Randy Randy: The Real Top Gun
Seems Randy “Duke” Cunningham couldn’t keep his weapon holstered. Guess they didn’t call him Top Gun for nuttin’. Seems that that the Dukester is probably gay.
What is lost in all this is the treason aspect. The Dukester was on the take while our nation is at war. He has pleaded guilty to padding his own pocket with defense contractors’ bribes. Problem with your weapon? Not my problem, I got mine.
Just what does that involve? Let’s say you are in the US military, you are sent to fight a war. You rely on your government to supply you with the best support it can muster, right? Except for people like Duke, who are on the take. Contracts don’t go to those best qualified, but those who pay people off.
I really don’t care if Randy is gay. Good on ya’, I say. But when such a man issues diatrbes against gays, isn’t there something wrong?
Similarly, I don’t care if Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay. But when she works for her father’s reelection, supporting a party that actively works to support discrimination against gays, isn’t there something wrong? Mary, Duke, what’s with the whiteface?
And moving on, when Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Ken Blackwell mouth their sweet somethings, how do they feel the morning after? Is it all simply a question of gettin’ yours? Are you any different from Mary Cheney and the Dukester?
Witness the past few years. We’ve had that paragon of Republican moral virtue, William Bennett, admit to a serious gambling jones. We’ve had fright-wing DJ Rush Limbaugh admit to being a junkie. We’ve had the virtuous Bill O’Reilly pay off an ex-staffer because his desire to rub certain condiments all over her “spectacular boobs” became public. We’ve had right-wing journalists being paid with tax dollars to become shills for the executive branch, including one who was given White House access while simultaneously running a male hooker ring!
We’ve got the chief-of-staff of the House Majority Leader pleading guilty to serious crimes. We’ve got the chief-of-staff of the Vice President under indictment. We’ve got the Senate Majority Leader under investigation for securities crimes. And all this happening when their own party is in control of virtually every lever of government.
Is it just me? I’m looking for a bit of outrage from those who claim the moral monopoly. From those who “support our troops,” support “family values.” I’m looking for a bit of outrage from those who really believe that homosexuality is a sin. Are you out there?
I’m looking for something from the 30 percenters. Give us just a few slender tendrils that show there is still some monofilament connecting you to a sense of right and wrong, to morals grounded in something other than me, my and mine.
Please, explain. But in doing so, please find an excuse other than Clinton to explain it away.
Bye the Times
This one is a classic, suggested by DogSkinReporter JP.
So what would a free press covering the Downing Street Minutes look like? I try to answer that question on a webpage.
Among other things, the lead-in head reads:
“Top Secret British Minutes Seen Everywhere on May 1st (but in the US) Reveals...”
“America & Constitution Raped”
“237 Documented Lies about Iraq “Threat”, bin Laden Ties”
“Creating the Iraq “Crisis”: A Timeline”
“Pattern Of Deception Includes Social Security, Budgeting, 9/11, Legislation..."
See the full article here:
RiverBend
Been a while since my last posting. Below is something worth reading, from my favorite Baghdadi blogger, RiverBend.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Oops…
Oh my.
Remember Muhsin Abdul Hameed? He’s the head of the Iraqi Islamic Party in Iraq- a Sunni political party that was basically the only blatantly Sunni party taking part in post-occupation politics in Iraq. For those who have forgotten, Abdul Hameed was chosen as one of the rotating presidents back in 2003. Mohsin was actually, er, Mr. February 2004, if you will.
The last couple of days, we’ve been hearing about raids and detentions in various areas. One of these areas is Amriya. We’ve been hearing about random detentions of ‘suspects’ who may be any male between the ages 15 – 65 and looting by Iraqi forces of houses. It’s like the first months after the occupation when the American forces were conducting raids.
We woke up this morning to the interesting news that Muhsin Abdul Hameed had also been detained! A member of the former Iraqi Governing Council, a rotating puppet president, and *The Sunni*. He is The Sunni they hold up to all Sunnis as an example of cooperation and collaboration. Well, he’s the religious Sunni. There is a tribal Sunni (supposedly to appease the Arab Sunni tribes) and that is Ghazi Al Yawir and there is the religious Sunni- Muhsin Abdul Hameed.
The Americans are saying Muhsin was “detained and interviewed”, which makes one think his car was gently pulled over and he was asked a few questions. What actually happened was that his house was raided early morning, doors broken down, windows shattered and he and his three sons had bags placed over their heads and were dragged away. They showed the house, and his wife, today on Arabiya and the house was a disaster. The cabinets were broken, tables overturned, books and papers scattered, etc. An outraged Muhsin was on tv a few minutes ago talking about how the troops pushed him to the floor and how he had an American boot on his neck for twenty minutes.
Talabani was seemingly irritated. He wondered why no one asked him about the arrest before it occurred- as if the he is personally consulted on every other raid and detention. The detention is disturbing. Now I am not personally fond of Muhsin Abdul Hameed- he looks somewhat like a dried potato, and he’s a Puppet. It is disturbing, though, because if this was really a mistake, then just imagine how many other ‘mistakes’ are being unfairly detained and possibly tortured in places like Abu Ghraib. Abdul Hameed is one of their own and even he wasn’t safe from a raid, humiliation and detention. He was out the same day, but other Iraqis don’t have the luxury of a huffy Talabani and outraged political party.
Was it meant to send a message to Sunnis? That’s what some people are saying. Many people believe it was meant to tell Sunnis, “None of you are safe- even the ones who work with us.” It’s just difficult to believe this is one big misunderstanding or mistake.
On the other hand, watching the situation unfold was somewhat like watching one of those annoying reality tv shows where they take someone off of a farm, for example, and put them in New York and then watch how they cope- what was it called? “Faking It”? How will Muhsin feel about raids and detentions now that he’s been on the other side of them?
- posted by river @ 11:37 PM
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Shia Leaders…
In Baghdad there’s talk of the latest “Operation Lightning”. It hasn’t yet been implemented in our area but we’ve been hearing about it. So far all we’ve seen are a few additional checkpoints and a disappearing mobile network. Baghdad is actually split into two large regions- Karkh (west Baghdad) and Rasafa (east Baghdad) with the Tigris River separating them. Karkh, according to this plan, is going to be split into 15 smaller areas or sub-districts and Rasafa into 7 sub-districts. There are also going to be 675 checkpoints and all of the entrances to Baghdad are going to be guarded.
We are a little puzzled why Karkh should be split into 15 sub-districts and Rasafa only seven. Karkh is actually smaller in area than Rasafa and less populated. On the other hand, Karkh contains the Green Zone- so that could be a reason. People are also anxious about the 675 check points. It’s difficult enough right now getting around Baghdad, more check points are going to make things trickier. The plan includes 40,000 Iraqi security forces and that is making people a little bit uneasy. Iraqi National Guard are not pleasant or upstanding citizens- to have thousands of them scattered about Baghdad stopping cars and possibly harassing civilians is worrying. We’re also very worried about the possibility of raids on homes.
Someone (thank you N.C.) emailed me Thomas L. Friedman’s article in the New York Times 10 days ago about Quran desecration titled “Outrage and Silence”.
In the article he talks about how people in the Muslim world went out and demonstrated against Quran desecration but are silent about the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis in the last few weeks due to bombings and suicide attacks.
In one paragraph he says,
“Yet these mass murders - this desecration and dismemberment of real Muslims by other Muslims - have not prompted a single protest march anywhere in the Muslim world. And I have not read of a single fatwa issued by any Muslim cleric outside Iraq condemning these indiscriminate mass murders of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds by these jihadist suicide bombers, many of whom, according to a Washington Post report, are coming from Saudi Arabia.”
First of all- it’s not only Kurds or Shia who are dying due to car bombs. When a car detonates in the middle of a soug or near a mosque, it does not seek out only Shia or Kurdish people amongst the multitude. Bombs do not discriminate between the young and the old, male and female or ethnicities and religious sects- no matter what your government tells you about how smart they are. Furthermore, they are going off everywhere-… not just in Shia or Kurdish provinces. They seem to be everywhere lately.
One thing I found particularly amusing about the article- and outrageous all at once-was in the following paragraph:
“Religiously, if you want to know how the Sunni Arab world views a Shiite’s being elected leader of Iraq, for the first time ever, think about how whites in Alabama would have felt about a black governor’s being installed there in 1920. Some Sunnis do not think Shiites are authentic Muslims, and they are indifferent to their brutalization.”
Now, it is always amusing to see a Jewish American journalist speak in the name of Sunni Arabs. When Sunni Arabs, at this point, hesitate to speak in a representative way about other Sunni Arabs, it is nice to know Thomas L. Friedman feels he can sum up the feelings of the “Sunni Arab world” in so many words. His arrogance is exceptional.
It is outrageous because for many people, this isn’t about Sunnis and Shia or Arabs and Kurds. It’s about an occupation and about people feeling that they do not have real representation. We have a government that needs to hide behind kilometers of barbed wire and meters and meters of concrete- and it’s not because they are Shia or Kurdish or Sunni Arab- it’s because they blatantly supported, and continue to support, an occupation that has led to death and chaos.
The paragraph is contemptible because the idea of a “Shia leader” is not an utterly foreign one to Iraqis or other Arabs, no matter how novel Friedman tries to make it seem. How dare he compare it to having a black governor in Alabama in the 1920s? In 1958, after the July 14 Revolution which ended the Iraqi monarchy, the head of the Iraqi Sovereignty Council (which was equivalent to the position of president) was Mohammed Najib Al-Rubayi- a Shia from Kut. From 1958 - 1963, Abdul Karim Qassim, a Shia also from Kut in the south, was the Prime Minister of Iraq (i.e. the same position Jaffari is filling now). After Abdul Karim Qassim, in 1963, came yet another Shia by the name of Naji Talib as prime minster. Even during the last regime, there were two Shia prime ministers filling the position for several years- Sadoun Humadi and Mohammed Al-Zubaidi.
In other words, Sunni Arabs are not horrified at having a Shia leader (though we are very worried about the current Puppets’ pro-Iran tendencies). Friedman seems to conveniently forget that while the New Iraq’s president was a polygamous Arab Sunni- Ghazi Al-Yawir- the attacks were just as violent. Were it simply a matter of Sunnis vs. Shia or Arabs vs. Kurds, then Sunni Arabs would have turned out in droves to elect “Al Baqara al dhahika” ("the cow that laughs” or La Vache Qui Rit- it’s an Iraqi joke) as Al-Yawir is known amongst Iraqis.
This sentence,
“Some Sunnis do not think Shiites are authentic Muslims, and they are indifferent to their brutalization.”
...Is just stupid. Friedman is referring to Sunni extremists without actually saying that. But he doesn’t add that some Shia extremists also feel the same way about Sunnis. I’m sure in the “Christian World” there are certain Catholics who feel that way about Protestants, etc. Iraqis have intermarried and mixed as Sunnis and Shia for centuries. Many of the larger Iraqi tribes are a complex and intricate weave of Sunnis and Shia. We donÂ’t sit around pointing fingers at each other and trying to prove who is a Muslim and who isn’t and who deserves compassion and who deserves brutalization.
Friedman says,
“If the Arab world, its media and its spiritual leaders, came out and forcefully and repeatedly condemned those who mount these suicide attacks, and if credible Sunnis are given their fair share in the Iraqi government, I am certain a lot of this suicide bombing would stop”
The Arab world’s spiritual and media leaders have their hands tied right now. Friedman better hope Islamic spiritual leaders don’t get involved in this mess because the first thing they’d have to do is remind the Islamic world that according to the Quran, the Islamic world may not be under the guardianship or command of non-Muslims- and that wouldn’t reflect nicely on an American occupation of Iraq.
Friedman wonders why thousands upon thousands protested against the desecration of the Quran and why they do not demonstrate against terrorism in Iraq. The civilian bombings in Iraq are being done by certain extremists, fanatics or militias. What happened in Guantanamo with the Quran and what happens in places like Abu Ghraib is being done systematically by an army- an army that is fighting a war- a war being funded by the American people. That is what makes it outrageous to the Muslim world.
In other words, what happens in Iraq is terrorism, while what happens to Iraqis and Afghanis and people of other nationalities under American or British custody is simply “counter-insurgency” and “policy”. It makes me naseous to think of how outraged the whole world was when those American POW were shown on Iraqi television at the beginning of the war- clean, safe and respectfully spoken to. Even we were upset with the incident and wondered why they had to be paraded in front of the world like that. We actually had the decency to feel sorry for them.
Friedman focuses on the Sunni Arab world in his article but he fails to mention that the biggest demonstrations were not in the Arab world- they happened in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also fails to mention that in Iraq, the largest demonstration against the desecration of the Quran was actually organized, and attended by, Shia.
Luckily for Iraqis, and in spite of Thomas Friedman, the majority of Sunnis and Shia just want to live in peace as Muslims- not as Sunnis and Shia.
- posted by river @ 3:43 PM
Sibel Edmonds: Gagged but not Dead
This one comes to us from our good friends at Buzzflash.com. It concerns the Sibel Edmonds case, which we have paid close attention to. For those of you who still believe it can’t happen here, read on...
Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege, designating my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets. Based on this new ruling my passport would be considered a ‘top secret’ document since it contains my place of birth, my Virginia driving license would be considered a ‘Top Secret’ document, since it contains my date of birth.
Gagged but not Dead
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Sibel Edmonds
May 15, 2005
The Appeal Court’s decision on Sibel Edmonds’ Case is out: ‘Case Dismissed’; no opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court’s decision, issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; “another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification.” Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she’s not dead.
On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.
In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport would be considered a ‘top secret’ document since it contains my place of birth, information considered state secrets. According to our government officials my Virginia driving license would be considered a ‘Top Secret’ document, since it contains my date of birth, information considered state secrets and classified. Well, heck, even my resume would be considered ‘Top Secret’ since it contains my linguistic credentials and my degrees. As of that day, I officially became a notoriously gagged whistleblower; but I continued on.
In May 2004, two years after two ranking senators (bipartisan) had publicly, and in public records and documents, announced me credible and my case and allegations confirmed and supported, the emboldened then Attorney General, struck again. This time, he, John Ashcroft, decided to gag the entire Congress on anything that had to with Sibel Edmonds and her case. He ordered two ranking senators to take everything referring to me off their websites; he ordered them to consider all documents and letters related to my case ‘Top Secret,’ and he commanded that they, the Congress, shut their mouth on any issue that in any way referred or related to me. Our senators obliged, disregarding the principles of the separation of powers, not honoring the United States Constitution, and not respecting their own prestige and status. As of that day, the United States Congress became officially gagged on Sibel Edmonds; but I continued on.
In June 2004, the United States District Court bowed to his highness, representative of our Executive Branch, John Ashcroft, and announced its decision to no longer honor the Constitution as it relates to citizens’ right to due process: it dismissed the case and excused itself from providing any real explanation, due to any possible explanation, or lack of explanation, being classified as ‘Top Secret,’ and ‘State Secrets.’ Our court system too was not willing to stand up for its authority and its separation from the executive branch. In other words, the District Court willingly allowed itself to be gagged; but I continued on.
In July 2004, after two years of unexplained foot dragging, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, announced its long over due investigation of Sibel Edmonds’ case complete and issued its report. The further empowered and emboldened then Attorney General stepped in on that same day and gagged his own Inspector General’s findings and report by classifying the entire report as secret. The so-called independent investigatory entity, the Inspector General, wrapped and duct taped its report, bowed, and left the scene now that it was formally and officially gagged on my case; but I continued on.
On April 21, 2005, for the first time in these three gagged years, my attorneys and I finally had, or thought we had, our day in court for our hearing before Appellate Court Judges. Just hours before our hearing, these judges issued an unexpected ruling, barring all reporters and the public from the courtroom for the Edmonds’ Case hearing. Numerous media related entities tried to flex their lately weakened muscles and filed their motion to oppose this ruling. The judges denied their motion, and cited no reason; when asked for a reason they responded that they didn’t have to provide any reason. Everyone was kicked out of the courtroom; except for me, my attorneys, and the large troop of attorneys from the Department of Justice. All the doors to the courtroom were locked and guards were placed in front of each door to watch out for eavesdroppers. Then came the next shock: after bypassing our brief, asking a couple of puzzling and irrelevant questions, and allowing my attorneys 10 minutes or so of response, the Appellate judges asked my attorneys and me (the plaintiff) to leave the courtroom, so that the government attorneys could secretly answer questions and make their argument. The guards escorted us, the plaintiff, out, locked the doors, and stood there in front of the courtroom and watched us for about fifteen minutes. So much for finally having my day in court; here I was, with my attorneys, standing outside the courtroom and being guarded, while in there, three judges were having a cozy mingling session with a large troop of government attorneys. Then, it was over; that was it; we were told to leave. In other words, my attorneys and I were barred from being present in our own court hearing, and my case remained covered up and gagged; but I continued on.
On May 6, two weeks after the Kafkaesque court procedure, my attorneys and I were given the verdict: The lower court’s decision was upheld, meaning my entire case, whether or not we had an Inspector General’s Report that confirmed my allegations, whether or not we had several congressional letters confirming my case and my allegations, was prevented from proceeding in court due to some unspecified ‘State Secrets,’ and unexplained secrecy that applied to everything that had to do with me and my case; which were so secret that even the judges could not hear or see. In fact, the Appellate judges in my case did not cite any opinion or reason, because even the opinion itself would have been considered secret. Doesn’t this mean that the Appellate court and these three judges were in effect gagged? It appears so, but I will continue on.
In the past three years, I have been threatened; I have been gagged several times; I have continuously been prevented from pursuing my due process; all reports and investigations looking into my case have been classified; and every governmental or investigative authority dealing with my case has been shut up. According to legal experts familiar with my case, the level of secrecy and classification in my court case and the attitudes and handling of the court system in dealing with my case is unprecedented in the entire U.S. court history. According to other experts I am one of the most, if not the most, gagged woman anybody knows of or has heard of. Why?
Those of you who still think this case, my case, is about covering up some administrative blunder or bureaucratic mismanagement, please think again.
Those of you who may think that my Kafkaesque case, the unprecedented secrecy, is due to some justified and official higher reasons, please think again.
Those of you who may think that our government, our entrusted leaders, may have an ongoing investigation of criminals involved, please think again.
The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, in its ‘unclassified report,’ has confirmed my core allegations. What were those core allegations, and who did they involve? Not only some low-level terrorist or terrorist organization; not only some ‘maybe’ critical foreign entities. No; trust me; they would not go to this length to protect some nobody criminal or terrorist.
It is way past time for a little bit of critical thinking. The Attorney General cites two reasons to justify the unconstitutional and panic driven assault on me and my case. Reason one: To protect certain diplomatic relations - not named since obviously our officials are ashamed of admitting to these relations. Reason two: To protect certain U.S. foreign business relations. Let’s take each one and dissect it (I have given up on our mass media to do that for us!). For reason one, since when is the Department of Justice, the FBI, in the business of protecting ‘US sensitive diplomatic relations?’ They appear to be acting as a mouthpiece for the Department of State. Now, that’s one entity that has strong reasons to cover up, for its own self, what will end up being a blunder of mammoth scale. Not internationally; not really; it is the American people and their outrage they must be worried about; they wouldn’t want to have a few of their widely recognized officials being held criminally liable; would they?
As for reason two, I can assure you that the U.S. foreign business relations they may be referring to are not among those that benefit the majority of the American people; a handful of MIC entities and their lobbying arms can by no means be considered that, can they? In fact, the American people, their national safety and security, and their best interests are being sacrificed for a handful of those with their foreign business interest. Also, since when are nuclear black market related underground activities considered official U.S. foreign business; one may wonder? If you want to have the answers to these questions, please approach your Congress and ask your representatives for hearings - not behind closed doors quasi hearings - but open, public hearings where these questions can be asked and answered.
And lastly, for those of you who may think that since I have been gagged and stopped by almost all available official channels, I must be ready to vaporize into thin air, please think again. I am gagged, but not dead; not yet.
Ann Colder
No explanation needed for this one.
Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran
Below is a piece by former US Marine and UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. It deserves to be read and re-read. And passed on.
In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, information that completely contradicted the BushCo. line was readily available for all those with an open mind and anything beyond flat-line brain activity. Dogskinreport.com published many of these reports. I can say with more than a little pride that 99% of what we reported proved true. Contrast that with the claims from BushCo.
We’ve moved far beyond Fox News’ “We lie, you lap it up.” Put that shit away. If you can’t distinguish lies for what they are, then apply for the always-open “Denial Emeritus” post at the American Enterprise Institute.
Below you will read a piece in the purest tradition of Dogskinreport.com. This is why we do what we do.
I suffer no illusions about changing the world. What I hope and pray for is to change a few minds. One at a time. Because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran
by Scott Ritter
Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq. There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.
When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq’s neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme.
Why June 2005?, I asked. ‘The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.’
To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered.
But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America’s European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that ‘the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point—we have diplomatic means to do this.’
President Bush himself followed up on Rice’s statement by stating that ‘This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.’ He quickly added, ‘Having said that, all options are on the table.’ In short, both the President and the Secretary of State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time.
Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005.
It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005.
The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.
On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary about the news that the President of the United States would order the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes on Iran in June 2005 . That Iran has been a target of the Bush administration’s ideologues is no secret: the President himself placed Iran in the ‘axis of evil’ back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history.
The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran’s nuclear programmes - concerns shared by Israel and the European Union, although to different degrees.
In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency’s call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme).
Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
The Iranian response triggered a serious re-examination of policy by both Israel and the United States.
The Israeli policy review was driven in part by the Iranian actions, and in part by Israel’s own intelligence assessment regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, made in August 2004 .
This assessment held that Iran was ‘less than a year’ away from completing its uranium enrichment programme. If Iran was allowed to reach this benchmark, the assessment went on to say, then it had reached the ‘point of no return’ for a nuclear weapons programme. The date set for this ‘point of no return’ was June 2005.
Israel’s Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared that ‘under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession’.
Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in 2005).
These plans were constantly being updated, something that did not escape the attention of the Bush White House.
The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way.
‘The way to stop Iran’, a senior Israeli official has said, ‘is by the leadership of the US, supported by European countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep inspection regime and full transparency.’
It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren’t too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken ‘twist’: what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear programme?
Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU’s Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme ‘doomed to fail’.
The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA’s lead inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei.
And the Bush administration’s push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting.
Curiously, the date for the Bush administration’s move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005.
According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff.
‘Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran’s fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions,’ the US draft position paper said.
Iran has called such thinking ‘hallucinations’ on the part of the Bush administration.
The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran Economic sanctions and military attacks are not one and the same. Unless, of course, the architect of America’s Iran policy never intends to give sanctions a chance.
Enter John Bolton, who, as the former US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security for the Bush administration, is responsible for drafting the current US policy towards Iran.
In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet by stating that Iran had a ‘secret nuclear weapons programme’ that was unknown to the IAEA. ‘There is no doubt that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons production programme’, Bolton said, without providing any source to back up his assertions.
This is the same John Bolton who had in the past accused Cuba of having an offensive biological weapons programme, a claim even Bush administration hardliners had to distance themselves from.
John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European Union’s engagement with Iran ‘doomed to fail’. He is the Bush administration official who led the charge to remove Muhammad al-Baradai from the IAEA.
And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran, asked the Pentagon to be prepared to launch ‘robust’ military attacks against Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions.
Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any US-brokered sanctions regime against Iran has in getting through the Security Council.
The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is Iran’s main supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power programme.
Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities
John Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians. Bolton was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May 2002 arms reduction treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both America and Russia by two thirds over a 10 year period.
But that treaty - to Russia’s immense displeasure - now appears to have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the Bush administration had built into the treaty language.
John Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions against Iran, which makes the military planning being conducted by the Pentagon all the more relevant.
John Bolton’s nomination as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the man who, before a panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association in 1994, said ‘There is no such thing as the United Nations.’
For the United States to submit to the will of the Security Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would mean that ‘its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future.’
But John Bolton doesn’t let treaty obligations, such as those incurred by the United States when it signed and ratified the UN Charter, get in the way. ‘Treaties are law only for US domestic purposes’, he wrote in a 17 November 1997 Wall Street Journal Op Ed. ‘In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations.’
John Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by United Nations sanctions and, if Iran will not back down from its nuclear programme, confronted with the threat of military action.
And as the Bush administration has noted in the past, particularly in the case of Iraq, such threat must be real and meaningful, and backed by the will and determination to use it.
And the Bush administration’s push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting. John Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran’s nuclear intentions are obvious.
In response, the IAEA’s Muhammad al-Baradai has pointed out the lack of a ‘smoking gun’ which would prove Iran’s involvement in a nuclear weapons programme. ‘We are not God’, he said. ‘We cannot read intentions.’
But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran.
Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.
That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.
Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 author of ‘Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America’s Intelligence Conspiracy’.
Let Them Eat Bombs
The doubling of child malnutrition in Iraq is baffling
by Terry Jones
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian
A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.
It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.
These results are even more disheartening for those of us in the Department of Making Things Better for Children in the Middle East By Military Force, since the previous attempts by Britain and America to improve the lot of Iraqi children also proved disappointing. For example, the policy of applying the most draconian sanctions in living memory totally failed to improve conditions. After they were imposed in 1990, the number of children under five who died increased by a factor of six. By 1995 something like half a million Iraqi children were dead as a result of our efforts to help them.
A year later, Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, tried to put a brave face on it. When a TV interviewer remarked that more children had died in Iraq through sanctions than were killed in Hiroshima, Mrs Albright famously replied: “We think the price is worth it.”
But clearly George Bush didn’t. So he hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.
And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.
In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense.
·Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. He is the author of Terry Jones’s War on the War on Terror
Why I Am Not a JPII-ian
I finally read the piece Top Dog sent me by Joe Conason, John Paul’s Duality. His last words exactly sum up my feelings about “JPII”:
Immune to cynicism, this great and good man served us all as the tireless apostle of peace and reconciliation—which is why so many people who disagreed with John Paul II will continue to read him, admire him and honor his memory.
I was a convert to the Church late in life, but not long after I entered the Church John Paul II provided the watershed for my finally falling away from it.
It could have been any number of things, any of which, if I’d let them get under my skin, might have kept me from joining in the first place. I always thought I was bigger than that, and that, frankly, the Church was bigger than any Pope or tenet of dogma. We were told as much in our instruction: In the end, you are called to conscience.
But we had a spiritual reading group in our parish, one of the “reads” being JPII’s encyclical, “Redemptoris missio: On the permanent validity of the Church’s missionary mandate.”
Chapter 1 gives a flavor.
Christ is the one mediator between God and mankind: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tm 2:5-7; cf. Heb 4:14-16). No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s one, universal mediation, far from being an obstacle on the journey toward God, is the way established by God himself, a fact of which Christ is fully aware. Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ’s own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his.
So this pontiff who, as Conason writes, “was not embarrassed to present himself as the brother of every human being, without regard to religious persuasion or ethnic origin,” likely was more mercenary in his motives. His is the face that all missionaries put on, without embarrassment: that of “brother.” Fortunately many of them are converted by those they’ve set out to convert; I’m not so sure about John Paul II.
No one reads the encyclicals, but I had. It was the fly in my… mm… chrism. It was the pesky gnat dive-bombing me through every Mass from that point on: the primacy placed on scripture without benefit of scholarship. (Progressive scholars admit that the evangelical gloss given the Christian scriptures was just that, a gloss.) And with that gnat came his family and friends.
So thanks, Top Dog, for sending Conason’s column. Now on to Hitchens’s take…
It's Not Easy Being Republican
It’s been a long time. So much work, so many places visited. So little time for politics.
After a two-month absence that has taken me to NYC twice, sandwiched around visits to Tucson, Bangkok and Burma, I’m frankly glad for some extended pound time. Although I must admit it was a useful exercise to view Dubya from a distance. And watch the squirming.
These have been trying times. It cannot be easy being George.
Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.
This is a man who’s only achievement is the scale of his underachievement. Daddy got him into the National Guard so he wouldn’t have to risk his life in Vietnam and he couldn’t even handle showing up for that. Started companies that immediately headed south, but used his VP dad’s connections to bail them out. And in the ultimate fraud, got daddy’s friends on the Supreme Court to appoint him president. After the 2004 debacle, no wonder he felt he had a mandate. Rigged tallies showed he actually got more votes!
Yes, it’s not easy being George. But he’s not alone. He has the Republican party to back him up.
Remember, this is the party that has staked the high moral ground. Which is why the revelations of the past few weeks have been so shocking.
Take the story that the White House had provided press credentials to a shill named Jeff Gannon whose sole goal was to throw softball questions at Dubya. Only one problem. In his spare time, Gannon was working as a male hooker (gasp!). And Jeff Gannon wasn’t even his real name. Can you spell S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y R-I-S-K? This from the same gang that continually belittles Democrats as being “weak on defense.” You know, the ones that didn’t give us 9/11.
So where does the Republican Party really stand on the issue of homosexuality? Is it okay? If not, then why was Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter his campaign manager?
Speaking of campaign managers, if homosexuality is such a sin, they why was Republican Congressman David Drier, who has been outed by several sources, allowed to run Arnold’s successful scam of the CA electorate?
And if homosexuality is such a sin, then why do they seek the approval of the openly gay Log Cabin Republicans? (I refuse to even spell the word ‘oxymor’ whoops! here’
And if homosexuality is such a sin, then why do they tolerate such closet queens as Matt Drudge?
And if homosexuality is such a sin, then why do they hire someone like Scott McClellan?
But let’s move on. If family values are such a Republican value, then why do they embrace Newt Gingrich, who has divorced many wives, including serving one with papers while she was in the hospital?
And if Republicans are so pro-family values, then which Republican made admitted gambling addict William Bennett a party spokesman? And does he still have a job?
And if Republicans are so family-friendly, then how come they pilloried Bill Clinton for sexual harrassment while now giving a pass to Bill O’Reilly?
And if Republicans are so against illegal drug use, then why do they continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh, a proven drug addict.
And if Republicans are really pro-life, then why did Dubya, while governor of Texas, sign into law a bill allowiing hospitals to cut off life support when the hospitals decided that someone was a goner, even over objections of family members?
And if life is so important to Tom DeLay, then how come he pulled the plug on his own father?
No, it’s not easy being Republican. But at least the GOP is still the small government/good-for-business party, right?
Well actually, that’s not true, either, as statistics released by the White House itself show. Read on…
More GOP Than the GOP
by Michael Kinsley
April 3, 2005
It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the “Mommy Party” and the “Daddy Party.” Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom, more often than Dad, who must play both roles.
It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn’t really sunk in how completely the Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values — if, in fact, they ever really had such values.
Our text today is the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a year ago, and couldn’t quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn’t even close.
The values I’m referring to are widely shared. We all want prosperity, we oppose unemployment, we dislike inflation, we don’t enjoy paying taxes, etc. They’re Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more, and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals, such as equality or clean air.
Statistics in the Economic Report back to 1960 tell the story. And a consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained away by shorter-term factors, like war or who controls Congress. Maybe presidents can’t affect the economy much. But the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it.
Consider federal spending (a.k.a. “big government"). It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president’s policies to take effect (so, for example, President Clinton is responsible for 2001 and George W. Bush takes over in 2002), Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.
Leaning over backward even further, let’s start our measurement in 1981, the date when Ronald Reagan took office on a platform of shrinking government and many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.
Now look at federal revenues (a.k.a. taxes). You can’t take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenues go up under both parties, but only about half as fast under Republicans. This is true no matter when you start counting, or whether you give a president’s policies that extra year to take effect. It’s the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.
That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenues to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.
The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.
Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats. If you start counting in 1981 or attribute responsibility with a year’s delay, the numbers change, but the bottom line doesn’t: Democrats do Republican economics better than Republicans do.
As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let’s take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation.
From 1960 to 2005, the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars (in other words, taking inflation into account) rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income (that’s the statistic that puts money in your pocket): Democrats score about 30% higher.
Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13% versus 3.89% for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33% versus 6.38%). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
Oh yes, almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year’s delay, inflation under Republican presidents averages 4.36%, while under Democrats it’s 4.57%. Congratulations.
The Return of the Dog
The dog’s back.
I don’t normally quote the NY Times, since they are so freqently on the ass-end of stories of importance. But occasionally something real slips through the cracks. Here is one of those. Read it carefully, and then memorize the name of Eric Lichtblau. And if you see him begging on the street in the next few years, remember this piece.
New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, March 26 - The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.
Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.
The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.
The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, requested the F.B.I. escorts because they said they were concerned for their safety in the wake of the attacks, and the F.B.I. - which was then beginning the biggest criminal investigation in its history - arranged to have agents escort them to their local airports, the documents show.
But F.B.I. officials reacted angrily, both internally and publicly, to the suggestion that any Saudis had received preferential treatment in leaving the country.
“I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage,” an F.B.I. official said in a 2003 internal note. Another F.B.I. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this week regarding the airport escorts that “we’d do that for anybody if they felt they were threatened - we wouldn’t characterize that as special treatment.”
The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which provided copies to The New York Times.
The material sheds new light on the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and it provides details about the F.B.I.’s interaction with at least 160 Saudis who were living in or visiting the United States and were allowed to leave the country. Some of the departing Saudis were related to Osama bin Laden.
The Saudis’ chartered flights, arranged in the days after the attacks when many flights in the United States were still grounded, have proved frequent fodder for critics of the Bush administration who accuse it of coddling the Saudis. The debate was heightened by the filmmaker Michael Moore, who scrutinized the issue in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” but White House officials have adamantly denied any special treatment for the Saudis, calling such charges irresponsible and politically motivated.
The Sept. 11 commission examined the Saudi flights in its final report last year, and it found that no Saudis had been allowed to leave before national airspace was reopened on Sept. 13, 2001; that there was no evidence of “political intervention” by the White House; and that the F.B.I. had done a “satisfactory screening” of the departing Saudis to ensure they did not have information relevant to the attacks.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, with major passages heavily deleted, do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings, but they raise some new questions about the episode.
The F.B.I. records show, for instance, that prominent Saudi citizens left the United States on several flights that had not been previously disclosed in public accounts, including a chartered flight from Providence, R.I., on Sept. 14, 2001, that included at least one member of the Saudi royal family, and three flights from Las Vegas between Sept. 19 and Sept. 24, also carrying members of the Saudi royal family. The government began reopening airspace on Sept. 13, but many flights remained grounded for days afterward.
The three Las Vegas flights, with a total of more than 100 passengers, ferried members of the Saudi royal family and staff members who had been staying at Caesar’s Palace and the Four Seasons hotels. The group had tried unsuccessfully to charter flights back to Saudi Arabia between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17 because they said they feared for their safety as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. documents say.
Once the group managed to arrange chartered flights out of the country, an unidentified prince in the Las Vegas group “thanked the F.B.I. for their assistance,” according to one internal report. The F.B.I. had interviewed many members of the group and searched their planes before allowing them to leave, but it nonetheless went back to the Las Vegas hotels with subpoenas five days after the initial flight had departed to collect further information on the Saudi royal guests, the documents show.
In several other cases, Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred, the documents show.
The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.
“Although the F.B.I. took all possible steps to prevent any individuals who were involved in or had knowledge of the 9/11/2001 attacks from leaving the U.S. before they could be interviewed,” a 2003 memo said, “it is not possible to state conclusively that no such individuals left the U.S. without F.B.I. knowledge.”
The documents also show that F.B.I. officials were clearly riled by public speculation stirred by news media accounts of the Saudi flights. They were particularly bothered by a lengthy article in the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, which included charges that the bureau considered unfair and led to an internal F.B.I. investigation that the agency named “Vanitybom.” Internal F.B.I. correspondence during the review was addressed to “fellow Vanitybom victims.”
Critics said the newly released documents left them with more questions than answers.
“From these documents, these look like they were courtesy chats, without the time that would have been needed for thorough debriefings,” said Christopher J. Farrell, who is director of investigations for Judicial Watch and a former counterintelligence interrogator for the Army. “It seems as if the F.B.I. was more interested in achieving diplomatic success than investigative success.”
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, called for further investigation.
“This lends credence to the theory that the administration was not coming fully clean about their involvement with the Saudis,” he said, “and we still haven’t gotten to the bottom of this whole affair.”
The Tent of Occupation
Fallujah people suffered under Saddam and they liberated their own city. They did not do so to live under occupation.
I wonder what it will take to snap America out of its hypnosis about Iraq. Or are we in advanced Matrix-style deep embryonic sleep? With the Pentagon openly pondering El Salvador-style death squads and indefinite internment of terrorist suspects in ‘friendly’ foreign countries, you’ve got to wonder if there is any conscience operating on a large scale at this moment in time. One thing I sense for sure: Global pillage has replaced global village. I’m earmarking my tsunami dollars for the nearest Iraqi tent city. That’s a tsunami I caused.
Here’s Robert Fisk’s latest on Fallujah. We have, I’m afraid, adopted Israeli scorched-earth methods of occupation. Iraq is Palestine. And another generation of Americans is going to have to grow up with widespread memories of war crimes. Pray without ceasing whether or not you believe.
The Tent of Occupation
Fallujah’s Refugees Won’t Return Home, Won’t Vote
By ROBERT FISK
The Independent
January 14, 2005
Baghdad.
They live beneath old fly-blown tents in the car-park of the Mustafa mosque and their canvas-roofed kitchen stands next to a pool of raw sewage, but the refugees from Fallujah will not return home.
First, because many have no homes to go to; second, because they are - with the encouragement of local clerics - listing a series of demands that include the withdrawal of all American soldiers from the city, the maintenance of security by Fallujans themselves, massive compensation payments and the return of money and valuables which those who have just visited Fallujah say were stolen by American troops.
And they are very definitely not going to vote in the 30 January elections. Squatting on the floor of his concrete-walled office in his black robes to eat a lunch of chicken and rice, Sheikh Hussein - he pleads with me not to print his family name - insists that his people are not against elections.
“We are not rejecting this election for the sake of it,” he says. “We are rejecting it because it is the ‘tent’ of the occupation. It is the vehicle for the Americans to ensure that [interim President Iyad] Allawi gets back in. And we are still under occupation.”
A bearded and bespectacled academic is sitting beside the sheikh, Dr Abdul-Kader of the department of Islamic Science at Baghdad University, who gravely reminds me of the civilian dead of Fallujah. “There were hundreds,” he says. “We found bodies in homes and graves in the gardens of homes.”
The sheikh’s closest relatives live in Fallujah; his own Sunni mosque lies at the centre of the camp in Baghdad where 925 of Fallujah’s 200,000 refugees are living. But he says he has travelled twice to his family’s homes and tells a disturbing story of what he found. “The first time I visited after the Americans occupied the city, our main house was standing. It had survived. All the things inside, beds, furniture, rugs, were safe. But when I went back a week later, it had been destroyed. Many other houses were in the same state.
“They survived the American-resistance battles intact but were then destroyed afterwards. Why? People there told me they saw movie cameras and that the Americans fired shells into the empty houses and that they were making some kind of film.”
Tales of American theft in Iraqi cities are not new. Amnesty International has listed numerous incidents in which US troops took money from homes or from the clothes of arrested men. The US authorities acknowledged one case of large-scale pilfering by a young American officer south of Baghdad in 2003 but said that he had been moved out of Iraq and would be “too difficult” to trace.
The stories of looting in Fallujah are only adding to the refugees’ sense of grievance. And to the over-enthusiastic demands for compensation. “We will settle for $5bn (£2.7bn) to $10bn,” Sheikh Hussein says. “This is for the destruction in Fallujah, the shedding of blood and the killing of innocents; history will write of this. The Americans started off by killing native Americans and still they kill people they look down on.” Everyone in the room, including a student of computer sciences from Fallujah who has so far listened in total silence, vigorously nod their heads.
“One day,” the sheikh continues, “I was stopped and taken to an American base and questioned by the CIA, and they said, ‘You are a religious man and we want advice’. I said, ‘What I want to tell you is not to enter the cities because the people are waiting for a chance to attack you. They will make you suffer in different ways. Pull out your troops to the deserts, far away from the gunfire of the resistance, though that stretches a long way’. But they were very, very stupid. They didn’t take the chance to go out. They stayed to force us to have elections so they could get out and leave their agents in power. I say this; the American troops will retreat suddenly, or they will find themselves prisoners inside the trap of Iraq.
“You know, you Westerners laugh at us Easterners, especially when we say, ‘If Allah wills’. But the Prophet - peace be upon him - once said that the Iraqis would be scourged, that they would not receive a single dirham or a grain of rice in the hand, and this happened in the economic embargo of the 1990s.
“Then America came here after 9 April, 2003, with all its power and soldiers, so proud of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. But now the morale of these soldiers is rotting each day. They have psychological problems. My advice to them is to leave. They have a choice to make: they must leave or they will be forced out.”
Fighting continues each night in Fallujah despite American claims of victory and to be “breaking the back” of the insurgency. As the sheikh puts it, not without some humour: “The Americans move in the streets during the day from 6am to 6pm but they do not move when the muqawama (resistance) imposes its own curfew on them between 6pm and 6am.”
Outside in the windy car-park, the tents flap and the refugees queue to take soup from a 4ft-deep cauldron of yellow, scummy soup. Bags of dates have broken open and spilled on to the concrete.
It is Fallujah in miniature. Twenty teachers from the city are now running a camp school for 120 children. Doctors see patients in the sheikh’s private home. A great-grandfather in the camp says he cannot go back to his city while the Americans are there. And when I ask him if he will vote, he laughs at me. “The Americans must leave Fallujah unconditionally,” the sheikh says. “They have done too much harm there to be accepted.”
I suggest that Fallujah’s troubles started the day the 82nd Airborne killed 18 protesters outside a local school just after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. Dr Abdul-Kader admonishes me. “It started even before that,” he says. “Fallujah people suffered under Saddam and they liberated their own city. They did not do so to live under occupation."
Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s hot new book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
CDC Warning: New Disease hits America!
Many victims have contracted it after having been screwed for the past 4 years…
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning that affects all Americans. While rumours abound that a majority are infected, critics doubt the credibility of these numbers although warn, we are all at risk of suffering it’s consequences.
Subject: CDC Warning
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of sexually transmitted disease. This disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim (pronounced “gonna re-elect him").
Many victims have contracted it after having been screwed for the past 4 years, in spite of having taken measures to protect themselves from this especially troublesome disease.
Cognitive sequelae of individuals infected with Gonorrhea Lectim include, but are not limited to: Antisocial personality disorder traits; delusions of grandeur with a distinct messianic flavor; chronic mangling of the English language; extreme cognitive dissonance; inability to incorporate new information; pronounced xenophobia; inability to accept responsibility for actions; exceptional cowardice masked by acts of misplaced bravado; uncontrolled facial smirking; ignorance of geography and history; tendencies toward creating evangelical theocracies; and a strong propensity for categorical, all-or nothing behavior.
The disease is sweeping Washington. Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed and baffled that this malignant disease originated only a few years ago in a Texas Bush.
The Unholy Roman Empire
America, we have a problem. The Holy Roman Empire is back. Not that it ever went away. But like a California mudslide, it has come back down out of the hills and unbudgingly inserted itself in the central stream of American life and governance. It is no longer a looming problem. It no longer requires daily bulletins about its immanence. It’s here in full Code Red gravity. As proof, I submit the following obituary from last week’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Then, I ask you to think in a non-combative and constructive way—if such is possible—about the coalition of fundamentalist Christians—both evangelical Protestants and dogmatic Catholics—that is the molten core constituency of our second-term President.
Jacques Dupuis
Jesuit theologian, 81
Belgian theologian Jacques Dupuis, 81, who was censured by the Vatican for writing that God worked through religions other than Christianity, died Thursday in Rome, his Jesuit order announced.
Father Dupuis, who spent 36 years as a Roman Catholic missionary in India and 16 years teaching theology at the leading Vatican university, sparked a major church dispute in 1997 with his book Toward a Theology of Religious Pluralism.
The Vatican’s watchdog, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, denounced it as dangerously relativist, saying it presented other faiths as equal to Roman Catholicism, while liberals hailed it as an important contribution to the dialogue with
other religions.
The Vatican launched a secret 2 1/2-year inquiry that censured what it called ambiguities in the book about the central role of Jesus Christ for humanity and the need for people of other faiths to become Catholic to ensure
salvation.
To stress its position against pluralism, the Vatican issued a document in 2000 that said non-Christian religions were “gravely deficient” because they did not recognize Christ as the savior of humanity.
It also declared that Protestant Christians did not have churches in the proper sense, a statement that set back efforts at ecumenical dialogue Rome had fostered since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65.
Father Dupuis always denied he was teaching anything against Catholic doctrine and insisted the Church has to find ways to let Asians be Catholics without giving up their culture.
“In my 36 years of teaching and research in theology, the one truth I have learned is that there is no monopoly of truth,” the Jesuits in Europe quoted him as telling a religious conference in Calcutta last year. (Reuters)
CBS blows Bush
CBS did not "break" this Chicken-Hawk George story…
Greg Palast has no problem calling a whore a whore. And that's precisely what CBS has become with their latest whitewash of Rathergate and Bush's National Guard disservice.
CBS Blows Bush
Network’s Craven Back-Down on Bush Draft Dodge Report Sure to Get a Standing Rove-ation at White House
By Greg Palast
“Independent" my ass. CBS’ cowardly purge of five journalists who exposed George Bush’s dodging of the Vietnam War draft was done under cover of what the network laughably called an “Independent Review Panel."
The “panel” was just two guys as qualified for the job as they are for landing the space shuttle: Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi.
Remember Dickie Thornburgh? He was on the Bush 41 Administration’s payroll. His grand accomplishment as Bush’s Attorney General was to whitewash the investigation of the Exxon Valdez Oil spill, letting the oil giant off the hook on big damages. Thornburgh’s fat pay as counsel to Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, the Washington law-and-lobbying outfit, is substantially due to his job as a Bush retainer. This is the kind of stinky conflict of interest that hardly suggests “independent.” Why not just appoint Karl Rove as CBS’ grand inquisitor and be done with it?
Then there’s Boccardi, not exactly a prince of journalism. This is the gent who, as CEO of the Associated Press, spiked his own wire service’s exposure of Oliver North and his traitorous dealings with the Ayatollah Khomeini. Legendary AP investigative reporters Robert Parry and Brian Barger found their stories outing the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986 stopped by their bosses. They did not know that Boccardi was on those very days deep in the midst of talks with North, participating in the conspiracy.
Today I spoke with Parry at his home in Virginia. He was sympathetic to Boccardi who at the time was trying to spring AP reporter Terry Anderson held hostage in Iran. But to do so, Boccardi joined, unwittingly, in a criminal conspiracy to trade guns for hostages. He then spiked his own news agency’s investigation of it. Parry later discovered a 1986 email from North to John Poindexter in which North notes that Boccardi “is supportive of our terropism (sic) policy” and wants to keep the story “quiet.” Poindexter was indicted, then pardoned. Boccardi was not, and there is no indication he knew he was abetting a crime. But the AP demoted journalist Barger and forced him to quit for—the offense of trying to report the biggest story of the decade. This hardly gives Mr. Spike the qualification to pass judgment on working journalists.
And who are the journalists whom CBS has burned at the corporate stake? The first lined up for career execution is ‘60 Minutes’ producer Mary Mapes. Besides the Bush draft dodge story, Mapes produced the exposé of the torture at Abu Ghraib when other networks had the same material and buried it.
I admit to a soft spot for Mapes. Four years ago, BBC Television London broadcast my report that Jeb Bush had wrongly purged thousands of African-Americans from the voter rolls, thereby fixing the election for his big brother. CBS Evening News ran away scared from the story, as did ABC and other US networks. This year, when Bush tried to repeat the trick, Mapes wanted to put it on ‘60 Minutes.’ However, after the draft dodge story hullabaloo, that was not going to happen.
And what was the crime committed by Mapes and, let’s not forget, Dan Rather, whose career was also toasted by the story?
CBS said, “The Panel found that Mapes ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report—that President Bush had received special treatment 30 years ago, getting to the [Texas Air National] Guard ahead of many other applicants ….”
Well, excuse me, but that story is stone cold solid, irrefutable, backed-up, sourced, proven to a fare-thee-well. I know, because I’m one of the reporters who broke that story … way back in 1999, for the Guardian papers of Britain. No one has challenged the Guardian report, or my follow-up for BBC Television, whatsoever, though we’ve begged the White House for a response from our self-proclaimed “war president.”
CBS did not “break” this Chicken-Hawk George story; it’s just that Dan Rather, with Mapes’ encouragement, found his journalistic soul and the cojones, finally, after 5 years delay, to report it. Did Bush get special treatment to get into the Guard? Baby Bush tested in the 25th percentile out of 100. Yet, he leaped ahead of thousands of other Vietnam evaders because the then-Speaker of the Texas legislature sent a message to General Craig Rose, head of the Guard, to let in Little George and a few other sons of well-placed politicos.
[See some of the documentation at http://www.gregpalast.com/ulf/documents/draftdodgeblanked.jpg and a clip from the BBC Television report at http://www.gregpalast.com/images/TrailerClips.mov
Mapes and Rather did make a mistake, citing a memo which could not be authenticated. But let’s get serious folks: this “Killian” memo had not a darn thing to do with the story-in-chief—the President’s using his daddy’s connections to duck out of Vietnam. The Killian memo was a goofy little addition to the story (not included in my Guardian or BBC reports).
So CBS inquisitors took this minor error and used it to discredit the story and ruin careers of reporters who allowed themselves an unguarded moment of courage. And, crucial to the network’s real agenda, this nonsensical distraction allowed the White House to resurrect the fake reputation of George Bush as Vietnam-era top gun.
CBS executives’ model was clearly the hatchet job done on BBC news last year by the so-called “Hutton Report.” In that case, some used-up lordship viciously attacked the BBC’s ballsy uncovering of an official lie: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lord Hutton seized on a minor error by one reporter to attempt to discredit the entire BBC investigation of governmental mendacity.
In Britain, the public stood with the “Beeb.” But in my own country, the American press itself, notably the New York Times, has joined in the lynch mob, repeating the allegations against the investigative reporters without any independent verification of the charges whatsoever.
I would note that neither CBS nor the New York Times punished a single reporter for passing on, as hard news, the Bush Administration fibs and whoppers about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear and biological weapons programs. Shameful repetitions of propaganda produced no resignations—indeed, picked up an Emmy or two.
Yes, I believe heads should roll at CBS: those of the “news” chieftains who for five years ignored the screaming evidence about George Bush’s dodging the draft during the war in Vietnam.
At the top of the network’s craven and dead wrong apology to the President is that cyclopsian CBS eyeball. But I suspect that CBS itself has little interest in eating its own flesh. This vile spike-after-broadcast serves only its master, the owner of CBS, Viacom Corporation.
“From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on…. I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”
That more-than-revealing statement, made weeks before the presidential election, by Sumner Redstone, billionaire honcho of CBS’ parent company, wasn’t reported on CBS. Why not? Someone should investigate.
Viacom needs the White House to bless its voracious and avaricious need to bust current ownership and trade rules to add to its global media monopoly. Placing the severed heads of reporters who would question the Bush mythology on the White House doorstep will certainly ease the way for Viacom’s ambitions.
At the least, at the upcoming inaugural parties, CBS’ ruler Redstone can expect that White House occupants will give him a standing Rove-ation.
Greg Palast’s report for BBC Television on the President’s evasion of the military draft can be seen in the BBC documentary, “Bush Family Fortunes,” updated in a special US edition on DVD. See a segment at http://www.gregpalast.com/images/TrailerClips.mov. Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.” View his writings http://www.GregPalast.com For interviews, contact media(at)GregPalast.com
An Exclusive Interview with Shaytaan (Satan)
It is easy to attack someone you regard as different, someone who you believe does not share your values. Which is why Muslims and Iraqis were so demonized prior to the invasion of Iraq.
As part of our rehumanization efforts, we present the following send-up from Muslim WakeUp! Much harder to hate someone when they can make you laugh so hard. Enjoy!
An Exclusive Interview with Shaytaan
The following interview was conducted with Shaytaan yesterday evening at a Starbucks in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City. Shaytaan has been following much of the dialogue on MWU! and contacted me with the hopes of correcting a few misconceptions.
Interview by Abu Fatoush
Abu Fatoush: Lemme start off by saying that I was surprised to hear from you.
Shaytaan: Most people are.
Fatoush: Why do you think that is?
Shaytaan: I don’t know. [taking a sip of coffee] People tend to take me for granted. They were a bit more serious about me in the past. Nowadays things are more lax. It hurts but I’m used to it.
Fatoush: So do you live in the city?
Shaytaan: [nods yes] I tend to split my time between here, Jerusalem, Rome and Mecca. I also just bought a new place in Rio de Janeiro but that’s mostly a vacation home.
Fatoush: So what made you contact me?
Shaytaan: Well I felt it was time for me to get my side of the story out. I had come across your question about whether I knew what a threesome was and I felt I had to set the record straight.
Fatoush: So you know what a threesome is?
Shaytaan: Of course I know what a threesome is and the idea that I don’t strikes me a tad preposterous.
Fatoush: But that’s what they say.
Shaytaan: That’s because I never took time to have someone write my book, unlike some people I know. So everywhere I go I have to put up with this nonsense. Al-Tirmidhi writes this line “No man sits alone with a (non-mahram) woman, but the Shaytaan is the third among them.” I mean what the [expletive] is that supposed to mean?
Fatoush: Isn’t he talking about lust?
Shaytaan: Hell if I know. All I know is I’m always in the room. I’m Shaytaan. Why would I leave the room? I don’t care who you put in the room, I ain’t leaving. Door open, door closed. Who cares? Who do you think pulled those Iraqis soldiers out and killed them. I like the action. That’s what I’m here for. You think I’m gonna pass up a threesome?
Fatoush: So what do you think the biggest misconception about you is?
Shaytaan: People assume I think like they do. People think they can ward me off with a few rituals like I haven’t been around the past couple thousand years. Khamsas, evil eye charms . . . you think I’m supposed to be phased by that? I was in the Kaaba for two weeks in ’79 before they flushed us out. So believe me, I learn from my mistakes.
Fatoush: You’ve made mistakes?
Shaytaan: Haven’t we all?
Fatoush: So what mistake have you learned from if you don’t mind me asking?
Shaytaan: Well . . . I used to fight it.
Fatoush: Fight what?
Shaytaan: Religion. I used to fight all of them. They each had within them seeds of my own destruction and I would constantly push against it.
Fatoush: And what was the seed?
Shaytaan: Truthfully . . . off the record?
Fatoush: I promise.
Shaytaan: I’ll tell you what it is . . . love. Simple as that. Love is the one thing I can’t beat. No matter how hard I try I can’t conquer it. The problem is . . . I don’t understand it. Never have. It makes no sense to me as a motivation. But what I realized is I needn’t worry because, luckily, most of you have a limited capacity for it anyway. And when that capacity runs out, I get stronger. Take love of family, for instance. Some people mistake their family for their reputation. Pride really. I helped this man kill his cousin last summer. He found out she was seeing this guy in the next village and I told him look, you gotta do something. He gathered up his brothers and they went to the mosque and prayed. I was there. They had so much fear in their heart. They left the mosque and I ran into the guy and I said look, “You know what you have to do. Everybody is gonna say you come from a family of whores. Everything you’ve worked for your whole life is ruined. Cleanse your name.” And luckily he did. Why? Because he had more pride than love. For all intents and purposes his cousin was a piece of [expletive] to him. Sure they had good times together but at the end of the day he would off her for his pride. God . . . God gives you guys way too much credit.
Fatoush: Why do you think that is?
Shaytaan: God loves you. Me, on the other hand, I’m just having fun. God thinks you guys can love one another. But I know better. I’ve seen you guys up close. You guys have way more pride than love. I was in Jeddah at Friday prayers last week. I came out in time to watch a few beheadings. The guy reads this bit about God being merciful and on and on, then does what he has to do. He must have done about twelve before things got a bit boring. Everyone of those people who watched believed that they were doing God’s work. Hell I made the sword. You think God can make a sword to remove a man’s head that cleanly. Ha! God doesn’t have the stomach for it. But I never get any credit. But that’s ok. I know my work and I know it’s damn good. You know how I like to keep score?
Fatoush: How?
Shaytaan: It’s simple . . . refugee camps. That’s it. More camps means I’m winning; less camps mean God’s winning. Although I admit that the camps were a compromise. I was more for all out slaughter but God thought, again underestimating you people, that love could prevail and the camps would be dismantled. God is nothing if not optimistic. I knew the Palestinians weren’t going anywhere. You think the Native Americans have a homeland? What makes you think the Palestinians would be any different?
Fatoush: What about homosexuality?
Shaytaan: What about it?
Fatoush: What are your thoughts on it?
Shaytaan: You mean am I for or against it?
Fatoush: Uh huh.
Shaytaan: . . . Personally I don’t care but I can use it.
Fatoush: Why’s that?
Shaytaan: It gives me an entrance into someone’s thoughts. I can work on them. Next thing they know they’re talking about pride when they think they’re talking about love. When you hear someone say homosexuality is against God all they’re talking about is their own pride.
Fatoush: At not being gay?
Shaytaan: Huh uh. Pride at thinking they’re a better person. Like I’m a better Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc. because I follow “God’s law.” You kiddin’ me? Truth of the matter is all of you guys are [expletive], pardon my French. All God wants is you guys to love one another and treat each other with respect, etc. and etc. You know God’s standard b.s. [Laughing] But you guys can’t do it. How many [expletive] books do you need? I thought about writing one of my own but figured I didn’t need one. Like I said I rely on human nature. You guys can’t just love the homosexuals for who they are. It kills you. You need to place them in a hierarchy. But I’ll tell you what’s funny . . .
Fatoush: What?
Shaytaan: That hierarchy only lets me know who’s closer to me. Like how did I get down here, hellooo. What I love are the people who get caught up in the persecution bit. As if that’s all I have a hand in. Personally, I prefer to work within the system. I really don’t need the persecution angle. Frankly it’s harder to do these days because the love/justice thing begins to kick in. I’m more into just two tiered societies now. That’s where I do my best work.
Fatoush: So what’s ahead for you in 2005?
Shaytaan: More of the same, really. There are few African countries I haven’t finished destroying; the peace process is going as planned so that frees me up; continued relegation of women to second class status. Personally I thought slavery would have a bit more endurance than it did. So now I’ll have to redouble efforts on women’s subjugation. The easy thing there is to get poor women to take care of the rich ones’ kids. It [expletive] their whole intellectual thing. Hence my expansion in Rome and Mecca. Of course racism is always a top priority, dark people on the bottom, light people on top, etc. Although maybe after awhile I might switch that around. So as you can see, I’ve got a full plate . . .
Fatoush: Anything else you’d like to say to MWU!?
Shaytaan: Yes. This Starbucks coffee is delish.
Fatoush: Thank you.
Shaytaan: Not a problem. I can’t wait till Ramadan’s over.
Abu Fatoush is a lawyer slash struggling screenwriter living in New York City with his ipod and a wireless connection.
Comments