clap of thunder; waving Chomsky with one hand and pummeling Bush with the other. He managed to heap more muck on "Guantanamo Nation" than anyone since Harold Pinter gave his blistering Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on 12-7-05. That’s when Pinter said:

"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have ever talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised quite a clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It is a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."

Chavez matched Pinter word for word, exposing the hypocrisy, lies and brutality of an administration that never stops lecturing about freedom and liberation even though it grinds out mountains of carnage everywhere it goes.

And where was Bush when Chavez delivered his broadside ….hiding behind Karen Hughes skirts, picking out a new eye-liner for his next televised harangue against Muslims, retrieving his Yale pom-poms from the dry-cleaners?

Our benighted leader always seems to disappear whenever the prospect of danger arises. He skedaddled when his number came up for the Alabama National Guard and he lit-out for the safety of a Nebraska cornfield when the planes hit the towers. He even vamoosed at a trade summit in Argentina when Chavez threatened "to sneak up behind him and give him a bear-hug." That really put a spring in old Bush’s step as he quickly scuttled to the safety of Airforce One.

One thing is certain, whenever there’s peril, President "gone-to-soon" will be speeding off in a trail of vapor.

In any case, Bush was not missed at the UN massacre yesterday. Chavez held-forth like a preacher at a brothel; scattering the bodies and kicking open the windows to let the sunlight in. He delivered one, ferocious roundhouse punch after another….

Boom, boom, boom…until the crowd rose in a thunderous 5 minute ovation. (which was carefully omitted from the TV coverage)

"What would the people of the world tell (Bush) if they were given the floor?" Chavez asked. "What would they have to say? I have some inkling of what they would say, what the oppressed people think. They would say, ‘Yankee imperialist, go home."

"He spoke to the people of Lebanon," Chavez added. "Many of you have seen, he said, how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut were delivered with laser precision….This is imperialist (and) genocidal; the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, ‘We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’"

Ouch; no wonder Bush "high-tailed it" out of the UN before the ensuing bloodbath.

Chavez is like a battering ram punching holes in the wall of silence which surrounds King George. Right after his speech I checked in at CNN and, as I expected, Bush-apologist Wolf Blitzer was spinning in his wingtips frantically trying to stitch together the tattered image of the Dear Leader. A quick peek at Google News confirms that the entire arsenal of corporate media is now engaged in the hopeless task of salvaging Bush’s wretched presidency.

But the damage is done. Chavez played the match on Bush’s home turf and beat him like a drum. Bush is probably still quivering under his desk.

"There are other ways of thinking," Chavez opined. "There are young people who think differently and this has happened in a mere decade. It has been shown that ‘the end of history’ was a false assumption, and the same is true of Pax Americana and the establishment of a ‘capitalist neo-liberal world. The system has only generated more poverty. Who believes in it now?"

Yes, who believes it now? Who believes in a party which has only produced two ideas in its entire history; tax cuts and war? Who believes that endless bombardment and martial law can be passed off as democracy and liberation? Who believes that a rogue’s gallery of liars, war-profiteers and gangsters can work in the public’s interest?

"We want ideas to save our planet from the imperialist threat. And, hopefully in this very century, in not to long a time, we will see a new era, and for our children and grandchildren, a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations."

Yes, Hugo, we want peace with our neighbors, peace with our friends, and peace with our enemies. We’re sick of war and the men who want war; and that includes every feckless politico in Congress, Democrat and Republican alike.

"The hegemonistic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species. We appeal to the people of the United States and of the world to halt this threat which is like a sword hanging over our heads."

There’s no time to lose. We have to dump Bush NOW and get on with the pressing issues of global warming, peak oil, nuclear proliferation, poverty and AIDS.

Chavez is right; the present model for global rule is broken and corrupt. We need a change.

"Capitalism is savagery," Chavez boomed.

Viva Chavez.

Noam Chomsky on Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest For Global Dominance

"If you repeat it loudly enough it will become the truth" - MIT institute professor of linguistics and author Noam Chomsky speaks out on U.S. hegemony, controlling the domestic population through fear and the historical parallels of current U.S. foreign policy.

Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking at Illinois State University on October 7th, 2003..

Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Let's start with a year ago, September, 2002, in the normal course of political life, academic life, September is usually an incipient month, a thing when important things begin to happen. September, 2002 was unusual in this respect. There were three very significant events closely related. One was the declaration of the National Securities Strategy, September 17. It announced very clearly and explicitly that the United States, at least this administration, intends to dominate the world permanently, if necessary, through the use of force. It's the one dimension in which the United States reigns completely supreme, probably now outspends the rest of the world combined or close to it in military expenditure, is far ahead in developing advanced and extremely dangerous technology. And it also announced that it will eliminate any potential challenge to that rule. So, it's to be permanent hegemony. That's the first event. That's not without precedent. There are interesting precedents. We don't have time to go into them unless you want to later, but this was unusual. It was correct for the reaction to be as extreme as it was, including the foreign policy elite here.

The second associated event was that in September, the war drums began to beat loudly about the planned invasion of Iraq. Early September, the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice warned that the next evidence we were likely to have about Saddam Hussein will be a mushroom cloud, presumably over New York, no matter how much everyone else may have hated him outside the United States, no one feared him, including his neighbors who had been trying to reintegrate Iraq back into the region, who despised him, including the country he invaded but didn't fear him. That was unique to the United States, beginning last September. So, first there's going to be a mushroom cloud and then the propaganda campaign began very loud. The invasion of Iraq that was planned was understood to be what sometimes is called an exemplary action, that is, it's an action intended to demonstrate dramatically that the doctrine that had been announced is intended seriously. It's not enough to just promulgate a doctrine. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to do something to show that you mean it.

The invasion of Iraq was understood correctly to be a test case, a demonstration case of the doctrine that the U.S. government arrogates to itself the right to attack any country it wants without credible pretext or without any international authorization. In fact, the National Security Strategy is, as commentators quickly pointed out, doesn't even mention international law and the United Nations charter. In fact, the Bush administration proceeded to make it very clear to the Security Council of the United Nations that they had two choices. They could be irrelevant, that was the term that was used, by authorizing the United States to use force as it wished, or they could be a debating society, as Colin Powell, the administration moderate, pointed out.

He -- Powell was also delegated to address the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland the following January. This was -- you know what that is. that's the group that -- the business press only semi-ironically calls the masters of the universe. The people who own the world, the corporate executives who are spending $30,000 for the privilege of attending and other great and important figures. The mood in Davos was completely different than any of the earlier meets. It was very angry. The top issue was Iraq. They were strongly opposed to it, just like the rest of the world. Powell faced a very hostile audience, and he -- they were not eager to accept his message, which was, as he put it, that the United States has the sovereign right to use military force when we feel strongly about something. We will lead, even if nobody else is following. We will do it because we have the power to do it, and if you don't like it, too bad. The further comments for the -- from the administration to the Security Council and others were we're not going to ask for any authorization from you. You can catch up, is the term that was used, and authorize us to do what we are going to do anyway, or you're irrelevant.

That was reiterated very brazenly at the Azores summit, the Bush-Blair summit a couple of days before the actual invasion. They met at a military base on the Azores so they wouldn't have to face mass popular opposition, which would have happened anywhere else. They declared -- they issued an ultimatum not to Iraq, but to the United Nations. The ultimatum was, give us your stamp of approval for what we're going to do anyway, or else just go off and be a debating society. They also made it clear that it didn't matter whether Saddam Hussein and his cohorts stayed in Iraq or not, as Bush announced, even if Saddam and his family and associates leave, we're going to invade anyway. because the goal is to -- for us to control Iraq. That's my words, not his. The rest is his words. It's all very clear and explicit. You cannot miss it. It wasn't missed. I'll come back to that.

The third event, before I come back to it, in September closely related is that the congressional election campaign opened, the mid-term election campaign. The main sort of campaign adviser for the Republican Party, Karl Rove, one of the most important people in Washington, he had already the preceding summer, the summer of 2002, he had instructed party activists that in going into the electoral campaign, they're going to have to emphasize national security issues. They cannot expect to enter a political confrontation with -- if economic and social policies are prominent on the agenda because their policies are extremely unpopular, which is not surprising since they are designed to be extremely harmful to the general population, and people know that, and also to future generations. and you cannot go into a political campaign with that kind of a platform.

So, therefore, it had to be national security issues. on the assumption that people would shift their priorities and vote for the -- those who were going to protect them from imminent destruction. Well, for the elections it barely worked. By a few tens of thousands of votes, in fact, but enough to allow them a bare hold on political power. The voters preferences at the polls remained, as exit pole polls revealed, remained the same, but priorities shifted, and enough people huddled under the umbrella of power and fear of the demonic enemy so that they could maintain control, barely.

Well, that illustrates one of the dilemmas of dominance that I had in mind. one problem is how do you control the domestic population. The great beast, as Alexander Hamilton called the people. They're always a problem. The beast is always getting out of control. One of the main problems of governance, I'm sure you study this in all of your political science courses, is how do you keep the great beast in a cage?

That's particularly difficult when you're dedicated passionately to carrying out policies that are in fact going to be very harmful to the mass of the population, and to future generations. Then it's difficult, and only one effective way has ever been discovered by the people in office now, or anyone else under those conditions, and that is inspire fear. If you can do that, maybe you can get away with it. And for the people in office now, it's second nature. It's important to remember this.

It's kind of striking that it hasn't been discussed extensively, but if you think for a minute, the people -- the present incumbents in Washington are almost entirely recycled from the Reagan and first Bush administration. In fact, from their more reactionary sectors, or else their immediate teams, especially that administration. They're following pretty much the same script as the first 12 years they had in political power. In both domestically and internationally. You can learn a lot about what they're doing by just paying attention to what happened in those 12 years. They were in fact pursuing policies that were highly unpopular. Reagan's policies were strongly opposed by the population, but they did keep voting for him. Mainly out of fear. They continually pressed the panic button every year or two. I'll come back to that. Reagan in fact ended up in 1992 being the most unpopular living U.S. president next to Nixon. Ranked slightly above Nixon, well below Carter and even below the almost forgotten Ford. But they did manage to hang on for 12 years, and they're following essentially the same script. Well, except with much more arrogance and commitment and optimism, feeling they can do things that they couldn't get away with then for various reasons.

AMY GOODMAN: You're listening to Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking at Illinois state university. Back with Professor Chomsky in a minute.

[MUSIC BREAK]

AMY GOODMAN: And you are listening to Democracy Now!, the war and peace report, as we return to the speech of Noam Chomsky. He gave it October 7th at Illinois State University. Author of "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance." Noam Chomsky.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, let's go back to the other two major events of September, the national security strategy and the invasion of Iraq. It was understood that this is to be -- as The New York Times put it, after the war, though it was obvious it was before, that this was to be the first test of the national security strategy, not the last. The invasion of Iraq, they pointed out, is the petri dish for an experiment in preemptive attack. The term -- and that was understood around the world. There was huge protest around the world, in the United States, too, completely without any historical precedent, and it wasn't just over the invasion of Iraq.

That was the same in Davos, it's the same in the foreign Policy elite here. It was partly that, but more because of the general strategy of which Iraq is to be an exemplary action. It's supposed to create a new norm in international relations, which only those with the guns can implement, of course. And it struck plenty of fear in the world. That's mainly what the protest was about. Well, the phrase that the Times used -- preemptive strike, preemptive attack -- is conventional, but completely wrong.

Preemptive war has a meaning in international law. It's kind of on the border of legality. If you think about the UN charter, it authorizes the use of force under one condition -- two conditions, either the Security Council calls for it, or in self-defense against armed attack until the Security Council has a chance to act. And that has a sort of fringe of judgment. So, for example, if, say, Russian bombers were flying across the Atlantic with the obvious intent of bombing the United States it would be legitimate under -- it would be interpreted as legitimate under Article 51 to shoot them down before they bomb. Maybe even to attack the base they were coming from. That's a preemptive strike. It's a military action taken against an imminent attack when no other possibility is open, and there's enough time to notify the Security Council. That's preemptive war. But that's not what's being proposed.

Sometimes it's called more accurately, preventive war, or anticipatory self-defense. Well, that's at least not completely wrong, but it's also mostly wrong. There's nothing that has to be prevented. And there's no self-defense involved. The prevention is against an imagined or invented threat. There was no threat of attack from Iraq. That was farcical. What's called for is not even preventive war, as the more cautious commentators point out, or anticipatory self-defense. In fact, it's just straight, outright aggression. What was called the supreme crime at Nuremberg, the most serious of all crimes. That's what the doctrine announces. We have the right to carry out the supreme crime of Nuremberg and we'll count on international lawyers and respectable intellectuals to pretty it up and make it look like something else. But, essentially, that's what it comes down to and that's the way it was understood. It was understood here, too, by people who care about the country. The most extreme condemnation of the war that I came across was right from the middle of the mainstream when the U.S. bombed -- when the bombing began, Arthur Schlesinger, a very respectable senior American historian, highly respected, one of Kennedy's advisers, had an article in which he said that the bombing of Iraq resembles the actions of imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor on a date, which the President at the time said, the date that will live in infamy. And he said President Roosevelt was correct. It's a date that will live in infamy, except that now it's Americans who live in infamy, and the world knows it. That's the reason why the sympathy and solidarity with the United States that was evident after 9-11 has turned into a wave of revulsion and fear, and often hatred, which is horrible in itself and also an extreme danger.

Well, he was not alone. The national security strategy aroused many shudders worldwide. That included the foreign policy elite at home. Right away, within weeks, the main establishment journal, Foreign Affairs -- the Council on Foreign Relations, ran an article by a well-known international relations scholar, in which he warned that the imperial grand strategy, as he called it, posed great dangers to the world, and to the population of the United States. The United States was declaring itself, he said, to be a revisionist state that is tearing to shreds the framework of international law and institutions. And the effect of that is -- and hoping, expecting to be able to permanently dominate the world by force, but he said, it's not going to work. Aside from being wrong, it's going to lead to efforts on the part of potential victims to counter it. They're not going to sit there and wait to be destroyed. They can't compete with the United States in military force -- nobody can -- but there are weapons of the weak. Two primarily. One is weapons of mass destruction, which by now are becoming weapons of the weak, and the other is terror.

So, he and many other foreign policy analysts and intelligence agencies pointed out that the strategy is essentially calling for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and increase in terror. And hence, a great danger to the world altogether, but to the United States in particular. The war in Iraq was understood exactly the same way. The U.S. and British intelligence agencies -- the British ones have just been exposed in the Hutton inquiry in London, but there were enough leaks before. Both the British and the U.S. intelligence agencies, and other intelligence agencies, and plenty of independent analysts, and any one you pick, predicted that one likely consequence of the Iraq invasion would be proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and terror.

Many commentators have pointed out that it's pretty likely that the Iranian and North Korean actions, since our response to the threat of the national security strategy and its implementation, are turning to the weapons that are available to them -- weapons of mass destruction. The U.S., indeed, made that very clear. There was a very clear and ugly lesson taught to the world last winter. North Korea is a far more vicious and ugly and dangerous state then Iraq, bad as Saddam Hussein was. But the U.S. wasn't going to attack North Korea. It was going to attack Iraq as the exemplary action. In part, that's because Iraq's just a lot more important. It's right in the center of the oil-producing region, but in part it's because Iraq was understood to be completely defenseless. If you have any brains, you don't attack anybody who can defend themselves. That's stupid. You want to attack somebody that's completely defenseless, and Iraq was known to be completely defenseless. That's why nobody was afraid of it, much as they might have hated it.

North Korea, on the other hand, had a deterrent. The deterrent was not nuclear weapons. It was conventional weapons -- massed artillery on the DMZ, the border with South Korea. Extensive massed artillery aimed at the capital, Seoul, South Korea, and at the U.S. troops in the south. Unless the Pentagon can figure out a way to get rid of that with precision weapons, or something or other, that is a deterrent to a U.S. attack. In fact, U.S. troops have since been withdrawn from the DMZ. And that's caused plenty of concern in both South and North Korea and the region, suggesting a very cynical strategy. You can figure it out. But what the U.S. was telling the world is if you don't want us to attack you and destroy you, you better have some kind of deterrent. And for most of the world, that's going to mean weapons of mass destruction. And terror.

The result of the war, as far as we know, verified that near-universal prediction of intelligence agencies and analysts. It's been pointed out since, that, to quote a few, that the Iraq war was a huge setback for the war on terror, led to a sharp spike in recruitment for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and in fact Iraq itself was turned into a haven for terrorists for the first time. It wasn't before, but now it is.

That was expected and that's another dilemma of dominance. You have to control the great beast at home, and while violence is an effective device and may intimidate many people and countries, it's likely to incite others -- to incite them to revenge or simply to find means of deterrence. And since no one can think of competing with the United States in military power, well, that leaves the weapons of the weak, weapons of mass destruction, and terror, and those may sooner or later be united. That's been predicted for years with contemporary technology. It's not that hard for terrorist groups with a low level of financing and sophistication to gain access to even nuclear weapons, small nuclear weapons. The chances of -- the possibilities of smuggling them into the United States are overwhelming. If you are interested in having a sleepless night, you can read some of the high-level studies that have been coming out for the past six or seven years, well before 9-11, but increasingly, which are virtually cookbooks for terrorists. I mean, they're the kind of things that I suspect we could do if we wanted to.

And maybe impossible to stop for all kind of reasons. The Hart-Rudman report, which came out about a year ago, Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, two former senators, a high-level study of threats -- on threats of terror that gives one of many such examples. So, yeah, sooner or later, weapons of mass destruction and terror will be united. And the consequences could be quite horrific. Well, all of that is the likely consequence predicted, and, so far, happening of the security strategy in the test case, the dramatic test case to illustrate it.

Well, administration planners know all of this as well as everyone else. I mean, they're intelligent, literate. They read the same intelligence reports everyone else does. So, they know, yes, the policies they're carrying out are increasing the threat to the security of the American people, and the world and, of course, future generations. And they don't want that. They don't want that outcome. It just doesn't matter very much. If you look at the ranking of priorities, it just doesn't rank very high. Likely that it could happen, but other things are just more important. The things that are more important are establishing global hegemony and carrying out the highly regressive domestic policies of trying to roll back the New Deal and the progressive legislation of the past century, in fact. And creating a very different kind of domestic society, one that most of the public passionately opposes, but may accept under the threat of destruction, manufactured and some increasingly real.

Well, this, again, gets back to the first dilemma, how do you control the domestic public, the great beast? In particular, the problem now is winning the 2004 election. Remember that they have a very narrow hold on political power. You all know that the 2000 election was disputed. The 2002 election was barely -- barely managed to sneak through, and now we're up to 2004, and what do we do with that? Well, go back to last May. On the first of May, you remember, there was a carefully staged extravaganza which elicited ridicule and fear throughout the world, but was played pretty seriously here when the President landed on the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier wearing combat gear and posing and so on and so forth. It was pretty frightening for the world. Here it played pretty straight. He gave a victory speech. We won a victory over in Iraq. Now, the front page story in The New York Times used a phrase that I'll come back to, and it's important. They said, "it was a powerful Reaganesque finale to the war in Iraq." We'll come back to that.

More astute observers pointed out that the extravaganza was the opening of the 2004 election campaign, which must be built on national security themes. That's The Wall Street Journal. Karl Rove, same guy, announced right away that the 2004 Election is -- the main theme is going to have to be what he called the battle of Iraq, and he emphasized battle. The battle of Iraq, not the war. It's an episode in the war on terror, which must continue. And, in fact, if you look at the President's declaration on the Abraham Lincoln, he said that we have won a victory in the war on terror by removing an ally of Al Qaeda. Notice that it's immaterial that there is not the slightest evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and his bitter enemy, Osama bin Laden, and the idea of a connection is dismissed by every competent authority, including the intelligence agencies, but it doesn't matter. It's a higher truth. All you have to do is repeat it loudly enough and often enough. Facts are irrelevant. In particular, the specific facts -- again, they didn't invent this formula. It's not pleasant to think about the antecedents, but they're there. It's also irrelevant, specifically, that there is actually a Connection between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, and namely, the invasion increased threat of terror, exactly as predicted. But it just doesn't make any difference and it continues.

AMY GOODMAN: You're listening to Noam Chomsky speaking at Illinois State University on October 7th. Noam Chomsky's latest book is, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance." You can get more information on democracynow.org. We'll return to the speech in a minute.

[MUSIC BREAK]

AMY GOODMAN: You're listening to Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman. We return to the speech of Noam Chomsky; author of many books. Noam Chomsky speaking at Illinois State University.

NOAM CHOMSKY: A week or so ago, in his weekly presidential radio address, President Bush, September 28 said, "the world is safer today because our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction."

Well, his speechwriters and his minders and trainers know very well that every word there was an outrageous lie. But why should it matter? If you repeat it loudly enough, it will become the truth.

Well, how can Karl Rove hope to get away with it? Just have a look back at what just happened in September 2002: the last election campaign.

That, as I said, was the beginning of an onslaught of government media propaganda, which had a very substantial effect. By the end of the month, by the end of September, about 60% of the population regarded Iraq as a serious threat to the security of the United States.

Remember, the United States is alone in this respect. In Kuwait and Iran, which Saddam invaded, they're not afraid of him. They're not afraid of him because they know exactly what U.S. intelligence and everyone else knows - Iraq was the weakest country in the region. It had been devastated by the U.S. sanctions, which are called U.N. sanctions, but if it wasn't for U.S. pressure, they wouldn't exist. They wiped out the population. They happened to strengthen the tyrant, but devastated the economy. The country was virtually disarmed. It was under total surveillance. Its military budget was about a third that of Kuwait, which has 10% of its population, and far below the other states in the region, including, of course, the regional superpower, which we're not allowed to talk about, because there's an offshore U.S. military base, but outside the United States everyone knows there is one country in the region that has extensive weapons of mass destruction, and has military forces which according to its own analysts are more technically advanced and more powerful than those of any NATO country outside the United States, unmentionable here, but known everywhere else.

That's the -- and Iraq isn't even in the league of Kuwaits, let alone anything like that.

So it, wasn't -- certainly not a threat, but by the end of September, as a result of a propaganda campaign of quite impressive character, government campaign transmitted uncritically by the media, about 60% of the population believed there was a threat. Then -- pretty soon after that, the proportion of the population that believed that Iraq was involved in 9-11, maybe responsible for it, went up to 50% or higher, depended how you asked the question.

Also the belief that Iraq was -- had interrelations with al Qaeda and other gross misperceptions which are rejected by every intelligence agency, including the U.S.. But it did become -- it did work domestically, not anywhere else.

That's the media -- the media behavior was kind of -- let me quote a non-controversial source, the very respectable "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". The editor wrote recently, "the charges dangled in front of the media failed the laugh test, but the more ridiculous they were, the more the media strove to make whole-hearted swallowing of them a test of patriotism."

It's pretty accurate and it sort of worked, only domestically and -- and only in part, because it was because of part of the population. The rest of the population was overwhelmingly opposed to the war at a level that literally has no precedent, but it worked enough to sneak by the election and to build up a base of support for the war. Not surprisingly, a belief in these fantasies was highly correlated with support for the war, as you would expect. If you believe those things, they're right. Well, that's significant.

Congress, in October, right after the propaganda campaign began, passed a resolution authorizing the government to resort to force to defend the United States against the continuing threat of Iraq.

Again, remember, the United States is the only country that was under that threat, but congress passed it. The media and commentators and in the intellectual world were silent about the fact, I presume they were aware of, that the congressional resolution was a copy. They're still following the script.

In 1985, president Reagan declared a national emergency in the United States because of -- I'm quoting, "the usual and extraordinary threat to the security of the United States posed by the government of Nicaragua." Which was two days' driving time from Arlington, Texas.

We had the quake and fear before that. Notice, that's much more severe than Iraq. That was an unusual and extraordinary threat.

In fact, Reagan went on to a press conference where he said that I know the enormous odds against me, but I remember a man named Churchill and he stood up against terrific odds, fought Hitler, and I'm not going to give up, never, never, never, despite the hoards of Nicaraguans invading us and about to conquer us.

That passed the laugh test in the United States. If you check back, just report it. People were afraid. The rest of the world could not believe it, but it happened, and it's another reason why they expect that they can do it again. That helps explain the confidence.

It and wasn't the only case. Through the 1980's, year after year there was one or another threat of that nature. Libyan hit-men were wandering the streets of Washington about to assassinate our leader, who was holed up in the White House, surrounded by tanks. The Russians were going to build an airbase in the nutmeg capital of the world, Grenada, if they could find it on a map, and they were going to bomb us.

That brings us back to the New York Times phrase, "powerful Reagan-esque finale."

What are they referring to? Well, they know what they're referring to. They're referring to Reagan's speech after the United States - after the brave cowboy barely saved us from destruction from the Grenadians by sending thousands of forces who were able to overcome a couple of middle aged construction workers and one -- but then there was a speech saying, "we're standing tall."

That's the powerful Reagan-esque finale that The New York Times is referring to. Maybe the reporter is being ironic, I don't know, but what gets to the public is the message, not what's in the person's mind. The message is, "we're in constant danger."

After Grenada, it was Libya again, and after that, it was domestic threats.

George Bush Sr. won his election by straight pulling the race card. Willie Horton, the black rapist is going to come after you, notice you put me in. Crime in the United States is like other industrial countries, but fear of crime is off the spectrum.

Same with drugs. Drugs - yeah - problem. In other countries it is about the same as here, but fear of drugs is far higher here and it's constantly manipulated by unscrupulous politicians and obedient media, and you get continual hysteria about drugs and Nicaraguans on the march, and Grenadians and the rest.

There's confidence. They were able to hold power for years, over and over, despite the fact that the population was harmed by the domestic policies and opposed them, but they stayed in office.

Now, they are much more confident. Well, there's quite a lot at stake for them. It's not just a matter of narrow political gain. What's at stake is world domination by force, and also control of the majo

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

The Heart of "Terror"

By: Bill Noxid

09/22/06 "Information Clearing House" - It’s unfortunate that we are still subjected to non-news in this country. I have no question it is a temporary condition that is running out of time faster than I could have imagined. The world at this point is evolving exponentially. "Revolution" is breaking out all over the planet and our media is as usual focused solely on the plight of one white child.

Without a doubt, everyone in this country should be watching the U.N. General Assembly. You can be sure the rest of the world is. This is just another example of why people in this country can’t understand why the rest of the world doesn’t "agree" with us. In order to have any kind of dialogue or "understanding" at all is it necessary to at least hear the other perspective before you conclude it must be wrong or "insane". Americans tend to have considerable resistance to such logic.

However the rest of the world is not resistant to this logic and never has been. In fact it’s the only explanation for the current state of the world. Americans have always been given the opportunity to speak and have been given the benefit of the doubt.

As a direct result of the world’s openness and forgiving nature, the United States has been able to maneuver itself ( certainly not by honorable means ) into what "appears" to be the sole position of power on the planet.

Again, this is pure self delusion and the only reason it can and continues to exist is by the deliberate and consistent effort to avoid seeing anything else. Coverage and commentary on the speeches over the last two days is a prime example.

If you’re American, the only thing you know about this two-day event is that George Bush spoke for twenty minutes. He reminded us that 9/11 happened within the first twenty-one seconds of his address ( in case you had forgotten ) and then proceeded to tell us the same thing he has said from the moment this campaign began. The mainstream media’s coverage of this United Nations event has consisted of the same clip of George Bush dozens of times.

What you don’t know if you are an American is that a great many others are speaking as well. In fact as what can be construed as another example of disregard for the International Community as a whole, the president’s tardiness precluded him from being the first speaker as was originally scheduled.

As a result, the first speaker was the representative from Brazil. For those of you who haven’t seen it, I strongly recommend you visit CSPAN and watch it for yourself. It was a beautiful speech to open the new U.N. session with. He made a statement replete with the wishes of the world and offered simple and plausible resolutions to the sufferings of the planet. He spoke of the world’s unified desire to live without oppression and in harmony and was met with a standing ovation when he left the stage. In the first ten minutes of the new session, the U.N. spoke for the world… And then came George…

I won’t regurgitate what George said. He does it just fine for himself and Lord knows he gets enough coverage… But you know what he said. He spoke of the "terrorists" coming to get us. He spoke to the "people" of the countries we have invaded and told them not to believe the "propaganda" that the U.S. is terrorizing them. He told them that "terrorists" live amongst them. He explained that the "peace" they had before they were invaded was not "real peace" and that somehow we were bombing them for their "freedom".

If you are American, what you don’t know is that George Bush is the only one who holds this opinion. Almost without exception, every other speaker from every other country had a message of peace and unity and freedom from oppression.

The reason for this global disparity in "opinion" is easy to understand. While we in this country continue to cry "terror, terror, terror," the rest of the world has figured out that they are the "terrorist". Every time America is in fear of loosing it’s "freedom", they are the ones who are punished for it. What makes it impossible for Americans to understand is that we have never ( without exception ) been in that position.

The world is tired, and with good reason. We never see it in this country, but the world has been at war for as long as anyone can remember. Oppression has existed for as long as Man has, and we in this country are intentionally oblivious to that fact. We stay oblivious to that reality because to accept it would radically change our way of life and our false opinion of ourselves. Our entire economy is based on slave labor and that should be obvious to anyone who takes five minutes to look. In the event you weren’t aware of it ( for example ), the beans for that five dollar cup of Starbucks coffee you drink were picked by slaves who make two dollars a week. If you have doubts about this reality, I encourage you to look up the things you use on a daily basis. If you find yourself surprised by who, how, and where they are made, it is only because of the denial of which I speak.

So while we in this country continue to defend a false reality, the actual reality of our actions and "way of life" is no longer acceptable to the rest of the world. They have already decided… We as Americans just don’t know it yet. The world is quite tired ( and rightfully so ) of being told the only answer to any problem is bombs… Particularly when American problems are the only ones ever addressed and the bombs are always pointed at them.

This is not a struggle… it is already done. The World has decided. The World is self-aware and has already decided what the future is. We, as Americans, have to graciously accept that. No war will change the nature of this reality. Bombing one more country’s infrastructure will not make us one more friend and it’s time we accept and understand that.

This is not all bad news for the American Dream. As I said before, the World is remarkably forgiving. The World does not want revenge on us. The World doesn’t want to kill us. The World only wants to Live Free. We ( not as Americans but as Global Citizens ) have as much right and are as welcome to this new reality as anyone one else. But certainly it is something that we must join as opposed to demanding as we always do that the rest of the world join us.

01 October, 2006

Lost in a Bermuda Triangle of Injustice

The Facts on the Ground: Mini-Gulags, Hired Guns, Lobbyists, and a Reality Built on Fear

By Tom Engelhardt

09/22/06 "TomDispatch" --- - This August, a site of shame, shared by Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush, was emptied. Abu Ghraib prison is the place where Saddam's functionaries tortured (and sometimes killed) many enemies of his regime, and where Bush's functionaries, as a series of notorious digital photos revealed, committed what the U.S. press still likes to refer to as "prisoner abuse." Now, there are no prisoners to abuse and the prison itself is to be turned over to the Iraqi government, perhaps to become a museum, perhaps to remain a jail for another regime whose handling of prisoners is grim indeed. The emptying was clearly meant as a redemptive moment or, as Nancy A. Youssef of the McClatchy Newspapers put it, "a milestone" for the huge structure. After all the bad media and the hit American "prestige" took around the world, Abu Ghraib was finally over.

Of course, its prisoners who remained generally uncharged and without access to Iraqi courts, weren't just released to the winds. Quite the opposite, over 3,000 of them were redistributed to two other U.S. prisons, Camp Bucca in Iraq's south and Camp Cropper at the huge U.S. base adjoining Baghdad International Airport, once dedicated to the holding of "high-value" detainees like Saddam Hussein and top officials of his regime.

Camp Cropper itself turns out to be an interesting story, but one with a problem: While the emptying of Abu Ghraib made the news everywhere, the filling of Camp Cropper made no news at all. And yet it turns out that Camp Cropper, which started out as a bunch of tents, has now become a $60 million "state-of-the-art" prison. The upgrade, on the drawing boards since 2004, was just completed and hardly a word has been written about it. We really have no idea what it consists of or what it looks like, even though it's in one of the few places in Iraq that an American reporter could safely visit, being on a vast American military base constructed, like the prison, with taxpayer dollars.

Had anyone paid the slightest attention – other than the Pentagon, the Bush administration, and whatever company or companies had the contract to construct the facility – it would still have been taken for granted that Camp Cropper wasn't the business of ordinary Americans (or even their representatives in Congress). Despite the fact that the $60 million dollars, which made the camp "state of the art," was surely ours, no one in the United States debated or discussed the upgrade and there was no serious consideration of it in Congress before the money was anted up – any more than Congress or the American people are in any way involved in the constant upgrading of our military bases in Iraq.

While Iraq and future Iraq policy are constantly in the news, almost all the American facts-on-the-ground in that country – of which Camp Bucca is one – have come into being without consultation with the American people or, in any serious way, Congress (or testing in the courts).

Camp Bucca is a story you can't read anywhere – and yet it may, in a sense, be the most important American story in Iraq right now. While arguments spin endlessly here at home about the nature of withdrawal "timetables," and who's cutting and running from what, and how many troops we will or won't have in-country in 2007, 2008, or 2009, on the ground a process continues that makes mockery of the debate in Washington and in the country. While the "reconstruction" of Iraq has come to look ever more like the deconstruction of Iraq, the construction of an ever more permanent-looking American landscape in that country has proceeded apace and with reasonable efficiency.

First, we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent." (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of American towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent U.S. prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best fortified "embassy" in the solar system with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.

If, for a moment, you stop listening to the arguments about, or even the news about, Iraq here at home and just concentrate on the ignored reality of those facts-on-the-ground, you're likely to assess our world somewhat differently. After all, those facts being made on the ground – essentially policy-put-into-action without the trappings of debate, democracy, media coverage, or checks and balances of any sort – are unlikely to be altered or halted in any foreseeable future by debate or opinion polls in our country. All that is likely to alter them is other facts on the ground – a growing insurgency, the deaths of Americans and Iraqis in ever greater numbers, a region increasingly thrown into turmoil, and maybe, one of these days, a full-scale, in-the-streets reaction by the Shiites of Iraq to the occupation of their country by a foreign power intent on going nowhere anytime soon.

A Bermuda Triangle of Injustice

Recently, speaking of the Bush administration's urge to publicly redefine and so abrogate the Geneva Conventions, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions, whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."

It's a comment not atypical of the present debate in Washington and possibly of feelings in the country. The media plays up the courageous stands of Republican Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner in bringing us back to those "high standards." In the process, the details of how much of what we can use in questioning whomever and what modest protections prisoners might or might not receive in our offshore prison system are hashed out. But no matter what is decided on any of these matters, in the real, on-the-ground world our "high standards" are quite beside the point – the point being the globally outsourced penal system being created.

For example, the President recently announced that the United States was emptying other prisons as well – previously officially unacknowledged "secret prisons" around the globe – of 14 "high value" al-Qaeda detainees. "There are now no terrorists in the CIA program," he said, though that is unlikely to be the actual case.

Looked at another way, however, that secret CIA detention system, which seems to consist of makeshift or shared or borrowed facilities around the world, sits in place, ever ready for use. It's not going anywhere and in the most basic sense it probably cannot be shut down. Nor it seems are the almost 14,000 prisoners we hold in Iraq, the 500 (or more) in Afghanistan, and the nearly 500 in Guantanamo going anywhere. Even with Abu Ghraib empty and the secret prison system officially emptied, nearly 15,000 prisoners are being held by the U.S. essentially incommunicado, most beyond the eyes of any system of justice, beyond the reach of any judges or juries. In many cases, as in the case of Bilal Hussein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Iraqi photojournalist, who has been held, probably at Camp Cropper, without charge or trial "on suspicion of collaborating with insurgents" for the last five months, even that most basic right – to know exactly why you are being held, what the charges are against you – is lacking.

Whatever arguments may be going on in Washington over which "tools" or "interrogation techniques" the CIA is to be allowed to use or over exactly how the 14 al-Qaeda detainees just transferred to Guantanamo will be tried, this set of facts-on-the-ground adds up to our own global Bermuda Triangle of Injustice into which untold numbers of human beings can simply disappear. The "crown jewel" of our mini-gulag is, of course, Guantanamo. And again, whatever the fierce arguments here may be about Guantanamo "methods" or what kinds of commissions or tribunals (if any) may finally be chosen for the run-of-the-mill prisoners there, one fact-on-the-ground points us toward the actual lay of the land. A little publicized $30-million maximum-security wing at Guantanamo is now being completed by the U.S. Navy, just as at the American prison at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, there has been an upgrade.

In all-too-real worlds beyond our reach, everything tends toward permanency. Whatever the discussion may be, whatever issues may seem to be gripping Washington or the nation, whatever you're watching on TV or reading in the papers, elsewhere the continual constructing, enlarging, expanding, entrenching of a new global system of imprisonment, which bears no relation to any system of imprisonment Americans have previously imagined, continues non-stop, unchecked and unbalanced by Congress or the courts, unaffected by the Republic, but very distinctly under the flag "for which it stands."

Contractors and Mercenaries

And don't imagine that this is an anomaly, applicable only to imprisonment abroad. Almost anywhere you look, the facts on the ground tell a story at odds with what's important, what's real as we Americans imagine it. Let's take, for instance, what's now referred to as the Intelligence Community or IC, a collection of at least 16 agencies, ranging from the Central Intelligence Agency and the NSA to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Consider then just one recent piece about the IC by Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times, headlined Spy Agencies Outsourcing to Fill Key Jobs.

As Miller points out, the overall intelligence budget has gone up about $10 billion a year in recent years and for that we've got an upgrading (or at least upsizing) of almost every one of those 16 agencies plus a whole new, sprawling layer of intelligence bureaucracy headed by John Negroponte, our intelligence tsar, who runs the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence (not even included in the count above). Miller reports another interesting fact-on-the-ground as well: Enormous numbers of private contractors are flooding into the IC.

"At the National Counterterrorism Center – the agency created two years ago to prevent another attack like Sept. 11 – more than half of the employees are not U.S. government analysts or terrorism experts. Instead, they are outside contractors. At CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., senior officials say it is routine for career officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers – nonagency employees who carry special-colored IDs."

At some clandestine CIA overseas posts like Islamabad and Baghdad, Miller reports, private contractors can make up as many as three-quarters of the employees, while at home private contractors at the CIA, now also outnumber its estimated 17,500 employees. He concludes:

"Senior U.S. intelligence officials said that the reliance on contractors was so deep that agencies couldn't function without them. ‘If you took away the contractor support, they'd have to put yellow tape around the building and close it down,' said a former senior CIA official who was responsible for overseeing contracts before leaving the agency earlier this year."

The same could, of course, be said of the military which is quite literally incapable of existing today without its private contractors like Halliburton's KBR, nor could its wars be carried on without the proliferation of hired guns – mercenaries – that are now a given in any such situation. This transformation of the military into first an all-volunteer, then an increasingly privatized as well as outsourced, and now an increasingly mercenary institution is another fact-on-the-ground, another building block to our future.

A Reality Built on Fear

Around all such "facts," of course, ever more entrenched and ever more expansive sets of interests arise: companies to organize the private contractees, or to deal with the outsourcing, or to handle contracts and construction work, not to speak of whole worlds of consultants, specialists, and lobbyists. This is a reality which no future administration, nor any better empowered Congress, would be likely to reverse, no less erase any time soon. No matter how the details of the argument about NSA spying turn out, for example, it's essentially a given that the National Security Agency will continue to grow and make itself ever more available in ever more ingenious ways, trolling ever more extensively in communications of every sort. These are the facts being established on the ground, while in Washington they argue over the (sometimes significant) details and the media focuses its main attention on all of this as the essence of the news of the day.

Take for example the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), yet another sprawling, ill-organized, inefficient bureaucracy established after 9/11 and not likely to do anything but grow in our lifetimes. Around it has sprung into existence an anti-terrorism homeland-security industry (thank you, Osama bin Laden!) of staggering proportions. "Seven years ago," writes Paul Harris of the British Guardian, "there were nine companies with federal homeland security contracts. By 2003 it was 3,512. Now there are 33,890."

Think about that. They are there to divide a terrorism/security pie that has, since 2000, resulted in about $130 billion in contracts and now, according to USA Today, is a $59 billion a year business globally – one based on that surefire bestseller, fear, whose single major customer is, of course, the DHS.

Not surprisingly, around those 33,000 companies, has sprung up a whole network of Washington-based lobbyists (including the lobbying firm of our previous attorney general, the Ashcroft Group), a plethora of security conferences and trade magazines; in short, the full panoply of a thriving business world. Already at least 90 officials have left the Homeland Security Department to become lobbyists or consultants in the business that surrounds it, including Tom Ridge, the first head of the department. After only five years, the homeland-security business, according to USA Today, has already eclipsed "mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue."

These are truly facts on the ground and no discussion in Washington of homeland security is likely to shake them much. An industry tracker, Homeland Security Research, points the way to one possible future on which Americans are never likely to vote. "A major attack in the United States, Europe or Japan could increase the global market in 2015 to $730 billion, more than a twelvefold increase."

Or consider the Pentagon's Northcom – United States Northern Command, now responsible for "the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles," including the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Before October 1, 2002, there was no Northern Command. Less than four short years later, it's not only up and running but has multiple missions. It's preparing for the next hurricane (since we already know FEMA can't do the job), deploying forces to battle wildfires in the west, and getting ready for an avian flu pandemic. And don't think for a moment that where an institution springs up (especially one with a budget like the Pentagon's behind it), a world of on-the-ground realities doesn't arise as well. Just as it will when, in the near future, the Pentagon redivides its imperial domains by creating a new Africacom or United States Africa Command, supposedly to "anchor US forces on the African continent" – a decision that will be sold around town based on "terrorism security threats," but will essentially be about energy flows and oil. Each new structure like this, each decision, will result in new facts on the ground, new flows of money, and new sets of private contractors.

These are increasingly the crucial realities of our world – and it's not the world of a republic. It's not a world of checks and balances. It's not a world where even a change of ownership in one or both houses of Congress in November would prove a determining factor. It's not a world where people out there are just "starting to question whether we're following our own high standards." It's distinctly not the world as we Americans like to imagine it, but it is the world we are, regrettably enough, lost in. It's the world created not just by a commander-in-chief presidency, but by a Pentagon-in-chief-dominated government, and by a corporation-in-chief style of imperial rule

It is a world striving for permanence, which doesn't faintly mean that it's permanent – not in Iraq and not here. But it might be helpful if we began to register more fully not just the latest flurry of whatever passes for news, but the facts-on-the-ground that are, every minute, every hour, every day, transforming our lives and our planet.

Tom Engelhardt [send him mail] is editor of TomDispatch.com, a project of the Nation Institute.

Iraq is Bush’s Reflection Pond

By Mike Whitney

09/22/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Martial law is not liberation. Baghdad has been in a state of virtual lockdown since thousands of American Occupation Forces (AOF) were deployed to the city in a futile attempt to establish security. In the last two months, the number of dead appearing at the Baghdad morgue has skyrocketed; nearly 6,600 Iraqis brutally tortured and killed in July and August alone. In terms of population, this is the equivalent of 79,200 American casualties. Simply put, it is a massacre. Still, the AOF continues to execute its bloody mission with impunity regardless of the horrific cost.
Occupation is not freedom; it is servitude enforced at gunpoint. By every objective standard, life was better under Saddam Hussein. The people had reliable sources of electricity, clean water, food and medical supplies. Employment was high, crime was low, schools were open, markets were bustling and the socialist regime provided education and health services to the destitute.

Iraq was a dictatorship, but it was far superior in every way to the holocaust unleashed by the American invasion. In view of the ongoing devastation of infrastructure, the callous disregard for human life, and the absolute absence of personal security; Saddam’s Iraq must now seem like Nirvana.

Every part of the American occupation has failed. The only project which has succeeded has been the propaganda campaign which continues to frame the conflict as "the central battle in the war on terror". This is a lie. Even high-ranking government officials have admitted that foreign fighters (terrorists) comprise a very small segment of the total resistance. The vast majority have joined the struggle to end the American occupation and restore Iraqi national sovereignty. 70% of the daily attacks in Iraq are on occupation forces. However dismal the fighting between the ethnic and religious groups may seem, it is secondary to the viciousness of the occupation.

The resistance is growing in strength despite the massive casualties, despite the torture and imprisonment, despite the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and infrastructure, and despite the largest counter-insurgency operation in American history. A confidential Pentagon assessment has shown that in 2003 Sunni support for the resistance was only 14% of the population. A recent poll now shows that figure has risen to 75%. There is near unanimity among the 5 million Sunnis that killing Americans is justifiable in order to end the occupation.

A new report confirms that the use of "violence and torture has increased exponentially" since the 2003 invasion. According to political analyst Barak Ibrahim, "The human rights situation has worsened considerably when compared to former President Saddam Hussein."

"If we go deep into the cause," Ibrahim added, "we will find in the end that the presence of US troops in the country has generated revolt and loss of patience by fighters and only when they leave will we be able to talk about improving security."

Ibrahim’s comments prove that the United States is a greater purveyor of human rights abuses than Saddam, a fact that is distressingly clear in recent appearances by George Bush who now defends torture at every opportunity. Ibrahim’s remarks are reinforced by Manfred Nowak, United Nation’s chief anti-torture expert, who described the present human rights situation in Iraq as "completely out of hand."

The western "embedded" media has attempted to shift the blame for the growing incidents of torture and killing onto the Shiite and Sunni militias, but this is misleading. Sectarian violence is the logical consequence of a brutal occupation. America has spawned a culture of cruelty and impunity which has corrupted every part of Iraqi society. The AOF intentionally fuels the ethnic animosities as a means of achieving its overall political objectives, which are the division of Iraq into smaller more-manageable regions, and crushing all indigenous resistance groups through the application of extreme violence.

The media is wrong. The problem is not sectarian fighting or civil war. The problem is the American occupation.

American forces are now enclosing Baghdad within a 60-mile long mound of dirt that will be ringed with concertina wire and watch-towers. Every citizen will be forced to produce biometric identification and undergo retinal scans to enter or leave the city.

Is this democracy or tyranny?

What will it take before we leave these people alone and stop the suffering?

Enough is enough.

Are we afraid that perhaps one military-aged male between 15 and 65 slipped away and wasn’t sufficiently kicked or clubbed or dressed in women’s underwear for the amusement of his foreign jailors?

Are we worried that perhaps one Iraqi family is still intact and hasn’t lost a member or two to the roaming death squads, the trigger-happy mercenaries or the myriad bombing raids?

Are we concerned that one blameless victim eluded the hooding, the electrodes, and the Belgian Sheppard’s snapping at his testicles?

When will this ghoulish parody of liberation come to an end?

Iraq has descended into utter chaos. Its people are forced endure unspeakable misery every day. The battered and disfigured bodies, which appear on the streets or are plucked from the rivers, all bear the fingerprints of their American executioner. The Baghdad morgue, with its corpses stacked three-high, is little more than a reflection-pond for the assassins in Washington.

Compact with Evil: The McCain "Compromise" on Bush's Torture Program

By Chris Floyd

09/22/06 "EP" -- - After George Bush's Rose Garden hissy fit, in which he declared that he would simply stop interrogating suspected terrorists unless he could torture them, John "I Only Flip-Flop On Matters of Deep Principle" McCain and the other so-called "Senate rebels" have capitulated to the unpopular president's petulant demands.

In the universe of moral perversion in which we now live, White House National Security (sic) Adviser Stephen Hadley called the pro-torture, anti-due process agreement between these deeply cynical power-gamesters "a good day for the American people." Here's how the Gamester-in-Chief described it (from the NYT):

"I’m pleased to say this agreement preserves the most single, the most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks," he said, adding, "The agreement clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do — to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists, and then to try them."

In other words, not until this very day was the American government able to capture, detain, question and try terrorists. I'll bet you didn't know that. I'll bet the men who were captured, detained, questioned, tried and convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing didn't know that either. Really, that's what Bush said; the agreement "clears the way" for the government to actually detain and interrogate terrorists -- as if they weren't able to do that before. What he means, of course, is that the ability to torture alleged terrorists -- snatched arbitrarily, anywhere in the world, simply on the say-so of the Leader or his designated minions -- will be preserved. Bush obviously has a deep psychological need to feel that someone is being tormented at his orders at all times.

But the demented psychology of this sad little shriveled-up nothing of a man is of slight import. What matters are the actions and policies that are being carried out by the junta operating in his name -- and the countenancing of this gang's crimes by the United States Congress. And that is what we have seen today: the countenancing of torture and kangaroo courts by some sad sacks of shinola lauded by the media as "men of principle." This is what we've come to, this is where are today: sick bastards and cynical bastards openly and eagerly gutting the very core of American law.

Let's have Bill Frist -- surely one of the most pathetic creatures ever inflicted on the U.S. Senate and the long-suffering people of Tennessee -- explain exactly what this great "agreement" means:

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said the agreement had two key points. "Classified information will not be shared with the terrorists" tried before the tribunals, he said. And "the very important program of interrogation continues."

There you have it. People snatched off the street -- or sold to spies by snitches and scamsters -- can be tried, in military tribunals, without seeing the evidence against them; and Bush's "program of interrogation continues."

Let's be very clear on the latter point. What Bush has been talking about and protesting against were efforts to ensure that CIA interrogators could not torture suspects. Because of course they could continue to use ordinary methods of interrogation -- which experts uniformly agree produce better intelligence -- just as they have always been able to. When Bush and Tennessee cat-torturer talk about the "program of interrogation" continuing, they mean allowing the CIA to torture captives by various methods without being charged with war crimes and felony violations of American law. That is precisely what they are talking about, and nothing else. But you won't see it put that way on the pages of our most august journalist institutions nor on the broadcasts of our world-renowned network news shows.

And let us make one other point -- and in a most impolitic way, for the truth is often an impolitic commodity: John McCain is a goddamned liar. Yes, he himself suffered torture, yes he came through it, yes, we all admire his fortitude during that ordeal in his youth: but his record in later life, in politics, is that of a moral coward with good PR skills. (Not that it takes much skill to wow the poltroons who squat on the commanding heights of the corporate media world today.) And today, he has opened his mouth and emitted a damnable lie, to wit: "the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved."

This is an untrue statement, analogous to saying the moon is located in his rectum or that he can bite through pig iron with his bare teeth. Every step the Bush gang has taken in this pro-torture, don't-prosecute-us campaign is designed to weaken the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions, which have been adopted into American law by Congress -- in bills sponsored and championed by Republicans -- are crystal clear on torture. There is no need to "preserve" their integrity with new legislation; there is nothing wrong with the Conventions that need to be "fixed" -- unless, of course, you wish to use interrogation techniques that any sentient human being would recognize as torture. In that case, of course you have to "fix" the Conventions by gutting their integrity, letter and spirit.

John McCain might be a moral coward in his old age, but he's not stupid. He knows all this. He knows that the Bush Administration has been trying to wriggle out of the Conventions since the earliest days of the "War of Terror." He knows that gutting the Conventions is at the heart of Bush's "interrogation program" which McCain and his "rebels" have just saved with their grand "compromise."

Therefore, we will say it again clearly, so that even the nabobs on the Washington Post editorial page can hear it: John McCain is a goddamned liar, and his "agreement" today serves some of the most evil principles ever supported openly by the United States government since slavery.

And let's put this other point plainly one more time: the American government has always been able to capture, detain, question and try terrorists. Always. The American government has for 28 years had the power to eavesdrop on anyone in the world or in the country whom they suspected even slightly of terrorism or terrorist connections. And they could and can do that instantly, without waiting for a court order or jumping through any bureaucratic hoops, under the long-existing law. Everything that Bush says his clearly illegal surveillance programs do can already be done within the law. Therefore, it is clear that the whole raison d'etre behind the illegal programs is to establish the principle that the president is beyond the law. (And also, almost certainly, to perform illegal surveillance that has nothing to do with terrorism.)

What we have seen today is no "grand compromise," no "great debate," no "act of principle" and certainly no "preservation" of the Geneva Conventions. What we have seen instead is a small group of rich, cynical, power-hungry old bastards belch forth lies in the service of torture and tyranny. And if you're not angry about that, if you're not "shrill" about that, then by God you are one piss-poor American citizen. You shame every man and woman who have fought and died and marched and worked and dreamed for our freedoms.

Chris Floyd is an American journalist. He is the author of the book, Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime. Visit his website www.chris-floyd.com

The Surprising End of the New American Century

By Mike Whitney

"The US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran’s atomic weapon’s program if international diplomacy fails…The plan calls for a rolling 5 day bombing campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters" Ian Bruce, "US spells out plan to bomb Iran" UK Herald

"Justice has become the victim of force and aggression." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; address to the United Nations 9-19-06

09/20/06 "Information Clearing House"-The Iranian Mullahs have one advantage over the Bush administration if war breaks out. They know what Bush plans to do. They know that he intends to bomb numerous targets which are unrelated to the nuclear facilities, and they know that his ultimate goal is "regime change". This fits into America’s larger regional-wide schema of crushing indigenous resistance movements (Hamas and Hezbollah), redrawing the map of the Middle East, and integrating the oil of the Caspian Basin into the US-controlled economic system.

Recent reports suggest that the Bush strategy is going forward despite warnings from high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and respected members of the foreign policy establishment. A recent article in Time magazine by Michael Duffy outlines a realistic scenario for the initial phase of the conflict:

"It will take a few days with thousands of sorties, satellite and laser-guided bombs will be aimed at targets—1,500 already planned by the Pentagon—and will try to infiltrate armed concrete, under which some of the nuclear sites are hidden… The sites are spread across the country, some of them exposed, some operating under the guise of regular plants, and others buried deep under the ground….The military offensive requires activating nearly all types of planes in the army’s possession: Warplanes and stealth vehicles, F-15 and F-16 aircrafts taking off from the land and an F-18 which takes off from an aircraft carrier.

Such an attack requires satellite guided weapons and laser-guided ammunition, as well as spy-planes and unmanned aerial vehicles. Since, many targets are hidden underground and are reinforced with armed concrete, they will have to be hit once and again in order to guarantee that they are destroyed, or at least seriously damaged."

US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy and military operations at the National War College and who just finished a paper entitled "Considering the US Military option for Iran," appeared on CNN this week and said:

"The order has been given (to strike Iran) In fact, we’ve probably been executing operations for at least 18 months…I’ve talked to Iranians (and they tell me) we’ve captured some people who worked with them (American Special-Ops) We’ve confirmed they’re there." Gardiner added that "US naval forces have been alerted for deployment. That’s a major step. ..And the (battle) plan has been sent to the White House."

The first phase of the war has already begun. The second phase, the bombing campaign, will undoubtedly follow a feeble pretext for initiating hostilities. Iran may be cited for its alleged nuclear weapons programs or Bush may simply claim the right to unilaterally enforce UN treaty violations, but these are just a formality. The decision to attack Iran was made long ago and features prominently in many of the neoconservative policy-documents including The Project for the New American Century and A Clean Break; a New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear technology for fear that it may provide them with the means to defend their oil. That would be catastrophic for western elites who plan to oversee the distribution of the world’s dwindling resources.

White House hawks and their corporate colleagues realize that the only way to manage the explosive growth of America’s greatest competitor, China, is by seizing its primary source of energy. The hand which controls the oil-spigot rules the world. Thus, Iran has become a strategic-imperative for US plans of global domination.

It is worth noting, that Iran has committed no violations and that Bush’s war plans are just another example of unprovoked aggression on a peaceful nation. Iran poses no national security threat to America, it has not attacked its neighbors, and, despite claims by the Bush administration, has not been involved in any (provable) acts of international terrorism. They are the simply the victims of a strident militarist doctrine that conceals flagrant acts of aggression behind the feeble ideology of "preemption"; a policy which allows the United States to attack whoever it chooses on the mere presumption that they may pose a potential threat to their continued global supremacy.

Iran has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons programs, and has complied with every requirement of its treaty obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for the last 3 years. At the same time it has undergone the most extensive inspection-regime in the history of the IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency. The agency has been given a free-hand to "go anywhere and see anything" in Iran’s nuclear facilities and has consistently stated that it has found Iran "in compliance" with its requirements.

Never the less, the wrangling of the Bush administration, aided by a well-crafted propaganda campaign in the media, has created a furor at the UN and a split in public opinion. The public is unaware that Germany just sold Israel two nuclear submarines which will carry nuclear-tipped weapons, or that Brazil is at the same stage of the enrichment-process as Iran, or that Russia just signed a deal with South Africa that will provide them with nuclear fuel, or that the US just brushed aside its treaty obligations under the NPT to provide sensitive nuclear technology to India. Notwithstanding the double-standards, the charade continues, the war plans move forward, and the threat of a region-wide conflagration increases.

Bush has unilaterally repealed Iran’s clearly articulated treaty rights under the NPT, and yet, the European allies have fallen in line behind Washington. No one apparently can resist the administration’s incredible powers of coercion.

Ironically, Iran has signaled that the standoff could be resolved peacefully if Washington would agree to a non aggression pact that would guarantee that the US will not attack Iran without provocation. This tidbit of information is scrupulously omitted from reports in the media as it does not coincide with the image of Iran as the "terrorist bully" they are made out to be.

In a recent article by Gareth Porter "Iran Proposal to US offered Peace with Israel" the author states that in 2003 Iran not only offered "to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups" but made a "two page proposal for a broad US-Iran agreement covering all the issues facing the two countries". The secret document was provided to IPS proves that Iran is neither committed to the destruction of Israel nor to the sponsorship of alleged terrorist groups.

"What the Iranians wanted in return," Porter says, "was an end to US hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region. They want to see a "halt in hostile US behavior" as well as "recognition of Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity." (ISP) Respect and security in exchange for a comprehensive regional peace agreement; these are the same demands that one expects from any reasonable sovereign nation.

According to Porter, "Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel." (IPS)

Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed that the administration’s position has not changed. She said, "Security guarantees for Iran were off the table."

How can there be peace if one country will not agree not to attack another?

Iran has no choice but to take Bush’s saber rattling seriously and prepare for war. The administration’s stated goal of "regime change" poses a credible "existential threat" to current Iranian government and they must plan accordingly. They should expect that the US will prevail handily in the massive air campaign which will destroy much of Iran’s civil infrastructure leaving it in a state similar to that of Lebanon. But, following the aerial bombardment the real war will begin. (As was true in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon) If Iran intends to remove the persistent threat created by the neocon plan for regional hegemony, it must anticipate a decades-long struggle which will be aimed at undermining the ability of the United States to wage war. That means they will probably focus on targets that will destroy the US economy; asymmetrical attacks on the currency, attacks on tankers, pipelines, oil-platforms and energy sites around the world, destabilizing regional allies of America (particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) arming guerilla groups in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a concerted campaign to disrupt the flow of oil to western markets.

It will also do what it can to realign the world in a way that challenges and ultimately discards the United Nations which merely serves the imperial ambitions of the US and its European allies. To that end, it must strengthen ties with Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Brazil and the non-aligned states. It will focus on isolating the US from its allies by turning world opinion against the aggressor and doing whatever is possible to shatter the trans-Atlantic Alliance. Once the US is separated from Europe, NATO and the UN will collapse, and the war will quickly come to a close.

A war with Iran will be catastrophic, but it may also have the unintended effect of establishing greater parity among the nations by replacing the American-European paradigm with a more equitable system. It could, in fact, restore our commitment to the basic principles of national sovereignty, self determination, and human rights.

Still, the cost is bound to be substantial. A war with Iran will produce hundreds of thousands of casualties, topple the Superpower model of global rule and, very likely, bring an end to the new American century.

An Interview with Dr. Ismail Zayid, President of the Canada Palestine Association

Angie Tibbs

August 14, 2006

Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from 1947 to the present has caused monumental devastation to the exiled, those hundreds of thousands who were forced from their homes and never allowed to return. Dr. Ismail Zayid’s family suffered this unspeakable horror in 1967 when their village of Beit Nuba was erased from the face of the earth by Israeli bulldozers.

Angie: In June 1967, Yitzhak Rabin ordered the ethnic cleansing of three Palestinian villages, Beit Nuba, Imwas (Emmaus), and Yalu. The residents were ordered to leave; some were murdered. The villages were dynamited and destroyed by bulldozers, then, as now, a favourite tool of Israeli war crimes. You were working as Director of Pathology at Main Hospital in Amman, Jordan at the time, but your family was still residing in their village of Beit Nuba. What happened?

Dr. Zayid: On Monday, June 5, 1967, we heard on the radio of Israeli invasion of the Sinai in Egypt. Conflicting reports as to the war process were received. On June 6, we heard that the war was involving attacks on the West Bank, which was under Jordanian army control. Besides political concerns, my anxiety was enormously heightened by my concerns for my family - mother, brother, sisters and uncle - who were at our home in our village, Beit Nuba, in what is called The Latrun Salient, which is very close to the Armistice line of 1949 with Israel. It was this area that the Israelis attempted to conquer in April and May 1948, but were repulsed and defeated initially by the local villagers, including myself, defending their villages, and later by the Jordanian army after May 15, 1948.

It was Thursday, June 8. I was in my office, having spent the last three days, virtually sleepless, agonising about the happenings during those three days and the well-being of my mother and the rest of our family in our village, Beit Nuba, and the accounts of thousands of our Palestinian people driven out from their homes.

It was afternoon on Thursday when my brother, Ali, 31 years old, was ushered into my office crying his eyes out and virtually speechless. It was a picture I will never forget and no words can describe it justly. I asked if my mother, sister and the rest of the family are all right, and he said that they have just arrived in Amman. We rushed down town and as I hugged my mother, 59 years old, I was crying loudly as she was. I greeted, in a similar vein, my sister Karimah, 17 years old, my sister Aishah, 40 years old, and my uncle Hussein, 65 years old.

These minutes seemed like a generation and in the midst of crying, I noticed my mother was so distraught and exhausted. She wailed that those criminals, the Israelis, destroyed everything for us and may Allah punish them. It took some time before I could get a coherent story from her and the rest of the family about what happened to them.

Angie: What did your mother tell you? The shock and horror they were experiencing at that time must have been tremendous.

Dr. Zayid: She said it was in the early hours of Tuesday, June 6. There was noise of vehicles and loud noise from what sounded like Jewish soldiers and some "firing", as she described it. Jewish soldiers were roaming the streets of the village and soon after sunrise the soldiers marched into the courtyard of our house shrieking in Arabic "out, out!" Explosions could be heard in the village. My uncle, who is arthritic, was slow in moving from the room in the east part of our house. The soldiers dynamited and blew up the western part of our house, and my mother started again wailing as she related this. The soldiers threatened my uncle that the same will be done to the rest of the house, whether he stayed in or moved. He managed to struggle, and they were pushed out and told to go to Beit Sira, a village north of our village, placed about three kilometres on the way to Ramallah.

My mother and the rest of the family ran out, taking nothing with them, and they struggled, together with other members of the village, men women and children, crying, heading to Beit Sira, sweating in the heat and thirsty. She said when they got to Beit Sira, a few men walked back to the village to see if they can go back and see what is happening.

Angie: What, if anything, did they see?

Dr. Zayid: They came back having seen the village being systematically dynamited and bulldozers by more Israeli troops arriving to complete the job.

Angie: Ah, yes. The ever present bulldozer! Then as now a "must have" for Israeli atrocities!

Dr. Zayid: They related that some 18 elderly and disabled people, who were unable to move out, were buried under the rubble of their homes. These included an uncle of my mother, Mohammad Ali Bakr. A middle-aged relative of my mother, Lutfi, was shot in cold blood. Everyone was in turmoil. Some were looking for missing members of their families, and the wailing never stopped. The soldiers followed them ordering them to move and go to [King] Hussein. Thirsty and hungry, in the hot sun, they reached by the evening the village of Beit Our, six kilometres from Beit Sira.

My mother and family, as well as others from Beit Nuba, settled for the night under the olive trees at the periphery of Beit Our. Some were able to get water and bread from the local village. Early in the morning they continued their crawl towards Ramallah, another 15 kilometres from Beit Our. My mother kept crying as she was telling me this and stating that she kept wondering that she would rather go back and wished she would rather die in her home.

They stayed in the open under the trees near Ramallah, exhausted and virtually sleepless, and in the early hours of Thursday morning, they were told they would be bussed to the Allenby Bridge on the Jordan River. They arrived around 9 a.m. at the Bridge, which was already demolished by the Israelis three days earlier, and struggled to cross amidst massive crowds including men, women, and children in pain and agony. My mother cried then and said as she crossed the Bridge she cried and said there goes not only Beit Nuba but also Palestine; we shall never see it again. After waiting for hours, hungry, thirsty and distraught, they were bussed to Amman, an hour bus journey from the Bridge.

Angie:So your family, and the other families in the villages, lost everything, arriving only with the clothes on their backs. Did your family remain in Amman?

Dr. Zayid: My mother passed away, in Amman in 1976, denied the right to return to her home, and after having lived nine years in exile, tormented by pain and suffering.

Angie: Did all of the refugees move to Jordan? If not, where?

Dr. Zayid: The villagers of Beit Nuba, who were expelled, settled largely across the Jordan River in Amman, Jordan. Some settled in Beitunia village, near Ramallah and a few are settled in land they owned in the neighbouring village of Beit Liqya.

Angie: When we remember Beit Nuba and the surrounding villages that were ethnically cleansed in June of 1967, it’s difficult not to remember simultaneously Canada’s role in subsidizing the abomination known as Canada Park on the ruins of Imwas and Yalu. Tell me as briefly as you can about Canada Park, the events that led up to it and those which followed.

Dr. Zayid: In 1975, the Canadian Jewish National Fund [JNF], as a registered Canadian charitable society, started a campaign of collecting tax-deductible dollars from Canadians to build the infamy that was called Canada Park, at the site of the villages of Imwas and Yalu.

On Dec. 4, 1978, I read in the Halifax daily, "The Chronicle Herald", that Peter Herschorn, a past regional chairman of the JNF and the co-owner of the Lord Nelson hotel in Halifax, was honoured by the JNF, at what was called the Negev Testimonial Dinner at the same hotel, for "choosing the right goodness to participate" in building Canada Park. The dinner was attended by the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Mayor of Halifax. I wrote to them expressing my shock that they would participate in this honouring process for this action, which is a war crime

I was mortified to read this outrageous bestiality describing the complicity in this war crime as humane work.

I have, since then, written to many Ministers of Revenue Canada and other politicians expressing concern that the JNF be allowed to function as a registered charity and use our tax-deductible dollars for building this infamy, Canada Park, insulting Canada's good name in an activity that is clearly a war crime. After repeated correspondence, all I received are vague statements, while the JNF continues its illegal activities.

Alas, I am frustrated and disappointed that our government continues to allow its good name to be besmirched in this brutal and inhumane action, while our politicians continue to brag about Canada upholding the UN Charter and international law.

Angie: Canada, becoming a stranger to even those who live here, is changing and not necessarily for the better. Certainly any moral high road it had achieved on the international stage is quickly dissipating. Tell me about coming to Canada. When did that happen and why?

Dr. Zayid: I had been teaching at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, University of London, England. In the summer of 1972, I received, out of the blue, a letter from the Head of the Department of Pathology, Dalhousie University, Professor David Janigan, inviting me to come to teach at Dalhousie University Medical School, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

This initiated an interesting experience. I was not sure where Halifax, Nova Scotia was! I knew it was in Canada, and I knew that Canada has a cold climate, and I did not like cold climates! We were living in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England. We sat on the floor and looked at the world atlas to locate Halifax, Nova Scotia. I learnt in geography in elementary school that latitude determines the climate. In the atlas, we found that Halifax, Nova Scotia was at a latitude close to the border of Spain and France. I thought London is fine. This is even better! Professor Janigan phoned me two weeks later asking; " Are you coming? When will you come?" I said I would like to come and look at the place for myself and for you to see who I am. He said, "we know all about you. Just come".

Angie:(Grinning) Were you ever in for a surprise! Thinking that Halifax in any way resembled Spain!

Dr. Zayid: I arrived, alone, leaving family behind, on December 14, 1972, early evening. Professor Janigan picked me up at the Halifax Airport to take me to the Lord Nelson Hotel to stay. On the way I saw on the side of the streets of Halifax piles of greyish white stuff and asked what was that? He said that is just the winter season. In the morning he came to pick me up to go to the Victoria General Hospital [later re-named Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre]. He said: "I am afraid you have to come with me first to the shoe store." I said: What for? He said you need boots; you can't walk in shoes like these here! We did that, and I proceeded to take my position as an Associate Professor, Department of Pathology.

It was freezing, 20 degrees Centigrade below zero. I phoned, around Xmas time, my wife, who was still in England, and said: "This place is far too cold. I don’t think I can stick it". She said: "That is too bad; I sold the house and the car, and we are on our way". She arrived two weeks later with our five children, aged 1 to 10 years old. However, we came to love Halifax and Nova Scotia. We found the people very nice and the province attractive, and we remained here ever since, for thirty-four years, declining offers to go and work in other parts of Canada or the USA.

My decision to come to Canada was based on a belief that Canada was a friendly liberal society, with a reputation for support of human rights.

Angie:Have you returned to where Beit Nuba once flourished as a village? If so, what was your reaction?

Dr. Zayid: I am afraid the Israeli government has refused to allow me to return to the Occupied Territories, let alone visit the site of Beit Nuba, my birth place and where I grew and was brought up.

In 1978, I met Mr. Mahmoud Habieh, the Director of the Maqassed Hospital in Jerusalem, which is the main tertiary care hospital in the West Bank. He said that they do not have any person of my specialty, in Surgical Pathology, in the entire West Bank and Gaza, and desperately needed my services as a specialist physician. He asked if I would be willing to give up my position at Dalhousie University and go to serve at Maqassed Hospital in Jerusalem. I said I would certainly love to do that, in the service of my people. Applications were completed and submitted to the Israeli government, but my offer was rejected, and I was denied the right to go there.

As to Beit Nuba, as I related earlier, it was systematically dynamited and bulldozed in June, 1967, and erased from the face of the earth. Today, its site is barricaded and fenced. The few families from Beit Nuba, who live in nearby villages are not allowed to get near their village or pick the fruit of the trees they planted. They are harassed and beaten up if they attempt to get nearby. Alien Jewish settlers live on our land.

Angie: What is your reaction, and the reaction of the Palestinian Associations in Canada, to Canada's refusal to give aid to the Palestinian people following the overwhelmingly decisive victory by Hamas?

Dr. Zayid: Our reaction to the statements and policies effected by the Canadian government, as enunciated by Messrs Harper and MacKay, was a great disappointment but no surprise.

I wrote to both Prime Minister Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay pointing out that their policies stand against the often-declared stand that Canada claims to uphold in support of human rights and international law. They were, in essence, denying the innocent millions of Palestinians the elemental principles of human rights, and causing starvation and disease, in punishment for freely electing their representatives. Thus, our Canadian government was again submitting its policies to the diktats of the US and Israel.

Angie: I was angry and disbelieving to hear Peter MacKay demanding that Hamas recognize Israel but there was no mention of Israel recognizing the Palestinian people, their rights and freedoms. What was your reaction to this stunning piece of mendacity by MacKay?

Dr. Zayid: In my letter to Mr. MacKay, dated March 29, 2006, I pointed out that the call for the new Palestinian government to recognise the state of Israel is the height of hypocrisy and double standards.

I wrote (in part): "We have been led to believe, Mr. MacKay, that Canada is proud to uphold the UN Charter and international law. If this is so, you should be calling on Israel to comply with all UN resolutions related to this conflict and terminate completely and unconditionally its illegal occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, that has been allowed to stand for 39 years, in defiance of international law and repeated Security Council resolutions. "

Angie: Canada, to our shame, had a larger role to play in the creation of Israel, and to our further shame, our governments have continued to support its ongoing terrorism against the Palestinian people. Tell us about that.

Dr. Zayid: I stated in my first paragraph answering your question that our government’s policies were a great disappointment but no surprise. The expression of 'no surprise' emanates from our familiarity with Canada's long-standing policy of bias in favour of Israel, against the Palestinian people

Canada became, in 1947, directly involved, and played a major role in, the tragedy that befell the Palestinian people. The major figures at the time were Lester Pearson, then Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Mr. Justice Ivan C. Rand, an ardent Zionist supporter.

In April 1947, Britain, the Mandatory Power over Palestine, referred the issue to the UN. Pearson headed the Canadian delegation to a special session of the UN General Assembly [UNGA] to discuss the matter. Pearson was elected chairman of the Assembly's First Committee, and thus Canada became a major player in this issue. In May 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine [UNSCOP], was created and Canada was one of the eleven members of the Committee.

The Canadian representative on UNSCOP was Justice Rand, a known Zionist supporter. The Partition Plan was formulated, with direct pressure by Pearson and Rand. Canada was a member of the Majority Report by the Committee, opposing the Minority Report which was more balanced. The Majority Report, was passed by the UNGA , in UNGA Resolution #181, on Nov. 29,1947. This resolution apportioned 56% of Palestine for a Jewish state and 42% for an Arab state, and 2% for Jerusalem, as an International zone. It is worthy of note here to state that the Jews in Palestine, many recent and illegal immigrants, in 1947, constituted 31% of the population and owned 5.6% of the land. The Palestinians, needless to say, rejected this unfair resolution.

Lester Pearson played a prominent role in effecting the passage of this plan, and for which he was dubbed by Canadian Zionists as "the Balfour of Canada". In the struggle to secure acceptance of the partition plan, his influence had been of importance ... it was perhaps decisive." [1] In the 1948 war, Canada supplied Israel with arms, planes and capital.

Angie:I wasn’t aware that we had arms, planes, and capital to spare!

Dr. Zayid: In response to the war of aggression that Israel conducted on Oct. 29,1956, in collusion with UK and France, Pearson played a significant role in the formulation of the UN Emergency Force [UNEF] to send a peace-keeping force to the area. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this.

Angie:Curious how we hear plenty about his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his introduction of peacekeeping yet very little about his collusion in the partition of Palestine.

Dr. Zayid: However, his motives were not opposition to aggression but merely to keep the balance between his NATO allies; namely, the US, on one hand, and the UK and France, on the other. Interestingly, the resolution sponsored by the US and adopted by the UN, calling for a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces, was opposed by five states - Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand and Israel - while Canada abstained. Pearson appeared to be sympathetic with the invading powers, declaring on Nov. 29, 1956: " I do not for one minute criticize the motives of the governments of the UK and France . . . I may have thought their intervention was unwise, but I do not criticise their purposes."

Angie:Do you have any additional examples of Canada’s support of Israel in its earlier years?

Dr. Zayid: In the weeks preceding the Israeli war of aggression in June 1967, Israeli planes flew over Damascus and shot down Syrian planes. General Odd Bull, head of UN Truce Supervisory Organisation (UNTSO) reported this to Security Council for action. The Canadian delegate, George Ignatieff, was president of the Security Council, but he did not call a meeting of the Council. Canada, in May, voted against Egypt and criticised UN Secretary General, U Thant, for agreeing to Egypt's request for withdrawal of UNEF in Sinai. Canada also offered arms and planes for Israel in that war.

Angie:In recent years Canada has openly sided with Israel either by its voting at the UN or by abstaining. I don’t know how the rest of Canada feels, but I am horrified and ashamed that my country would support Israeli terrorism.

Dr. Zayid: Canada's role and UN voting record in relation to the Middle East conflict has always been, and remains to this day, biased in favour of Israel.

This has been largely ascribed to the role of the Zionist lobby in Canada. Charles Lynch, a prominent Canadian columnist, noted several important factors tending to influence Canada. The first is the pro-Israel lobby; the second is the propaganda supporting the Israeli position. This is clearly evident now with Israel Asper's media empire of 141 newspapers across Canada and Global TV, as reflected in the opinions expressed in The National Post, amongst other papers, where criticism of Israel is not tolerated. The bias is evident also in The Globe & Mail.

The political bias in favour of Israel is clearly evident amongst our politicians, in their policies and UN voting record. Let me list few examples out of scores that can be documented:

On Nov. 30, 2005, Canada refused to support a UN resolution condemning Israeli occupation of Arab lands, joining ranks with US, Israel, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuata, unlike the rest of the world.

Angie: Yes, I learned about it not from the Canadian media, but from a friend in San Francisco who sent me a copy of an article re same that had appeared in Ha’aretz.

Dr. Zayid: Prime Minister Paul Martin, on Nov. 2004, stated before the Canadian Jewish Advocacy Group for Israel: "Nothing will shake Canada's commitment to Israel". I wrote and asked him: "Do we understand you correctly that nothing Israel does or atrocities and war crimes it commits, and is committing, will shake Canada's commitment to Israel?"

Angie: And did he answer you?

Dr. Zayid: No, I received no answer. In Dec. 2005, Prime Minister Martin stated in Toronto, before a Jewish advocacy group: , "Israel's values are Canadian values."

Angie:Yes, I remember reading about that and asking aloud in disbelief just what "values" Israel has in common with Canada. I wasn’t aware that we were out and about committing war crimes, carrying out ethnic cleansing, demolishing homes and orchards, assassinating men, women, and children with impunity. He never did explain what those "values" were. It was clearly a huge piece of political fiction.

Dr. Zayid: Is that believable when Israel is in defiance of international law and violation of virtually every article of the Fourth Geneva Convention? These violations are interpreted by international law as war crimes.

The recent statements and actions by Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper, and Mr. Peter MacKay in cutting aid to the newly democratically-elected Palestinian government, bringing starvation and denial of health care to millions of innocent Palestinian men, women and children, are a reflection of a continuing policy.

There is a lot more but this is a mere small sample.

Angie: What is the feeling of ordinary Canadians to this despicable act by the minority government in cutting aid to the Palestinian people? What, if anything, have you been hearing from the Canadian street?

Dr. Zayid: I am afraid I have not heard directly any significant reaction from the Canadian street, besides a few letters to the media, mainly critical of this Harper government policy. I was disappointed that the Canadian public response was rather muted, in the face of this inhumane and biased policy.

Angie:Since beginning this interview, Dr. Zayid, we have seen ongoing war crimes committed daily by Israeli forces in Gaza and the rest of Israeli-occupied Palestine. Those war crimes, to our horror, have now spread to Lebanon as Israeli terrorists kill men, women, and children with impunity, destroy its infrastructure, and lie about it with impunity. What does the international community have to do, and why isn’t it doing its duty to protect the people of Lebanon and Israeli-occupied Palestine? And how can the ordinary citizens of the world make a difference once and for all time?

Dr. Zayid: The Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza are part and parcel of the continuing Zionist agenda of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland and the Lebanese from South Lebanon. The campaign in Lebanon is an attempt to achieve some of the longstanding Zionist designs on Lebanon which were first formulated in the submission of the World Zionist Organisation to the Versailles Peace Conference in Paris in 1919. These designs are confirmed in the statement I recently circulated, entitled: "Zionist designs on Lebanon: Setting the Record Straight on Israel's Involvement in Lebanon", which I include here. [2]

The international community should, of course, bring an immediate cessation of the Israeli attacks and demand, and enforce, complete withdrawal of all Israel forces from all occupied Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian territory, and take Israel to International Criminal Court for the war crimes it has committed.

The UN Human Rights Council, led by former Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Louise Arbour, condemned Israel on Aug. 11, 2006, for "massive bombardment of Lebanese civilian populations", and said it would send a commission to investigate possible war crimes.

However, the international community led, and intimidated, by Bush and his lackeys, Blair and Harper, amongst others, would tell you that Israel is acting in 'self defence'. This outrageous claim is in total disregard to the facts on the ground and the longstanding history of Israeli attacks in Palestine and Lebanon, killing thousands, demolishing thousands of homes and holding thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, mostly without charge or trial.

This same fable of 'self defence' was incredibly used by George Bush who said: "Israel has to defend itself" when the Israeli army was laying waste to the Jenin refugee camp, murdering hundreds, in April 2002.

The ordinary citizens of the world are systematically disinformed by their politicians and media. They need to be told the facts in the hope they will force their governments to comply with international law as they falsely claim to uphold.

Angie: Thank you so much for your time and patience, Dr. Zayid. I truly appreciate it.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Canada in World Affairs from UN to NATO, from 1946-1949, [Toronto 1959], p. 147

[2] Zionist Designs on Lebanon: Setting the Record Straight on Israel's Involvement in Lebanon by Dr. Ismail Zayid http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0306/0306-HBG-IZ-zionistplan.htm

Angie Tibbs is a writer/activist living on Canada's east coast. She welcomes your comments at "fightingoppression@nl.rogers.com

"Thank you for not putting a bomb in your luggage."

By William Blum

"President Bush said the United States is still under the threat of attack and will continue to be right up until Election Day." -- Jay Leno

09/27/06 "Information Clearing House"- Hand-in-hand with his threat warnings, Bush keeps telling us how his War on Terror has made us so much safer, bragging that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the United States in the five years since the one of September 11, 2001. Marvelous. There wasn't a terrorist attack in the United States in the five years before that day either. But thanks to the War on Terror -- particularly the bombing, invasion, occupation, and torture of Afghanistan and Iraq -- numerous new anti-American terrorists have been created since that historic day. The latest confirmation of this, if any more were needed, is the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that "the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and ... the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."[1]

Since the first strike on Afghanistan in October 2001 there have been literally scores of terrorist attacks against American institutions and individuals in the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific, more than a dozen in Pakistan alone: military, diplomatic, civilian, Christian, and other targets associated with the United States, including the October 2002 bombings of two nightclubs in Bali, Indonesia, which killed more than 200 people, almost all of them Americans and citizens of their Australian and British war allies; the following year brought the heavy bombing of the US-managed Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic receptions and 4th of July celebrations held by the American Embassy; and other horrendous attacks on US war allies in recent years in Madrid, London, and elsewhere.

A US State Department report of 2004 on worldwide terrorist attacks -- "Patterns of Global Terrorism" -- showed that the year 2003 had more "significant terrorist incidents" than at any time since the department began issuing statistics in 1985, even though the figures did not include attacks on US troops by insurgents in Iraq, which the Bush administration explicitly labels as "terrorist".[2] When their report for 2004 showed an even higher number of incidents, the State Department announced that it was going to stop publishing the annual statistics.[3]

It is extremely difficult and threatening for US and UK officials to accept the correlation between their foreign policies and the rise of terrorists. A spokesman for the Blair government recently declared: "Al-Qaida started killing innocent civilians in the 90s. It killed Muslim civilians even before 9/11, and the attacks on New York and Washington killed over 3,000 people before Iraq. To imply al-Qaida is driven by an honest disagreement over foreign policy is a mistake."[4] Vice President Dick Cheney, on more than one occasion, has also pointed out that terrorists were attacking American targets even before 9-11.

The "reasoning" behind such thinking is odd; it's as if these esteemed gentlemen believe that there was no Western foreign policy in the Mideast before September 11, 2001. But of course, even in modern times, there were decades of awful abuse, including the US overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, multiple bombings of Libya and Iraq, sinking an Iranian ship and shooting down an Iranian passenger plane, habitual support of Israel against the Palestinian people, and much more.[5]

It can't be emphasized too often or too strongly that terrorism is a political act, it is making a political statement, a statement that can often be summed up in a single word: "retaliation"; terrorism is what people with bombs but no air force have to resort to. The Bush and Blair administrations can not admit to the correlation of terrorism with their policies, but those opposed to their wars should never allow them to avoid the issue. Here are some of the latest examples of this retaliation phenomenon:

From a New York Times report on the UK group arrested for allegedly planning to blow up multiple planes headed to the US: "'As you bomb, you will be bombed; as you kill, you will be killed,' said one of the men on a 'martyrdom' videotape" ... "One of the suspects said on his martyrdom video that the 'war against Muslims' in Iraq and Afghanistan had motivated him to act." ... "The man said he was seeking revenge for the foreign policy of the United States, and 'their accomplices, the U.K. and the Jews'."[6]

From a review of the new book, "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by its chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton: "In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the members 'reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs.' Others engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor." ... "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States," said Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. "They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." ... "Lee [Hamilton] felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions."[7]

But the War on Terrorism paints terrorists as only irrational madmen or those who loathe freedom, democracy and Western culture, or doing what they do just for the pure, America-hating thrill of it, and so the US and the UK continue to look for military solutions. Writer David Rees predicted a few years ago: "Remember when the United States had a drug problem and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore? The War on Terrorism will be just like that."[8]

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 - Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir. Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire www.killinghope.org Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

Notes

[1] New York Times, September 24, 2006, the wording it a Times paraphrase

[2] Washington Post, June 23, 2004 and June 28, p.19

[3] "Bush Administration Eliminating 19-year-old International Terrorism Report",

Knight Ridder Newspapers, April 15, 2005

[4] The Guardian (London), August 12, 2006

[5] For more information see Blum's essay at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm

[6] New York Times, August 28, 2006, p.1

[7] Review by James Bamford, New York Times, August 20, 2006, p.15

[8] David Rees, "Get Your War On", (Soft Skull Press), p.2

For God's Sake

By Philip J. Rappa

09/27/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- I always felt that my hometown was a microcosm of the world. With that said, I would like to address this talk of separation of God and State.

I worry that the sins of the father are handed down to the sons and daughters; I worry that words don’t mean what they used to: words like principle, belief and right and wrong.

Whether you’re a party member or an Independent; whatever your race, ethnicity or sexual preference, all of us have a sense of the tenets of our faith. Christians – those who proclaim their adherence to the words and suggestions of Christ may recall the Christ that spoke words of non-violence. (I’m speaking of the Jesus Christ pre-Constantine, and certainly pre-Augustine – Augustine, who penned, The Just War, making God a partner in the crime of war. Modern-day sensibilities could re-title his text as, War, Positive Pre-emptive Thinking with Jesus’ Blessing)

Before Constantine no Christian parent would offer up their child for a war nor allow them to be sent off to kill or be killed, although they might pray the state would be successful in its endeavor. Since Constantine, Jesus not only condones war, but is expected to pick a side.

Before Christ became a product of the State; before Christ was usurped from Christianity, Christians were non-violent. They did not and would not participate in government actions that tested their faith. No man no state, whether secular or theocratic, is given or receives in some fashion the moral authority over the rest of us.

Pointing the barrel of a gun at our heads, destroying all of our possessions, torturing us for a confession or information, or just because they can, should not be the standard barer for moral authority; nor should the use of weapons of mass destruction that leaves the air, water and land tainted with radioactivity. (Radioactivity or depleted uranium (DU) that will eventually and lethally kill our soldiers and their families and our enemies and their offspring forevermore.)

The only moral authority We the People have given the State is defined by its social contract. That contract is the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. It exists only because we the people affirm its promise.

It’s been said the world has changed since 911. That’s true for our government is indiscernible. It’s unrecognizable. It no longer adheres to the principles of our founding papers. It no longer accepts The Bill of Rights as the law of the land. No longer does it recognize treaties, proclamations or conventions.

Our leader leads by fiat. No longer does congress proclaim their responsibility to be both check and balance. Signing statements have become the law of the land. We the people look for justice. We look towards the courts that used to represent mankind’s last resort against tyranny.

If we begin with God’s basic premise, Thou Shall Not Kill and continue with the rebellious and revolutionary teachings of Christ: Love one’s enemy; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, one has to question if these teachings apply to modern times? Or are they quaint expressions?

Certainly, nowadays one risks being deemed an enemy combatant or accused of treason if they espouse such notions.

Today, Jesus would find Himself confined to a maximum security prison as a radical censoring his unpatriotic rantings of peace and non-violence. After all, He was a simple man. A man of principle: The Prince of Peace.

We knew how His story would end, even as children. We knew the State had to kill him; it was a given. Just like we knew in our hearts and minds what would befall Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

As we ponder our existence, question our reason and purpose in life, is it not the right to believe in non-violence and the right to practice it? Is it not the responsibility of those who govern to adhere to the social contract that we all agreed upon? Or is it all for naught: null and void; is it all conjecture; is hope the false prophet in a dismal world of chaos?

We need a new vision. A new belief that is more inclusive - so help us God.

Philip J. Rappa is an award-winning writer, filmmaker, documentarian, lecturer, and humanitarian.

© Philip J. Rappa

Revolution just ain't what it used to be

By Mickey Z.

09/27/06 "

Information Clearing House" -- - If you were to publicly declare your discontent with the U.S. government and your subsequent desire to abolish that government, the land of the free would likely reward you with an orange jumpsuit and a one-way ticket for an all-inclusive vacation at Guantanamo Bay.

Now imagine if you instead chose to stand in front of a crowded room and utter something along these lines: "I think all men-and women-are created equal and are endowed with certain undeniable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are created and derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government tries to destroy or take away these undeniable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new one."

Bingo: you're a high school history teacher. Okay class; turn to page 257. Today we'll be talking about Patrick Henry (and don't tell me "give me liberty or give me death" sounds an awful lot like what an insurgent might say).

Thomas Jefferson can pronounce: "Every generation needs a new revolution." But that doesn't mean I can. Honest Abe once declared: "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better." Hey, I'd love a government that suits me-and most humans-better, but making plans to "shake off the existing government and force a new one" would just about guarantee you a place on that secret no-fly list.

Let's face it, revolution just ain't what it used to be. Mao Tse-Tung warned: "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery." Today, revolution is a Chevy commercial or a Beatles song. Che Guevara believed "the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." By 1994, Newt Gingrich and his merry band of Republicans were using "revolution" to describe a minor reshuffling of ruling class allegiances. "The most heroic word in all languages is revolution," stated Eugene Debs, but if he were around today and typed "revolution" into Google, he'd find the top response was for a software company.

As long as you're not talking about the U.S. government, you can have as many revolutions as you please. You can have 33 per minute, for all Dick Cheney cares. Fitness, music, film, art, and countless ways to make money-the mutinous mood is alive and well. This time around, however, the revolution was indeed televised and is now enjoying a long, successful run in syndication.

Can the huddled befuddled masses to snap from their self-induced trance to recapture the subversive spirit of '76? I'll give the last word to Abraham Lincoln: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Remember: Abe said it, not me.

Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net

War Criminal at Bay

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/18/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- President George Bush, betrayed by the neoconservatives whom he elevated to power and by his Attorney General, Torture Gonzales who gave him wrong legal advice, is locked in a desperate struggle with the Republican Congress to save himself from war crimes charges at the expense of America’s reputation and our soldiers’ fate.

Beguiled by neoconservatives, who told him that the virtuous goals of the American empire justified any means, and misled by an incompetent Attorney General, who told him that the President of the US is above the law, Bush was deceived into committing war crimes under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and the US War Crimes Act of 1996. Bush is now desperately trying to save himself by having the US Congress retroactively repeal both Article 3 and US law.

Under the US Constitution retroactive law is without force, but desperate men will try anything.

President Bush has given no thought to the impact on America’s reputation of his strident campaign to write torture into US law. He has given no thought to what saving himself means for captured US troops if the US government guts Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

How could he care? This is the same president who prevented the world from intervening to stop Israel’s slaughter of Lebanese civilians. This is the same president who describes tens of thousands of slaughtered Iraqi and Afghan civilians as "collateral damage." What sort of war is it when civilian casualties far out number casualties among combatants?

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was used by Bush to lie to the UN in order to create a pretext for Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, denounced Bush’s attempt to repeal Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Powell said Bush’s proposal causes the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" and will "put our own troops at risk." Republican senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham agree with Powell, although their arms may yet be twisted out of their sockets.

Bush’s claim that America cannot fight the "war on terror" without employing torture is just another Bush lie. It is a known fact that torture produces unreliable information. Torture can make people talk but it cannot make them give reliable information.

Very few of the tens of thousands of "suspects" that the US has detained are guilty of anything. We know this because the US Iraqi Command says that 18,700 Iraqis have been released since June 2004. US officers told the International Red Cross that 70 to 90 percent of the Iraqi detentions were "mistakes." (See Associated Press reporter Patrick Quinn, September 17, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/in_american_hands )

Most of these mistakes were people who were simply pulled out of their beds or grabbed off streets as "suspected insurgents," victims of military sweeps akin to the KGB street sweeps of the Stalin era, which resulted in so many Soviet citizens disappearing into the Gulag. Others were sold to naive Americans by warlords who collected a bounty for turning in "terrorists."

When innocent people are tortured they invent information in order to stop the pain. Sometimes they settle a score with a personal enemy or someone they dislike by giving their name. People who experienced Soviet torture and survived say they tried to remember names of deceased persons to identify as "enemies of the state."

An actual terrorist or insurgent who believes in his cause is not going to give accurate information. If his torturers demand information on a pending attack, he will give the wrong location. If they demand the identities of his group, he will give the wrong names. He is worth very little as an information source, because his colleagues, aware that he is captured or missing, will change plans and arrangements.

The US military has not learned anything from torturing detainees and continues to loose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite its widespread use of torture.

Lying is now a full time occupation for US military spokespersons as well as for President Bush. Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for US military detainee operations in Iraq says that every detainee " is detained because he poses a security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq or coalition forces." President Bush says, "These are enemy combatants who are waging war on our nation." Someone needs to tell Bush and Lt. Col. Curry that what they allege cannot be true if 70-90 percent of detainees are mistaken detentions and if 18,700 detainees have been released in the last 14 months.

Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi is a good example. He languished in detention limbo for 20 months without charges and without apology when released.

Many studies have concluded that people who go into interrogation and police work are bullies who like to exercise power and to hurt people. Bush is willing to make such people even less accountable in order to protect himself from war crimes charges.

If Bush were a real man, he would fire Gonzales and the neocons. He would say he was given bad advice and regrets that he didn’t know better than to follow it. He would order closed all the secret prisons, end the illegal policy of rendition, and order that all US military detention facilities be run in strict accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

This would serve Bush and America’s reputation far better than his attempt to legalize torture.

What if they gave a War?

By Charles Sullivan

09/18/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- "What if they gave a war and no one came?" was a popular slogan during the Viet Nam war. It remains a timeless and powerful motto, and is as relevant as ever. It is still a mantra that evokes thought provoking responses and suggests some intriguing possibilities.

What if those who serve in the military were fully aware of what their government requires them to do? What if they understood the underlying purpose of war and refused to participate? What if military recruiters were unable to feed the war machine with our sons and daughters; our uncles and nephews, and our nieces? How could it continue?

It is no coincidence that those who make war never fight in them. It is the corporations that lobby for war because there are profits to be made; and profits to be kept. The politicians, of course, are owned by the corporations and do their biding.

American citizens have never been involved in making decisions about going to war. Whether or not to wage war is one of the most momentous decisions a people could make; and they have no voice in the process. Half a million people can demonstrate in the streets but the war machine keeps turning. Does this meet a thinking person’s criteria for Democracy?

The people who fight them do not want war. Why would they? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. War is the province of wealth and Plutocracy, not of the working people. It is not for us to ask why. It is for us to fight and to die. But what if we refuse?

Let us be clear about some things pertaining to war: Those who send our children into battle do not care about them. It is politically expedient for them to pretend to care; but they do not. Soldiers are culled from the working class. They are disproportionately poor—many of them people of color. In America, poor people are disposable; the rich are indispensable. Money and social status matters, but they should not.

Witness how the government abandons its soldiers and their families when they come home in flag-draped coffins or over-sized cardboard boxes; when they return with missing limbs and with psychological scars so deep it would require lifetimes to heal them. See how it denies the effects of Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome; and depleted uranium munitions. See how it cuts veterans benefits. It does not care.

The corporate media is an extension of the military industrial complex—a wing of the Pentagon and the corporate board room. It is a vital organ in a vast propaganda apparatus that is used to program the public mind; to deceive and to control the people—to ruthlessly exploit them for the Plutocracy. The war machine could not function without it.

The people who send others to war are cowards and pathological liars. It does not require courage or moral authority to send other people to fight and to die.

War is always about procuring wealth for those in power. It has nothing to do with noble causes. War is about two things: insensate greed and private ownership; and to a lesser degree—conquest.

Our political leaders have no moral integrity. They are beholden to corporate entities, and they are enemies of the people.

War is intimately related to class struggles. Labor history is a chronicle of this violent class conflict that is predatory in nature, with the rich preying upon the poor. When the government sends our soldiers to war it is a continuation of that struggle.

We do not live in a Democracy. If we did the people would have a voice in matters as momentous as war. We must learn to recognize the difference between Democracy and Plutocracy. If we lived in a Democracy our votes would matter; there would be choices other than the evil of two lessers, and the will of the people would prevail.

There is no aspect of corrupt government that is legitimate; no part that warrants our respect—none that deserves our cooperation. Let us see it for what it is—for what it has always been, and act accordingly.

It is said that government exists to serve the people. But in America it is now the other way round.

The people struggling under the oppressive weight of a corrupt and immoral government do not owe that government their allegiance. Indeed, they must not cooperate with it in any way. They must oppose it with all their will and conscience, and do everything in their power to undermine it. They must expose it for the fraud it is and hold it accountable to the people. Sucking the life blood out of the working people is not public service—it is parasitism!

Neither should the people pledge allegiance to the flag. Let them pledge their allegiance to truth and to one another in the great class struggle that has always characterized our nation. Without our cooperation there can be no war, no Plutocracy, and no empire. We must do away with the classes and recognize all people as equals. The wealth of our nation must be distributed equitably, rather than divided almost exclusively among the elite.

No person of conscience should take up arms against his/her working brethren in other nations or at home. Those who choose to serve in the military should do so as non-violent conscientious objectors. They must refuse to be the instruments of corporate Plutocracy by serving humanity rather than empire. Soldiers must not allow their government to make them complicit in war crimes that they will carry with them the rest of their lives. No thinking person in any capacity should ever blindly carry out orders without consulting their conscience and weighing the evidence. Otherwise they are mere automatons and not sentient beings at all.

The people must educate themselves in order to counter the powerful conscience altering propaganda that pervades our culture and shapes public opinion. They must learn history and empower themselves. Then it will be possible to connect the dots and see things as they really are with historical perspective.

We must think beyond geopolitical borders, beyond political parties; past the familiar labels of liberal and conservative. Working class conservatives and working class liberals alike are exploited by those in power. We must set aside the petty differences that keep us apart and seek common ground to defeat our common enemy—corporate Plutocracy.

Finally, we must organize as a class across national borders and forge global solidarity with working class people everywhere. Perhaps, then, the next time they give a war no one will come.

Charles Sullivan is a photographer and free lance writer residing in West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at csullivan@phreego.com.

Ending the Dollar's Tyranny

By Mike Whitney

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court Justice

09/18/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The U.S. dollar is the very heart of the empire. The military, the media and the political establishment are merely the tributaries which flow away from the center. Any plan to restore America’s democratic values and end our foreign wars must focus on the dollars’ dominant role in the global economy and its adverse affects on the people at home.

Presently the dollar is underwritten by $8.3 trillion of debt. The US trade deficit is running at $800 billion per year which is 6.4% of GDP. The trade deficit is large enough to cover the yearly costs of the war in Iraq, the defense budget, and Bush’s lavish tax cuts. In other words, America’s war machine is lubricated with money borrowed from the developing world.

Despite the enormity of America’s debt, foreign nations still accept our fiat money in exchange for their resources and manufactured goods. That’s because the American consumer market has been the main engine for global growth for more than 25 years. Only recently have other countries started to shy-away from the dollar, recognizing the tell-tale signs that the over-leveraged American consumer is nearing the end of his spending spree. As consumer spending gradually slows, recession will set in, and investors will shift capital to foreign markets. These developments will make it more difficult for the dollar to maintain its supremacy.

Typically, foreign-owned US dollars are used to purchase American securities or US Treasuries. It takes roughly $2.5 billion per day of foreign net-inflows to cover the burgeoning deficit. These infusions help to keep interest rates low in the short term, but they come at a hefty price. America is placing its future in the hands of its creditors who now own more than $3 trillion of American assets and securities. We saw how explosive this situation can be in the case of the Dubai Port deal. Middle Eastern businessmen wanted to purchase American seaports with US dollars. The transaction set off a political firestorm even though the Dubai businessmen were operating entirely within the legal confines of current international trade law. As more of America’s wealth is transferred to foreigners, we can expect similar situations will arise.

The massive trade deficit serves the narrow interests of western elites and the Federal Reserve, but is destructive to the working class. It allows the shifting of wealth from one class to another via tax cuts, "no-bid" contracts, and other contrivances which escape public notice behind the smokescreen of low interest rates. It also allows the Fed to keep increasing the money supply (which has doubled in the last 7 years) to meet the requirements of expanding foreign trade.

It's no wonder Washington politicians and banking giants plan to prolong this system as long as possible. Their power and personal wealth are only enhanced by the process. The exchange of paper scrip for valuable commodities, resources and manufactured goods is the best deal around. It is the equivalent of having a mint in one’s own backyard. Last year’s trade deficit with China alone (which was $200 billion) would have paid for 2 full years of the war in Iraq!

War is considerably less painful when someone else is paying the bill.

Although the current deficits are "unsustainable," (according to former Fed-chief Alan Greenspan) foreign countries continue to accept greenbacks in exchange for their goods; sucking hundreds of billions of dollars from the poorest countries on the planet to sustain the living standards of people in the world’s biggest "debtor nation". The brisk pace of international trade keeps trillions of dollars in circulation preventing the hyper-inflation it would cause if the money was returned to America.

As America’s debt has continued to balloon, there are signs that nations around the world are beginning to diversify their stockpiles of US dollars. If they reduce their holdings too quickly, the dollar could free-fall and precipitate a widespread sell-off.

According to Arab News, nearly $4 trillion in US dollars is currently held in central banks around the world; nearly 70% of all their holdings. This is as close to a monopoly as it gets. If even a fraction of those greenbacks are traded for euros or some other currency, the effects on the American economy would be catastrophic.

To a large extent, the supremacy of the dollar depends on the oil trade. Oil is the largest commodity in the world and its trade is almost exclusively denominated in dollars through the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) or London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE). Foreign countries must maintain large stockpiles of US Dollars in order to meet their energy needs. It is estimated that approximately $2.6 trillion is circulating in the oil trade alone.

This vice-like grip on the oil market is now being challenged by a number of countries including Russia, Venezuela and Iran. These three nations produce 25% of daily global output and pose a direct challenge to the dollar’s continued dominance. This explains why these three have fallen out of grace with Washington. The US cannot maintain its superpower status unless it can control the lion’s-share of world’s oil and force the world to use its currency. By 2030 60% of the world’s oil will come from the Middle East. The US will have to assert control over the resources of the entire Caspian Basin if it intends to keep the dollar as the de-facto international currency.

Imperial rule requires a "coin of the realm". Even as the American consumer market loses steam; western elites are planning to preserve US dollar hegemony in order to continue their control of the global economic system. Their objectives foreshadow even greater reliance on military force and intimidation.

America is now engaged in a transition that has never before been attempted. It has hollowed out its manufacturing sector (more than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since Bush took office) looted its treasury, and plunged the country into irreversible debt. Its major corporations and banks have disconnected from the mainland and operate as sovereign islands protected by the US military and international trade law. They have no allegiance to America and are unaccountable to anyone except their own shareholders.

Dollar-hegemony is critical to their ongoing success as it keeps the basic unit of exchange; paper money, in the control of fellow-elites at Federal Reserve. Absent that power, American plutocrats would be unable to perpetuate the system of trading debt (US dollars) for resources and manufactured goods. If Bush succeeds in his global resource war, then countries will be forced to use the dollar regardless of how much debt it has accumulated.

The most effective strategy for bringing the dollar into balance with the other currencies is to "democratize" the system and allow the free exchange of goods and resources in one’s own currency. This would eliminate the dependence on a reserve currency and make the United States accountable for its own prodigious debt. This, in turn, would force American leaders to revitalize the manufacturing sector as a way of restoring economic solvency.

The dependence on a "reserve currency" inevitably creates winners and losers. It is an invitation to massive account imbalances as well as corruption and exploitation. Greater parity among the currencies should be encouraged as a way of strengthening democracies and invigorating markets. It promises to breathe new life into international trade by allowing other political models to flourish without fear of being subsumed into the capitalist prototype.

The dominance of the greenback has created a global empire which is controlled by a small group of corporatists and autocrats who depend on bullying and brute force to maintain their supremacy. The only way to restore the republic is to topple the empire, dislodge the dollar from its lofty perch, and even the playing field with the other currencies.

27 September, 2006

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/26/06 "
Information Clearing House"-- The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of US (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.

The US has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send.

Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for US hegemony.

The “coalition of the willing” has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush’s “coalition” was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS “60 Minutes” on September 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the “coalition.” Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that “you are with us” or “be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.” Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on September 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the US attack on Afghanistan, states: “’Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age’ is roughly how US officials are putting their case.”

That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the US slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush’s attempt to exercise US hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the US destruction of Pakistan: “One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did.” Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush’s “ludicrous” demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the US: “If somebody’s expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views.”

Bush’s defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the US and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The US has battled in Iraq longer than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The King of Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of US hegemony. The King of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.

Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed US war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.

Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against US ships, US troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.

Neocons have also concluded that a US nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America’s will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting US hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate.

Revised US war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little “collateral damage” or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The “fear factor” disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.

University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Non-Proliferation Treaty and send countries in pellmell pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan’s sycophantic relationship to the US.

There can be little doubt that the aggressive US use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction.

Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone.

Hirsch believes that the US military’s opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons in behest of US hegemony.

It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the US government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

The Sound & The Fury

Venezuela's leader talks to TIME's Tim Padgett about why he lashes out against President Bush

By TIM PADGETT

09/24/06 "Time" -- -- TIME: Why do you attack President George W. Bush with such jolting language?

CHAVEZ: I believe words have great weight, and I want people to know exactly what I mean. I'm not attacking President Bush; I'm simply counterattacking. Bush has been attacking the world, and not just with words--with bombs. When I say these things I believe I'm speaking for many people, because they too believe this moment is our opportunity to stop the threat of a U.S. empire that uses the U.N. to justify its aggression against half the world. In Bush's speech to the U.N., he sounded as if he wants to be master of the world. I changed my original speech after reading his.

TIME: But doesn't your rhetoric--referring to Bush, for example, as an "alcoholic"--risk alienating potential allies?

CHAVEZ: First of all, Bush has called me worse: tyrant, populist dictator, drug trafficker, to name a few. I was simply telling a truth that people should know about this President, a man with gigantic power.

TIME: Is all of this mostly for domestic consumption back in Venezuela?

CHAVEZ: No. American author Noam Chomsky in his book [Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance] talks of two superpowers in today's world--one is the U.S., which aggressively wants to dominate the world, and the other is global public opinion. I don't consider what I'm saying personal attacks on President Bush--I want to wake up U.S. and global public opinion about him.

TIME: Do your feelings about Bush reflect your feelings toward America in general?

CHAVEZ: No. I revere America as the nation of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Mark Twain--who was a great anti-imperialist, who opposed U.S. adventurism in the Spanish-American War.

TIME: You often speak of the link between U.S. foreign policy and its appetite for oil.

CHAVEZ: Bush wanted Iraq's oil, and I believe he wants Venezuela's oil. The blame for high oil prices lies in the consumer model of the U.S. Its reckless oil consumption is a form of suicide.

TIME: You said recently that you believe the "Bolívar Doctrine is finally replacing the Monroe Doctrine" on your watch. Why?

CHAVEZ: For two centuries in this hemisphere we've experienced a confrontation between two theses--America's Monroe Doctrine, which says the U.S. should exercise hegemony over all the other republics, and the doctrine of Simón Bolívar, which envisioned a great South American republic as a counterbalance. Bush has spread the Monroe thesis globally, to make the U.S. the police of the world--if you're not with us, he says, you're against us. We're simply doing the same now with the Bolívar thesis--a doctrine of more equality and autonomy among nations, more equilibrium of power.

TIME: What's the difference between your "socialism for the 21st century" and past attempts to fix the region's economic inequality?

CHAVEZ: When I was released from prison [in 1994] and began my political life, I naively took as a reference point Tony Blair's proposal for a "third way" between capitalism and socialism--capitalism with a human face. Not anymore. After seeing the failure of Washington-backed capitalist reforms in Latin America, I no longer think a third way is possible. Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation, of the kind of misery and inequality that destroys social values. If you really look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ--who I think was the first socialist--only socialism can really create a genuine society.

TIME: Yet one slogan of your re-election campaign is "Against Chávez, Against the People." You also seem to have taken on a with-me-or-against-me stance.

CHAVEZ: The difference is ethics and morals. We're not threatening anyone. That slogan is simply a call for conscious reflection on national unity. We're not going to enforce it by bombing or invading anyone.

TIME: Critics have noted that while you were free to slam President Bush on U.S. soil, a new defamation law in Venezuela makes people subject to criminal prosecution for slander against officials like you.

CHAVEZ: They need to visit Venezuela. If you think Chávez is intimidating free expression, just watch television there--my God, devil is the least of things the opposition is allowed to call me on the air.

TIME: Could Venezuela play an interlocutor role between Iran and the U.S.? You and President Bush have some things in common--you both hail from cowboy country and enjoy Clint Eastwood movies.

CHAVEZ: I like Danny Glover movies better. But I don't believe there is anyone who can play the interlocutor with a leader who considers himself master of the world, as Bush does. Before the 2002 coup attempt against me--which Bush backed--various Presidents around the world tried to be interlocutors between Bush and Chávez. I said sure, please give him my regards. But they found it a waste of time with this U.S. President. I could talk to Clinton, but not Bush.

Victims of the war machine

By Cindy Sheehan

09/25/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Our "compassionate conservative" misleader was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and he had the following to say about the heartache and pain that he has caused the world since his illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq began.

BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war-if not already a civil war-We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see - you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people.... Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is - my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

That is 125 commas.

With 2701 of our children killed and over 20,000 injured, I would have to type 182 lines filled with commas. Then, if we take in to account the low figure of 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed, I would need pages of commas.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said that: "Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." I believe that anyone who still supports George and his war of terror on the world have to be going out of their way to ignore the facts, or are profiting some way from this occupation: politically or financially.

I want George and the conscientiously stupid people who avoid evidence like the plague to know that my son was not a comma. Casey was not a cardboard figure, or the one dimensional figure of his widely printed boot camp picture when his cheeks were still chubby from good and plentiful food.

Casey was three dimensional and had hopes and dreams. He wanted to finish college and teach elementary school. He wanted to marry and have babies. I wanted him to marry and have babies. I wanted to hold his children and spoil them and love them like a grandmother should.

Casey loved his brother Andy and his sisters Carly and Janey. He loved our dogs Buster and Chewy and our cats Emily and Molly. Casey watched professional "wrestling" on TV and called it: "male soap operas." He collected toys and we have many boxes of unopened action figures and other collectibles in a storage now.

Casey breathed air, drank water, ate food and everything else that all other human beings do. Above all, he loved God and wanted to serve God his entire life as a Permanent Deacon in the Catholic Church. He also bled and died like a human when he was shot in the back of the head.

Conservatively, the "commas" that the Bush Regime has killed by their lies would fill many pages, but in reality, the once breathing human beings are filling thousands upon thousands of graves and lying under tons of rubble.

I am sorry that the leader of our once great nation is so callous towards the people whose lives he has destroyed. If one agrees with President Chavez of Venezuela, or not, it is inherently evident in our country and the world that we should agree with him when he says democracy is not imposed by "bombs and Marines." Democracy rises from the people. Great Britain did not go to war with our forebears to impose democracy, but to stop it.

Killing innocent people, torture, draining our treasury, stealing elections, spying on American citizens without due process, leaving the people of the Gulf States hanging on their roofs for their dear lives, etc, do not bestow democracy and the people harmed should not be reduced to punctuation marks.

My son and the others will not go down in history as "commas" but as more victims of the war machine...and I hope as the last victims of wars for profit. How can George keep a straight face when he talks about the enemy being willing to "kill innocent people?" When has BushCo every shied away from murdering innocents?

George Bush* will be an asterisk in history.

*Impeached, removed from office, imprisoned for crimes against humanity.

The sooner the better.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Casey Austin Sheehan who was KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04. She is the author of Peace Mom: One Mom's Journey through Heartache to Activism.