IT'S ABOUT TIME! "Time," that is, the TIME magazine exert even a MINIMAL EFFORT to present American readers and citizens with the truth 6 long years into the bloody, amazingly incompetent, and astoundingly corrupt era of the George W. Bush - Dick Cheney led "Global War on Terror," where the ONLY bet that Las Vegas oddsmakers would pay off on from 2001 is "In six years, George Bush and Dick Cheney will create MILLIONS of new potential enemies who hate America enough to risk their lives attacking American civilians and/or soldiers; and in the process of creating those millions of "Hate America!" enemies, the Bush-Cheney administration will drive America's life-long friends and allies to the brink of disgust and rejection."
And, amazingly enough, ALL that TIME magazine had to do to dramatically switch course - from overt, craven, abject administration apologists and whitewashers, to 'truth-tellers" - is to start publishing stories that use common sense to examine the facts that the Bush-Cheney White House, their Departmen of Defense, and their 'Justice" department, and other official, quasi-official, and non-official organs present to us, American readers and world citizens, every day.
For example, the Department of Defense press office is an "official" Bush administration PR organization; and the "Swift Boat Liars Against Kerry" political-action group in the 2004 election was an "unofficial" Bush administration PR organ. The later, while not OFFICIALLY connected to the Bush White House and Bush-Cheney reelection campaign; would have STOPPED promoting their "Kerry is a Traitor!" PR campaign in a New York second if the White House had wanted them to desist, much less put pressure on the group's financiers and spokesmen. BUT the "Swiftboat Liars" had a "FREE PASS" from the White House and Republican Party to push their "Kerry is a liar!" advertising campaign all through the summer of 2004.... Even though a FIVE MINUTE INSPECTION into their claims would reveal that NOT ONE "Swift boat veteran" had actually served WITH John Kerry in combat during Kerry's Vietnam tour; they all, every last Swift Boat Veteran Against Kerry, had either arrived in Vietnam long after then Lt. Kerry had rotated back to America, or served at the same time as Kerry, but in differrent sectors of the Navy's Vietnam command.
Make no mistake: The Swift Boat Vets against Kerry MAY have had some legitimate grievances against one of the most outspoken and visible combat-veteran-critics of the Vietnam War (Kerry appeared before the Senate to give testimony on war atrocities when he returned to America from his combat tour in Vietnam, asking on national TV cameras at the hearings "How do you ask a soldier to be the last one to die in a losing war for his country?") - BUT they were ENTIRELY WILLING to LIE about the facts and MISREPRESENT their case against Kerry, thus making ALL their statements suspect to charges of "Partisan vendetta."
Well, at least TIME is now using MINIMUM STANDARDS of analysis and skepticism in the Department of Defense's latest Goebbels-esque self-promotion; that 3,200 American soldier's lives, 30,000 wounded & traumatized lives, billions of dollars, and uncounted Iraqi lives after the glorious invasion of Iraq, the DoD has extracted a "MAGIC BULLET!" confession from THE MASTERMIND of the ENTIRE al Qaida terrorist organization, implying that Al Qaida is now leaderless and on the brink of dissolving - When in fact Al Qaida's Taliban allies in Afghanistan are resurgent, the Civil War / ethnic cleansing battles in Iraq are becoming ever more deadly and mass-murderous, and the US DoD and "Intel" community themselves, at the behest of the Bush-Cheney White House, are actually funding al Qaida-linked organizations against Hezbollah and elsewhere in the violent region!
------------------------------------------------------
Why KSM's Confession Rings False
By ROBERT BAER
Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1599861,00.html
It's hard to tell what the Pentagon's objective really is in releasing the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession. It certainly suggests the Administration is trying to blame KSM for al-Qaeda terrorism, leading us to believe we've caught the master terrorist and that al-Qaeda, and especially the ever-elusive bin Laden, is no longer a threat to the U.S.
But there is a major flaw in that marketing strategy. On the face of it, KSM, as he is known inside the government, comes across as boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear he is making things up. I'm told by people involved in the investigation that KSM was present during Wall Street Journal correspondent Danny Pearl's execution but was in fact not the person who killed him. There exists videotape footage of the execution that minimizes KSM's role. And if KSM did indeed exaggerate his role in the Pearl murder, it raises the question of just what else he has exaggerated, or outright fabricated.
Just as importantly, there is an absence of collateral evidence that would support KSM's story. KSM claims he was "responsible for the 9/11 operation from A-Z." Yet he has omitted details that would support his role. For instance, one of the more intriguing mysteries is who recruited and vetted the fifteen Saudi hijackers, the so-called "muscle." The well-founded suspicion is that Qaeda was running a cell inside the Kingdom that spotted these young men and forwarded them to al-Qaeda. KSM and al-Qaeda often appear bumbling, but they would never have accepted recruits they couldn't count on. KSM does not offer us an answer as to how this worked.
KSM has also not offered evidence of state support to al-Qaeda, though there is good evidence there was, even at a low level. KSM himself was harbored by a member of Qatar's royal family after he was indicted in the U.S. for the Bojinka plot — a plan to bomb twelve American airplanes over the Pacific. KSM and al-Qaeda also received aid from supporters in Pakistan, quite possibly from sympathizers in the Pakistani intelligence service. KSM provides no details that would suggest we are getting the full story from him.
Although he claims to have been al-Qaeda's foreign operations chief, he has offered no information about European networks. Today, dozens of investigations are going on in Great Britain surrounding the London tube bombings on July 7, 2005. Yet KSM apparently knew nothing about these networks or has not told his interrogators about them.
The fact is al-Qaeda is too smart to put all of its eggs in one basket. It has not and does not have a field commander, the role KSM has arrogated. It works on the basis of "weak links," mounting terrorist operations by bringing in people on an ad hoc basis, and immediately disbanding the group afterwards.
Until we hear more, the mystery of who KSM is and what he was responsible for is still a mystery.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
America's media whores positively Nazi-esque in pretending Bush has "concern for the poor"... Liars ought to be flogged & put in stocks...
WHY does it take an article about Hugo Chavez to point out that America's corporate media whores are pathogical, inveterate LIARS when they try to present George W. Bush as "CONCERNED FOR POOR PEOPLE"?
WHY is the American whore press-media SO HATEFUL, that they pretend Bush's "expand slavery at all costs," 'Bleeding Kansas' agenda is rooted in Christ-ian precepts of "love thy neighbor" and "conservative compassion"?
WHY is the American 'major media' SO CONTEMPTUOUS of AMERICA that they pretend that a George W. Bush who goes everywhere surrounded by a small army of mercenary or miilitary riot police is "SPREADING FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY"?
WHY do the American press-media WHORES pretend that COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES that would NOT pass ANY state's thorough inspection of slot-machine computer code are infallible and beyond reproach... when time after time, election after election, we Americans are handed these "585 vote winning margin!" headline stories... in elections where THOUSANDS of discarded "undervotes" were tossed in the trash can in that particular election, sometimes tens of thousands of votes? 18,300 DISCARDED "undervotes" in the Florida District 13 election this past November ALONE (Katherine Harris' old House seat in Sarasota Florida) - that is, over 18,000 NONE VOTES for congress, in an off-year congressional election, IN ONE COUNTY, alone; an "undervote" statistic ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than any other local or similar sized county in Florida that election?
The short, simple answer to all the above is "Because our corportized 'major media' are now inveterate liars, paid professional liars who try to spin the deaths of 2,000 New Orleans flooding victims as a fate the victims deserved, even though it was the FEDERAL DIKES that failed under BLUE SKIES, THREE DAYS after Hurrican Katrina had passed New Orleans into history."
In short, the American corporate press-media is positively Naziesque in regards to Central and South America; the whores shout "COMMUNIST!" and "SOCIALIST!" as their last-gasp mantra when ATTACKING Hugo Chavez, even though here in America our major industries, indeed, our very urban/rural/suburban lifestyle DEPENDS ON OUR SOCIALIZED ROADS and HIGHWAYS network; without which rural farmers could not get their product to market; urban city dwellers could receive that produce or escape the city, and Suburban families could not try to enjoy the best of both worlds.
As the documentary "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?" points out, the SOCIALIZED HIGHWAY SYSTEM has been a boon and a blessing to the - AUTO industry, TRUCKING industry, OIL industry, REAL ESTATE industry, and DOZENS of other industries at the very core of our self-image as Americans...
....BUT our WHORE corporate media REFUSES to point out JUST HOW MUCH _SOCIALIZED_ TAXPAYER SPENDING contributes to those industries massive corporate profits.
And in order to sustain that American gluttonous consumption lifestlye, and to maintain those massive corporate profits, the American Whore press-media will PRETEND that George W. Bush is all about "BRINGING FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY" to Central and South America, even though the Bush-Republicans (and corporate DLC 'Democrats') would LOVE to bring the era of DEATH SQUAD DICTATORSHIPS _BACK_ to South America, as ELIOT ABRAMS, JOHN NEGROPONTE, JOHN BOLTON, and the rest of the retread DEATH SQUADS and SECRET WARS IRAN-CONTRA retreads are so diligently working at as we speak.
------------------------------------------------------------
<< How is Bush expected to change hearts and minds when he can’t even stick his nose beyond the small army of mercenaries which surrounds him 24-7?
Bush now faces stiff headwinds wherever he goes. He is the most unpopular president in modern times and no one is hoodwinked by his silly promises to help the poor and needy. It’s just a shabby excuse to mollify the public.
“We care about our neighborhood a lot," Bush purred in Brazil.
NONSENSE. [Complete abject propaganda LIES.]
Latin America has withstood 2 decades of neoliberal policies and they’ve had enough.
Does Bush think these people are complete fools? They’ve lived under America’s boot-heel and they know exactly what to expect--death squads, coup d’etats, fixed elections, and corrupt government officials-- all made in Washington. They also know that Bush’s promises are just more hot air. After all, THEY'VE SEEN THE FOOTAGE OF the POOR, BLACK PEOPLE BEING SHUNTED OFF TO THE SUPERDOME _WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER_ following Hurricane Katrina. >>
[WHILE the so-called "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE" 'CHRIST-IAN" American president ATE JOHN McCAIN's BIRTHDAY CAKE at one Rethuglican Party photo-op, and STRUMMED GUITAR at ANOTHER Rethuglican photo-op... as New Orleans poor residents DROWNED under blue skies after the FEDERALLY built and maintained dikes failed from the rains that accompanied the lowest recorded barometric pressures in the Atlantic basin a full week earlier. (Hurricane Katrina set the lowest pressure, = most powerful storm system - ever recorded in the Atlantic basin, a full week before it headed north to the American Gulf Coast. There was PLENTY of time to pre-position an entire army or disaster-recovery personel and supplies, but the treacherous black-hearted president, as usual, preferred REPUBLICAN PHOTO-OPS to DEFENDING the LIVES of American citizens - a treachery that is CONTINUALLY WHITEWASHED by America's whore press/media.]
check here for the Nazi-esque New York Times "Bush pledges to bring jobs to South America" spin on Bush's disastrous, "Economic Hit-Man" thinly veiled financial buy-out & extortion trip...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09cnd-prexy.html
Which NYT story, btw, reminds us that the secret of capitalism is "BUY LOW, SELL HIGH."
But with FREE COMPETITION, the MARGINS between "low and high" are reduced by competition... making inflated profits hard to come buy. The answer to that capitalist dilemma is "ELIMINATE COMPETITION" by FIXED markets and RIGGED bidding; to guarantee MASSIVE PROFITS as local consumer and citizens are EXTORTED out of their paychecks and tax-dollars by MONOPOLY foreign-owned, IMF & World Bank assisted MONOPOLIES, whether on oil pumped out of the ground, water treated at local plants, or power generated by a national electric grid.
=============================================
Hugo Chavez: "Bush Should Get The Gold Medal For Hypocrisy"
by Mike Whitney
Bush’s trip to Latin America has turned into another public relations disaster. Every time Airforce 1 touches down in a southern capital, the streets turn into a battleground between incensed protestors and fully-armored, truncheon-wielding Robo-cops. At the same time, Bush has to be whisked away in an armored-plated limousine to an undisclosed spider-hole in the Andean outback.
Is this any way to promote “free trade”?
How is Bush expected to change hearts and minds when he can’t even stick his nose beyond the small army of mercenaries which surrounds him 24-7?
Bush now faces stiff headwinds wherever he goes. He is the most unpopular president in modern times and no one is hoodwinked by his silly promises to help the poor and needy. It’s just a shabby excuse to mollify the public.
“We care about our neighborhood a lot," Bush purred in Brazil.
Nonsense.
Latin America has withstood 2 decades of neoliberal policies and they’ve had enough. The continents are drifting further and further apart and it’ll take more than Bush’s bland assurances to bring them back together.
"I would call our diplomacy quiet and effective diplomacy,” Bush opined. “Diplomacy aimed at helping people, aimed at elevating the human condition, aimed at expressing the great compassion of the American people."
Blah, blah, blah.
Does Bush think these people are complete fools? They’ve lived under America’s boot-heel and they know exactly what to expect--death squads, coup d’etats, fixed elections, and corrupt government officials-- all made in Washington. They also know that Bush’s promises are just more hot air. After all, they’ve seen the footage of the poor, black people being shunted off to the Superdome without food or water following Hurricane Katrina.
Bush’s “Goodwill Tour” is a total fraud. It’s just a smokescreen for more coercion, meddling and gross exploitation. That’s why tens of thousands of protestors have poured out onto the streets burning American flags, waving posters of a Hitler-mustachioed Bush, and chanting “Gringo go home”.
Bush’s trip has been such a catastrophe that the politically-sensitive Google News has removed it as a headline story. The media would like to see the whole thing just disappear. Still, Bush’s handlers have decided to continue the fiasco; running from foxhole to foxhole behind a phalanx of flack-jacketed paramilitaries and low-flying Apache helicopters.
Whew……That was close.
Even worse, arch rival, Hugo Chavez has been shadowing Bush with his improvised “Anti-Empire” tour. The charismatic Chavez has put tens of thousands of cheering supporters on the streets while he throttles Uncle Sam with his fiery oratory.
“Those who want to go directly to hell can follow capitalism,” Chavez boomed to a standing-only crowd in Argentina’s soccer stadium. “And those of us who want to build heave here on earth will follow socialism.”
The contrast between Bush and Chavez couldn’t be greater. Chavez hale’s from a one-room mud-floor hut which he shared with his parents and 3 siblings. His hardscrabble upbringing and his years in the elite Paratrooper Unit of the Venezuelan Military prepared him for the political struggle he would face when he seized power and subdued Venezuela’s powerful oligarchy. On the other hand, Bush has been buoyed along by his family’s wealth and position which provided entree to the best Ivy League schools and baled him out of countless legal jams. (insider-trading at Harken, A.W.O.L. with the Texas National Guard) He spent his adult life bouncing from one failed business venture to the next until he washed up the front lawn of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave courtesy of 5 venal jurists on the high court. The rest is history.
The two men are polar opposites. While the Bush persona depends on a talented public relations team which casts him a one-part Bible-beating preacher and one-part plain-talking cowpoke; Chavez is unaffected and straightforward. His warm and gregarious manner has earned him friends around the world and strengthened support for his redistributive programs.
No wonder the corporate media hates him so much.
Chavez has taken on the most powerful institutions in Venezuela including the oil giants, the telecommunications industry, and the deeply-entrenched oligarchy. He’s set up free health care clinics and subsidized food programs for the poor, and created greater opportunities for education and upward mobility. More importantly, he’s reasserted the state control over vital national assets, particularly oil.
The people love him. Chavez won the last election with over 60% of the votes.
Currently, Chavez is demanding that foreign oil giants concede a controlling share of their business to the state. It’s a bold move that’ll put more power in the hands of elected officials rather than profit-driven CEOs and dodgy robber barons. One can only hope that the US Congress will eventually take similar action to “nationalize” the oil industry so there can be greater public control of the resources upon which all of our lives depend.
Chavez is actualizing a vision of a just and sustainable society where civil liberties are guaranteed for all and where people have the right to expect a minimal standard of living. His Bolivarian Revolution has spread across national borders and is unifying Latin America under various trade agreements. His plan for a cross-continent pipeline to the Pacific, so he can sell oil directly to China, has Washington politicos worried about meeting America’s future energy needs. His dream of a Latin American OPEC (which may include Russia and Iran) is also a matter of growing concern.
Chavez success depends to large extent on his approach to socialism. He is not rigid and ideological, but pragmatic and flexible. He applies socialism as a general principle which can be adjusted to the particular exigencies of Venezuelan society. So far, it seems to be working.
He also takes great pride in tweaking the nose of his Texas nemesis, George Bush—Mr. Danger.
The Chavez-Bush rivalry has been a positive development for anti-imperialists. It pits a compassionate social-revolutionary against a marble-hearted warmonger. It highlights the difference between an engaged and forward-thinking populist and a fatuous demagogue. Bush has not fared well by comparison.
Chavez was the first to respond to Katrina; offering to send doctors, medical supplies and fuel to compensate for downed oil rigs. Bush stubbornly refused Chavez’s help. Instead, he declared martial law and deployed mercenaries so he could treat traumatized hurricane victims like enemy combatants. His actions only added to the peoples’ suffering. Unsurprisingly, his public approval ratings sunk like a stone.
For the last few days, Chavez has been following Bush around the continent blasting him as a “political cadaver with a 600 word vocabulary” and lambasting him as a “drunken war criminal”. His relentless barrage has made Bush look timid and weak. “The Deciders” fragile ego has been badly battered and the overall goals of the mission have suffered. According to Bush, the trip was intended to “underscore the commitment of the United States to the Western Hemisphere and… highlight our common agenda to advance freedom, prosperity, and social justice and deliver the benefits of democracy in the areas of health, education and economic prosperity.”
More mumbo jumbo. Like Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “No one wants Bush’s Iraqi-type democracy”.
The real reason for the trip was announced in “Foreign Affairs” the quarterly policy-magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations. The article presented a “divide and conquer” strategy for isolating Chavez and the far-left Latin American governments while trying to strengthen ties with the center-left governments. It is essentially a battle plan that is strikingly similar to Bush’s Iraq strategy. (Sunnis vs. Shiites)
That’s why Bush will be handing out billions in foreign aid to America’s friends, while trying to chip away at alliances with Washington’s adversaries. Most of the money is expected to go to security forces, covert operations and democracy-corrupting NGOs.
Sound familiar?
Bush’s rhetoric may have changed, but US goals are forever the same. The administration is preparing for another century of intervention, exploitation and violence. If the sulfurous Mr. Bush had the manpower he wouldn’t hesitate to send his camouflage-garbed legions southward to recapture the entire continent. In fact, Caracas would probably resemble downtown Baghdad right now. Perhaps, that’s why his comments were received with such skepticism when he addressed an audience of Brazilian business leaders saying:
"I don't think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people's lives. My trip is to explain as clearly as I can that our nation is generous and compassionate."
Bush is wrong. No one has contributed more to the endless cycle of grinding poverty in Latin America than the United States.
That’s why Chavez quickly responded saying, “Bush should be awarded a gold medal for hypocrisy…He’s just now discovered that poverty exists in the region."
Bush should take a minute and push his way passed the chain-link fences and armored vehicles and listen to what the people on the street are saying. It’s a different era now. Latin America has slipped out of the US orbit and it won’t be returning anytime soon. It’s not our “backyard” anymore.
It’s time to pack it up, Gringo, and go home.
Viva Chavez.
WHY is the American whore press-media SO HATEFUL, that they pretend Bush's "expand slavery at all costs," 'Bleeding Kansas' agenda is rooted in Christ-ian precepts of "love thy neighbor" and "conservative compassion"?
WHY is the American 'major media' SO CONTEMPTUOUS of AMERICA that they pretend that a George W. Bush who goes everywhere surrounded by a small army of mercenary or miilitary riot police is "SPREADING FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY"?
WHY do the American press-media WHORES pretend that COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES that would NOT pass ANY state's thorough inspection of slot-machine computer code are infallible and beyond reproach... when time after time, election after election, we Americans are handed these "585 vote winning margin!" headline stories... in elections where THOUSANDS of discarded "undervotes" were tossed in the trash can in that particular election, sometimes tens of thousands of votes? 18,300 DISCARDED "undervotes" in the Florida District 13 election this past November ALONE (Katherine Harris' old House seat in Sarasota Florida) - that is, over 18,000 NONE VOTES for congress, in an off-year congressional election, IN ONE COUNTY, alone; an "undervote" statistic ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than any other local or similar sized county in Florida that election?
The short, simple answer to all the above is "Because our corportized 'major media' are now inveterate liars, paid professional liars who try to spin the deaths of 2,000 New Orleans flooding victims as a fate the victims deserved, even though it was the FEDERAL DIKES that failed under BLUE SKIES, THREE DAYS after Hurrican Katrina had passed New Orleans into history."
In short, the American corporate press-media is positively Naziesque in regards to Central and South America; the whores shout "COMMUNIST!" and "SOCIALIST!" as their last-gasp mantra when ATTACKING Hugo Chavez, even though here in America our major industries, indeed, our very urban/rural/suburban lifestyle DEPENDS ON OUR SOCIALIZED ROADS and HIGHWAYS network; without which rural farmers could not get their product to market; urban city dwellers could receive that produce or escape the city, and Suburban families could not try to enjoy the best of both worlds.
As the documentary "WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?" points out, the SOCIALIZED HIGHWAY SYSTEM has been a boon and a blessing to the - AUTO industry, TRUCKING industry, OIL industry, REAL ESTATE industry, and DOZENS of other industries at the very core of our self-image as Americans...
....BUT our WHORE corporate media REFUSES to point out JUST HOW MUCH _SOCIALIZED_ TAXPAYER SPENDING contributes to those industries massive corporate profits.
And in order to sustain that American gluttonous consumption lifestlye, and to maintain those massive corporate profits, the American Whore press-media will PRETEND that George W. Bush is all about "BRINGING FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY" to Central and South America, even though the Bush-Republicans (and corporate DLC 'Democrats') would LOVE to bring the era of DEATH SQUAD DICTATORSHIPS _BACK_ to South America, as ELIOT ABRAMS, JOHN NEGROPONTE, JOHN BOLTON, and the rest of the retread DEATH SQUADS and SECRET WARS IRAN-CONTRA retreads are so diligently working at as we speak.
------------------------------------------------------------
<< How is Bush expected to change hearts and minds when he can’t even stick his nose beyond the small army of mercenaries which surrounds him 24-7?
Bush now faces stiff headwinds wherever he goes. He is the most unpopular president in modern times and no one is hoodwinked by his silly promises to help the poor and needy. It’s just a shabby excuse to mollify the public.
“We care about our neighborhood a lot," Bush purred in Brazil.
NONSENSE. [Complete abject propaganda LIES.]
Latin America has withstood 2 decades of neoliberal policies and they’ve had enough.
Does Bush think these people are complete fools? They’ve lived under America’s boot-heel and they know exactly what to expect--death squads, coup d’etats, fixed elections, and corrupt government officials-- all made in Washington. They also know that Bush’s promises are just more hot air. After all, THEY'VE SEEN THE FOOTAGE OF the POOR, BLACK PEOPLE BEING SHUNTED OFF TO THE SUPERDOME _WITHOUT FOOD OR WATER_ following Hurricane Katrina. >>
[WHILE the so-called "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE" 'CHRIST-IAN" American president ATE JOHN McCAIN's BIRTHDAY CAKE at one Rethuglican Party photo-op, and STRUMMED GUITAR at ANOTHER Rethuglican photo-op... as New Orleans poor residents DROWNED under blue skies after the FEDERALLY built and maintained dikes failed from the rains that accompanied the lowest recorded barometric pressures in the Atlantic basin a full week earlier. (Hurricane Katrina set the lowest pressure, = most powerful storm system - ever recorded in the Atlantic basin, a full week before it headed north to the American Gulf Coast. There was PLENTY of time to pre-position an entire army or disaster-recovery personel and supplies, but the treacherous black-hearted president, as usual, preferred REPUBLICAN PHOTO-OPS to DEFENDING the LIVES of American citizens - a treachery that is CONTINUALLY WHITEWASHED by America's whore press/media.]
check here for the Nazi-esque New York Times "Bush pledges to bring jobs to South America" spin on Bush's disastrous, "Economic Hit-Man" thinly veiled financial buy-out & extortion trip...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09cnd-prexy.html
Which NYT story, btw, reminds us that the secret of capitalism is "BUY LOW, SELL HIGH."
But with FREE COMPETITION, the MARGINS between "low and high" are reduced by competition... making inflated profits hard to come buy. The answer to that capitalist dilemma is "ELIMINATE COMPETITION" by FIXED markets and RIGGED bidding; to guarantee MASSIVE PROFITS as local consumer and citizens are EXTORTED out of their paychecks and tax-dollars by MONOPOLY foreign-owned, IMF & World Bank assisted MONOPOLIES, whether on oil pumped out of the ground, water treated at local plants, or power generated by a national electric grid.
=============================================
Hugo Chavez: "Bush Should Get The Gold Medal For Hypocrisy"
by Mike Whitney
Bush’s trip to Latin America has turned into another public relations disaster. Every time Airforce 1 touches down in a southern capital, the streets turn into a battleground between incensed protestors and fully-armored, truncheon-wielding Robo-cops. At the same time, Bush has to be whisked away in an armored-plated limousine to an undisclosed spider-hole in the Andean outback.
Is this any way to promote “free trade”?
How is Bush expected to change hearts and minds when he can’t even stick his nose beyond the small army of mercenaries which surrounds him 24-7?
Bush now faces stiff headwinds wherever he goes. He is the most unpopular president in modern times and no one is hoodwinked by his silly promises to help the poor and needy. It’s just a shabby excuse to mollify the public.
“We care about our neighborhood a lot," Bush purred in Brazil.
Nonsense.
Latin America has withstood 2 decades of neoliberal policies and they’ve had enough. The continents are drifting further and further apart and it’ll take more than Bush’s bland assurances to bring them back together.
"I would call our diplomacy quiet and effective diplomacy,” Bush opined. “Diplomacy aimed at helping people, aimed at elevating the human condition, aimed at expressing the great compassion of the American people."
Blah, blah, blah.
Does Bush think these people are complete fools? They’ve lived under America’s boot-heel and they know exactly what to expect--death squads, coup d’etats, fixed elections, and corrupt government officials-- all made in Washington. They also know that Bush’s promises are just more hot air. After all, they’ve seen the footage of the poor, black people being shunted off to the Superdome without food or water following Hurricane Katrina.
Bush’s “Goodwill Tour” is a total fraud. It’s just a smokescreen for more coercion, meddling and gross exploitation. That’s why tens of thousands of protestors have poured out onto the streets burning American flags, waving posters of a Hitler-mustachioed Bush, and chanting “Gringo go home”.
Bush’s trip has been such a catastrophe that the politically-sensitive Google News has removed it as a headline story. The media would like to see the whole thing just disappear. Still, Bush’s handlers have decided to continue the fiasco; running from foxhole to foxhole behind a phalanx of flack-jacketed paramilitaries and low-flying Apache helicopters.
Whew……That was close.
Even worse, arch rival, Hugo Chavez has been shadowing Bush with his improvised “Anti-Empire” tour. The charismatic Chavez has put tens of thousands of cheering supporters on the streets while he throttles Uncle Sam with his fiery oratory.
“Those who want to go directly to hell can follow capitalism,” Chavez boomed to a standing-only crowd in Argentina’s soccer stadium. “And those of us who want to build heave here on earth will follow socialism.”
The contrast between Bush and Chavez couldn’t be greater. Chavez hale’s from a one-room mud-floor hut which he shared with his parents and 3 siblings. His hardscrabble upbringing and his years in the elite Paratrooper Unit of the Venezuelan Military prepared him for the political struggle he would face when he seized power and subdued Venezuela’s powerful oligarchy. On the other hand, Bush has been buoyed along by his family’s wealth and position which provided entree to the best Ivy League schools and baled him out of countless legal jams. (insider-trading at Harken, A.W.O.L. with the Texas National Guard) He spent his adult life bouncing from one failed business venture to the next until he washed up the front lawn of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave courtesy of 5 venal jurists on the high court. The rest is history.
The two men are polar opposites. While the Bush persona depends on a talented public relations team which casts him a one-part Bible-beating preacher and one-part plain-talking cowpoke; Chavez is unaffected and straightforward. His warm and gregarious manner has earned him friends around the world and strengthened support for his redistributive programs.
No wonder the corporate media hates him so much.
Chavez has taken on the most powerful institutions in Venezuela including the oil giants, the telecommunications industry, and the deeply-entrenched oligarchy. He’s set up free health care clinics and subsidized food programs for the poor, and created greater opportunities for education and upward mobility. More importantly, he’s reasserted the state control over vital national assets, particularly oil.
The people love him. Chavez won the last election with over 60% of the votes.
Currently, Chavez is demanding that foreign oil giants concede a controlling share of their business to the state. It’s a bold move that’ll put more power in the hands of elected officials rather than profit-driven CEOs and dodgy robber barons. One can only hope that the US Congress will eventually take similar action to “nationalize” the oil industry so there can be greater public control of the resources upon which all of our lives depend.
Chavez is actualizing a vision of a just and sustainable society where civil liberties are guaranteed for all and where people have the right to expect a minimal standard of living. His Bolivarian Revolution has spread across national borders and is unifying Latin America under various trade agreements. His plan for a cross-continent pipeline to the Pacific, so he can sell oil directly to China, has Washington politicos worried about meeting America’s future energy needs. His dream of a Latin American OPEC (which may include Russia and Iran) is also a matter of growing concern.
Chavez success depends to large extent on his approach to socialism. He is not rigid and ideological, but pragmatic and flexible. He applies socialism as a general principle which can be adjusted to the particular exigencies of Venezuelan society. So far, it seems to be working.
He also takes great pride in tweaking the nose of his Texas nemesis, George Bush—Mr. Danger.
The Chavez-Bush rivalry has been a positive development for anti-imperialists. It pits a compassionate social-revolutionary against a marble-hearted warmonger. It highlights the difference between an engaged and forward-thinking populist and a fatuous demagogue. Bush has not fared well by comparison.
Chavez was the first to respond to Katrina; offering to send doctors, medical supplies and fuel to compensate for downed oil rigs. Bush stubbornly refused Chavez’s help. Instead, he declared martial law and deployed mercenaries so he could treat traumatized hurricane victims like enemy combatants. His actions only added to the peoples’ suffering. Unsurprisingly, his public approval ratings sunk like a stone.
For the last few days, Chavez has been following Bush around the continent blasting him as a “political cadaver with a 600 word vocabulary” and lambasting him as a “drunken war criminal”. His relentless barrage has made Bush look timid and weak. “The Deciders” fragile ego has been badly battered and the overall goals of the mission have suffered. According to Bush, the trip was intended to “underscore the commitment of the United States to the Western Hemisphere and… highlight our common agenda to advance freedom, prosperity, and social justice and deliver the benefits of democracy in the areas of health, education and economic prosperity.”
More mumbo jumbo. Like Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “No one wants Bush’s Iraqi-type democracy”.
The real reason for the trip was announced in “Foreign Affairs” the quarterly policy-magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations. The article presented a “divide and conquer” strategy for isolating Chavez and the far-left Latin American governments while trying to strengthen ties with the center-left governments. It is essentially a battle plan that is strikingly similar to Bush’s Iraq strategy. (Sunnis vs. Shiites)
That’s why Bush will be handing out billions in foreign aid to America’s friends, while trying to chip away at alliances with Washington’s adversaries. Most of the money is expected to go to security forces, covert operations and democracy-corrupting NGOs.
Sound familiar?
Bush’s rhetoric may have changed, but US goals are forever the same. The administration is preparing for another century of intervention, exploitation and violence. If the sulfurous Mr. Bush had the manpower he wouldn’t hesitate to send his camouflage-garbed legions southward to recapture the entire continent. In fact, Caracas would probably resemble downtown Baghdad right now. Perhaps, that’s why his comments were received with such skepticism when he addressed an audience of Brazilian business leaders saying:
"I don't think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people's lives. My trip is to explain as clearly as I can that our nation is generous and compassionate."
Bush is wrong. No one has contributed more to the endless cycle of grinding poverty in Latin America than the United States.
That’s why Chavez quickly responded saying, “Bush should be awarded a gold medal for hypocrisy…He’s just now discovered that poverty exists in the region."
Bush should take a minute and push his way passed the chain-link fences and armored vehicles and listen to what the people on the street are saying. It’s a different era now. Latin America has slipped out of the US orbit and it won’t be returning anytime soon. It’s not our “backyard” anymore.
It’s time to pack it up, Gringo, and go home.
Viva Chavez.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Washington Whore Post's AIPAC neo-con Charles Krauthammer: PARDON LIBBY for PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE, and OUTING an entire CIA cover-company!
Washington Post editorial thug CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:
"Time to End Fitzgerald's FOLLY"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html
Resident WASHINGTON POST Brown-Shirt thug CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER takes up where New York Times Brown-Shirt editorial thug William Safire left off: Safire smeared Democratic administrations just as he once apologized (as Nixon White House speechwriter) for President Nixon's abuse of power.
Today, Charles Krauthammer, AIPAC neo-con in residence at the Washington Post, makes light of the Cheney-Bush administration's orchestrated, serial efforts to intimidate war critics by SMEARING them, attacking their wives, and destroying an entire CIA undercover operation (and the lives of ALL THOSE ASSOCIATED with that undercover "Brewster-Jennings Energy Co." CIA covert cover company) as casually as Mr. Bush once strummed a guitar at a Republican photo-op while New Orleans Katrina victims drowned when the federally-built and maintained dikes failed that city under blue skies 3 days after Hurricane Katrina had passed....
Not to mention, Mr. Krauthammer makes lite of the PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE that "won" the Bush-Cheney-Libby-Rove team a second term in the White House, by diverting a truthful discussion of the CIA outing scandal until long after the 2004 election.
Here is an independent take on Mr. Krauthammer's "PARDON Libby for PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE convictions" - by not one, but 2 fellow Washington Post writers!
Where's Karl Rove?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 9, 2007; 3:08 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post opinion column that "the evidence of recent days should settle the case: This administration has operated on the basis of a hyperpartisanship not seen in decades. Worse, the destroy-the-opposition, our-team-vs.-their-team approach has infected large parts of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. That's a shame, since there are plenty of good people in both. Still, the tendency to subordinate principles to win short-term victories and cover up for the administration is, alas, rampant on the right.
"Take the rush of conservative organs demanding an immediate pardon of Scooter Libby after his conviction on four counts related to lying and obstruction of justice. . . .
One of those conservative organs, Charles Krauthammer, writes in his Washington Post opinion column that a presidential pardon for Libby "should be granted now without any further delay."
But Krauthammer seems to have not paid any attention to the prosecution case that convinced a unanimous federal jury of Libby's guilt.
For instance, Krauthammer writes: "Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert."
In fact, the heart of Fitzgerald's meticulous case was proving that Libby had spoken to so many people about Plame before he had his conversation with Russert that even if Russert had told him about Plame -- which Russert denied -- it was flatly a lie when he insisted that was the first time he'd heard it....
Washington Post's AIPAC neo-con whore Charles Krauthammer- the incestous Post-Fox, "KILL American freedoms" connection....
Washington Post's Charles Krauthhammer:
"Time to End Fitzgerald's FOLLY" [says the Post's AIPAC neo-con brown-shirt editorial thug]
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Washington Post editor Fred Hiatt and publisher Donald Graham: both a THREAT to American freedoms and world security....
Washington Post publisher Donald Graham (left) and editor Fred Hiatt: yet another case of their deceptive and fraudulent "reporting" in yesterday's paper..
Click here for the Washington Post's classic "disinformation" 'news' story, written by "Steno Sue" Susan Schmidt in JULY of 2004. Note how this story clouds the facts of the illegal "outing" of undercover, "NOC" spy VALERIE PLAME WILSON by the Libby-Rove-Cheney White House. ("Non-official cover" spies may be arrested and tried for espionage in foreign countries... they have NO official cover or protection from the US government in the event of arrest by a hostile foreign government, and in all countries, conviction of espionage carries a death penalty.)
We now know that Ms. Plame had NO influence over the selection of her husband to the "verify or reject the Niger yellowcake uranium for Iraq WMD program" mission in late 2002, but Steno Sue Schmidt, in classic Washington Post GENUFLECTION to the lies and administrative bullying of the Bush-Cheney White House, wrote the opposite: that Ms. Plame did "select" her husband - who was at any rate imminently qualified - for the mission.
CAUGHT IN THE ACT: The WASHINGTON POST of Fred Hiatt, Don Graham, and Steno Sue Schmidt LYING to UNDERCUT THE CREDIBILITY of lies-to-war critic Joseph Wilson; and in EMPOWERING the classic Rove smear-job from the Bush White House, putting dozens of CIA agents and foreign "assetts" at risk.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
----------------------------------------
We salute Mr. Robert Parry for his decades of genuine service to the cause of American freedom (specifically, American journalism); which has seen him be hounded from the top-tiers of "mainstream reporting" (aka the corporate press/media) and forced to write his own news service and books from journalistic Siberia - underfunded, under appreciated, but always light-years ahead of the NY Times, Washington Post, and other major "news" services when it comes to reporting to American readers the facts of important stories that impact our lives in ways big and small.
And we FINALLY can salute Mr. Parry for MAKING IT PERSONAL. In a world where celebrity bimbos become overnight multimillionaires.... and, worse, soak up millions and millions and millions of dollars worth of TV and media exposure for overdosing on drugs or shaving their hair off - Mr. Parry has always been the Joe Canon of investigative journalism, "JUST THE FACTS, ma'am."
Well, Mr. Parry finally unleashes on DONALD GRAHAM and FRED HIATT, the publisher and editorial editor for the Washington Post. These are the men in power who daily BELITTLE THE TRUTH and WHITEWASH LIES... from Bush's fraudulent "385 vote winning margin" in the 2000 Florida election vote count (that saw Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Choicepoint data corporation, and other Republican thugs STEAL thousands of legal votes in mostly minority districts; 20,000 illegally "DISQUALIFIED" votes in Florida's Duval County, alone) to LIES to drum up momentum for the Iraq war, to the "Diebold electronic election fix" in the 2002 (midterm Georgia, Minnesota) election tallies, 2004 Ohio vote count, and AGAIN in 2006, where Katherine Harris' old Congressional seat (Florida District 13) saw ANOTHER 300-400 vote "winning majority" - after an astounding 18,000 District 13 voters were electronically computed to NOT have cast a vote in the congressional race after going to the polls in an off-year (congressional) election - an "UNDERVOTE" total that was vastly, orders-of-magnitude larger than in neighboring Florida districts!
In short, Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. HIATT are paid professional liars; their job is to MISINFORM and DECEIVE the public, and thus justify the systematic LOOTING of America's national resources by the Bush-Cheney administration and other government thugs, such as TOM DeLAY, "Duke" CUNNINGHAM, BOB NEY, JACK ABRAMOFF, and others... ALL of whom were brought to justice NOT by the "investigative reporting" of the Washington Post, but by the determined, dogged efforts of government prosecutors who hadn't yet been PURGED by the corrupt and shameless Bush-Cheney administration... as their new sinister Attorney General, ALBERTO GONZALES, is trying to do all across America. (Six federal District Attorneys purged already, and counting.)
Our advice to Mr. Parry: MAKE IT PERSONAL! America LOVES a GOOD SCANDAL, one that wraps up arrogance and hubris with corruption and a spectacular downfall. Mr. Graham, Mr. Hiatt, and other professional Washington Post LIARS may not be the sexiest celebrity newsmakers in America, but there are millions of Americans who would like to see the curtain drawn from behind the Post's veil of "moral values" propriety and big-media arrogance.
And to Mr. Graham and Mr. Hiatt... THANKS for NOT noticing all those THOUSANDS of wounded and traumatized Iraq war combat veterans.. UNTIL March of 2007! Now of course the Post is going to be lauded for their "Veterans Neglected at Walter Reed" series of articles, even though any high-school journalist could have hoped aboard a DC bus, and written the same series of reports two or three years ago. (Much less at some of the even more neglected, out-of-the-way locations disabled veterans have been placed, such as rural Georgia Army bases.)
We remind, that domestic terrorist TIMMY McVEIGH was a COMBAT DECORATED Gulf War1 veteran, until his army career collapsed and he faced unemployment and back-charges for Army overpayment when he was discharged from the Army with honors following the end of the first Gulf War. McVeigh's suppressed rage, when it finally exploded, killed dozens of Americans, and cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, when he finally acted on the Radical Right talking points that were dominating hate-radio in 1995 - the very sort of HATE RADIO talking points that Mr. Hiatt and MR. GRAHAM TACITLY SUPPORT this dozen years after McVeigh's murderous bombing.
(On the very day the Libby GUILTY verdict was being read, Mr. BOB NOVAK was sitting on-camera at FOX 'news' telling viewers that "NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED in this woeful prosecution of Mr. Libby" and of course hate-radio generalissimo supremo RUSH LIMBAUGH was also repeating the canard that Mr. Libby was as innocent as pre-bronze age driven snow.) (Novak was the Chicago Sun-Times 'reporter' who took the bait being offered by Cheney, Libby, and Karl Rove from the Bush White House; it was Novak who first put Valerie Plame's name in public circulation as a CIA employee in a syndicated Sun-Times column, and it was Novak who, the very next day, compounded his "outing" of Ms. Plame, by disclosing the name of the entire undercover CIA operation that was her spy cover in foreign nations, Brewster-Jennings Energy Consultants. Mr. Novak, Mr. Libby, and almost certainly Vice President Dick Cheney and Presidential politics advisor Karl Rove deserve the "credit" for DESTROYING AN ENTIRE CIA COVER ORGANIZATION.)
==================================
WPost's Editorial Fantasyland
By Robert Parry
March 8, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/030707a.html
Fred Hiatt’s Washington Post editorial page and George W. Bush’s presidency have a lot in common – most notably an arrogance of power so extreme that they believe their very words can alter reality.
With Bush, that record has been well established, from asserting that Saddam Hussein never let the U.N. inspectors in to hyping progress in the Iraq War. But editorial page editor Hiatt – in league with Post publisher Donald Graham – is not far behind.
After the conviction of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for lying about and covering up the Bush administration's outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the Post’s lead editorial continues to manufacture a false history of the case, again slamming Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
The real reality of the case is that in 2003, a hubristic administration sought to damage a critic, Wilson, who had offended Vice President Dick Cheney by accusing the White House of having "twisted" Iraq War intelligence. The anti-Wilson operation ended up exposing Wilson’s CIA wife. Then, recognizing the potential criminality – not to mention the political dangers – the White House launched a cover-up.
But that is not what the Post’s editorial page wants you to understand. It pins much of the blame for the scandal on Joe Wilson, whom the Post says “will be remembered as a blowhard.” The Post also distorts Wilson’s statements in a way that parrots long-discredited White House talking points.
“Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had ‘twisted,’ if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq,” the Post editorial states.
“He claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
“A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false – and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife.
“When this fact, along with Ms. Plame’s name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson. …
“The [Libby] trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame’s identity – and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.” [Washington Post, March 7, 2007]
Editorial Lies
Astonishingly, everything in this Post attack on Wilson is either a gross distortion or a lie.
Contrary to the Post’s account, Wilson did debunk suspicions that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. He was dispatched by the CIA because of questions asked by Cheney. (Wilson never said Cheney personally sent him.) His information did reach the highest levels of the administration, explaining why the CIA kept deleting references to the Niger claims from speeches.
The full Senate Intelligence Committee did not conclude that “all [Wilson’s] claims were false.” That assertion was pulled from “additional views” submitted by three right-wing Republicans – Sens. Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch and Christopher Bond – who carried the White House’s water in claiming that Wilson’s statements “had no basis in fact.”
As for the CIA selection of Wilson, the Post editorial-page editors know that Wilson was chosen by senior CIA officials in the office of counter-proliferation – not by Valerie Plame – and that Wilson was well qualified for the assignment since he had served in embassies in Iraq and Niger. He also took on this task pro bono, with the CIA only paying for his expenses.
The Post knows, too, that Valerie Plame indeed was a covert CIA officer, despite the endless lying on this topic by right-wing operatives. Plus, Wilson was right again when he alleged that the White House was punishing him for his Iraq War criticism.
Indeed, the Washington Post’s own reporters have described this reality in the news pages. For instance, on Sept. 28, 2003, a Post news article reported that a White House official disclosed that the administration had informed at least six reporters about Plame and did so “purely and simply out of revenge” against Wilson.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made the same point in a court filing in the Libby case, stating that the investigation had uncovered a “concerted” effort by the White House to “discredit, punish or seek revenge against” Wilson because of his criticism of the administration. Hiatt can look it up. It was on the Post's front page. [Washington Post, April 9, 2006]
As for the lack of evidence at trial about Plame’s covert status, the Post editorial leaves out the context: Libby’s defense attorneys argued against admission of that evidence on the grounds that it would prejudice jurors who might be enflamed by the idea of exposing a covert CIA officer and her spy network. In addition, Plame’s undercover work was not considered essential to a case narrowly constructed about Libby’s lying.
So, what can be said about a newspaper’s editorial board that willfully lies to its readers and slanders an American citizen, Joe Wilson, who took on a difficult assignment for his government at no pay and who later tried to blow the whistle on a White House misleading the public on an issue as important as war?
In a normal world, a newspaper would praise Wilson for his dedication and patriotism. But the Post editorial board can’t seem to get past its own gullibility in buying into the administration’s bogus WMD claims in 2002-03.
Rather than apologize for enabling Bush and Cheney to lead the nation into a disastrous war, Hiatt and Graham apparently have judged that they have the power to continue smearing Joe Wilson and other American citizens who had the foresight and courage to get the facts right.
[For more on the Post’s Iraq War editorials, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Shame on the Post’s Editorial Page,” “Smearing Joe Wilson Again” and “Shame of the WPost, Again.” For a special report on the Libby case, see “Zeroing in on Cheney-Bush.”]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Cheney the MOB BOSS at center of "CIA OUTING" and "LIES-to-WAR" scandals...
America, America... what has become of you? You are now ruled by a MOB BOSS with all the conscience and "compassion" of a Mideast thug dictator. Just as Saudi rulers have "no problem" with BEHEADING women accused of adultery; and just as Afghan tribes have "NO PROBLEM" with marrying off 11 year old girls as payment for their father's debts;so it is that Dick Cheney has "NO PROBLEM!" with using American troops and combat soldiers as BOMB FODDER and IED bait in Iraq, so to justify the never-ending "War on Terra" as Mr. Cheney uses "PRIVATIZED" contractors to rip-off American taxpayers for billions and billions and billions of dollars of Iraq reconstruction, oil production, and counter-insurgency funding.
As of right now, America is DEFINED by the administration of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush; two 'leaders' who stole not one but TWO presidential elections, LIED America into a war of aggression, a war of choice; and with malice aforethought illegally "OUTED" an ENTIRE UNDERCOVER CIA cover organization (Brewster-Jennings Energy Consultants) in order to INTIMIDATE and SMEAR an outspoken critic of the administration's invasion of Iraq.
FOR SHAME! America! The nation of "liberty" and "freedom" ruled by a thug with LESS sense of "honor" and faithfulness than a mob boss from a Hollywood movie!
============================================
Questions About Cheney Remain
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
March 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07cheney.html
WASHINGTON, March 6 — In legal terms, the jury has spoken in the Libby case. In political terms, Dick Cheney is still awaiting a judgment.
For weeks, Washington watched, mesmerized, as the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. cast Vice President Cheney, his former boss, in the role of puppeteer, pulling the strings in a covert public relations campaign to defend the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq and discredit a critic.
“There is a cloud over the vice president,” the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told the jury in summing up the case last month.
Mr. Cheney was not charged in the case, cooperated with the investigation and expressed a willingness to testify if called, though he never was. Yet he was a central figure throughout, fighting back against suggestions that he and President Bush had taken the country to war on the basis of flawed intelligence, showing himself to be keenly sensitive to how he was portrayed in the news media and backing Mr. Libby to the end.
With Tuesday’s verdict on Mr. Libby — guilty on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice — Mr. Cheney’s critics, and even some of his supporters, said the vice president had been diminished.
“The trial has been death by 1,000 cuts for Cheney,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “It’s hurt him inside the administration. It’s hurt him with the Congress, and it’s hurt his stature around the world because it has shown a lot of the inner workings of the White House. It peeled the bark right off the way they operate.”
The legal question in the case was whether Mr. Libby lied to investigators and prosecutors looking into the leak of the name of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, whose husband, the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times accusing the White House of distorting pre-war intelligence. Mr. Cheney scrawled notes on a copy of the article, asking “did his wife send him on a junket?”
Now, Mr. Cheney faces a civil suit from Mr. Wilson.
The political question was whether Mr. Libby, the vice president’s former chief of staff, was “the fall guy” for his boss, in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. Though the defense introduced a note from Mr. Cheney worrying that Mr. Libby was being sacrificed to protect other White House officials, some say the vice president bears responsibility for the fate of his former aide, known as Scooter.
“It was clear that what Scooter was doing in the Wilson case was at Dick’s behest,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a former Reagan administration official who has been close with both men but has broken with Mr. Cheney over the Iraq war. “That was clear. It was clear from Dick’s notes on the Op-Ed piece that he wanted to go get Wilson. And Scooter’s not that type. He’s not a vindictive person.”
Mr. Cheney is arguably the most powerful vice president in American history, and perhaps the most secretive. The trial painted a portrait of a man immersed in the kind of political pushback that is common to all White Houses, yet often presumed to be the province of low-level political operatives, not the vice president of the United States.
Prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Libby testifying to a grand jury that Mr. Cheney had asked Mr. Bush to declassify an intelligence report selectively so he, Mr. Libby, could leak it to sympathetic reporters. Mr. Cheney’s hand-written scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including the one that hinted Mr. Cheney believed that his own staffer, Mr. Libby, was being sacrificed.
“’Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others,” the note read.
Mr. Cheney’s defenders insisted the vice president was not out to smear Mr. Wilson or even clear his own name, but simply to defend a policy he fiercely believed in.
“There wasn’t some Cheney strategy or Wilson strategy,” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s former political director. “There was only one strategy: to convey the nature of the intelligence and the nature of the threat.”
Ms. Matalin said Mr. Cheney remained as influential as ever where it counts — with Mr. Bush.
Still, liberal critics of the administration had a field day with the trial. They are hoping the Democrats who now control Congress will use the case to investigate Mr. Cheney’s role further. Mr. Schumer, who was among the first to call for a special prosecutor in the case, suggested in an interview that they might.
“I think there is a view in the public that Libby was the fall guy,” Mr. Schumer said, “and I do think we will look at how the case shows the misuse of intelligence both before and after the war in Iraq.”
Such issues are already of intense interest to scholars, who say the Libby case will invariably shape Mr. Cheney’s legacy.
Historians typically pay scant attention to vice presidents, unless they become president. Mr. Cheney, though, is an exception. The historian Robert Dallek, who has written about presidents including Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, predicts scholars will “be racing for vice-presidential records in a way that we’ve never seen before” to answer questions raised by the Libby trial.
“It will deepen the impressions of someone who was a tremendous manipulator and was very defensive about mistakes,” Mr. Dallek said, “and I think it will greatly deepen the impression of a political operator who knew the ins and outs of Washington hardball politics. He’s going to be, I think, the most interesting vice president in history to study.”
On a personal level, friends of the vice president say the trial has been deeply painful for him. Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney were all but inseparable — Ms. Matalin has called the former aide “Cheney’s Cheney” — and often started their days by riding to work together. Mr. Libby accompanied the vice president almost everywhere he went, and Mr. Cheney made clear his high professional and personal regard for his aide, even playing host to a book party for him in 2002 at his official residence. Alan K. Simpson, a Republican former senator from Mr. Cheney’s home state, Wyoming, said he saw Mr. Cheney over Christmas and asked how he was doing. He took the answer as a kind of oblique reference to the Libby case.
“He said, ‘I’m fine, I’m O.K., I have people I trust around me — it’s the same old stuff, Al,’ ” Mr. Simpson recalled.
Another friend of Mr. Cheney’s, Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman, said the verdict had “got to be heartbreaking for the vice president.” But Mr. Weber said he wished Mr. Cheney would explain himself.
“I don’t think he has to do a long apologia,” Mr. Weber said, “but I think he should say something, just to pierce the boil a little bit.”
Instead, Mr. Cheney maintained his silence Tuesday. As the verdicts were being read, he went to the Capitol for the Republicans’ regular weekly policy luncheon. Later, he issued a two-paragraph statement saying only that he was disappointed with the verdict, “saddened for Scooter and his family” and would have no further comment while an appeal is pending.
With a career in politics that goes back to the Nixon White House, Mr. Cheney is no stranger to Washington scandal and how to weather it. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he went hunting with the vice president late last year and did not sense that the trial was bothering him.
“He’s got a thick hide,” Mr. Graham said, “and he needs it.”
Monday, March 05, 2007
Serves the AIPAC neo-cons "ignore Florida, Ohio disenfranchised black voters" right: neo-Nazi white supremacists gaining power in western US...
George Bush and Dick Cheney did not win the election of 2000, and the only reason they got away with stealing the election so easily was because the AIPAC, PNAC neo-cons so deeply embedded in the US press/media - the Krauthammers and Kurtzs and Kristols and Sulzbergers and Levins and Safires and Rosenthals and Wolfowitzs (a senior academic at the Johns Hopkins Institute of International Affairs) and dozens of other AIPAC/PNAC neo-cons gave the Republican vote-stealing machine a FREE PASS... in 2000, in 2004, and again after Bush strummed guitar and ate birthday cake while Black citizens in New Orleans DROWNED as police and vigilantes prevented some hurricane Katrina flooding victims from even walking across a bridge to dry land!
So, whadda-ya know, the GENUINE neo-Nazis are making a comeback out west, and INTIMIDATING COPS, PROSECUTORS, and (probably) JUDGES..... in the same way the neo-cons and anti-abortion "religious" reactionaries INTIMIDATE civil-rights and other "librul" judges and sexual-health providers on all the faux-issues that "Moral Values" reactionaries use to try to take America back to the good ol' Great Depression days (of ZERO social safety net and ZERO government obligation to "promote the general welfare", as the US Constitution would have it).
Of course, a few intimidated cops, prosecutors, and judges are SMALL POTATOES compared to BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars of US aid for the IDF (Isreal Defense Force), much less tens of billions of dollars for American military forces actually bombing Muslim nations, so we can count on the Krauthammer/Safire/Kurtz/Sulzberger/Kristol (ad naseum) crew to PRETEND NOT TO NOTICE the rising violence and intimidation of the unabashed neo-Nazis.
IF we had predicted, ten or a dozen years ago, that the AIPAC press/media would be COMPLICIT in the neo-Nazi INTIMIDATION of cops, prosecutors, and other law-officers (and more than likely journalists and reporters), everyone would have accused us of being bonkers.
But there you have it.....
===========================================
White supremacist gang gaining clout
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 4, 2:27 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070304/ap_on_re_us/white_supremacist_gang;_ylt=AiQmFqTNARUfrn5JR2VhNZPMWM0F
BUENA PARK, Calif. - The white supremacist gang Public Enemy No. 1 began two decades ago as a group of teenage punk-rock fans from upper-middle class bedroom communities in Southern California.
Now, the violent gang that deals in drugs, guns and identity theft is gaining clout across the West after forging an alliance with the notorious Aryan Brotherhood, authorities say.
Police say the gang has compiled a "hit list" targeting five officers and a gang prosecutor — a sign of just how brazen Public Enemy has become.
"They make police officers very, very nervous," said Cpl. Nate Booth, a gang detective with the Buena Park Police Department in Orange County.
Law enforcement officials trace the gang's rise to shifts in the power structure inside prisons.
The Aryan Brotherhood has long been the dominant white supremacist gang behind bars, with the Nazi Low Riders acting as its foot soldiers on the outside for drug dealing and identity theft.
In 2000, officials reclassified the Low Riders as a prison-based gang and began sending its members to solitary confinement as soon as they were imprisoned.
The crackdown hurt the gang's ability to interact with the Aryan Brotherhood, which turned to Public Enemy, authorities say. The alliance was cemented in 2005 when Donald Reed "Popeye" Mazza, an alleged leader of Public Enemy, was inducted into the Aryan Brotherhood.
The pact has increased Public Enemy's wealth and recruiting power, said Steve Slaten, a special agent for the California Department of Corrections.
In the past three years, its ranks have doubled to at least 400, but authorities suspect there could be hundreds of other members operating under the radar. They said heavy recruiting is taking place throughout California and Arizona, and members have been picked up by police in Nevada and Idaho.
"They move around. We find them everywhere," said Lowell Smith of the Orange County Probation Department.
The gang traces its roots to the punk rock subculture in Long Beach in the 1980s. It soon shifted its base to nearby Orange County and in the 1990s began recruiting what police call "bored latchkey kids" — white teenagers from upper-middle class neighborhoods.
Public Enemy is now involved in identity theft. Booth said the gang has gone from swiping personal information from mailboxes and trash to stealing entire credit profiles with the help of girlfriends and wives who take jobs at banks, mortgage companies and even state motor vehicle departments.
Money from those operations is used to fuel its methamphetamine business, he said.
Two months ago, police agencies in Orange County arrested 67 suspected members after learning about the hit list against officers in Anaheim, Buena Park and Costa Mesa. Those arrested in the raid were charged with conspiracy to commit murder, possession of illegal weapons and identity theft, among other things. Police have not released their names or further details because the investigation is continuing.
Booth recalled another case in which a member of the gang fired dozens of rounds at police from a car driven by his girlfriend during a high-speed freeway pursuit. After being arrested, the man was taken to an emergency room, where he grabbed a scalpel and tried to slash a deputy before cutting himself, Booth said.
Authorities worry that Public Enemy is using stolen credit information to learn the home addresses of police and their families. Some officers have gone to court to have addresses removed from those records, Booth said.
So, whadda-ya know, the GENUINE neo-Nazis are making a comeback out west, and INTIMIDATING COPS, PROSECUTORS, and (probably) JUDGES..... in the same way the neo-cons and anti-abortion "religious" reactionaries INTIMIDATE civil-rights and other "librul" judges and sexual-health providers on all the faux-issues that "Moral Values" reactionaries use to try to take America back to the good ol' Great Depression days (of ZERO social safety net and ZERO government obligation to "promote the general welfare", as the US Constitution would have it).
Of course, a few intimidated cops, prosecutors, and judges are SMALL POTATOES compared to BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars of US aid for the IDF (Isreal Defense Force), much less tens of billions of dollars for American military forces actually bombing Muslim nations, so we can count on the Krauthammer/Safire/Kurtz/Sulzberger/Kristol (ad naseum) crew to PRETEND NOT TO NOTICE the rising violence and intimidation of the unabashed neo-Nazis.
IF we had predicted, ten or a dozen years ago, that the AIPAC press/media would be COMPLICIT in the neo-Nazi INTIMIDATION of cops, prosecutors, and other law-officers (and more than likely journalists and reporters), everyone would have accused us of being bonkers.
But there you have it.....
===========================================
White supremacist gang gaining clout
By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 4, 2:27 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070304/ap_on_re_us/white_supremacist_gang;_ylt=AiQmFqTNARUfrn5JR2VhNZPMWM0F
BUENA PARK, Calif. - The white supremacist gang Public Enemy No. 1 began two decades ago as a group of teenage punk-rock fans from upper-middle class bedroom communities in Southern California.
Now, the violent gang that deals in drugs, guns and identity theft is gaining clout across the West after forging an alliance with the notorious Aryan Brotherhood, authorities say.
Police say the gang has compiled a "hit list" targeting five officers and a gang prosecutor — a sign of just how brazen Public Enemy has become.
"They make police officers very, very nervous," said Cpl. Nate Booth, a gang detective with the Buena Park Police Department in Orange County.
Law enforcement officials trace the gang's rise to shifts in the power structure inside prisons.
The Aryan Brotherhood has long been the dominant white supremacist gang behind bars, with the Nazi Low Riders acting as its foot soldiers on the outside for drug dealing and identity theft.
In 2000, officials reclassified the Low Riders as a prison-based gang and began sending its members to solitary confinement as soon as they were imprisoned.
The crackdown hurt the gang's ability to interact with the Aryan Brotherhood, which turned to Public Enemy, authorities say. The alliance was cemented in 2005 when Donald Reed "Popeye" Mazza, an alleged leader of Public Enemy, was inducted into the Aryan Brotherhood.
The pact has increased Public Enemy's wealth and recruiting power, said Steve Slaten, a special agent for the California Department of Corrections.
In the past three years, its ranks have doubled to at least 400, but authorities suspect there could be hundreds of other members operating under the radar. They said heavy recruiting is taking place throughout California and Arizona, and members have been picked up by police in Nevada and Idaho.
"They move around. We find them everywhere," said Lowell Smith of the Orange County Probation Department.
The gang traces its roots to the punk rock subculture in Long Beach in the 1980s. It soon shifted its base to nearby Orange County and in the 1990s began recruiting what police call "bored latchkey kids" — white teenagers from upper-middle class neighborhoods.
Public Enemy is now involved in identity theft. Booth said the gang has gone from swiping personal information from mailboxes and trash to stealing entire credit profiles with the help of girlfriends and wives who take jobs at banks, mortgage companies and even state motor vehicle departments.
Money from those operations is used to fuel its methamphetamine business, he said.
Two months ago, police agencies in Orange County arrested 67 suspected members after learning about the hit list against officers in Anaheim, Buena Park and Costa Mesa. Those arrested in the raid were charged with conspiracy to commit murder, possession of illegal weapons and identity theft, among other things. Police have not released their names or further details because the investigation is continuing.
Booth recalled another case in which a member of the gang fired dozens of rounds at police from a car driven by his girlfriend during a high-speed freeway pursuit. After being arrested, the man was taken to an emergency room, where he grabbed a scalpel and tried to slash a deputy before cutting himself, Booth said.
Authorities worry that Public Enemy is using stolen credit information to learn the home addresses of police and their families. Some officers have gone to court to have addresses removed from those records, Booth said.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Times mea culpa - sort of.... NY Times editors decry the "DESPICABLE" "LAWLESSNESS" of the Cheney-Bush administration....
New York Times editorial semi-confessional: Time to CLEAN UP the "DESPICABLE" "LAWLESSNESS" and [Gestapo/KGBesque] unlimited arrest, detention, torture, and death-squad powers of the Cheney-Bush administration.
THESE are the stories and headlines the Times has been either down-playing or BURYING (under convoluted, misleading headlines or deep in the less-read section of the paper) over the past 6 years.....
The Must-Do List
Editorial
March 4, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/opinion/04sun1.html
The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.
Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.
It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.
Today we’re offering a list — which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive — of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems.
• Our list starts with three fundamental tasks:
Restore Habeas Corpus
One of the new act’s most indecent provisions denies anyone Mr. Bush labels an “illegal enemy combatant” the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The arguments for doing this were specious. Habeas corpus is nothing remotely like a get-out-of-jail-free card for terrorists, as supporters would have you believe. It is a way to sort out those justly detained from those unjustly detained. It will not “clog the courts,” as Senator Graham claims. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a worthy bill that would restore habeas corpus. It is essential to bringing integrity to the detention system and reviving the United States’ credibility.
Stop Illegal Spying
Mr. Bush’s program of intercepting Americans’ international calls and e-mail messages without a warrant has not ceased. The agreement announced recently — under which a secret court supposedly gave its blessing to the program — did nothing to restore judicial process or ensure that Americans’ rights are preserved. Congress needs to pass a measure, like one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, to force Mr. Bush to obey the law that requires warrants for electronic surveillance.
Ban Torture, Really
The provisions in the Military Commissions Act that Senator McCain trumpeted as a ban on torture are hardly that. It is still largely up to the president to decide what constitutes torture and abuse for the purpose of prosecuting anyone who breaks the rules. This amounts to rewriting the Geneva Conventions and puts every American soldier at far greater risk if captured. It allows the president to decide in secret what kinds of treatment he will permit at the Central Intelligence Agency’s prisons. The law absolves American intelligence agents and their bosses of any acts of torture and abuse they have already committed.
• Many of the tasks facing Congress involve the way the United States takes prisoners, and how it treats them. There are two sets of prisons in the war on terror. The military runs one set in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. The other is even more shadowy, run by the C.I.A. at secret places.
Close the C.I.A. Prisons
When the Military Commissions Act passed, Mr. Bush triumphantly announced that he now had the power to keep the secret prisons open. He cast this as a great victory for national security. It was a defeat for America’s image around the world. The prisons should be closed.
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
The United States has to come clean on all of the “ghost prisoners” it has in the secret camps. Holding prisoners without any accounting violates human rights norms. Human Rights Watch says it has identified nearly 40 men and women who have disappeared into secret American-run prisons.
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
This is the odious practice of abducting foreign citizens and secretly flying them to countries where everyone knows they will be tortured. It is already illegal to send a prisoner to a country if there is reason to believe he will be tortured. The administration’s claim that it got “diplomatic assurances” that prisoners would not be abused is laughable.
A bill by Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, would require the executive branch to list countries known to abuse and torture prisoners. No prisoner could be sent to any of them unless the secretary of state certified that the country’s government no longer abused its prisoners or offered a way to verify that a prisoner will not be mistreated. It says “diplomatic assurances” are not sufficient.
• Congress needs to completely overhaul the military prisons for terrorist suspects, starting with the way prisoners are classified. Shortly after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared all members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be “illegal enemy combatants” not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or American justice. Over time, the designation was applied to anyone the administration chose, including some United States citizens and the entire detainee population of Gitmo.
To address this mess, the government must:
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
“Illegal enemy combatant” is assigned a dangerously broad definition in the Military Commissions Act. It allows Mr. Bush — or for that matter anyone he chooses to designate to do the job — to apply this label to virtually any foreigner anywhere, including those living legally in the United States.
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
When the administration began taking prisoners in Afghanistan, it did not much bother to screen them. Hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo, where far too many remain to this day. The vast majority will never even be brought before tribunals and still face indefinite detention without charges.
Under legal pressure, Mr. Bush created “combatant status review tribunals,” but they are a mockery of any civilized legal proceeding. They take place thousands of miles from the point of capture, and often years later. Evidence obtained by coercion and torture is permitted. The inmates do not get to challenge this evidence. They usually do not see it.
The Bush administration uses the hoary “fog of war” dodge to justify the failure to screen prisoners, saying it is not practical to do that on the battlefield. That’s nonsense. It did not happen in Afghanistan, and often in Iraq, because Mr. Bush decided just to ship the prisoners off to Gitmo.
• Prisoners designated as illegal combatants are subject to trial rules out of the Red Queen’s playbook. The administration refuses to allow lawyers access to 14 terrorism suspects transferred in September from C.I.A. prisons to Guantánamo. It says that if they had a lawyer, they might say that they were tortured or abused at the C.I.A. prisons, and anything that happened at those prisons is secret.
At first, Mr. Bush provided no system of trial at the Guantánamo camp. Then he invented his own military tribunals, which were rightly overturned by the Supreme Court. Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act, which did not fix the problem. Some tasks now for Congress:
Ban Tainted Evidence
The Military Commissions Act and the regulations drawn up by the Pentagon to put it into action, are far too permissive on evidence obtained through physical abuse or coercion. This evidence is unreliable. The method of obtaining it is an affront.
Ban Secret Evidence
Under the Pentagon’s new rules for military tribunals, judges are allowed to keep evidence secret from a prisoner’s lawyer if the government persuades the judge it is classified. The information that may be withheld can include interrogation methods, which would make it hard, if not impossible, to prove torture or abuse.
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
The military commission rules define this sort of secret evidence as “any information or material that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to statute, executive order or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.” This is too broad, even if a president can be trusted to exercise the power fairly and carefully. Mr. Bush has shown he cannot be trusted to do that.
Respect the Right to Counsel
Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration allowed the government to listen to conversations and intercept mail between some prisoners and their lawyers. This had the effect of suspending their right to effective legal representation. Since then, the administration has been unceasingly hostile to any lawyers who defend detainees. The right to legal counsel does not exist to coddle serial terrorists or snarl legal proceedings. It exists to protect innocent people from illegal imprisonment.
• Beyond all these huge tasks, Congress should halt the federal government’s race to classify documents to avoid public scrutiny — 15.6 million in 2005, nearly double the 2001 number. It should also reverse the grievous harm this administration has done to the Freedom of Information Act by encouraging agencies to reject requests for documents whenever possible. Congress should curtail F.B.I. spying on nonviolent antiwar groups and revisit parts of the Patriot Act that allow this practice.
The United States should apologize to a Canadian citizen and a German citizen, both innocent, who were kidnapped and tortured by American agents.
Oh yes, and it is time to close the Guantánamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congress’s complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism.
THESE are the stories and headlines the Times has been either down-playing or BURYING (under convoluted, misleading headlines or deep in the less-read section of the paper) over the past 6 years.....
The Must-Do List
Editorial
March 4, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/opinion/04sun1.html
The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.
Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.
It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.
Today we’re offering a list — which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive — of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems.
• Our list starts with three fundamental tasks:
Restore Habeas Corpus
One of the new act’s most indecent provisions denies anyone Mr. Bush labels an “illegal enemy combatant” the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The arguments for doing this were specious. Habeas corpus is nothing remotely like a get-out-of-jail-free card for terrorists, as supporters would have you believe. It is a way to sort out those justly detained from those unjustly detained. It will not “clog the courts,” as Senator Graham claims. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a worthy bill that would restore habeas corpus. It is essential to bringing integrity to the detention system and reviving the United States’ credibility.
Stop Illegal Spying
Mr. Bush’s program of intercepting Americans’ international calls and e-mail messages without a warrant has not ceased. The agreement announced recently — under which a secret court supposedly gave its blessing to the program — did nothing to restore judicial process or ensure that Americans’ rights are preserved. Congress needs to pass a measure, like one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, to force Mr. Bush to obey the law that requires warrants for electronic surveillance.
Ban Torture, Really
The provisions in the Military Commissions Act that Senator McCain trumpeted as a ban on torture are hardly that. It is still largely up to the president to decide what constitutes torture and abuse for the purpose of prosecuting anyone who breaks the rules. This amounts to rewriting the Geneva Conventions and puts every American soldier at far greater risk if captured. It allows the president to decide in secret what kinds of treatment he will permit at the Central Intelligence Agency’s prisons. The law absolves American intelligence agents and their bosses of any acts of torture and abuse they have already committed.
• Many of the tasks facing Congress involve the way the United States takes prisoners, and how it treats them. There are two sets of prisons in the war on terror. The military runs one set in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. The other is even more shadowy, run by the C.I.A. at secret places.
Close the C.I.A. Prisons
When the Military Commissions Act passed, Mr. Bush triumphantly announced that he now had the power to keep the secret prisons open. He cast this as a great victory for national security. It was a defeat for America’s image around the world. The prisons should be closed.
Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
The United States has to come clean on all of the “ghost prisoners” it has in the secret camps. Holding prisoners without any accounting violates human rights norms. Human Rights Watch says it has identified nearly 40 men and women who have disappeared into secret American-run prisons.
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
This is the odious practice of abducting foreign citizens and secretly flying them to countries where everyone knows they will be tortured. It is already illegal to send a prisoner to a country if there is reason to believe he will be tortured. The administration’s claim that it got “diplomatic assurances” that prisoners would not be abused is laughable.
A bill by Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, would require the executive branch to list countries known to abuse and torture prisoners. No prisoner could be sent to any of them unless the secretary of state certified that the country’s government no longer abused its prisoners or offered a way to verify that a prisoner will not be mistreated. It says “diplomatic assurances” are not sufficient.
• Congress needs to completely overhaul the military prisons for terrorist suspects, starting with the way prisoners are classified. Shortly after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared all members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be “illegal enemy combatants” not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or American justice. Over time, the designation was applied to anyone the administration chose, including some United States citizens and the entire detainee population of Gitmo.
To address this mess, the government must:
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
“Illegal enemy combatant” is assigned a dangerously broad definition in the Military Commissions Act. It allows Mr. Bush — or for that matter anyone he chooses to designate to do the job — to apply this label to virtually any foreigner anywhere, including those living legally in the United States.
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
When the administration began taking prisoners in Afghanistan, it did not much bother to screen them. Hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo, where far too many remain to this day. The vast majority will never even be brought before tribunals and still face indefinite detention without charges.
Under legal pressure, Mr. Bush created “combatant status review tribunals,” but they are a mockery of any civilized legal proceeding. They take place thousands of miles from the point of capture, and often years later. Evidence obtained by coercion and torture is permitted. The inmates do not get to challenge this evidence. They usually do not see it.
The Bush administration uses the hoary “fog of war” dodge to justify the failure to screen prisoners, saying it is not practical to do that on the battlefield. That’s nonsense. It did not happen in Afghanistan, and often in Iraq, because Mr. Bush decided just to ship the prisoners off to Gitmo.
• Prisoners designated as illegal combatants are subject to trial rules out of the Red Queen’s playbook. The administration refuses to allow lawyers access to 14 terrorism suspects transferred in September from C.I.A. prisons to Guantánamo. It says that if they had a lawyer, they might say that they were tortured or abused at the C.I.A. prisons, and anything that happened at those prisons is secret.
At first, Mr. Bush provided no system of trial at the Guantánamo camp. Then he invented his own military tribunals, which were rightly overturned by the Supreme Court. Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act, which did not fix the problem. Some tasks now for Congress:
Ban Tainted Evidence
The Military Commissions Act and the regulations drawn up by the Pentagon to put it into action, are far too permissive on evidence obtained through physical abuse or coercion. This evidence is unreliable. The method of obtaining it is an affront.
Ban Secret Evidence
Under the Pentagon’s new rules for military tribunals, judges are allowed to keep evidence secret from a prisoner’s lawyer if the government persuades the judge it is classified. The information that may be withheld can include interrogation methods, which would make it hard, if not impossible, to prove torture or abuse.
Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
The military commission rules define this sort of secret evidence as “any information or material that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to statute, executive order or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.” This is too broad, even if a president can be trusted to exercise the power fairly and carefully. Mr. Bush has shown he cannot be trusted to do that.
Respect the Right to Counsel
Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration allowed the government to listen to conversations and intercept mail between some prisoners and their lawyers. This had the effect of suspending their right to effective legal representation. Since then, the administration has been unceasingly hostile to any lawyers who defend detainees. The right to legal counsel does not exist to coddle serial terrorists or snarl legal proceedings. It exists to protect innocent people from illegal imprisonment.
• Beyond all these huge tasks, Congress should halt the federal government’s race to classify documents to avoid public scrutiny — 15.6 million in 2005, nearly double the 2001 number. It should also reverse the grievous harm this administration has done to the Freedom of Information Act by encouraging agencies to reject requests for documents whenever possible. Congress should curtail F.B.I. spying on nonviolent antiwar groups and revisit parts of the Patriot Act that allow this practice.
The United States should apologize to a Canadian citizen and a German citizen, both innocent, who were kidnapped and tortured by American agents.
Oh yes, and it is time to close the Guantánamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congress’s complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism.
Nation's disconnect from Bush administration crimes, incompetene, corruption reaching critical mass....
Bombshells, Blackguards and General Breakdown
P. M. Carpenter
March 03, 2007
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2007/03/bombshells_blac.html
Incompetence, neglect, profligacy, isolation, malfeasance, even a textbook psychosis of clinical disconnect -- all are reaching critical mass at government's highest levels. Every day, it seems, we read another disclosure of scandalous failure. Taken separately, they're bad enough. Lump them together and one wonders just how much longer the nation can endure, how much more it can tolerate.
The latest -- merely the latest in this accelerating implosion -- is that the Bush administration has permitted the Army National Guard and Reserves to fall to 12 percent readiness. The "12" is no typo. Should a natural catastrophe strike, oh, let's say Alabama, the Guard would find itself without "trucks, Humvees, generators, radios, night-vision goggles and other gear that would be critical for responding to a major disaster," not to mention a "terrorist attack or other domestic emergency," reports a congressional commission.
The reason for this deplorable state of readiness is, of course, the administration's singular fixation on Iraq, which is sucking all the material oxygen from anything and everything unrelated to its civil war, but profoundly relevant to the war on insecurity and unpreparedness at home.
Accordingly the administration has already launched roughly half its projected number of new "joint security stations" in Baghdad, part of its sixth stab at pacifying the capital city and in direct opposition to what Congress wants, its generals want, the Iraqis want and the American people want. Its obstinance, however, is peddled as leadership.
American soldiers are fanning out from small, vulnerable outposts, charged with somehow predistinguishing nervous civilians from homicidal militants, insurgents or common criminals. Meanwhile our "friends," the Iraqi security forces, "are kept out of briefing sessions, largely because the Americans are suspicious that information will be passed on to" ... see aforementioned list.
What is daily American life like under these circumstances? For just one U.S. battalion in western Baghdad, insurgents recently "blasted rocket-propelled grenades at an Iraqi-guarded checkpoint," followed that with a "barrage [of] small-arms fire," "then detonated two car bombs when American troops rushed to respond," then, for good measure, lobbed "two mortar rounds ... about 50 yards outside another outpost the battalion had set up." And all in one day.
"I guess it is a little scary," remarked 22-year-old Army private, Peter Lahoda.
One need not wonder why he finds it so, since he made the comment "as he gripped an M240 belt-fed machine gun in a turret that has been shot at three times from the street below."
Sorry to ruin your day even more, Pete, if that's possible, but here are a couple little items just as scary -- perhaps even scarier. Thursday our vice president, apparently living in some other cosmic time zone, said if we "withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance." Yes, let's do keep a watchful eye out for that development.
And on a higher front, an online foreign-policy journal relates that "Those close to [the president] report that he remains convinced of success in Iraq and of how success will revive Republican political fortunes."
I am reminded of another little fellow who was convinced, right to the very end, that new jet fighters or FDR's death would prove to be the anticipated turning point in his war gone bad. Things didn't quite work out for him, though -- or for those he led.
I never dreamed I'd live to see the day in which I longed for my government to be marked only by incompetence, or only by neglect, or profligacy, or isolation, or malfeasance, or even a clinical disconnect. But these days, any one of these, by itself, would seem like Camelot.
P. M. Carpenter
March 03, 2007
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2007/03/bombshells_blac.html
Incompetence, neglect, profligacy, isolation, malfeasance, even a textbook psychosis of clinical disconnect -- all are reaching critical mass at government's highest levels. Every day, it seems, we read another disclosure of scandalous failure. Taken separately, they're bad enough. Lump them together and one wonders just how much longer the nation can endure, how much more it can tolerate.
The latest -- merely the latest in this accelerating implosion -- is that the Bush administration has permitted the Army National Guard and Reserves to fall to 12 percent readiness. The "12" is no typo. Should a natural catastrophe strike, oh, let's say Alabama, the Guard would find itself without "trucks, Humvees, generators, radios, night-vision goggles and other gear that would be critical for responding to a major disaster," not to mention a "terrorist attack or other domestic emergency," reports a congressional commission.
The reason for this deplorable state of readiness is, of course, the administration's singular fixation on Iraq, which is sucking all the material oxygen from anything and everything unrelated to its civil war, but profoundly relevant to the war on insecurity and unpreparedness at home.
Accordingly the administration has already launched roughly half its projected number of new "joint security stations" in Baghdad, part of its sixth stab at pacifying the capital city and in direct opposition to what Congress wants, its generals want, the Iraqis want and the American people want. Its obstinance, however, is peddled as leadership.
American soldiers are fanning out from small, vulnerable outposts, charged with somehow predistinguishing nervous civilians from homicidal militants, insurgents or common criminals. Meanwhile our "friends," the Iraqi security forces, "are kept out of briefing sessions, largely because the Americans are suspicious that information will be passed on to" ... see aforementioned list.
What is daily American life like under these circumstances? For just one U.S. battalion in western Baghdad, insurgents recently "blasted rocket-propelled grenades at an Iraqi-guarded checkpoint," followed that with a "barrage [of] small-arms fire," "then detonated two car bombs when American troops rushed to respond," then, for good measure, lobbed "two mortar rounds ... about 50 yards outside another outpost the battalion had set up." And all in one day.
"I guess it is a little scary," remarked 22-year-old Army private, Peter Lahoda.
One need not wonder why he finds it so, since he made the comment "as he gripped an M240 belt-fed machine gun in a turret that has been shot at three times from the street below."
Sorry to ruin your day even more, Pete, if that's possible, but here are a couple little items just as scary -- perhaps even scarier. Thursday our vice president, apparently living in some other cosmic time zone, said if we "withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance." Yes, let's do keep a watchful eye out for that development.
And on a higher front, an online foreign-policy journal relates that "Those close to [the president] report that he remains convinced of success in Iraq and of how success will revive Republican political fortunes."
I am reminded of another little fellow who was convinced, right to the very end, that new jet fighters or FDR's death would prove to be the anticipated turning point in his war gone bad. Things didn't quite work out for him, though -- or for those he led.
I never dreamed I'd live to see the day in which I longed for my government to be marked only by incompetence, or only by neglect, or profligacy, or isolation, or malfeasance, or even a clinical disconnect. But these days, any one of these, by itself, would seem like Camelot.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Media WHORES censor Ann Coulter HATE SPEECH at Rethuglican CPAC convention from front-page discussion....
Edwards Campaign Responds to Ann Coulter Calling Him 'Faggot'
By E&P Staff
March 03, 2007
http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003553226
NEW YORK In recent years she has suggested that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have or may have homosexual tendencies. Now columnist/author Ann Coulter has targeted former senator (and current candidate for president) John Edwards.
Now the Edwards campaign has responded by trying to fundraise some "Coulter Cash."
Speaking Friday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I -- so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN. Many newspapers covered the event but failed to mention the Coulter slur.
But David Bonior, the former congressman and now Edwards campaign manager, responded in an email to supporters, "This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it's begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back?
"I say we fight. Help us raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign. I just threw in 100 bucks. Will you join me?
"Coulter's attack was no accident. It happened on national television at one of the year's biggest conservative conferences....If we can raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week, we can show that bigotry will only backfire on those who use it."
Democratic Party chief Howard Dean weighed in later: "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks."
On Saturday, Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Romney said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect."
“The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for McCain.
The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann."
Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann."
Vice President Cheney addressed the group on Thursday. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney appeared before her on Friday. Sen. John McCain skipped the event.
The New York Times' Adam Nagourney failed to mention the crack about Edwards, in observing Saturday in the paper: "The conference drew thousands of attendees, many of whom waited in a long line out the door for a late-afternoon appearance by Ann Coulter, the conservative author and commentator." Later Saturday he posted a blog item at www.nytimes.com that did discuss the Coulter crack.
The Washington Post covered the conference but did not mention Coulter at all in its news report. Neither did the Associated Press, which also attended. UPI did mention the "faggot" quote in its report.
The Los Angeles Times on Saturday quoted Coulter and even put the controversy in a headline. It closed the article: "A Giuliani spokeswoman said she had not heard the speech, and a Romney spokesman did not return calls late Friday."
The Post's Dana Milbank, in a column for the Saturday paper, observed: "Ann Coulter used an anti-gay slur to describe John Edwards (the line drew applause) and asked: 'Did Al Gore actually swallow Michael Moore?' When a questioner asked Coulter why she praises marriage but broke off so many engagements, she responded by calling the questioner ugly."
To watch a video clip of Coulter's remarks, click here.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/14890/1/CSPAN-Coulter-CPAC.wmv/
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Cowardly, craven, AIPAC-corrupted US press/media uses PROPAGANDA terms to skirt "FIRST STRIKE NUCLEAR WAR"....
With each and every passing day, the craven and arrogant neo-cons and neo-confederates who drive the US media narrative (especially the New York Times and Washington Post, which both determine what network TV/cable 'news' coverage will focus on) sound more like the Nazi Party in pre-war (and pre-deathcamp) Germany: convinced of their moral superiority, convinced of their economic and technological superiority, convinced of their military superiority, yet they still must rely on deceptions and distortions to achieve their goals.
In this case, both the AIPAC neo-cons and the business-baron neo-confederates are CONTEMPTUOUS of international treaties and agreements - witness the Kyoto accords, Article 5 of the UN Charter, Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal, THE GENEVA ***ing CONVENTIONS - yet they will HIDE behind "UN SANCTIONS!" as they prepare (in relentless bang-the-drums for war coverage)for A FIRST-SRIKE NUCLEAR WAR.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War
George Lakoff
02.27.2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-words-none-dare-say-_b_42260.html
"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."
--Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006
"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."
--Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006
A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.
In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.
The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.
If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war -- a first strike nuclear war.
We don't know what exactly is being planned -- conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.
The Euphemism
As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,
"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
He replied,
"All options are on the table."
The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations -- without further discussion.
Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.
"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."
Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005, said the same.
"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."
But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position -- making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.
Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,
"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."
Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."
Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.
If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.
Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.
More Euphemisms
The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons at all would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event - in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.
What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false -- and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over wide distance.
To use words like "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.
Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFP's -- explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.
Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for an attack on Iran.
The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war -- in boldface.
Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets -- a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq's. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.
Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences -- and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists -- exactly the opposite of the effect US planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.
As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.
"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
--Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06
"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because, if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a world-wide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear -- real fear -- in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.
Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in the New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed administration official has said (New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians step over."
What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water - if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death - the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.
First, describe Iran as evil - part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons --weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
Call nuclear development "an existential threat" - a threat to our very existence.
Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.
Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" -- or better protection for our troops from the EFP's, or single-shot canister bombs.
Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.
Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
Get the press to go along with each step.
Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.
Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.
Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.
The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.
It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28's will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28's won't do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.
This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.
In this case, both the AIPAC neo-cons and the business-baron neo-confederates are CONTEMPTUOUS of international treaties and agreements - witness the Kyoto accords, Article 5 of the UN Charter, Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal, THE GENEVA ***ing CONVENTIONS - yet they will HIDE behind "UN SANCTIONS!" as they prepare (in relentless bang-the-drums for war coverage)for A FIRST-SRIKE NUCLEAR WAR.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War
George Lakoff
02.27.2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-words-none-dare-say-_b_42260.html
"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."
--Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006
"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."
--Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006
A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.
In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.
The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.
If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war -- a first strike nuclear war.
We don't know what exactly is being planned -- conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.
The Euphemism
As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,
"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
He replied,
"All options are on the table."
The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations -- without further discussion.
Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.
"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."
Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005, said the same.
"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."
But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position -- making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.
Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,
"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."
Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."
Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.
If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.
Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.
More Euphemisms
The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons at all would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event - in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.
What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false -- and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over wide distance.
To use words like "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.
Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFP's -- explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.
Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for an attack on Iran.
The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war -- in boldface.
Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets -- a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq's. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.
Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences -- and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists -- exactly the opposite of the effect US planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.
As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.
"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
--Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06
"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because, if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a world-wide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear -- real fear -- in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.
Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in the New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed administration official has said (New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians step over."
What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water - if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death - the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.
First, describe Iran as evil - part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons --weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
Call nuclear development "an existential threat" - a threat to our very existence.
Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.
Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" -- or better protection for our troops from the EFP's, or single-shot canister bombs.
Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.
Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
Get the press to go along with each step.
Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.
Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.
Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.
The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.
It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28's will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28's won't do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.
This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)