You’ve got to hand it to the Israelis, they really know how to get things done. We here in the US need to take a few notes. For instance, when they’re faced in their Occupied Territories of the West Bank with the kind of problems we face in ours in Iraq, they have no problem with massacres, as in Jenin, or with shooting schoolchildren. And as for large-scale population problems, why aren’t we blanketing the Sunni triangle with cluster bombs, like the Israelis did in South Lebanon?
But what the Israelis really excel at is bringing war criminals to justice, like for instance, Adolph Eichmann. With brazen disregard for the sovereignty of Argentina, Eichmann was kidnapped there by Mossad agents in 1960, and brought back to Jerusalem to stand trial for his part in transporting Jews to the concentration camps in World War II.
Eichmann’s trial was telecast worldwide. After fourteen weeks of testimony, with more than 1,500 documents, 100 prosecution witnesses, and dozens of defense depositions delivered by diplomatic couriers from sixteen nations, Eichmann was found guilty, and was subsequently hanged.
That’s the ticket for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who after four years of no doubt rather stressful interrogation has confessed to being the mastermind of 9/11, as well as many other crimes. Had we kept after it, he most likely would have confessed to have assassinated JFK as well, and possibly to being Jack the Ripper.
But be that as it may, it’s time for the whole story to come out. Bring KSM to New York, put him on trial. Let the world’s media watch. Of course, this would mean defense lawyers, who would get to cross-examine witnesses, look into the connections with the Pakistani ISI, and how KSM managed to get the air defenses to abandon all standard operating procedures on that day, and so on and on. The whole official government conspiracy theory would have to be defended in a court of law.
And why wouldn’t the United States jump at this chance to bring this criminal to justice, just as Israel did with Eichmann? Why hasn’t KSM been brought to the US? Why hasn’t he been allowed his day in court? Because there is a lot more to this story, and a lot more people involved, and those people don’t want this story to be told, and they are in positions to make sure it doesn’t get told.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
America First was right
Can you name the largest, most broadly based anti-war organization in American history? Do you know the percentage of the American people that supported its aims during its short life? Although the phrase “anti-war” is now inseparable from the movement opposed to the Vietnam War, the answer to the first question is the America First Committee, founded in 1940 to counter the massive interventionist propaganda of those in favor of involving America in the latest European war. And unlike the Vietnam anti-war movement, which slowly built support, at the time America First was organized, an astounding 80% of the American people fully supported keeping America out of the war.
America First attracted liberals and conservatives, pacifists and generals, all united by their belief that Europe’s war was not America’s war. But more than that, opponents of intervention recognized that democracy at home was more threatened by going to war than by a victorious Hitler.
From the America First Creed:
“I believe in the preservation of this Republic. Embroiled again in European affairs, we shall lose it. We shall be destroying the heritage our fathers fought for and sacrificed to leave us. In an effort to destroy totalitarianism, we shall become totalitarian ourselves.”
Back in those days, there were still senators who could eloquently call the executive branch to heel, as did Republican Hiram Johnson of California, speaking May 31, 1941:
“We have seen, little by little, power concentrated in one man’s hands. We have soothed our perturbed spirits by pretending that those powers were needed to be thus concentrated in order to meet the crisis, but when you are meeting crises on practically all lands of every continent, what will become, the ordinary citizen will ask, of the good old United States? … Is it not plain that all this fighting on every shore, and in practically every country will mean but one thing, perhaps the destruction of a dictatorship in other lands, but the certainty of the creation of a dictatorship in our own.”
America was at a crossroads, as the American aviator and homegrown hero Charles Lindbergh pointed out:
“We are faced with the stark fact that we have been carried to the verge of war against the opposition of a majority of our people—a war not of defense, but of attack; a war not in America, but in Europe and Asia… The question arises whether we any longer have a representative system of government in this country, whether we any longer have any right to know about, and to vote upon, the fundamental policies of our nation… Freedom for us lies today in the question of whether or not the action of our Government in America is controlled by the will of our people. If we are represented in Washington, we are free men; but if we are ruled by Washington, we are not.”
And Lindbergh again, in a speech he was scheduled to deliver on December 12th, 1941:
“There is one word that describes better than all others our danger in America. It is not invasion; it is not intervention; it is not Germany or Russia or Japan; that word is subterfuge—subterfuge in our government, subterfuge in our political campaigns…Our nation has been led to war with promises of peace. It is now being led toward dictatorship with promises of democracy.”
Lindbergh never gave that speech because of a stunning example of subterfuge.
Roosevelt wanted to take us to war, but Congress would not let him, because the country was so opposed to the war (a steady 80% in the polls). Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor (see Day of Deceit for a full report on how Roosevelt allowed the attack to take place, refusing to alert the Navy that the attack was coming). And in the war hysteria that followed, America First was dissolved, its ideals vanquished. The America its members tried to hold onto was lost.
Roosevelt pulled us out of the Depression by putting the American economy on a permanent war footing, and the monster has grown ever since. In the face of an American public always hesitant to sacrifice American blood and treasure on the altar of the imperial oligarchy, every now and then new Pearl Harbors need to happen, like the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” and of course, most recently, the inside job of 9/11. (Wouldn’t you like to see a man like Charles Lindbergh investigate the truth of that day, rather than shills like Hamilton and Kean?)
But imagine what might have been. Imagine removing the economic incentive for war. That’s exactly what supporters of America First tried to do as far back as 1934:
“Through the pressure of veterans’ groups and others, the antiwar feeling of this period took the form of a demand to take the profits out of war, which emerged in Congress as the McSwain war profits bill. This measure (passed by the House but not the Senate) provided for wartime commandeering of industrial plants and executives, for price freezing, for a 100% tax on profits ‘shown to be due to wartime conditions’ and for the regulation of business. The bill obviously was so full of loopholes that a real war profits control bill was introduced and endorsed by practically half the Senate, a measure designed to take all but $10,000 of individual earnings per year during wartime.”
Do you think the Carlyle Group would stay in business for a paltry 10K per head?
The members and supporters of America First foresaw the future.
Dr. John A O’Brien, University of Notre Dame professor, June 24th, 1941:
“You and I have a faith to keep with those who gave us America. We are trustees of liberties which we alone can keep alive. Not in China, Russia, Africa, or other foreign lands—which neither know nor want our way of life—but here, here in a free and independent United States.”
Those who led us into war, who now lead us into wars, those who promote perpetual war, have not kept that faith.
Source:
A Story of America First: The Men and Women Who Opposed US Intervention in World War II, Ruth Sarles, 2003
America First attracted liberals and conservatives, pacifists and generals, all united by their belief that Europe’s war was not America’s war. But more than that, opponents of intervention recognized that democracy at home was more threatened by going to war than by a victorious Hitler.
From the America First Creed:
“I believe in the preservation of this Republic. Embroiled again in European affairs, we shall lose it. We shall be destroying the heritage our fathers fought for and sacrificed to leave us. In an effort to destroy totalitarianism, we shall become totalitarian ourselves.”
Back in those days, there were still senators who could eloquently call the executive branch to heel, as did Republican Hiram Johnson of California, speaking May 31, 1941:
“We have seen, little by little, power concentrated in one man’s hands. We have soothed our perturbed spirits by pretending that those powers were needed to be thus concentrated in order to meet the crisis, but when you are meeting crises on practically all lands of every continent, what will become, the ordinary citizen will ask, of the good old United States? … Is it not plain that all this fighting on every shore, and in practically every country will mean but one thing, perhaps the destruction of a dictatorship in other lands, but the certainty of the creation of a dictatorship in our own.”
America was at a crossroads, as the American aviator and homegrown hero Charles Lindbergh pointed out:
“We are faced with the stark fact that we have been carried to the verge of war against the opposition of a majority of our people—a war not of defense, but of attack; a war not in America, but in Europe and Asia… The question arises whether we any longer have a representative system of government in this country, whether we any longer have any right to know about, and to vote upon, the fundamental policies of our nation… Freedom for us lies today in the question of whether or not the action of our Government in America is controlled by the will of our people. If we are represented in Washington, we are free men; but if we are ruled by Washington, we are not.”
And Lindbergh again, in a speech he was scheduled to deliver on December 12th, 1941:
“There is one word that describes better than all others our danger in America. It is not invasion; it is not intervention; it is not Germany or Russia or Japan; that word is subterfuge—subterfuge in our government, subterfuge in our political campaigns…Our nation has been led to war with promises of peace. It is now being led toward dictatorship with promises of democracy.”
Lindbergh never gave that speech because of a stunning example of subterfuge.
Roosevelt wanted to take us to war, but Congress would not let him, because the country was so opposed to the war (a steady 80% in the polls). Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor (see Day of Deceit for a full report on how Roosevelt allowed the attack to take place, refusing to alert the Navy that the attack was coming). And in the war hysteria that followed, America First was dissolved, its ideals vanquished. The America its members tried to hold onto was lost.
Roosevelt pulled us out of the Depression by putting the American economy on a permanent war footing, and the monster has grown ever since. In the face of an American public always hesitant to sacrifice American blood and treasure on the altar of the imperial oligarchy, every now and then new Pearl Harbors need to happen, like the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” and of course, most recently, the inside job of 9/11. (Wouldn’t you like to see a man like Charles Lindbergh investigate the truth of that day, rather than shills like Hamilton and Kean?)
But imagine what might have been. Imagine removing the economic incentive for war. That’s exactly what supporters of America First tried to do as far back as 1934:
“Through the pressure of veterans’ groups and others, the antiwar feeling of this period took the form of a demand to take the profits out of war, which emerged in Congress as the McSwain war profits bill. This measure (passed by the House but not the Senate) provided for wartime commandeering of industrial plants and executives, for price freezing, for a 100% tax on profits ‘shown to be due to wartime conditions’ and for the regulation of business. The bill obviously was so full of loopholes that a real war profits control bill was introduced and endorsed by practically half the Senate, a measure designed to take all but $10,000 of individual earnings per year during wartime.”
Do you think the Carlyle Group would stay in business for a paltry 10K per head?
The members and supporters of America First foresaw the future.
Dr. John A O’Brien, University of Notre Dame professor, June 24th, 1941:
“You and I have a faith to keep with those who gave us America. We are trustees of liberties which we alone can keep alive. Not in China, Russia, Africa, or other foreign lands—which neither know nor want our way of life—but here, here in a free and independent United States.”
Those who led us into war, who now lead us into wars, those who promote perpetual war, have not kept that faith.
Source:
A Story of America First: The Men and Women Who Opposed US Intervention in World War II, Ruth Sarles, 2003
Friday, March 2, 2007
Advocating the non-violent overthrow of government
Congress has the right idea in repealing the 2002 resolution that permitted the Bush crime syndicate to invade and occupy Iraq. The premises were fraudulent at the time, have been conclusively proven to be so now after four disastrous years, and as none other than Ted Kennedy has pointed out, the so-called “war” now bears no resemblance to what was sold the Congress by the current administration in 2002.
However, even though this is a necessary and vital first step, it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Just as the Iraq military adventure is not the war authorized by Congress, this so-called “government” is not the one authorized and constituted by the veterans of the American revolution.
The American government was expressly designed to replace the tyranny of a King and a corporation, the East India Company, over the people. Sadly, their hopes for the republic have not been realized. America has become the Empire that our Founders fought against.
Even more unfortunately, there seems no remedy through the system. The scoundrels can’t be voted out of office because they own the voting machines that “count” the votes. The President can’t be impeached because too many in Congress are complicit in his crimes. The media can’t rouse the public to action because it’s a subsidiary of the corporate criminal syndicates.
Our only hope may be a bloodless coup. You’ve had your Velvet revolution in the former Czechoslovakia. The Orange revolution in Ukraine. The Cedar revolution in Lebanon. It’s time for the Red, White, and Blue revolution in America. We need a new Constitutional Convention. We need a real investigation of the crimes of Sept 11, 2001. We need a new Nuremberg trial for the war criminals that promoted the Iraq war. We need corporate money out of the government. We the people need to resume control.
However, even though this is a necessary and vital first step, it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Just as the Iraq military adventure is not the war authorized by Congress, this so-called “government” is not the one authorized and constituted by the veterans of the American revolution.
The American government was expressly designed to replace the tyranny of a King and a corporation, the East India Company, over the people. Sadly, their hopes for the republic have not been realized. America has become the Empire that our Founders fought against.
Even more unfortunately, there seems no remedy through the system. The scoundrels can’t be voted out of office because they own the voting machines that “count” the votes. The President can’t be impeached because too many in Congress are complicit in his crimes. The media can’t rouse the public to action because it’s a subsidiary of the corporate criminal syndicates.
Our only hope may be a bloodless coup. You’ve had your Velvet revolution in the former Czechoslovakia. The Orange revolution in Ukraine. The Cedar revolution in Lebanon. It’s time for the Red, White, and Blue revolution in America. We need a new Constitutional Convention. We need a real investigation of the crimes of Sept 11, 2001. We need a new Nuremberg trial for the war criminals that promoted the Iraq war. We need corporate money out of the government. We the people need to resume control.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Cheney’s visit boosts troop morale
Vice-President Dick Cheney paid a surprise visit to the troops in Iraq on his way back from the Far East. “It was pretty amazing,” said Marine Lance Corporal Cannon Fodder. “He suited up just like the rest of us and came along as we made a sweep through Anbar province.”
Cheney, who prohibited the press from the mission, said he “just wanted to see what the situation was on the ground.” The unit with Cheney came under fire as they entered Fallujah, and the Vice-President returned fire from a forward position until the rest of the unit could take cover. “I’ve always respected Mr. Cheney as a man of selfless dedication and conviction,” said the unit’s commander, “but I had no idea he would demonstrate such bravery in combat.”
Later in the day, when a suspected terrorist refused to cooperate, the Vice-President took over the interrogation and applied a battery of stress techniques, short of torture, until the suspect began to name names.
At the end of the day’s mission, Cheney gave an inspirational talk that repeatedly brought the Marines to their feet, in a performance that veterans compared to the likes of General George Patton. Back in the nation’s capital, the Vice-President cut short any talk of a medal and downplayed the incident, saying only that one of his great regrets in life was that other priorities prevented him from serving his country during the Vietnam conflict. His nation-wide approval ratings, already high, soared to their highest level since the 9/11 attacks, especially after he announced that he was donating all the proceeds from his Halliburton stock to a private fund set up to care for Iraq war casualties and their families.
Cheney, who prohibited the press from the mission, said he “just wanted to see what the situation was on the ground.” The unit with Cheney came under fire as they entered Fallujah, and the Vice-President returned fire from a forward position until the rest of the unit could take cover. “I’ve always respected Mr. Cheney as a man of selfless dedication and conviction,” said the unit’s commander, “but I had no idea he would demonstrate such bravery in combat.”
Later in the day, when a suspected terrorist refused to cooperate, the Vice-President took over the interrogation and applied a battery of stress techniques, short of torture, until the suspect began to name names.
At the end of the day’s mission, Cheney gave an inspirational talk that repeatedly brought the Marines to their feet, in a performance that veterans compared to the likes of General George Patton. Back in the nation’s capital, the Vice-President cut short any talk of a medal and downplayed the incident, saying only that one of his great regrets in life was that other priorities prevented him from serving his country during the Vietnam conflict. His nation-wide approval ratings, already high, soared to their highest level since the 9/11 attacks, especially after he announced that he was donating all the proceeds from his Halliburton stock to a private fund set up to care for Iraq war casualties and their families.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Terrorists are not cockroaches
The key theme of the advertising campaign for the so-called “War on Terror” is based on a false analogy. The product currently sold to the American consumer might be called
the extermination model of counter-terrorism. In this model, the world is analogous to a house, in which some of the occupants (the West) have noticed an infestation of cockroaches (terrorists) in the kitchen (the Middle East.) According to this model, it's better to kill the vermin in the kitchen, before they spread into the bedroom (America), and to not stop killing until the whole nest is wiped out and the house is free of cockroaches.
The main problems with this model are that in terms of the present world situation, a) there were very few cockroaches in the kitchen until the exterminators showed up, and b) the more killing the exterminators do, the more the cockroaches reproduce.
A model that better explains what we actually see happening might be called the immune system response model. In this model, Iraq is the human patient, which the West has been operating on for decades. The worse the patient grows under the doctor's care, the more care the doctor gives the patient. At present, the doctor is attempting to transplant an artificial heart while the patient lays comatose on the operating table. In large part, what are called “terrorists” are the white blood cells that the immune system is using to attempt to reject the foreign organ. The more the doctor attempts to force the patient's body to accept the artificial heart, the more white blood cells the patient's immune system creates to fight it.
The only victory possible for the doctor is to completely destroy the patient's immune system, after which the patient will be completely dependent on the technological support necessary (the American occupation) to keep the artificial heart pumping.
the extermination model of counter-terrorism. In this model, the world is analogous to a house, in which some of the occupants (the West) have noticed an infestation of cockroaches (terrorists) in the kitchen (the Middle East.) According to this model, it's better to kill the vermin in the kitchen, before they spread into the bedroom (America), and to not stop killing until the whole nest is wiped out and the house is free of cockroaches.
The main problems with this model are that in terms of the present world situation, a) there were very few cockroaches in the kitchen until the exterminators showed up, and b) the more killing the exterminators do, the more the cockroaches reproduce.
A model that better explains what we actually see happening might be called the immune system response model. In this model, Iraq is the human patient, which the West has been operating on for decades. The worse the patient grows under the doctor's care, the more care the doctor gives the patient. At present, the doctor is attempting to transplant an artificial heart while the patient lays comatose on the operating table. In large part, what are called “terrorists” are the white blood cells that the immune system is using to attempt to reject the foreign organ. The more the doctor attempts to force the patient's body to accept the artificial heart, the more white blood cells the patient's immune system creates to fight it.
The only victory possible for the doctor is to completely destroy the patient's immune system, after which the patient will be completely dependent on the technological support necessary (the American occupation) to keep the artificial heart pumping.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Secret decoder ring
I used to think that Bush was simply lying, but since I found the secret decoder ring, I realize that’s not strictly accurate. It’s more like he’s talking in code when he says things like “We are fighting to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.”
For instance, take the word “people”. When Bush uses this term, what he really means is, “corporation”, which is not such a stretch because after all a corporation is now somehow considered a “person” whose rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, just like you and me and other “people”. Thus, in any sentence where “people’s” freedoms are being celebrated, what Bush really means is, a corporation’s freedom to operate without government intervention or oversight.
Then there’s the word, “Iraqi”. Because Bush sees everything through a corporate lens, what Bush means by this is, foreign shareholders in the Iraqi economy. Thus, because a key objective of the Iraq invasion and occupation was the takeover of the Iraqi economy by global corporations, what Bush means when he says we are fighting to “bring freedom to the Iraqi people”, is that we are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.
Then there’s the word “we”, by which Bush means “you”. When Bush says, “we” are fighting, he doesn’t mean himself or his family or anybody’s children that he knows. He means you and your children. Thus, the reason we are in Iraq? “You and your children are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.”
Let freedom ring.
For instance, take the word “people”. When Bush uses this term, what he really means is, “corporation”, which is not such a stretch because after all a corporation is now somehow considered a “person” whose rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, just like you and me and other “people”. Thus, in any sentence where “people’s” freedoms are being celebrated, what Bush really means is, a corporation’s freedom to operate without government intervention or oversight.
Then there’s the word, “Iraqi”. Because Bush sees everything through a corporate lens, what Bush means by this is, foreign shareholders in the Iraqi economy. Thus, because a key objective of the Iraq invasion and occupation was the takeover of the Iraqi economy by global corporations, what Bush means when he says we are fighting to “bring freedom to the Iraqi people”, is that we are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.
Then there’s the word “we”, by which Bush means “you”. When Bush says, “we” are fighting, he doesn’t mean himself or his family or anybody’s children that he knows. He means you and your children. Thus, the reason we are in Iraq? “You and your children are fighting to allow global corporations to operate freely in Iraq.”
Let freedom ring.
George crosses the Delaware
What a joke to see George W. Bush strutting at Mount Vernon on George Washington’s birthday, attempting to link the Revolutionary War to Bush’s current military adventures. George Washington was a war hero, fighting to birth a new nation to be governed by and for the people. George W. Bush is a war criminal, fighting to make the world safe for predatory trans-national corporations.
In the speech somebody wrote for him, Bush tried to make a case that Washington would have supported Bush’s wars of aggression, by quoting the following: “My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom.” But which side does the historically-impaired current president think Washington would have been on?
The American revolution was fought to free the American colonists from the yoke of not only King George but the East India Company, the largest corporation of its day. Is there any doubt that George W. Bush, the privileged scion of inherited wealth, would have been a Tory, on the side of the King and corporation?
Washington and his contemporaries would have recognized what America is doing now as exactly analogous to what the British were doing in their day, maintaining an empire through force of arms and economic policies that favored the imperial nation. Our soldiers in Iraq are much more like the redcoats than the “ragged Continental army”. If George Washington were alive today, Bush would not be standing in his shadow but pinned under his boot.
In the speech somebody wrote for him, Bush tried to make a case that Washington would have supported Bush’s wars of aggression, by quoting the following: “My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom.” But which side does the historically-impaired current president think Washington would have been on?
The American revolution was fought to free the American colonists from the yoke of not only King George but the East India Company, the largest corporation of its day. Is there any doubt that George W. Bush, the privileged scion of inherited wealth, would have been a Tory, on the side of the King and corporation?
Washington and his contemporaries would have recognized what America is doing now as exactly analogous to what the British were doing in their day, maintaining an empire through force of arms and economic policies that favored the imperial nation. Our soldiers in Iraq are much more like the redcoats than the “ragged Continental army”. If George Washington were alive today, Bush would not be standing in his shadow but pinned under his boot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
