The Pearl Harbor Myth
By John V. Denson - July 28, 2007
"LewRockwell" -- -- A new book entitled The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor and published by Potomac Books Inc. of Washington, D.C. is well researched and gives a very clear picture of how and why the Pearl Harbor myth was created. This "patriotic political myth" states that the attack by the Japanese was unprovoked and was a surprise to the Roosevelt administration, as well as, the key military personnel in Washington; but the commanders of Pearl Harbor were at fault for not being ready. Based on a good summary of the up-to-date research the author, who is an approving admirer of Roosevelt, concludes that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the attack and that he and his key military and administrative advisers clearly knew, well in advance, that the Japanese were going to attack both Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Roosevelt wanted to get into the European War but he had been unsuccessful in provoking Germany; therefore, he considered the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines as the best way to get into the European War through the back door of Japan. The cover-up of this strategy started immediately after the attack and continues to this day. The author concludes that this information of the coming attack was intentionally withheld from the military commanders because it was known that the Japanese were depending upon the element of surprise and if warnings had been sent to the commanders of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, their preparation for the attack would have caused the Japanese to cancel their plans.
The losses and damages at Pearl Harbor are described by Victor as follows:
"In the Pearl Harbor attack, the United States lost twenty-four hundred troops along with a quarter of her fleet. Many military leaders and Knox, Hull, and Roosevelt had underestimated the harm Japan could do, even by a surprise attack. And U.S. losses were much increased by two unlikely events. A Japanese bomb penetrated the battleship Arizona’s armor at an odd angle, reaching her magazine and causing her to explode. And the torpedoed battleship Oklahoma capsized. The explosion of the Arizona and the capsizing of the Oklahoma resulted in the drowning of sixteen hundred sailors."
The tremendous losses in the Philippines have been virtually hidden from the American public but they were mostly the native soldiers and civilians. Victor states:
"The Philippines suffered widespread destruction and was captured. Twenty-four hundred troops and seventy civilians were lost in Hawaii. In the Philippines, one hundred forty thousand troops were lost and civilian deaths – still unreported – are estimated to have been as high as three million. Nonetheless, the defeat at Pearl Harbor became a wrenching tragedy, and the administration sacrificed the commanders there to restore public confidence, while the defeat in the Philippines became a noble defense. Despite devastation and loss of the Philippines, a public relations operation turned MacArthur into a hero and he was promoted. The public reaction is not strange, however, when seen in the light of government control of information – a usual wartime practice."
The author states that the most recent Pearl Harbor investigation by Congress in October, 2000 resulted in a resolution by Congress "calling on President William Clinton to restore the reputations of Short and Kimmel. It provoked the flurry of accusations that Congress was usurping the job of historians, revising history, and reviving a long-discredited conspiracy theory. Clinton took no action on the resolution."
The author, Victor, includes a chapter from the viewpoint of the Japanese. They were being pressured strongly by Germany to enter the war by attacking the Soviet Union, thereby creating a two-front war for the Communist nation. This strategy came within the actual interests of Japan since they, like Germany, saw Communism as a great evil and a threat to their respective nations. Furthermore, Japan had substantial claims to parts of Manchuria as a result of defeating Russia in the war of 1905. Both Germany and Japan wanted to avoid a war with America at almost any cost. Roosevelt was well aware of this pressure on Japan by Germany but he felt that it was necessary to protect the Soviet Union as being the best weapon against the Germans, and therefore, he wanted to prevent Japan from attacking Russia. Roosevelt began extensive provocations to cause Japan to abandon its attack on Russia and instead attack America which also served the purpose of giving Roosevelt the reason to enter the war. Roosevelt launched an eight-point provocation plan primarily through the cutting off of oil supplies to Japan so that by the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor Japan was virtually out of oil and on the verge of industrial and military collapse. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines also would provide Japan with the ability to attack the Dutch interests in the Pacific, thereby giving them a new supply of oil.
Victor sees Roosevelt’s decisions as being based upon the assumption of the truth of the following statement: "Hitler’s plan to conquer and enslave most of the world was hardly a secret." The author cites no authority for this plan of Hitler to conquer the world and you will not find this in the two books that Hitler wrote nor in any of his speeches. His intentions were well known before and during the war. He stated from the beginning, before he took power, as well as thereafter, that he was against the harsh and unfair Versailles Treaty which virtually disarmed Germany and it included the inequities created for Germany in Poland and Czechoslovakia, which he intended to correct either through negotiation or, if necessary, by force. He stated and wrote that the only war he wanted was to fight Communism and to regain some of the living space that Germany had acquired in their treaty with Russia during World War I, which was abrogated by the Versailles Treaty. Nevertheless, the defeat of Hitler, not Germany, appears to be the premise upon which the author states that Roosevelt acted so that the end justified the means. Hitler, the man, must be defeated at all costs and these costs included the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines in order to get into the European War via Japan.
I need to depart from a review of Victor’s book momentarily in order to take issue with his basic assumption that Roosevelt’s main interest was the defeat of Hitler. If his primary end was simply the death of Hitler, Roosevelt had an excellent opportunity of letting the key military officers in the regular German army carry out a plan of assassination.
Allen Dulles was stationed in Switzerland with the OSS (which preceded the CIA) and was assigned the primary duty of seeing if there was a resistance movement in Germany which might overthrow Hitler. Dulles learned of a very substantial plot to kill Hitler early in the war in 1942 after Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad. While Stalin had murdered 35,000 to 50,000 of his senior military officers prior to the war in order to put in his loyal officers, Hitler had resisted this strategy and did not purge the regular German army of its senior officers. Early in the war a large number of these senior officers, including his Chief of Staff, General Ludwig Beck, built up a strong resistance movement with the purpose of assassinating Hitler and then surrendering to the American and British forces. They intended then to continue the war against Communism and the Soviet Union. A new government was to be created with Beck at the head and Dr. Carl Goerdeler, former mayor of Leipzig, to be the two top people. There was originally a large group who helped draw up the plan which included numerous civilians who would serve in the new democratic government, so it was not just to be a military coup. Dulles stated that even after the resistance movement had been discouraged by Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy, nevertheless, a small group of officers who remained committed to the assassination of Hitler made an unsuccessful attempt on Hitler’s life on July 20, 1944. Hitler rounded up all of the people who were even suspected of being a part of this plot and this amounted to over 200,000 Germans who were put in concentration camps and many were killed. The two principal high-ranking German officers who took part in the plot met their fate on the next day after the attempt, with one being shot by a firing squad and General Beck was allowed to commit suicide in the presence of the Nazi officers.
When Roosevelt first learned of this significant resistance movement and the plan of the Germans to surrender immediately to America and the British, he unilaterally announced the unconditional surrender policy which caused much of the resistance movement to dissolve and their plans to be abandoned. Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy was not well received by either Churchill or Stalin. Dulles, as well as, many key military advisers, were unsuccessful in getting Roosevelt to abandon or substantially revise this policy. They pointed out to Roosevelt that it would discourage the assassination of Hitler. It would make the Germans fight harder, cause the war to last longer and be more costly than necessary. Roosevelt’s policy required unconditional surrender to the British, the Soviets and America simultaneously. No surrender would be accepted unless it was made to all three at the same time. Many of the German officers decided that they would rather fight against all three rather than surrender to the Soviet Union. (See Germany’s Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance by Allen Dulles and Unconditional Surrender by Anne Armstrong.)
One of the best writers on World War II was Hanson Baldwin, who covered the war for The New York Times. After the war he wrote a book entitled Great Mistakes of the War, which was published in 1949. Baldwin says the greatest mistake made was the unconditional surrender policy of Roosevelt. He states that the policy "probably discouraged the opposition to Hitler" and adds that it "probably lengthened the war, cost us lives and helped to lead to the present abortive peace." Baldwin then points out that it also had a detrimental effect in the war against Japan. The Japanese had indicated they were willing to surrender if the unconditional surrender policy was changed so as to allow them to keep their Emperor but President Roosevelt ignored the offer in January of 1945. After Roosevelt’s death, President Truman stated he was going to continue the unconditional surrender policy and rejected the offer in July, 1945. The war continued and Truman ordered the atomic bombs to be dropped in August of 1945 and the surrender followed in September. The Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor after the war, and so in the end, the unconditional surrender policy was dropped as to Japan, but only after they were bombed with two atomic bombs. (See The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Dennis D. Wainstock and The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz.)
My argument is that Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy was designed to stop the resistance movement because Roosevelt did not want an early end to the war. He wanted a new chance to create a world organization, which he may have actually believed would end all war for the future. President Wilson had made this promise with the creation of the League of Nations. Roosevelt’s plan was to bring all nations under the cover of the United Nations with America and the Soviet Union as the remaining two super powers who would be virtually in control of this new world organization. Roosevelt had been part of the Woodrow Wilson administration and personally witnessed the worldwide adulation of President Wilson immediately after World War I when he came to Europe. Roosevelt saw the admiring mobs of people who lined the streets in France and Italy to cheer Wilson and the newspaper reports stated that thousands of people lined the railroad tracks at night just to watch Wilson’s train go by. Wilson was considered by millions of people as the greatest man in the world at that time because it was perceived that he brought peace to the world and had saved Europe. His vision for the League of Nations was considered by many as the hope of the future throughout the world to stop all war forever. (See Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan.) Roosevelt made 800 speeches in his vice presidential campaign in 1920 praising the League of Nations. Roosevelt felt that America’s entry into World War II would give him a chance to succeed where his mentor and idol, Woodrow Wilson, had failed when the American Senate failed to approve the Versailles Treaty which contained the provision creating the League of Nations.
In August of 1941, Roosevelt met with Churchill prior to Pearl Harbor and brought up the United Nations idea to which Churchill objected. Nevertheless, Churchill went along with it because he needed America in the war. Stalin also objected to the United Nations idea and both he and Churchill felt that the postwar settlement should have separate spheres of influence for each victor rather than a world organization to which the countries might lose their sovereignty and also lose control of their special goals.
The best account of Roosevelt and the United Nations is thoroughly covered in the book entitled FDR and the Creation of the U.N. by Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley published by the Yale University Press in 1997. Both authors are admirers of Roosevelt and of his accomplishment in creating the United Nations. A brief summary of the main points and several excerpts will tell that story.
"On November 10, 1939, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the need to establish ‘a stable international organization’ after the war. In a private response of December 23, President Roosevelt voiced his belief that, while no spiritual or civic leader could now define a specific structure for the future, ‘the time for that will surely come’; meanwhile, the United States would ‘encourage a closer association between those in every part of the world – those in religion and those in government – who have a common purpose.’ "
The authors then point out that extensive planning began to take place by others in regard to the postwar settlement:
"Into this planning vacuum stepped the private Council on Foreign Relations with an offer to study postwar issues secretly and make its deliberations available to the State Department. The council was a Northeastern seaboard phenomenon, an elitist mix of prominent New York bankers and lawyers with European interests and prominent academics and intellectuals, many of whom had served as advisers to Woodrow Wilson at the Paris peace conference. The businessmen provided the money, while the scholars furnished most of the intellectual leadership. The council operated mainly through off-the-record conferences, study groups, and small dinners confined to members, who were addressed by foreign or American statesmen. It published Foreign Affairs, a scholarly quarterly that had become the leading American journal of its kind. In an age when fewer than one thousand Americans could claim a journeyman’s competence, or even a sustained interest, in foreign affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations was a rare island of influence and expertise in the body politic."
In less than one month after the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and followed immediately by the declaration of war by Congress, Roosevelt began forming the United Nations into a specific entity:
"On January 1, 1942, the Soviet and Chinese ambassadors in Washington joined with Roosevelt and Churchill (who had arrived at the White House in late December) in signing the Declaration by United Nations. The following day, representatives of twenty-two other nations at war with the Axis powers added their signatures to the document, which created a wartime alliance of states who promised to wage war with all of their resources and not sign a separate peace. The president apparently thought up the name ‘United Nations’ and secured the Prime Minister’s approval by bursting into his bedroom at the White House while the doughty Britain was taking a bath."
Roosevelt felt that Wilson had been partly to blame for the failure of the Senate to authorize the signing of the Versailles Treaty, thereby causing America not to join the League of Nations. Roosevelt felt that he could be more flexible if he only had a war which would give him an opportunity to succeed where Wilson had failed. Hoopes and Brinkley give a quick historical review as follows:
"The Senate’s rejection of the League of Nations treaty on March 19, 1920, was a result of many factors, of which perhaps the most basic was the enduring fear and contempt for Europe’s continual intrigues and wars. As most Americans saw it, they had sent their young men to France in 1917 to fight and die for a worthy cause – to make the world safe for democracy." But they had recoiled in disgust and disbelief at the spectacle of greed displayed by the European victors and embodied in the vengeful Treaty of Versailles. More direct and immediate reasons for the Senate’s rejection of the League were the personal bitterness between President Wilson and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Massachusetts), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the misplaced loyalty of the Democratic Senators to their party leader in the White House. The primary cause of failure, however, was the absolute rigidity rooted in moral and intellectual arrogance, of Woodrow Wilson."
The authors point out that Roosevelt was much more flexible and willing to compromise in order to create the United Nations.
After America entered the war there was a great deal of activity in trying to help Roosevelt create the United Nations. Hoopes and Brinkley state the following:
"John Foster Dulles apparently felt that the Shotwell group was too secular, for he formed the Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, under the auspices of the Federal Council of Churches. In one of many speeches, he declared, ‘the sovereignty system is no longer consonant with either peace or justice,’ and said that he was ‘rather appalled’ at the lack of any agreed peace aims ‘to educate and crystalize public opinion.’ Yet he too offered no specific remedies. In a long editorial in Life magazine entitled ‘The American Century,’ publisher Henry Luce noted the ‘golden opportunity’ for world leadership that the United States had passed up in 1919, and called on the American people to help Roosevelt succeed where Wilson had failed. It was now the time, Luce wrote, to accept ‘our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world.’ "
Hoopes and Brinkley go on to describe Roosevelt’s immediate public endorsement of the United Nations in his State of the Union address as follows:
"The President’s State of the Union address on January 6, 1942 – just one month after the attack on Pearl Harbor – was praised by George Orwell on BBC radio as a ‘complete and uncompromising break . . . with isolationism.’ Roosevelt said, ‘the mood of quiet grim resolution which here prevails bodes ill for those who conspired and collaborated to murder world peace. The mood is stronger than any mere desire for revenge. It expresses the will of the American people to make very certain that the world will never so suffer again. He referred to the signing of the Declaration by the United Nations just six days before, and defined the primary objective of that act to be ‘the consolidation of the United Nations’ total war effort against our common enemies.’ His focus was entirely on the war effort.
But if the Administration had decided that the public disclosure of postwar plans were dangerously premature, such inhibitions did not apply to the press and private sector. Throughout 1942, there was a steady procession of proposals for shaping the new world and educating the American people.
The Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, whose president, Columbia professor James T. Shotwell, was an occasional adviser to the State Department planning effort, accepted the need for an ‘Anglo – American directorate’ to run the world in the immediate postwar period . . .
On March 5, 1942, the Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, headed by John Foster Dulles, proposed a far more radical solution. It called specifically for a world government complete with a parliament, an international court, and appropriate agencies. The world government would have the power to regulate international trade, settle disputes between member nations, and control all military forces, except those needed to maintain domestic order..."
"A more convincing, more sophisticated argument for realpolitik was Walter Lippmann’s 1943 best-seller, U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic, a brilliant essay designed to counter the idealistic one-world internationalism of which Wendell Willkie was the leading purveyor. It sold nearly one half million copies. Lippmann, a crusading editor who had helped Woodrow Wilson prepare his peace program, had been disillusioned by the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations, but retained the conviction that American leadership in world affairs was an absolute prerequisite of stability and peace. He thought Willkie’s thesis was founded on sand and that its corollary – that the United States must undertake to police the world – was a dangerous doctrine. Lippmann argued that all nations must balance their commitments with their resources and should avoid being overextended.
Lippmann’s formula for peace was no new League of Nations but a basic alliance of the United States, Britain and Russia. No other nations were serious factors in the world power equation. China and France were not great powers. Only Britain and Russia were strong enough to threaten U.S. security, but given America’s close ties to Britain, there was no risk from that quarter. The only real danger was a falling out with Russia, but peace and stability required that this be avoided at all costs, for an Anglo-American alliance against Russia would set the stage ‘inexorably’ for a third world war."
Hoopes and Brinkley summarize the negotiations between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, pointing out that Roosevelt suggested the Big Four World Policeman would be America, Great Britain, Russia and China and then there would be seven representatives of regional organizations. However, Roosevelt privately stated to his key advisers that Soviet Russia and America would be the two remaining super powers and would be actually in charge of the organization. The authors then state:
"Also, he did not believe that Stalin would join an all – embracing international organization without the protection of an absolute veto power. . .
While America’s postwar planners were thinking in terms of some synthesis of regional and global organization to replace the League of Nations, the British Prime Minister was thinking of authoritative regional arrangements without a global nexus, and his focus was on Europe. He was dismissive of China, and uneasy at the idea of sharing responsibility for the future of Western Europe with the Soviet Union. In a note to Eden of October 12, 1942, Churchill wrote, ‘I must admit that my thoughts rest primarily in Europe – the revival of the glory of Europe, the parent continent of the modern nations and of civilization.’ It would be a ‘measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence’ of these ancient states. ‘We certainly do not want to be shut up with the Russians and the Chinese’ in Europe. Moreover ‘I cannot regard the Chungking Government as representing a great world power.’ "
The authors describe Roosevelt’s opinion regarding the necessity of having Stalin’s cooperation for creating and operating the United Nations as follows:
"Much depended on Stalin, for the Soviet Union would be the only first-rate military power on the continents of Europe and Asia after the war. If the dictator chose cooperation, the foundations of a peaceful society would be laid with confidence; if he chose another course, the Western allies would be ‘driven back on a balance of power system.’ "
The authors also cover the importance of the Yalta Conference in regard to the creation of the United Nations:
"Calling the Yalta Conference a turning point – ‘I hope in our history and therefore in the history of the world’ – FDR said that whether it could bring forth lasting results ‘lies to a great extent in your hands.’ The Senate and the American people would soon face ‘a great decision that will determine the fate of the United States – and of the world – for generations to come.’ Everyone should understand there was no middle ground. ‘We shall have to take responsibility for world collaboration, or we should have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict.’ The Yalta agreements ‘ought’ to spell the end of unilateral actions, exclusive alliances, spheres of influence, and balances of power that ‘have been tried for centuries – and have always failed.’ It was time to substitute ‘a universal organization,’ and the President was confident that Congress and the American people would accept the Yalta agreements as laying the foundations of ‘a permanent structure of peace . . .’ "
The agreement on Poland was entirely dependant on Stalin’s word, for there was no practical way to confront Russian power in Eastern Europe. In part, this stance was dictated by the basic need for Russian military cooperation to finish the war against Germany and then join the war against Japan; in larger part it reflected FDR’s judgment that establishing the United Nations organization was the overarching strategic goal, the absolute first priority. He faced, as he viewed it, a delicate problem of balance. To prevent a U.S. reversion to isolationism after the war, U.S. participation in the new world organization was the sine qua non, but the United Nations could not be brought into being without genuine Russian cooperation, and that depended on Western accommodation to unpalatable manifestations of the Soviet Communist system in Eastern Europe." [Emphasis supplied]
The authors then point out that on April 6, 1945 the president authorized Archibald MacLeish to prepare the speech he intended to make at the opening session of the San Francisco conference. There had been some speculation that he might even resign his position as president in order to be leader of the United Nations. However, on April 12, he died and the authors state:
"To internationalists, the fallen leader promptly became a martyr and symbol of their cause. Intoned the New Republic, ‘Franklin Roosevelt at rest at Hyde Park is a more powerful force for America’s participation in the world organization than was President Roosevelt in the White House."
If Roosevelt’s primary aim in World War II was to create the United Nations and thereby bring world peace forever (in his own mind), and that he considered the cooperation of Stalin and the Soviet Union as the essential piece to that puzzle, this helps explain why Roosevelt was so compromising with Stalin throughout the war. It also helps explain why he let Harry Hopkins live in the White House and be his closest adviser. The author, George Victor, in his preface, addresses the fact that Hopkins was probably a Communist agent and then he states "there are speculations that Hopkins influenced U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union in 1941, but no evidence of it." He then defends Hopkins by saying that Hopkins never did anything without the express direction of Roosevelt, which may defend Hopkins, but it certainly does not defend Roosevelt. Roosevelt surely must have been aware of the intercepted cables which show that Hopkins was an agent of the Soviets. The cables called "The Venona Cables" were those communications between Soviet spies in America that were intercepted by American intelligence forces which were available to Roosevelt. These "Venona Cables" were released to the public in 1995 and in a sensational book entitled The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel they show the fact that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent, being number 19. They point out that the cables revealed that the Soviets were ordering tons of uranium in March of 1943 and that Major George R. Jordan objected to sending the uranium since he and General Groves, head of the Manhattan project, were concerned about Soviet espionage. Major Jordan testified that he objected to sending the uranium but that "Harry Hopkins had told him on the phone to expedite the shipments." Major Jordan later wrote a book claiming that Hopkins had helped the Soviets against the interests of the United States.
In conclusion of my argument, I take issue that the end justified the means, and therefore disagree with Victor on this point. Roosevelt’s personal ambitions for greatness, obtaining worldwide adulation, and his desire to create the United Nations could hardly be considered ends that justified the means he employed.
Getting back to Victor’s book, he states in his last chapter entitled "History and the Unthinkable" that the disaster in Pearl Harbor "needs to be remembered, not for anything about Japanese treachery or U.S. blunders. Its main lessons are about sacrifice, deception and political considerations as common features of military planning." He points out that other presidents have caused similar sacrifices of the lives of soldiers and sailors, as well as civilians, with similar acts of deception for political considerations. He states:
"Polk, Lincoln and McKinley confronted dilemmas between what they considered important U.S. interests and popular opposition to war. Lincoln’s problem was extreme; for years, conflict over slavery had been tearing the nation apart. As Lincoln saw it, the secession and the likelihood of further splitting threatened the nation’s existence. ‘However, there was one way out,’ according to historian Richard Hofstadter, ‘the Confederates themselves might bring matters to a head by attacking Sumter . . . . It was precisely such an attack that Lincoln’s strategy brought about.’ Hofstadter added that ‘the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did for [Roosevelt] what the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter had done for Lincoln.’"
Victor carefully analyses the situation with Abraham Lincoln as being comparable to Roosevelt in starting their respective wars:
"On becoming president in 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s highest priority was preserving the Union. To end the secession, he was willing to guarantee federal noninterference with slavery. He therefore pushed a constitutional amendment for noninterference through Congress, and three states quickly ratified it, but the secession continued. Lincoln was also willing – if necessary for preserving the Union – to fight a war. But he found his nation – and his own cabinet – against such a war. Even radical abolitionists opposed it.
The Confederacy had taken over most federal installations in its states – installations surrendered on request by their administrators. Of those remaining in federal hands, Fort Sumter in South Carolina was exposed to attack and running out of supplies. Lincoln asked his cabinet’s advice on whether to supply the fort. With one exception, they opposed it because doing it risked war. Lincoln then sent the supplies, prompting an attack on the fort which became the incident he used to start the Civil War.
If known at the time, Lincoln’s deliberate exposure of the fort might have caused serious political repercussions. Later historical accounts that imputed to him the intention of fostering an incident for war in order to preserve the Union have created little stir. His towering place in history is undamaged by them and he, too, is viewed as a president with a clear idea of his mission, effective in carrying it out."
The author, Victor, also goes into some detail in regard to President Polk starting the Mexican War:
"On becoming president in 1845, James Polk told his cabinet that California would be annexed. (His predecessors had offered to buy California, but Mexico had refused to sell.) To his consul in California, Polk suggested fomenting a revolution and promised U.S. support for residents who rose against Mexico. A tiny uprising under Capt. John Fremont had no effect on California’s status. Polk then sent an army to the Rio Grande.
History books describe that area as U.S. territory, Texas territory, or land in dispute between the United States and Mexico. The area was, however, recognized by a U.S. treaty as within Mexico’s borders. As Polk expected, Mexico attacked the army, slaughtering a troop.
On sending the army, Polk wrote, in advance, a request to Congress for a declaration of war based on the incident he expected. After it happened, he submitted his request, claiming that Mexican troops ‘had passed the boundary of the United States . . . invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil . . . . War exists notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it.’ But Polk, not Mexico, had sought the war. Congress then declared war on Mexico and by an easy victory, Polk acquired the southwest for his nation."
Victor points out that President McKinley sent the battleship Maine into the harbor of Havana, which was Spanish territory, as a provocation to the Spanish and when the ship exploded from within it killed 260 U.S. sailors. The false propaganda was that the Spanish caused it, thus giving McKinley an excuse to go to war and to acquire from Spain America’s first empire. McKinley was strongly supported in his efforts to get into the war by none other than the "Megaphone of Mars," Teddy Roosevelt, who was serving as the Assistant Navy Secretary. Roosevelt declared "The Maine was sunk by an act of dirty treachery on the part of the Spaniards." The new battle cry for the war was now "Remember the Maine."
The author expresses no moral judgment against these presidents for starting their respective wars and states that:
"Deception is as old as the history of war. According to the classic work The Art of War by Sun-tzu ‘All warfare is based on deception.’ It is, of course, practiced on enemies, but deception is also used on subordinates. A common example is a suicide attack. In order to have troops carry it out officers may hide the attack’s hopelessness from them. They may even mislead troops to believe that it will succeed."
Victor recites the views expressed by General George C. Marshall at the Pearl Harbor hearings before Congress in 1945–6, as follows:
"In my view, General Marshall was indeed an outstanding chief of staff, upright, honorable, and incorruptible – as much so as his position permitted. Testifying to various tribunals investigating the Pearl Harbor disaster, other military officers vigorously denied that they had withheld vital information from field commanders. The denials were false. Marshall was the exception; he testified to a congressional committee that withholding vital information from commanders was routine practice. World War II documents show not only withholding of information from field commanders, but also distortion of it to mislead them."
The author concludes this extremely disturbing book with the following two paragraphs:
"Despite the history of war, the idea that Roosevelt withheld warnings from Kimmel and Short for the purpose of getting the United States openly into the European war is still unthinkable to many people, but to fewer and fewer as the years pass. As has happened over time with other unthinkable acts, the repugnance aroused by the idea of using the Pacific Fleet as a lure will probably continue to fade. Polk’s exposure of an army, Lincoln’s exposure of a fort, and McKinely’s exposure of a battleship are more or less accepted. In the Philippines, Midway, Wake, Guam, Samoa, and in other outlying islands, U.S. forces were exposed to Japanese attack, and that is also more or less accepted.
The Pearl Harbor disaster was different from losses of the Philippines and other Pacific islands because it shattered America’s confidence, arousing massive fear, a crisis of trust in the nation’s leaders, and an outcry for scapegoats. The nation seized on the administration’s explanation of betrayal by Japan and by Kimmel and Short, and the disaster unified the nation to fight World War II with the slogan ‘Remember Pearl Harbor!’ The explanation became a major national myth, which has substantially withstood the unearthing of secret alliances, war strategies, and warnings received in Washington."
In the preface the author states: "I am not the first admirer of Roosevelt to present him in Machiavellian terms." Victor goes on to quote an admiring biographer of Roosevelt, James MacGregor Burns, who stated: "It was not strange that [Roosevelt] should follow Machiavelli’s advice . . . for this had long been the first lesson for politicians." Victor’s final assessment is that:
"History has recorded many, many rulers’ manipulations of their people into war without their subordinates blowing the whistle. Presidents James Polk, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson did it before Roosevelt; and others have done it after him . . . .
Presidents who succeeded Roosevelt also ordered sacrifices, but toward smaller and sometime meaner ends. Here Roosevelt’s manipulations and the sacrifices he ordered are compared to those of Polk, Lincoln, McKinley and Wilson, all of whom were implementing ends considered noble in the light of traditional values." [Emphasis supplied]
The author, George Victor, mentions the deceit of President Wilson in getting us into World War I but provides no details. However, you can find this in Charles Tansil’s excellent book entitled America Goes to War. Justice Brandeis, who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Wilson, rendered his opinion to President Wilson that the alleged sinking of the French cross-channel passenger ship, the S.S. Sussex, by a German submarine in the English Channel with the loss of lives of the U.S. citizens justified a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The ship was painted all black and the usual insignia to show it was not a military ship were missing. The German commander of the submarine wrote that he took the ship to be a military ship rather than a passenger ship. Wilson relied on this legal opinion of Justice Brandeis, who was Wilson’s most influential adviser along with Col. House, and the president addressed both houses of Congress on April 2, 1917 using the sinking of Sussex and the loss of American lives as a reason to declare war on April 7, 1917. It was only after America was committed to the war that the truth came out, which apparently was not considered material by the news media, so the public never was fully informed. The Sussex was not sunk and no American lives were lost. The ship was torpedoed by the Germans but made it safely to the harbor at Boulogne where it was hidden for some period of time.
Victor mentions that subsequent presidents to Roosevelt have also deceitfully taken America into wars but provides no names. He could have cited President Lyndon Johnson and his lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get Congress to authorize him to retaliate to get America into the Viet Nam War. He could also have mentioned our current president and the lies about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the war with Iraq. In both cases Congress accepted the lies of the president and unconstitutionally delegated the war making power to the president rather than declaring war itself, as the Constitution requires.
I agree that Victor has accurately described the deceitful conduct of the presidents he cites (see the chapters "Lincoln and the First Shot" and "Roosevelt and the First Shot" in my book A Century of War) but I strongly disagree with his conclusion that the American people have knowingly condoned the deceitful activity of the presidents Victor mentions because our history books do not contain this information, it is not taught in the schools and universities and it is not recited by the news media. You have to have independent researchers like Victor to find and disclose most of this information.
I wonder if Victor’s book will be taught or read at West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy. After finishing it, the famous lines from Tennyson’s poem The Charge of the Light Brigade came to mind:
"Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."
John V. Denson is the author of A Century of War, The Costs of War and Reassessing the Presidency.
Monday, July 30, 2007
The least useful reaction to terrorism is to dismiss it as an inscrutable evil
A blind faith in the moral superiority of our own way of life will only hinder efforts to tackle violent extremism
By Jenni Russell - July 27, 2007
"The Guardian" -- - When I was 19 I spent a fortnight travelling around Kenya with an exiled Eritrean revolutionary. He was a charming PhD student, who had been given political asylum in Holland. He could have led a comfortable life among the Dutch, whose generosity to stateless foreigners never ceased to astonish him. Instead he dedicated his time to securing Eritrea's independence from Ethiopia.
His task in Kenya was to tour the expatriate Eritrean community, collecting tithes from small backstreet shopkeepers and the owners of dusty restaurants to fund the struggle. The opportunities for corruption were limitless, since all his fundraising was done by stealth, and no one else could check on the money he was stowing in his leather satchel. But neither personal comfort nor wealth motivated this man. He travelled third class on the crowded, grubby trains, and he stayed in youth hostels or bedbug-ridden hotels. He was driven by the conviction that he should fight in the war of liberation for his country, and nothing else had the same importance. That purpose gave his life meaning.
History is populated with men and women like my companion: intellectuals and professionals who turn their backs on easy lives because they prefer to fight for whatever values they believe in. When we share those values we look at such people and describe them as heroes. When we don't, our imagination appears to fail us. Not only do we condemn them, but we often refuse to understand anything about their motivation. In doing so, we deny ourselves the ability to see the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.
Last month the alleged would-be bombers of London and Glasgow were found to be doctors. The general reaction was one of incredulity. Similar feelings were evoked by the university students convicted earlier this week of possessing material for terror purposes. Earlier British bombers had been more marginalised men. Even if guilty, these men were successful professionals, and people who had taken oaths to heal, not to harm. The realisation that those oaths could be overridden by a deeper imperative was a shocking one. Underlying the disbelief was the assumption that no one leading a successful life in western society was likely to reject its values in favour of other beliefs.
That assumption is widespread, and fuelled by people like our former prime minister, Tony Blair. In one of his most breathtaking speeches, five years ago, he told the Labour party conference that: "Our values are not western values. They are human values, and anywhere, any time people are given the chance, they embrace them." These sentences betrayed a total ignorance of the range of customs, convictions and prejudices that govern human behaviour in a multitude of different societies. Blair talked as if he thought that people around the world were essentially blank sheets, who would adopt all western values wholesale as soon as they encountered a can of Coke, a job in a clothing factory and a gender rights worker.
The mistake here is that the modern liberal belief - all men are equal - has been transmuted into the false idea that all people think the same. We don't. Our metaphysical beliefs, the underlying assumptions about the world that govern our lives, limit how we react to it. From our earliest experiences and the culture around us we form often unspoken ideas about what is desirable or abhorrent, holy or impure, possible or impossible. Those ideas form the boundaries into which later concepts must fit for us to feel that the world makes sense. Metaphysical beliefs are extremely hard to shift, because they are not based on reason. They become our instincts. Indeed, Jung wrote that "one never possesses a metaphysical belief, but is possessed by it". For instance, a Catholic may lose his or her faith, but find it impossible to lose the sense of guilt and duty that was instilled with it. Nor can one adopt a metaphysical belief by effort of will. I know people who are ashamed of their superstitions, but cannot change them. I myself admire the Buddhist philosophy of detachment from possessions and emotions, but in practice I am programmed to want pianos and clothes and strong relationships, and that overrides any intellectual flirtation with anything else.
Our belief structures drive us because they give us rules to live by, and a sense that there is order, purpose and personal significance in what is otherwise an alarmingly chaotic world. The difficulty for all of us is that we are happiest living in an environment that reflects our metaphysical beliefs, and profoundly uneasy if we are not. When the dissonance between our own powerful sense of what is right and the values of the society around us becomes too great, then some people are driven to act.
An ex-revolutionary from South Africa described the way in which she was drawn into acts of sabotage against apartheid 50 years ago. It was a short step from feeling, uneasily, that the system was evil, and discussing it with a tiny like-minded group, to thinking that something should be done - and why not by you? Once the group was formed, she said, it had its own dynamic. Everyone competed to show that they were good, and brave, and so they found themselves being pushed into more extreme positions by others. Lines kept being crossed and it was hard to know when to stop. All of them knew that they might well die or be executed for their actions. At the same time the adrenaline, the fear and the proud sense of a secret moral purpose were intoxicating.
The same sense of mission drives small groups now. They too are buoyed up by the belief that they are fighting for a better world, and that their sacrifice gives their existence meaning.
In the situation we find ourselves now, where a minority are so angered by the values of the west that they feel it right to act violently, the least useful response is to dismiss that reaction as evil or incomprehensible. It is imperative that we understand that other value systems have, whether we like it or not, their own deep appeal. After all, it's not as if many of us can't see the multiple ways in which competitive capitalist democracies leave people feeling anxious and adrift.
Fifteen years ago, when he published The Culture of Contentment, the economist JK Galbraith wrote about the complacency of powerful societies. All civilisations, from Rome to the French kings and today's capitalism, ascribe moral virtue to the values that have allowed their elites to dominate others. They are all reluctant to read the warning signs that tell them their beliefs are not universally shared. A blind faith in the obvious moral superiority of our own way of life, and a refusal to recognise others' search for meaning in their lives, is not going to provide any kind of answer to the question of why we now fear a terrorist threat.
By Jenni Russell - July 27, 2007
"The Guardian" -- - When I was 19 I spent a fortnight travelling around Kenya with an exiled Eritrean revolutionary. He was a charming PhD student, who had been given political asylum in Holland. He could have led a comfortable life among the Dutch, whose generosity to stateless foreigners never ceased to astonish him. Instead he dedicated his time to securing Eritrea's independence from Ethiopia.
His task in Kenya was to tour the expatriate Eritrean community, collecting tithes from small backstreet shopkeepers and the owners of dusty restaurants to fund the struggle. The opportunities for corruption were limitless, since all his fundraising was done by stealth, and no one else could check on the money he was stowing in his leather satchel. But neither personal comfort nor wealth motivated this man. He travelled third class on the crowded, grubby trains, and he stayed in youth hostels or bedbug-ridden hotels. He was driven by the conviction that he should fight in the war of liberation for his country, and nothing else had the same importance. That purpose gave his life meaning.
History is populated with men and women like my companion: intellectuals and professionals who turn their backs on easy lives because they prefer to fight for whatever values they believe in. When we share those values we look at such people and describe them as heroes. When we don't, our imagination appears to fail us. Not only do we condemn them, but we often refuse to understand anything about their motivation. In doing so, we deny ourselves the ability to see the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.
Last month the alleged would-be bombers of London and Glasgow were found to be doctors. The general reaction was one of incredulity. Similar feelings were evoked by the university students convicted earlier this week of possessing material for terror purposes. Earlier British bombers had been more marginalised men. Even if guilty, these men were successful professionals, and people who had taken oaths to heal, not to harm. The realisation that those oaths could be overridden by a deeper imperative was a shocking one. Underlying the disbelief was the assumption that no one leading a successful life in western society was likely to reject its values in favour of other beliefs.
That assumption is widespread, and fuelled by people like our former prime minister, Tony Blair. In one of his most breathtaking speeches, five years ago, he told the Labour party conference that: "Our values are not western values. They are human values, and anywhere, any time people are given the chance, they embrace them." These sentences betrayed a total ignorance of the range of customs, convictions and prejudices that govern human behaviour in a multitude of different societies. Blair talked as if he thought that people around the world were essentially blank sheets, who would adopt all western values wholesale as soon as they encountered a can of Coke, a job in a clothing factory and a gender rights worker.
The mistake here is that the modern liberal belief - all men are equal - has been transmuted into the false idea that all people think the same. We don't. Our metaphysical beliefs, the underlying assumptions about the world that govern our lives, limit how we react to it. From our earliest experiences and the culture around us we form often unspoken ideas about what is desirable or abhorrent, holy or impure, possible or impossible. Those ideas form the boundaries into which later concepts must fit for us to feel that the world makes sense. Metaphysical beliefs are extremely hard to shift, because they are not based on reason. They become our instincts. Indeed, Jung wrote that "one never possesses a metaphysical belief, but is possessed by it". For instance, a Catholic may lose his or her faith, but find it impossible to lose the sense of guilt and duty that was instilled with it. Nor can one adopt a metaphysical belief by effort of will. I know people who are ashamed of their superstitions, but cannot change them. I myself admire the Buddhist philosophy of detachment from possessions and emotions, but in practice I am programmed to want pianos and clothes and strong relationships, and that overrides any intellectual flirtation with anything else.
Our belief structures drive us because they give us rules to live by, and a sense that there is order, purpose and personal significance in what is otherwise an alarmingly chaotic world. The difficulty for all of us is that we are happiest living in an environment that reflects our metaphysical beliefs, and profoundly uneasy if we are not. When the dissonance between our own powerful sense of what is right and the values of the society around us becomes too great, then some people are driven to act.
An ex-revolutionary from South Africa described the way in which she was drawn into acts of sabotage against apartheid 50 years ago. It was a short step from feeling, uneasily, that the system was evil, and discussing it with a tiny like-minded group, to thinking that something should be done - and why not by you? Once the group was formed, she said, it had its own dynamic. Everyone competed to show that they were good, and brave, and so they found themselves being pushed into more extreme positions by others. Lines kept being crossed and it was hard to know when to stop. All of them knew that they might well die or be executed for their actions. At the same time the adrenaline, the fear and the proud sense of a secret moral purpose were intoxicating.
The same sense of mission drives small groups now. They too are buoyed up by the belief that they are fighting for a better world, and that their sacrifice gives their existence meaning.
In the situation we find ourselves now, where a minority are so angered by the values of the west that they feel it right to act violently, the least useful response is to dismiss that reaction as evil or incomprehensible. It is imperative that we understand that other value systems have, whether we like it or not, their own deep appeal. After all, it's not as if many of us can't see the multiple ways in which competitive capitalist democracies leave people feeling anxious and adrift.
Fifteen years ago, when he published The Culture of Contentment, the economist JK Galbraith wrote about the complacency of powerful societies. All civilisations, from Rome to the French kings and today's capitalism, ascribe moral virtue to the values that have allowed their elites to dominate others. They are all reluctant to read the warning signs that tell them their beliefs are not universally shared. A blind faith in the obvious moral superiority of our own way of life, and a refusal to recognise others' search for meaning in their lives, is not going to provide any kind of answer to the question of why we now fear a terrorist threat.
Counting the Cost
by Laurence M. Vance - July 30, 2007
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. (Luke 14:28–32)
What has cost the U.S. taxpayers almost half a trillion dollars, and now costs $275 million every day, $11 million each hour, $191,000 every minute, and $3,180 each second? If you answered, "The war in Iraq," then you are right. But if you think that the U.S. government had any idea of what the cost of the war would be thus far, or what the cost will be to continue fighting the war, or what total cost will be when and if the U.S. military is completely withdrawn from Iraq, then you are wrong.
What was supposed to be a cakewalk costing about $50 billion has turned into a debacle that may cost the taxpayers over $2 trillion.
Before the invasion of Iraq, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied to questions about the length of a war against Iraq, saying: "The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that."
A year after the invasion, General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, stated that the war against terrorism will "never go away in our lifetime."
When asked about the timing of the war at a press conference a week after the invasion, President Bush replied: "However long it takes. That’s the answer to your question and that’s what you’ve got to know. It isn’t a matter of timetable, it’s a matter of victory." Four years after the invasion, Bush still maintained his aversion to timetables, vetoing a war-spending bill because it contained a withdrawal timetable. Now we are told that Bush’s model for Iraq is South Korea, a country where the U.S. has had troops since the end of our war there – in 1953.
The Bush Administration initially claimed that the war in Iraq would cost "only" about $50 billion. To make that number more palatable, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz claimed that "Iraq’s vast oil reserves would help defray the costs." The director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, believed that some of the war’s cost would be paid for by other countries like the last time the United States invaded Iraq. Both of these ideas turned out to be erroneous.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2002, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, Lawrence Lindsey, predicted that the Iraq War would cost between $100 and $200 billion. Naturally, the Bush Administration wasn’t very happy with those figures, and Lindsey soon lost his job. Lindsey, of course, turned out to be wrong – but only because his estimate was way too low. Now, after four years and billions of dollars, we can only wish that Lindsey had been correct.
Before the second anniversary of the war had passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of fighting the war for the years 2005–2015 would be an additional $448 billion.
Just a year later, economists Linda Bilmes (Harvard) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Columbia) estimated that the war would ultimately cost between $1 and $2 trillion – ten times what Lindsey had estimated. But in an article published late last year, Bilmes and Stiglitz make the case that their original estimate was too low. They now say that because "the cost of the war – in both blood and money – has risen even faster than our projections anticipated," the cost of the war, if one considers "the sum of the current and future budgetary costs along with the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East," will now exceed $2 trillion. And this is just the cost for the United States. The way things are going in Iraq, is there any doubt that Bilmes and Stiglitz will have to revise upward their figures once again? Is there any doubt that this $2 trillion figure will one day seem way too low?
The latest analysis on the cost of the war is the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report for Congress titled The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco, a specialist in national defense in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the CRS.
With a national debt fast approaching $9 trillion dollars, the cost of continuing the futile attempt to secure Iraq and make it a democracy is a cost that the U.S. economy cannot bear. Back before the war started, Bush tried to justify his impending invasion of Iraq by appealing to the effects of not going to war. Another terrorist attack would, said the president, "Cripple our economy." But it is the war in Iraq that has crippled our economy. The price of a barrel of crude oil was under $25 in 2003. Does anyone in his right mind think that U.S. intervention in the Middle East has not had something to do with the price of oil more than doubling since the invasion of Iraq?
There are, of course, many other costs of fighting the war in Iraq. The morale and readiness of the military are at historic lows. The Guard and Reserve forces have been decimated. Military hardware and equipment are worn out. The reputation of America in the eyes of the world, although previously sullied, is now at rock bottom. New terrorists are being created faster than we can kill them. Countless numbers of American families have suffered because of multiple duty tours and ever-increasing deployment terms. Thousands of American soldiers will need a lifetime of medical and/or psychiatric care. The cost of this war to the children of Iraq is incalculable.
One of the most important costs of fighting this war is the number of U.S. soldiers who have died for a lie. As I write these words, the death toll stands at 3,645. The first time I ever mentioned in an article the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq the figure was "only" 855. I believe now what I believed then: every death was both unnecessary and preventable. Every life lost was not just lost; every life lost was utterly wasted, thrown away. Bush and company have blood on their hands – American blood and Iraqi blood. Just as Johnson, Nixon, and their cronies were never held accountable for the crime of Vietnam, so Bush and company may never be held accountable for their war crimes – in this life. They will certainly give an account to Almighty God for their sins when we are rid of them here.
The great tragedy of this war, like most wars throughout history, is that all the death and destruction, all the carnage, all the broken homes, all the money wasted, all the suffering, all the ruined lives, all the power the state has gained, all the liberty the people have lost – all of it could have been prevented if only Bush and company had counted the cost.
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. (Luke 14:28–32)
What has cost the U.S. taxpayers almost half a trillion dollars, and now costs $275 million every day, $11 million each hour, $191,000 every minute, and $3,180 each second? If you answered, "The war in Iraq," then you are right. But if you think that the U.S. government had any idea of what the cost of the war would be thus far, or what the cost will be to continue fighting the war, or what total cost will be when and if the U.S. military is completely withdrawn from Iraq, then you are wrong.
What was supposed to be a cakewalk costing about $50 billion has turned into a debacle that may cost the taxpayers over $2 trillion.
Before the invasion of Iraq, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied to questions about the length of a war against Iraq, saying: "The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that."
A year after the invasion, General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, stated that the war against terrorism will "never go away in our lifetime."
When asked about the timing of the war at a press conference a week after the invasion, President Bush replied: "However long it takes. That’s the answer to your question and that’s what you’ve got to know. It isn’t a matter of timetable, it’s a matter of victory." Four years after the invasion, Bush still maintained his aversion to timetables, vetoing a war-spending bill because it contained a withdrawal timetable. Now we are told that Bush’s model for Iraq is South Korea, a country where the U.S. has had troops since the end of our war there – in 1953.
The Bush Administration initially claimed that the war in Iraq would cost "only" about $50 billion. To make that number more palatable, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz claimed that "Iraq’s vast oil reserves would help defray the costs." The director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, believed that some of the war’s cost would be paid for by other countries like the last time the United States invaded Iraq. Both of these ideas turned out to be erroneous.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2002, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, Lawrence Lindsey, predicted that the Iraq War would cost between $100 and $200 billion. Naturally, the Bush Administration wasn’t very happy with those figures, and Lindsey soon lost his job. Lindsey, of course, turned out to be wrong – but only because his estimate was way too low. Now, after four years and billions of dollars, we can only wish that Lindsey had been correct.
Before the second anniversary of the war had passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of fighting the war for the years 2005–2015 would be an additional $448 billion.
Just a year later, economists Linda Bilmes (Harvard) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Columbia) estimated that the war would ultimately cost between $1 and $2 trillion – ten times what Lindsey had estimated. But in an article published late last year, Bilmes and Stiglitz make the case that their original estimate was too low. They now say that because "the cost of the war – in both blood and money – has risen even faster than our projections anticipated," the cost of the war, if one considers "the sum of the current and future budgetary costs along with the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East," will now exceed $2 trillion. And this is just the cost for the United States. The way things are going in Iraq, is there any doubt that Bilmes and Stiglitz will have to revise upward their figures once again? Is there any doubt that this $2 trillion figure will one day seem way too low?The latest war-funding bill passed by Congress was signed into law by the president on May 25, 2007. H.R. 2206 (PL 110-28), the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007," provides another $100 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September. [Buried in the bill is also a $2.10 per hour increase in the federal minimum wage over the next two years.] This war-funding bill was preceded by the following:
- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (PL 109-289), $70 billion
- Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (PL 109-234), $66 billion
- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 (PL 109-148), $51 billion
- Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (PL 109-13), $75.9 billion
- Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (PL 108-287), $2.1 billion
- Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (PL 108-106), $64.9 billion
- Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (PL 108-11), $62.6 billion
- Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (PL 108-7), $10 billion
- 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States (PL 107-206), $13.8 billion
- Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 (PL 107-117), $3.4 billion
- 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (PL 107-38), $13.6 billion
The latest analysis on the cost of the war is the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report for Congress titled The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco, a specialist in national defense in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the CRS.
With a national debt fast approaching $9 trillion dollars, the cost of continuing the futile attempt to secure Iraq and make it a democracy is a cost that the U.S. economy cannot bear. Back before the war started, Bush tried to justify his impending invasion of Iraq by appealing to the effects of not going to war. Another terrorist attack would, said the president, "Cripple our economy." But it is the war in Iraq that has crippled our economy. The price of a barrel of crude oil was under $25 in 2003. Does anyone in his right mind think that U.S. intervention in the Middle East has not had something to do with the price of oil more than doubling since the invasion of Iraq?
There are, of course, many other costs of fighting the war in Iraq. The morale and readiness of the military are at historic lows. The Guard and Reserve forces have been decimated. Military hardware and equipment are worn out. The reputation of America in the eyes of the world, although previously sullied, is now at rock bottom. New terrorists are being created faster than we can kill them. Countless numbers of American families have suffered because of multiple duty tours and ever-increasing deployment terms. Thousands of American soldiers will need a lifetime of medical and/or psychiatric care. The cost of this war to the children of Iraq is incalculable.
One of the most important costs of fighting this war is the number of U.S. soldiers who have died for a lie. As I write these words, the death toll stands at 3,645. The first time I ever mentioned in an article the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq the figure was "only" 855. I believe now what I believed then: every death was both unnecessary and preventable. Every life lost was not just lost; every life lost was utterly wasted, thrown away. Bush and company have blood on their hands – American blood and Iraqi blood. Just as Johnson, Nixon, and their cronies were never held accountable for the crime of Vietnam, so Bush and company may never be held accountable for their war crimes – in this life. They will certainly give an account to Almighty God for their sins when we are rid of them here.
The great tragedy of this war, like most wars throughout history, is that all the death and destruction, all the carnage, all the broken homes, all the money wasted, all the suffering, all the ruined lives, all the power the state has gained, all the liberty the people have lost – all of it could have been prevented if only Bush and company had counted the cost.
Did Gonzales Lie to the Senate?
In a word - YES!New testimony from FBI Director Robert Mueller suggests that the attorney general did not tell Congress the truth about warrantless wiretapping.
by Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium - July 27 , 2007
At a House hearing Thursday, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller provided information that added to a growing body of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the FBI's role in a number of controversial issues, including its use of National Security Letters. During questioning by committee Democrats, Mueller provided revealing testimony about the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which is at the center of the renewed scrutiny of Gonzales' recent congressional testimony.
The disclosures began about an hour into the hearing, when Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) asked Mueller about his reported discomfort with the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program. "Can you confirm that you had some serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program?" he asked. Mueller replied tersely, "Yes."
Two days earlier, Alberto Gonzales had repeatedly insisted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that there had been no conflict within the Justice Department about the NSA program and that all disagreements had been over another, unidentified intelligence program. At one point, Gonzales expressed surprise that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who also sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and receives briefings about programs such as the TSP, would call his account into question.
Mueller was not present at the now-famous March 10, 2004 hospital room meeting between then-Bush legal aide Gonzales, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, acting Attorney General James B. Comey, and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was recovering from surgery at the time. But, according to Mueller's testimony, he "arrived at the hospital after Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had left" and spoke briefly with the ailing Ashcroft about the his late-night dispute with the White House aides. Rep. Shiela Jackson-Lee (D-TX) asked Mueller, "Did you have an understanding that the conversation [between Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Card] was on TSP?"
"I had an understanding that the discussion was on the NSA program, yes," he replied, later adding that the program in question was "a national NSA program that has been much discussed."
The revelations continued as Democrats were recognized by Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) to question Mueller. In an exchange with Rep. Steven Cohen (D-TN) about the bedside confrontation, Mueller said that due to conversations with Comey at the time, "I had understood the Department of Justice had some concerns about an NSA program." Since the FBI uses information provided by the NSA, he explained, "My concern was to assure that whatever activity we undertook as a result of the info we received was done appropriately and legally. At some point in time [Comey] expressed some concern about the legality of it."
Mueller also revealed that he had taken notes of his conversations with Comey and Ashcroft. If made public, these documents could further damage Attorney General Gonzales' version of events. Rep. Arthur Davis (D-AL) asked Mueller why he had taken notes of his meeting with Ashcroft.
"It was out of the ordinary," Mueller replied.
"What was out of the ordinary Mr. Mueller?" Davis asked.
"Being asked to go to the hospital and be present at that time."
When Davis asked if there were any reasons why he might mot submit his notes from the conversation with Ashcroft to the committee, Mueller answered, "Deliberative privilege." Davis said that he "would certainly ask this committee and our colleagues in the Senate to make a formal inquiry to obtain those notes."
Shortly after the hearing, Rep. Conyers officially requested that Mueller delivered his notes to the committee by August 1.
Mueller spent much of his time before the committee testifying about other longstanding controversies, including the FBI's use of National Security Letters, administrative subpoenas that contain a gag order that forbids the recipient from divulging their existence. The agency has been criticized recently for its excessive use of these subpoenas without probable cause.
Rep. Conyers also questioned Mueller about the FBI's treatment of members of Michigan's sizeable Muslim community.
In both cases, Mueller defended the FBI in general terms, though he admitted instances of wrongdoing. He also agreed to meet with members of the committee individually to discuss these issues further. Mueller's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the FBI, marked his first appearance before the committee in his more than six years as the head of the agency.
Brian Beutler is the Washington correspondent for the Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations, including Mother Jones.
Who Killed Pat Tillman? And Why?
Cpl. Pat Tillman is seen in a this 2003 file photo provided by Photography Plus. Congressional investigators told the White House on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, that they intend to question several former Bush administration officials about their knowledge of Tillman's death, escalating their inquiry into the high-profile friendly fire case. (AP Photo/Photography Plus via Williamson Stealth Media Solutions, FILE)by Justin Raimondo - July 30, 2007
Pat Tillman was slated to become an iconic figure, the purest representation of the New Bushian Man: a football hero who had refused a lucrative contract in order to enlist in the military, who could have had a life of riches and ease but chose, instead, to go to Afghanistan to take up arms against our enemies. Most important of all, for propaganda purposes, he looked the part, almost as if he'd been crafted to embody the virtues of a life in service to the Empire. His enlistment provoked a personal letter from then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his death provided the War Party with the opportunity to canonize him as a martyr to The Cause. An elaborate narrative was conjured by administration spinmeisters in the wake of his death, valorizing him as an example to be followed.
There was just one problem: Tillman wasn't a gung-ho warmonger. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
"A side of Pat Tillman not widely known – a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought, and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books … to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author."
Apparently a meeting between Tillman and Chomsky was planned for after Pat's return to the U.S., but he never returned. Instead, he was killed – under circumstances that Pat's mother, Mary, has always characterized as "murky," at best, and that seem, to my eye, at least, suspicious at worst. And it isn't just me. Now the release of thousands of pages of documents by the Pentagon, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, raise even more questions about the circumstances surrounding Pat Tillman's death:
"Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press."'The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,' a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators."The doctors – whose names were blacked out – said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away."
This occurs after at least three investigations have supposedly been conducted, in which Tillman's death was attributed to "friendly fire," adding to the strong suspicion that there's something they're not telling us – something they have been trying desperately to cover up. "The Army used him," says his mother. "They knew right away he was killed by fratricide and [they] used him for their own purposes to promote the war, to get sympathy for the war, for five weeks."
Mary Tillman has long suggested that her son was deliberately murdered by his fellow soldiers. After initially dismissing her allegations as a case of grief-gone-over-the-edge, I've come to believe that there is something awfully fishy about this whole incident.
After all, why were Army attorneys sending "congratulatory e-mails" to each other for fending off criminal investigators on the case? The general who kept the details of Tillman's death from the Tillman family and the public claimed that he was having a problem with his memory, and that's why he just couldn't recall any important details of how Tillman's death was handled. Doctors who tried to reconcile the forensic evidence with the official account urged that a criminal investigation be pursued, but they were rebuffed. What's really suspicious, however, is that evidence of enemy fire at the scene was singularly lacking: no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any equipment damaged. According to numerous reports, there were no Taliban in the area.
Now, I'm not willing to go as far as this guy, but I have to wonder: what if that meeting with Chomsky had come off, as scheduled, and Tillman had arisen to become a vocal critic of the Iraq war – which he bitterly opposed – and had even become involved in politics? The War Party's own propagandistic creation would have turned against them – a form of "blowback" that would have had a devastating effect on the effort to shore up support for our crazed foreign policy. Especially if Tillman teamed up with Democratic Party operatives, either to run for office himself or to endorse candidates opposed to the war.
The backtracking, the misinformation, the deliberate withholding of documents that required a FOIA request in the first place, and now the demotion of a general involved in the "investigation" – all point to a cover-up of massive proportions. Tillman had been keeping a journal since the age of 16, and he took it with him to Afghanistan. Two days after his demise, the journal, along with most of his personal property, mysteriously vanished. Adding another layer of murk, the White House is claiming "executive privilege" in refusing to release documents dealing with Tillman's death. But who is being protected?
First they told us Tillman was killed by hostile fire fighting for Bush's crusade to export "democracy" to Afghanistan. Then they said he was felled by "friendly fire," i.e., by his own troops. These new revelations suggest – although they don't conclusively prove – that this fire may not have been all that friendly.
What I want to know is this: how could someone who was apparently killed from 10 yards away – and was hit by three bullets in very close proximityon the forehead – be a victim of "friendly fire" from 90 yards away, as claimed?
All of which raises another, increasingly troubling question: Who killed Pat Tillman – and why?
Leading US Evangelicals for Palestine
“But we want a solution that is viable. Obviously there would have to be compromises,” Sider said.Cracks really are starting to appear among Christian Zionists - EXCELLENT!
IslamOnline.net - July 29, 2007
CAIRO — A group of evangelical leaders have signaled a rare support for the creation of a Palestinian state, drawing immediate reprimands from fellow evangelical figures, The New York Times reported on Sunday, July 29.
Both Israelis and Palestinians have "legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine," some 34 evangelical leaders wrote in a letter to President George Bush on Friday, July 27.
They signaled support for the creation of a Palestinian state "that includes the vast majority of the West Bank."
Palestinians want an independent state on lands occupied by Israel after the 1967 which includes the entire of the Gaza Strip, occupied West Bank and Al-Quds (occupied East Jerusalem).
The signatories insisted that being a friend to Jews and to Israel "does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted."
"Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other," wrote the signatories, featuring leaders of many denominations, Christian charities, ministry organizations, seminaries and universities.
The letter marks a clear departure from the usual position reiterated by top Evangelical leaders that they have a biblical and moral obligation to support and protect Israel.
Several key Evangelical leaders have insisted over the years that their position was part of "God's foreign policy" because Israel is an important catalyst in the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Believing that the Israeli-Arab conflict is a battle between good and evil, conservative evangelicals built a bulwark of support for Israel, sending donations and denouncing Israel's critics.
Evangelical Christians have had a growing impact on American political landscape, in part because adherents believe conservative Christian values should have a place in politics — and they support politicians who agree with them.
Reaching Out
Ronald J. Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, said he and three other evangelical leaders got the idea for the letter in February at the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar.
He recalled that meetings with Muslim diplomats showed they were shocked to discover the existence of American evangelicals who favored a Palestinian state.
"We think it’s crucial that the Muslim world realize that there are evangelical Christians in the US in large numbers that want a fair solution," Sider said.
He added that the leaders would translate the message into Arabic and sent it to the Middle East.
"There is a part of the evangelical family which is what I call Christian Zionists, who are just so staunchly pro-Israel that Israel and their side can do no wrong, and it’s almost anti-Biblical to criticize Israel for anything," said Rev. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church in Longwood.
"But there are many more evangelicals who are really open and seek justice for both parties."
Aware of their influential political clout, the ambassadors of nine Arab countries recently approached young US Evangelical leaders to court their support for Arab causes.
The ambassadors held landmark meeting early in July with some of the evangelical leaders at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington.
None Believers“Bible-believing evangelicals will scoff at that message," Hagee said.
The signatories insisted that their support for the creation of a Palestinian state does not contradict with their unwavering support for Israel.
"This group is in no way anti-Israel, and we make it very clear we’re committed to the security of Israel," said Sider.
"But we want a solution that is viable. Obviously there would have to be compromises."
However, this was not enough to satisfy pro-Israel evangelicals like Rev. John Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel.
"Bible-believing evangelicals will scoff at that message," he commented after reading most of the letter.
"Christians United for Israel is opposed to America pressuring Israel to give up more land to anyone for any reason. What has the policy of appeasement ever produced for Israel that was beneficial?" Hagee said.
"God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a covenant in the Book of Genesis for the land of Israel that is eternal and unbreakable, and that covenant is still intact."
Hagee claimed the Palestinian people "have never owned the land of Israel, never existed as an autonomous society."
"…to say that Palestinians have a right to that land historically is an historical fraud."
Hagee sends e-mail action alerts on Israel every Monday to 55,000 pastors and leaders and his organization organized a pro-Israel conference attended by 4,500 people in Washington this month.
Timothy P. Weber, a church historian and former seminary president, insists those who agree with Hagee are a minority among evangelicals leaders.
"The dispensationalists (who interpret the Bible as predicting that in order for Christ to return, the Jews must gather in Israel, a third temple must be built and the Battle of Armageddon must be fought) have parlayed what is a distinctly minority position theologically within evangelicalism into a major political voice."
The walls must be brought down
Even Israelis know the apartheid wall must come down - so, why don't Americans? Perfect little democracies like Israel shouldn't need walls and separation fences, right??
By Danny Rubinstein - July 30, 2007
Fifteen years ago, Bassam Abu Ara from the village of Akaba near Jenin in the West Bank married a woman from East Jerusalem. He resided there with his new wife until two years ago, when he was forced to move to Ramallah. As a resident of the West Bank, he is not allowed to reside in the capital.
His wife and children stayed on in Jerusalem so the state would not revoke their official status as Jerusalemites, affording them social and medical rights in Israel. Once a week, they travel to Ramallah to see their husband/father, who works there as the sports editor of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, a daily newspaper.
As a journalist, Abu Ara travels all over the world. He covers sports events in Europe and the Middle East - but he is not able to visit his family in Jerusalem. His is not an unusual story; it's actually run-of-the-mill. The Israeli media no longer pay any attention to such phenomena. The Palestinian media have also stopped reported on them.
East Jerusalem is estimated to have roughly 20,000 such cases - of Palestinian families where parents are forced to live apart from one another on opposites sides of the fences and walls that separate the West Bank from Israel.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent proposal to set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza, according to an agreement of principles - as reported by Haaretz last week - pertains mainly to the geographical issues involved. It encompasses territorial concessions and exchanges, borders and settlement blocs.
Additionally, in their meeting, Olmert and Quartet envoy Tony Blair discussed, for the umpteenth time, easing restrictions at crossing points and checkpoints. The possibility, which may sound fictional right now, that one day all the people of this land will enjoy total freedom of movement is not mentioned anywhere. Nowhere is this notion cited as a goal we must aspire to achieve.
This aspiration should not be regarded as odd. Indeed, freedom of movement existed during the 24 years between 1967 and 1991 - almost an entire generation. Not a single roadblock could be found from Rafah in the south to Jenin in the north. Moshe Dayan, defense minister during the Six-Day War, regarded this freedom as a sacred principle.
Israel is a relatively small country, densely populated by Arabs and Jews, who live close to one another. We must always plan and strive to achieve the very clear goal of ridding ourselves of fences and roadblocks - even if we find ourselves in need of setting them up at this point in time.
Devising an agreement of principles which will include freedom of movement is a diplomatic and social need, but first of all an economic need par excellence. Prof. Ephraim Kleiman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who is arguably the world's greatest expert on the Palestinian economy, has for years maintained that it has been dependent on the Israeli economy - and will stay that way in the foreseeable future. The reason? Israel is the largest, closest and potentially most attractive market for Palestinian agricultural and industrial products, as well as for Palestinian labor. The neighboring Arab economies compete against the Palestinian economy, and so cannot constitute an alternative to Israel.
The Israeli economy provides work for tens of thousands of Thai, Chinese and Romanian laborers. There are other workers from other corners of the world, which make up a population that possibly even exceeds tens of thousands. This foreign workforce is withholding our neighbors' livelihood.
How should Palestinians - who comprise the majority of the workforce in the territories - feel when they, unemployed, see the workers of the world earning their living in Israel? Sure, their Israeli neighbors extol coexistence and speak highly of striving to reach an agreement, but in effect they starve the Palestinians.
Separation is a security necessity that no one is trying to downplay. However, when we speak of an agreement of principles, we must keep in mind that the current separation is destroying, virtually wiping out, the Palestinian economy.
No diplomatic process stands a chance of getting off the ground while the Palestinian economy goes from bad to worse. Such processes are hopeless as the standard of living in the territories recedes and slips downhill. Especially when the Israeli economy is meanwhile flourishing and blooming.
The roadblocks and fences have long been transformed into a vision and ideology for most Israelis, who stand united on this issue. This vision is based on despair and disappointment. If we are to strive toward achieving an agreement with the Palestinians, we must think about how to achieve the opposite: How to bring down the walls of separation.
Fifteen years ago, Bassam Abu Ara from the village of Akaba near Jenin in the West Bank married a woman from East Jerusalem. He resided there with his new wife until two years ago, when he was forced to move to Ramallah. As a resident of the West Bank, he is not allowed to reside in the capital.
His wife and children stayed on in Jerusalem so the state would not revoke their official status as Jerusalemites, affording them social and medical rights in Israel. Once a week, they travel to Ramallah to see their husband/father, who works there as the sports editor of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, a daily newspaper.
As a journalist, Abu Ara travels all over the world. He covers sports events in Europe and the Middle East - but he is not able to visit his family in Jerusalem. His is not an unusual story; it's actually run-of-the-mill. The Israeli media no longer pay any attention to such phenomena. The Palestinian media have also stopped reported on them.
East Jerusalem is estimated to have roughly 20,000 such cases - of Palestinian families where parents are forced to live apart from one another on opposites sides of the fences and walls that separate the West Bank from Israel.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent proposal to set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza, according to an agreement of principles - as reported by Haaretz last week - pertains mainly to the geographical issues involved. It encompasses territorial concessions and exchanges, borders and settlement blocs.
Additionally, in their meeting, Olmert and Quartet envoy Tony Blair discussed, for the umpteenth time, easing restrictions at crossing points and checkpoints. The possibility, which may sound fictional right now, that one day all the people of this land will enjoy total freedom of movement is not mentioned anywhere. Nowhere is this notion cited as a goal we must aspire to achieve.
This aspiration should not be regarded as odd. Indeed, freedom of movement existed during the 24 years between 1967 and 1991 - almost an entire generation. Not a single roadblock could be found from Rafah in the south to Jenin in the north. Moshe Dayan, defense minister during the Six-Day War, regarded this freedom as a sacred principle.
Israel is a relatively small country, densely populated by Arabs and Jews, who live close to one another. We must always plan and strive to achieve the very clear goal of ridding ourselves of fences and roadblocks - even if we find ourselves in need of setting them up at this point in time.
Devising an agreement of principles which will include freedom of movement is a diplomatic and social need, but first of all an economic need par excellence. Prof. Ephraim Kleiman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who is arguably the world's greatest expert on the Palestinian economy, has for years maintained that it has been dependent on the Israeli economy - and will stay that way in the foreseeable future. The reason? Israel is the largest, closest and potentially most attractive market for Palestinian agricultural and industrial products, as well as for Palestinian labor. The neighboring Arab economies compete against the Palestinian economy, and so cannot constitute an alternative to Israel.
The Israeli economy provides work for tens of thousands of Thai, Chinese and Romanian laborers. There are other workers from other corners of the world, which make up a population that possibly even exceeds tens of thousands. This foreign workforce is withholding our neighbors' livelihood.
How should Palestinians - who comprise the majority of the workforce in the territories - feel when they, unemployed, see the workers of the world earning their living in Israel? Sure, their Israeli neighbors extol coexistence and speak highly of striving to reach an agreement, but in effect they starve the Palestinians.
Separation is a security necessity that no one is trying to downplay. However, when we speak of an agreement of principles, we must keep in mind that the current separation is destroying, virtually wiping out, the Palestinian economy.
No diplomatic process stands a chance of getting off the ground while the Palestinian economy goes from bad to worse. Such processes are hopeless as the standard of living in the territories recedes and slips downhill. Especially when the Israeli economy is meanwhile flourishing and blooming.
The roadblocks and fences have long been transformed into a vision and ideology for most Israelis, who stand united on this issue. This vision is based on despair and disappointment. If we are to strive toward achieving an agreement with the Palestinians, we must think about how to achieve the opposite: How to bring down the walls of separation.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
ABBAS ~~ A LOYAL SON OF ZION
July 29, 2007Israel could not have wished for a better 'Peace Partner' then they found in Mahmoud Abbas.
He has proven to be a more loyal zionist than most Knesset members.
Has the man no pride? Has the man no shame? Even the zionists seem willing to allow the Palestinians stranded in Egypt to return home.... but NO, Abbas will decide which ones.
If this is not treachery than what is?
The man is a war criminal and a traitor, there are no other words to describe him, none that I could use without having to resort to obscenities.
Just read the following from today's HaAretz to see the latest sell out of a nation tactic...
Also read THIS report from the Ma'an News Agency.
THIS is also worth your time...
Hamas: Abbas will extradite wanted Gazans en route home By Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff and Barak Ravid, Haretz Correspondents, Agencies and Haaretz Service
Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar has accused the Palestinian Authority and its chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, for intending to extradite wanted Palestinians on their way from Egypt back home to the Gaza Strip, Israel Radio reported Sunday morning.
Zahar, Hamas' former PA foreign minister, maintained that Abbas' willingness to extradite was the reason Israel agreed to let 6,000 Palestinians stranded in Egypt back into the Gaza Strip via Israeli crossings, instead of through the Gaza-Egypt Rafah crossing.
Their return had been delayed by a dispute over the Rafah terminal on the Gaza-Egypt border, which has been closed since Hamas' bloody takeover of the Gaza Strip. Under a U.S.-brokered agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the crossing was operated by Egypt and the Palestinians, with EU monitors deployed on the Palestinian side. During Hamas' takeover, the European monitors fled and Hamas militiamen took control of the terminal.
Hamas has rejected proposals to allow Gazans to return through other crossings controlled by Israel, and Israel and Egypt have refused to reopen the Rafah crossing as long as Hamas is on the border.
Israel agreed to start letting the Palestinians back gradually, and a first group of some 100 Gazans is supposed to enter Israel from Sinai Sunday morning, through the Nitzana crossing.
From there they are to be taken to the Erez crossing in the northern Gaza Strip, in a convoy of buses secured by Israeli troops. They will then reenter Palestinian territory.
However, Israel Defense Forces officials Saturday doubted that the plan would begin Sunday as scheduled, because of leaks by the Palestinian side regarding the agreement reached with Israel and Egypt.
Israel suspects the information was made public by Palestinians who do not want the plan to go ahead.
This morning's maneuver is billed as a pilot plan: If all goes well, the remaining thousands of stranded Palestinians will return to Gaza later this week.
However, the IDF is worried that Hamas will try to disrupt the group's return, after Palestinian Information Minister Riad Maliki Saturday revealed details of the agreement. "Israel has allowed the Palestinians through, on condition that the names of those who enter the Strip are approved in advance," Maliki said.
Hamas denounced the compromise agreement since it allows Israel to decide who can enter Gaza. The concern is that Hamas will try to hit the Erez crossing with mortar shells or by other means.
Israel is already preparing for the possibility of moving the stranded Gazans through crossings other than Erez.
Palestinian Minister of Prisoners Affairs Ashraf Ajrami said Saturday that the group will enter Gaza through points along the Egyptian-Israeli border. "The Palestinian Authority is responsible for putting them in buses and transporting them back into Gaza," Ajrami said.
The Egyptian Red Crescent estimated that roughly 5,000 Palestinians have been stranded in dusty Egyptian towns in northern Sinai since Hamas Islamists seized control of the Gaza Strip on June 14 and the main border crossings were closed. Palestinian officials estimate the number of stranded Gazans at between 6,000 and 7,000.
Sources in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's bureau said that Israel, PA moderates and EU monitors do not want the Rafah crossing opened under present conditions. "If there's a humanitarian problem, the Palestinians can go through the Kerem Shalom crossing," an official said, adding, "The matter has been discussed for several weeks and the decision is in the Palestinians' hands."
In a related development, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad informed Israeli officials recently that he wants to reach a speedy agreement regarding the Gaza Strip crossings, which would include the involvement of an international party to coordinate their opening with Israel.
In conversations with these officials, Fayad denied that he and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas are opposed to opening the crossings in Gaza to put pressure on Hamas. "We were misunderstood in Israel. The last thing we want is to starve the Strip," Fayad said. "We simply aren't willing for Hamas to be part of the new agreements regarding the crossings, because that would legitimize it [Hamas]."
Fayad also told Israeli officials that he intends to set up a new crossings authority shortly, modeled on the Israel Airports Authority, to operate all crossings between Israel and the PA - in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Among the ideas floated this past week was Turkish or Norwegian involvement in the crossings. Both countries maintain ties with Hamas.
A delegation of Turkish foreign ministry officials and business people visited Israel and the PA this week and discussed the crossings, among other topics. The Turks said they want to invest money to build an industrial zone at the Jalameh checkpoint near Jenin, in place of the one at Erez. They dropped plans to rebuild the Erez industrial zone after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza because of the ensuing anarchy in the Strip and its recent takeover by Hamas.
Finally something for the Iraqis to celebrate. They certainly can't celebrate the "freedom and democracy" the US brought them. July 29, 2007
Captain Younis Mahmoud's thumping headed goal crowned Iraq as the 2007 Asian Cup champions for the first time with a 1-0 win over Saudi Arabia in the final here Sunday.
Mahmoud rammed home the 71st-minute header off a Hawar Mohammed corner for the only goal in the fiercely-contested all-Arab final in a seething Gelora Bung Karno Stadium.
Iraq blunted the resistance of the Saudis, who could not counter the determination and steel of their rivals in the crackling decider to the three-week continental tournament.
Thousands of Iraqis, including members of the security forces, defied a strict government ceasefire order to welcome their football squad's Asian Cup victory on Sunday with a barrage of gunfire.
Baghdad security authorities had imposed an overnight vehicle curfew in order to prevent insurgent car bomb attacks and ordered police to arrest anyone who took part in the traditional celebratory gunfire.
Defied unity
Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid was in the northern Iraqi Kurdish region in Irbil, said: "The scenes are incredible. I have been in Iraq for more than 11 years, and I have never seen anything like this.
"Traffic is everywhere. It's extremely meaningful here. I spoke to a young boy this morning who said "if only our prime minister would learn from the team."
Mahmoud's goal came after concerted Iraqi pressure when Hawar's corner directed at the far post went beyond goalkeeper Yaser Al Mosailem and onto the striker's head for a terrific header.
Iraq, who have captivated the football world with their inspirational progress at the tournament, finished conceding just two goals in their six games and put a spanner in the free-flowing Saudis, who were the leading scorers with 12 goals.
It was a triumph for Iraq's Brazilian coach, Jorvan Vieira, 54, who only signed a two-month contract with the Iraqi Football Federation and said Saturday he intended to quit the job after accomplishing what he had set out to achieve.
Australian referee Mark Shield issued five yellow cards - three to Iraq and two to the Saudis - as tackles flew in during the furiously paced match.
The Iraqi defence handled the twin Saudi threat of Malek Maaz and Yasser Al Qahtani capably with left-back Bassim Abbas having a particularly solid game with his trademark acrobatic overhead clearances.
There was plenty of off-the-ball incidents with defender Ali Hussein Rehema going down clutching his face in the penalty area awaiting a free kick with the referee speaking to Al Qahtani but not taking the matter further.
Iraq, who had the better chances in the fiercely-contested exchanges, went close in the 28th minute when Karrar Jassim wriggled past two defenders and forced goalkeeper Yaser Al Mosailem to punch clear.
Al Qahtani had his only chance of the half when he made some space nearing half-time but blazed his shot well over the bar.
Iraq goalkeeper Noor Sabri made a flying save to prevent a screaming volley from Taiseer Al Jassam going in and the action switched to the other end where Al Mosailem made a double save to stop Mahmoud and then Hawar Mohammed from scoring.
Captain Younis Mahmoud's thumping headed goal crowned Iraq as the 2007 Asian Cup champions for the first time with a 1-0 win over Saudi Arabia in the final here Sunday.
Mahmoud rammed home the 71st-minute header off a Hawar Mohammed corner for the only goal in the fiercely-contested all-Arab final in a seething Gelora Bung Karno Stadium.
Iraq blunted the resistance of the Saudis, who could not counter the determination and steel of their rivals in the crackling decider to the three-week continental tournament.
Thousands of Iraqis, including members of the security forces, defied a strict government ceasefire order to welcome their football squad's Asian Cup victory on Sunday with a barrage of gunfire.
Baghdad security authorities had imposed an overnight vehicle curfew in order to prevent insurgent car bomb attacks and ordered police to arrest anyone who took part in the traditional celebratory gunfire.
Defied unity
Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid was in the northern Iraqi Kurdish region in Irbil, said: "The scenes are incredible. I have been in Iraq for more than 11 years, and I have never seen anything like this.
"Traffic is everywhere. It's extremely meaningful here. I spoke to a young boy this morning who said "if only our prime minister would learn from the team."
Mahmoud's goal came after concerted Iraqi pressure when Hawar's corner directed at the far post went beyond goalkeeper Yaser Al Mosailem and onto the striker's head for a terrific header.
Iraq, who have captivated the football world with their inspirational progress at the tournament, finished conceding just two goals in their six games and put a spanner in the free-flowing Saudis, who were the leading scorers with 12 goals.
It was a triumph for Iraq's Brazilian coach, Jorvan Vieira, 54, who only signed a two-month contract with the Iraqi Football Federation and said Saturday he intended to quit the job after accomplishing what he had set out to achieve.
Australian referee Mark Shield issued five yellow cards - three to Iraq and two to the Saudis - as tackles flew in during the furiously paced match.
The Iraqi defence handled the twin Saudi threat of Malek Maaz and Yasser Al Qahtani capably with left-back Bassim Abbas having a particularly solid game with his trademark acrobatic overhead clearances.
There was plenty of off-the-ball incidents with defender Ali Hussein Rehema going down clutching his face in the penalty area awaiting a free kick with the referee speaking to Al Qahtani but not taking the matter further.
Iraq, who had the better chances in the fiercely-contested exchanges, went close in the 28th minute when Karrar Jassim wriggled past two defenders and forced goalkeeper Yaser Al Mosailem to punch clear.
Al Qahtani had his only chance of the half when he made some space nearing half-time but blazed his shot well over the bar.
Iraq goalkeeper Noor Sabri made a flying save to prevent a screaming volley from Taiseer Al Jassam going in and the action switched to the other end where Al Mosailem made a double save to stop Mahmoud and then Hawar Mohammed from scoring.
Israeli Company Is New Pentagon Computer Security Supplier!
Simply Amazing...., just frigging amazing!
by Jeff Blankfort - July 30, 2007
The Israeli company for computer security Check Points has been appointed as the official supplier to the American Ministry of Defense. In particular, the company will supply American Federal agencies with a protection system for data stored on laptop computers. (Guysen.International.News) July 17, 2007.
Whatever one may think of the old Protocols of the the Learned Elders of Zion, the protocols of the current elders seem to be working very efficiently. Let's see. They control Congress and the White House, security at all our major airports, through the Israeli company Amdocs they manage the billing of 90% of US private telephone companies, and now they have a direct line into the computers of every federal agency because one may be assured that if they have a system, they know how to bypass it. Of course, by calling it "Check Points," that is equivalent to the Nazis of an earlier generation calling their school yards, "Concentration Camps." Different era, same mentality.
Source: ZioPedia.org
by Jeff Blankfort - July 30, 2007
The Israeli company for computer security Check Points has been appointed as the official supplier to the American Ministry of Defense. In particular, the company will supply American Federal agencies with a protection system for data stored on laptop computers. (Guysen.International.News) July 17, 2007.
Whatever one may think of the old Protocols of the the Learned Elders of Zion, the protocols of the current elders seem to be working very efficiently. Let's see. They control Congress and the White House, security at all our major airports, through the Israeli company Amdocs they manage the billing of 90% of US private telephone companies, and now they have a direct line into the computers of every federal agency because one may be assured that if they have a system, they know how to bypass it. Of course, by calling it "Check Points," that is equivalent to the Nazis of an earlier generation calling their school yards, "Concentration Camps." Different era, same mentality.
Source: ZioPedia.org
Americans pay for Israeli militarism
My Grandmother use to say: somethings is just a low down dirty shame. Yes, Grandma, and this is one of them. It doesn't matter how much money and weapons the US gives Israel, it will never be enough. Israel's will always have her hand out for more. It's amazing that American taxpayers remain silent while their hard earned dollars are being pissed away on the world's greatest welfare recipient.
Press TV News - July 29, 2007
The US has agreed a massive increase in its military aid to the Zionist regime in a move that signals US all-out support for Tel Aviv.
"In my last meeting with the president of the United States, we agreed that the aid would stand at 30 billion dollars over the next 10 years, meaning over three billion dollars a year, starting next year," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting.
Olmert described the new package as a considerable improvement and a very important element for what he called the security of Israel. Current US defense aid to Israel stands at 2.4 billion dollars a year.
"Other than the increase in aid, we received an explicit and detailed commitment to guarantee Israel's qualitative advantage over Arab states," said Olmert, whose approval ratings have sunk to single digits amid continuing anger at his government's handling of last summer's Lebanon war.
The sizeable hike to annual US defense and military aid to its closest Middle East ally was unveiled amid reports of a hefty US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, although Israeli politicians dismissed concerns of a new regional arms race.
Press TV News - July 29, 2007
The US has agreed a massive increase in its military aid to the Zionist regime in a move that signals US all-out support for Tel Aviv.
"In my last meeting with the president of the United States, we agreed that the aid would stand at 30 billion dollars over the next 10 years, meaning over three billion dollars a year, starting next year," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting.
Olmert described the new package as a considerable improvement and a very important element for what he called the security of Israel. Current US defense aid to Israel stands at 2.4 billion dollars a year.
"Other than the increase in aid, we received an explicit and detailed commitment to guarantee Israel's qualitative advantage over Arab states," said Olmert, whose approval ratings have sunk to single digits amid continuing anger at his government's handling of last summer's Lebanon war.
The sizeable hike to annual US defense and military aid to its closest Middle East ally was unveiled amid reports of a hefty US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, although Israeli politicians dismissed concerns of a new regional arms race.
Dear Congressman Conyers:
by Ted Lang - July 29, 2007The results of my having contacted our “elected representatives” are ZERO!
Of course your response was ZERO. Don't you know that Congress only responds to AIPAC and Christian Zionists?
What goes around comes around. I remember when The New York Times was struggling to suppress the monumental embarrassment of the Downing Street Memo, released by The Sunday Times in the UK on May 1, 2005. I’ll never forget that date because I supplied it to none other than Dr. Daniel Ellsberg on the occasion of his presentation detailing the Cheney-Bush administration’s lies that got US into Iraq. He paralleled those lies to the Gulf of Tonkin lies uttered by President Lyndon Johnson leading to the unnecessary deaths of 58,000 of our military in Vietnam. I called the date out to him from my seat in the third row left as he fumbled for it while delivering his presentation in an auditorium at William Patterson University in Wayne, NJ back in December 2005.
Although a die-hard Republican until the rise to power of the current Cheney-Bush dictatorship in America, approved and fully supported by the Democratic Party, I admitted in my e-mails and copied letters to Congressman Conyers that I had been a Republican, but my real political leanings were always that of a true constitution-oriented conservative. This meant the total rejection of the Clinton regime’s “living constitution.” We are now all experiencing the living constitution of Bill Clinton, which has empowered the criminal Cheney-Bush dictatorship and its Clintonesque interpretation of our nation’s rule of law as being only a “goddamned piece of paper.”
Explaining my former light right wing ties, now totally obnoxious and rejected by me for their having morphed into full-faced neoconservative domestic fascism in Cheney-Bush, I copied in Democratic Senators and my Republican Congressman in a January 2nd letter to Madam of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Here is the text of this former Republican’s letter:
Dear Madam Speaker:
I have been a Republican for over 40 years. Considering the egregious crimes perpetrated by our sitting president, the man I voted for in 2000, I am ashamed of myself, my country and the political party I have supported for so long and to which I have been so loyal.
President Bush has lied to America in his constitutionally mandated State of the Union message when he stated Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was developing nuclear capability, was connected to the 9/11 terrorist act, and provided training for terrorism. Brave American military personnel have lost life and limb for these lies. Some of those that have survived have lost their minds. My next door neighbor’s boy returned “uninjured” and committed suicide in the driveway of their former home. The people are my age and had no reason to move other than to leave their former tragic surroundings. They don’t even know I know this, and we never bring it up.
This unjust and totally unnecessary invasion hits very close to home. We have a township hero whose service and death are celebrated for the bravery that it represents. Won’t you please honor and replicate that service too for the American people?
President George Bush must be impeached for the lies that have caused 25,000 casualties for our military, as well as the needless deaths of over 600,000 Iraqis. We are now the most hated and cursed nation on the planet. And please reconsider your zest in silencing dissidents such as I have become with “hate crimes” legislation you and your party are proposing. It’s called freedom!
Your opposition to taking action where it is needed, and initiating action where it is not, will forever damage our nation and lead to its demise as well. I sincerely hope that you comprehend my sincerity in making these important requests for America and its people.
Respectfully,
Theodore E. Lang
I copied New Jersey Democratic Senators Lautenberg and Menendez [for whom I voted in the November 2006 elections], as well as do-nothing Clinton gun-control supporter, Republican Congressman Rodney P. Frelinghuysen. Only Senator Lautenberg responded, instructing me on the basic mechanics of impeachment that needed to be initiated by the House Judiciary Committee now totally controlled by Democratic Congressman John Conyers. Menendez, the first Democratic Senator I ever voted for, blew me off and never bothered to answer my letter. Republican Congressman Frelinghuysen, whose office staff I had worked with in the past to elect a Republican New Jersey State Senator, never bothered to answer either.
Since Democratic Senator Lautenberg did answer my memo, which was totally ignored and dismissed by Pelosi, the latter an obvious co-conspirator in the Cheney-Bush dictatorship, I answered Senator Lautenberg’s memo dated March 28th with a follow-up memo addressed directly to him, but copying Democratic Senator Menendez, Democratic Representatives Pelosi and Conyers, and Republican Representative Frelinghuysen. This time around, only Frelinghuysen responded with a two-sentence wimpy note thanking me for “my views.” Here’s the text of my second memo to the Congress persons dated April 30th, which also included my proposed articles of impeachment:
Dear Senator Lautenberg:
Thank you for your memo. Your explanation of the process is appreciated, and confirms my understanding of it.
As to the failure on the part of the members of the United States House of Representatives to introduce articles of impeachment, it is my belief that former Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, of the 4th District, Georgia, while still a member of the House, introduced articles before her departure. I believe this filing is still valid.
I urge you to contact Madam Speaker Pelosi to persuade her to reconsider her posture relative to initiating this very necessary process. She has not responded to the above-referenced memo I addressed to her which you were copied on. Her position, as well as her non-response, is quite disturbing to me and many other Americans as well.
The legitimization of American Government and its validation via the United States Constitution, its checks and balances, its separation of powers, is egregiously threatened by the continuing felonious activities of this sitting president. His violation of FISA provisions and unwarranted spying on Americans by the NSA constitutes a felony. His lies in the SOTU address led US into an unjust, unnecessary and unconstitutional war and a deadly occupation.
His violation of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions invalidates treaties signed and entered into by the United States as per Article VI of the Constitution, and invalidates also the Senate’s “advise and consent” function as established in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, which requires approval of two thirds of the Senators present. His “treaties” with Mexico and Canada fostering a North American Union are similarly unconstitutional and in violation of his duties as established in the same Article.
His documented order to block security clearances to stop an investigation within the Department of Justice while expediting the same manner of clearances to investigate “leaks” of his criminal activities to the press can only be interpreted as an obstruction of justice.
Our government’s legitimacy can be re-established, and our image abroad restored, only by his impeachment. It is a long overdue, and an extremely vital “get well plan” for America. Our nation is less secure than ever because of his deliberate and reckless disregard for laws and agreements entered into with the international community. I strongly urge that you actively pursue impeachment from your political vantage point fully understanding your legal limitations.
Considering the critical and dangerous nature of the nation’s unstable political circumstances, as well as the growing public resentment of politics, the media, and other venues normally providing government corrective action now absent, I intend to circulate this request, as well as prior correspondence, and introduce all into the public domain. I have a platform. I am advising you of this as I am compelled by my personal ethical standards to first do so. I do so very much appreciate your response, as other elected officials I have contacted, including my Congressman, have ignored me.
Again, my thanks for the courtesy of your reply.
Respectfully,
Theodore E. Lang
The results of my having contacted our “elected representatives” are ZERO! I offer now that the most powerful representative of the people of the United States of America is a black man: Congressman and Head of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers of the 14th Congressional District of Michigan. And even more powerful, from a political party point of view is, Congresswoman and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, of the 8th Congressional District of California. Both are Democrats. And both have rebounded and taken control from the “right wing fascist and neo-conservative” criminals and gangsters who have hijacked our government in both the Congress and the White House, and who have indirectly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of brave and loyal members of our military and caused them to massacre hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in far-away lands for no acceptable or discernable national gain.
Remember when Congressman Conyers desperately sought to expose and investigate the Downing Street Memo. The New York Times suppressed the existence of the Memo and the Washington Post denigrated Congressman Conyers efforts and then smeared him as being “anti-Semitic.” Congressman James Sensenbrenner demonstrated fascist power by banishing Conyers’ panel of inquiry to the basement of the House Building, used advantageously by neoconservative Washington Post propagandist Dana Milbank to belittle Conyers’ sincere efforts to get at the truth. But now, in retrospect, were these efforts really sincere, or did Milbank and the Post hit the political nail on the head?
And then what of the letter composed by Conyers and signed by 30 House members considering a Bush impeachment dating back to March of 2006? Is this effort now to be dismissed because the capability to impeach has been achieved? Of what value is a capability which provides the means to solve a potentially fatal massive national political problem if only its achievement is savored, yet the need for action is egregiously avoided? Conyers has repeatedly bemoaned his numerical disadvantage in the fascist/neoconservative-dominated Cheney-Bush-subservient Congress. Now, a black man and a woman in a Democratic Party-controlled Congress can bring this fascist dictatorship crashing down and avoid the next devastating and probably final world war. What’s the hold up? Partisan politics! That will soon become a non-issue. It’s time to rein in the Cheney-Bush dictatorship of America and its subservient members in Congress!
We can now all fully understand the fears and the logic our Founding Fathers on both sides of the “aisle” voiced when articulating the threat of political parties and their devastating influence upon the rule of law and the rights of the people. Political perspectives were back then what they no longer are today; specifically, a distinction as to whether a strong central government is required to protect the individual freedoms of its citizens, or strong irrevocable individual rights were to be guaranteed thereby fostering beneficent government answerable to the people. The great compromise between these political philosophies produced our Constitution. Today, the contest is between the moneyed interests laying claim to both political parties while the interests of the people are completely ignored and outside the equation.
Congressman Conyers had sent me e-mails pleading for support. I answered his e-mails explaining my former Republican affiliation. It seemed he didn’t care. But that was before the November 2006 election landslide enjoyed by Democrats. Republicans, true conservatives, and libertarians, began to embrace the Democratic Party because they simply detested the Cheney-Bush dictatorship and how it has trashed our civil liberties, our Constitution and our military. An Atlanta Progressive News posting of March 10, 2006, entitled, “30 US Reps for Bush Impeachment Inquiry” referenced Conyers’ memo, which was signed by 30 Democrats. Writer and APN Editor Matthew Cardinale begins: “30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.”
Cardinale continues: “‘There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,’ US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.” Of course, we now all know the Vice President Cheney engineered these effronteries.
The article notes, “‘We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’ resolution,’ Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News. ‘The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,’ Goodman said.”
A sense of growing frustration magnified by an increasingly growing number of divergent grassroots political philosophies combined in November, 2006, providing the Democratic Party with a momentum not soon again to be replicated. Yet the Democratic National Committee seems committed to ensuring the status quo. It was my intent next to write directly to House Judiciary Chairman, Representative John Conyers, to encourage his promised actions referencing precisely this context, a mixed bag of disgruntled Republicans, real conservatives and libertarians. Sadly, however, I must now table that effort as it has been overtaken by recent events.
Cindy Sheehan has paid her dues and by far more than most Americans. Having lost her son needlessly for Cheney’s vision of empire, her awkward meeting with the boy president left her vacant of both understanding and emotional relief. Was the “Commander Guy” for real? For such a high level position, a position which in fact is that of the most powerful politician in the world, Sheehan was perplexed. As a bright, alert, and articulate individual with a mystery to solve, the failure to do so leaving an incurable void in her psyche, she pursued a course of action that led to her camping out in a roadside ditch, being arrested numerous times by police and SWAT Gestapo, being beat up by Bloomberg’s NYPD Nazis, and then being shunned and denigrated by “liberal” and “progressive” journalistic venues with neither attribute. And now the latest and most despicable assault and insult of her brief career as a true American Patriot: being arrested once again by the Capital Gestapo. But this time, it was at the request of none other than the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, Jr.
Is this the same Congressman John Conyers, Jr., who whined and cried foul when he was banished to the House Basement to conduct his Downing Street Memo panel of inquiry? Is this the same John Conyers who composed the memo with the signatures of 30 Democrats? Is this the same Conyers who in his 30-signature memo wrote: “I have a Citizen Co-sponsorship page on my website where over 42,000 people have added their names to the 30 Members of Congress calling for the creation of a special committee to investigate possible impeachable offenses. My website also has a form for people to write a letter-to-the-editor for their local newspaper. It is grassroots activity like this, and the efforts of thousands of others that has led to greater awareness of and support for my resolution.”
Conyers behavior in having Cindy Sheehan not only thrown out of his office but also arrested shows this charlatan’s loyalty to only the Democratic National Committee, the latter hoping that revenge can manifest itself in a landslide 2008 election for Democrats. But the Democrats are forgetting two things: first, Cheney may launch World War III, and second, they’re forgetting America has a real choice this time around in the candidacy of a real Congressman, Ron Paul.
Write “Congressman” Conyers a letter? I think not!
Dear Congressman Conyers: Go to hell!
Recreating the United States National Identity
William C. Carlotti - July 29, 2007When we read articles like the one that informs us that the Iraqi oil workers have a union with 26,000 members you have to wonder what the reality of the situation was in Iraq during the time when Saddam Hussein was its President.
Iraq’s current quisling government is about to give away the store to the United States based international corporate oil and finance conglomerates. The oil union, that evidently became organized and operated during Hussein’s reign, is opposing the deal largely because of the secrecy surrounding it and the available information about the unfavorable returns proposed in the deal for the Iraqi people.
Like the man says, “the devil is in the details”.
In the meantime, the United States killing machine is continuing its slaughter of innocents by means of its “Operation Arrowhead” in Baquba, the capital city of Diyala province in southern Iraq. The slaughter is proceeding at such a pace that the city’s morgue refrigerators are unable to handle the flow of corpses.
The lack of electricity to operate the refrigerators has resulted in the stench of the rotting dead to be discernable for as far as fifty yards away. The result is that it has become necessary to create mass graves to dispose of the dead. The flow of corpses was compounded by the fact that the United States killing machine ordered the restricted movement of ambulances during “Arrowhead” slaughter operations then lifted the restrictions.
The resistance to the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq is going to continue as long as the occupation continues. If the nearly half century resistance to the Jewish Israeli occupation of the Palestine beyond the internationally recognized 1967 border between Palestine and Israel is any example of the endurance of the resistance, the slaughter of innocents by the United States killing machine will continue to produce an unwieldy number of corpses that can only be understood in the context of similar genocidal processes.
Fabricating the resistance as "Saudi", or "Sunni", or "Iranian", or "Shiite", or "Syrian", or "Iranian", or the amorphous "Al Qaeda", or whatever, ignores the fact that the United States killing machine has slaughtered nearly a million Iraqi civilians. It is their relatives, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. that are the resistance to the continued killing and destruction of the Iraqi economy, society, culture, and people.
There are those that can peddle the various conspiracy theories promulgated by the Bush/Cheney neocon cabal-led United States government in the corporate media if they want. It only serves, however, to further expose the targeted victims of the grandiose killer schemes that are being promoted to expand the continued slaughter of innocents. In the context of the fact that this nation achieved its national identity through centuries of mass murder, the enslavement of millions, and the theft of a continent as it peddled the inalienable rights of man as its mantle, nothing has changed in this latest recreation of its identity.
Something Happened on 9-11
Sheila Samples - July 29, 2007Strange how something happens and you're unaware that it "registers" with you. Later, perhaps, something will trigger that buried memory and things begin to fall into place.
Something happened on 9-11.
The day began with CNN's Wolf Blitzer frantically reporting that planes had smashed into Buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. They stood there, so tall that the smoke billowing from their upper floors could be seen for 20 miles. The scene was shocking, grisly, and the horror was broken only by the further news that a plane had rammed into the Pentagon. Death and destruction everywhere. Happening now -- right before our eyes.
In an amazing "Breaking News" alert, CNN Pentagon reporter Jamie McEntyre shot down Blitzer's "plane hit the Pentagon" report. McEntyre said flatly, "Although it may appear that way, from my close-up inspection, there is NO evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only pieces left are small enough you can pick them up in your hand. There are no pieces lying around that would indicate a plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."
Whoop! Happening now...Quick! Back to Ground Zero...Just in time to see WTC 2, then WTC 1, sink eerily into their own footprints -- tons and tons of cement blasting instantly into a fine powder, rolling majestically through the streets like an Iraqi sandstorm. Anyone who had ever seen one -- even one -- controlled demolition knew without a doubt what he had just witnessed.
But no time for that -- yet another plane had rammed into a Pennsylvania field with such force there was just a smoking pit at the site with the debris scattered over an eight-mile area...
But wait! Don't ask! Still happening now! We're treated to yet another controlled demolition display when WTC 7, struck by no plane, inexplicably collapsed in exactly the same fashion as the first two buildings.
Within hours, CNN had pinned this four-pronged attack on our "homeland" on Saudi billionnaire and former CIA operative Osama Bin Laden, and was parading the photographs of 19 terrorists -- 15 from Saudi Arabia -- non-stop across our TV screens. Never mind that in the ensuing weeks, most of them were found alive and well and minding their own business in various parts of the world. For now, they are vicious killers, four of them wannabe pilots who flunked out of flight school, and conveniently left their flight manuals in their cars at the airport.
Then, according to Blitzer, these amazing Boeing stunt pilots, armed with deadly box cutters, evaded multiple layers of airport security, outsmarted the entire intercept and identification operations of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and destroyed 2,974 innocent human beings.
It wasn't long until McEntyre, his feet back on the ground and marching orders in hand, responded to Blitzer's question about his earlier comments -- "Web sites often take statements out of context, such as the exchange from CNN, in which I, myself appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building. In fact, Wolf," McEntyre continued, while rapidly pulling my trigger, "I was answering a question about an eyewitness account that a plane had crashed short of the Pentagon, and I was making the point that, no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon."
That's what happened on 9-11. Throughout the day, Blitzer narrated each step over and over again -- a grisly, staccato date-rape drug seared into our national consciousness...unimaginable heartbreak...horror like none we've ever seen before...devastating grief...incredible force of crashing airplanes...unbelievable horror...people running for their lives in desperation through massive debris...Stay tuned -- dramatic new pictures of people being swallowed by the smoke and flames...happening now...
By the time the sun set, our absentee president concluded his day-long zig-zag dash from one hidey-hole to another, and was back at the helm of this shaken nation whose citizens, thanks in large part to CNN, were in the throes of universal post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). That evening, in his address to a paralyzed world, Bush, leaving no doubt he was answering the call of the Almighty, declared war on the terrorists. That evening, Bush, and those like Dick Cheney who control him, began waging war on the terrified.
With the enthusiastic support of CNN, Bush has relentlessly used the singed flesh of the people slaughtered on 9-11 to justify the monstrous lies that took us into war, and the lies that keep us there. Since that day he has ruled through signing statements and Executive Orders, setting himself above the US Constitution, the Justice System, the entire government. He IS the law -- the Decider, the Privileged Executive, the Tyrant.
Some say one branch of our corporate mainstream media is neither better nor worse than the other branches. I disagree. Perhaps it's because CNN is the Ministry of Truth's chief operative, panting for war, death, and profit, lying -- "catapaulting Bush's propaganda," -- while portraying itself as "The Most Trusted Name in News." Or maybe it's just when the Mockingbirds come home to roost, they all seem to light on the CNN branch.
CNN is very adept at transmitting fear and lies, fradulent polls, and false-flag alarms over and over and over again to cover up the crimes, treason and mass murder committed by the Bush administration. Blitzer rigidly controls what is aired -- spun -- on CNN as news in his "Situation Room" in the late afternoon and evening. The rest of the 24-hour cycle is spent in news-team giggling, vacuous coverage of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and sex predators on the MySpace website. Did you know that yesterday there was an explosion in Dallas, a truck turned over in North Carolina, peanuts can kill you, obesity is contagious, and a cat roaming the halls of a nursing home points out who is next to die?
But this absurd little Machiavellian fool and the servile CNN courtiers who obediently spin his stupid slogans fail to realize that our freedom is not theirs to destroy. Our children are not Bush's, as political philosopher Etienne de la Boetie so eloquently wrote in 1552-1553, "to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance."
Something happened on 9-11 -- something so horrible that the American people acquiesced for a time in their own subjection.
They will not succumb to their own destruction. Enough is enough.
-###-
July 29, 2007 Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at http://www.blogger.com/rsamples@sirinet.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
