The Policy Critic

Don't Drink the Iranian Kool-Aid

2009-10-12T10:19:00.000-07:00

Readers beware; we are being taken for a ride. The same people that falsified information and led us to war with Iraq are now doing the same with Iran. The war advocates told us it was a “Slam Dunk” that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the US with it tons of chemical and biological weapons, and Colin Powell gave a UN report which turned out to be totally false. We drank the Kool-Aid and found ourselves in a war that cost over 4,000 Americans lives, and claimed about 1.2 million Iraqis.

The same folks who gave us the Iraqi Kool-Aid are offering you Iranian Kool-Aid. The idea that Iran is a threat to the US or Israel, is ludicrous. Iran is completely surrounded by US bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan,, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, US Persian Gulf Navel fleet, and Israel with its illegal nuclear arsenal of between 200-400 nuclear weapons.

Although Iran is the most closely observed, regulated, monitored, nation in the world, with human inspectors, intensive electronic surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and US satellites observing activity in Iran, not one shred of evidence has been found by the IAEA, or the US intelligence agencies that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran gave up is nuclear weapons program in 2003, and Mr. El Baradei, head of the IAEA, has said there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, while the new incoming leader of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, recently said that he has not seen any hard evidence that Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons. Both have been ignored.

The latest controversy is over the “secret” facility to enrich uranium. According to the initial Nuclear Non Proliferation Agreement, Iran need not notify the IAEA of such construction until the facility is 6 months from completion. It will be completed in about one year and Iran, according to the rules, has agreed to allow access by inspectors.

The entire matter of nuclear weapons could be resolved if the US and Israel would agree to a treaty establishing a “Nuclear Free Middle East Zone”. The US and Israel have been the only two nations to balk at the idea, effectively killing the notion each time it has been floated over the last few years. Three weeks ago, but not covered by mainstream media, the UN nuclear assembly voted 100-1 to support the idea of a Nuclear Free Middle East. Israel was the only nation voting against the idea and the US abstained. What is wrong with a Nuclear Free Middle East?

The hypocrisy against Iran would be laughable were it not leading to war. While talking about possibly attacking Iran, who according to US intelligence and the IAEA has no nuclear weapons program, we ignore the elephant in the room (Israel) with an illegal nuclear arsenal. Israel has refused to participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and has refused to allow any inspectors into their nation, but clamors the loudest for an attack on Iran. On 10/4/09 Mr. El Baradei said: "Israel is number one threat to Middle East". His statement was not reported by mainstream media. Additionally both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and do not belong to the NPT, nor have they allowed any inspections while we look the other way.

Iran is in the cross hairs just as was Iraq, and is being put in the same impossible situation. We demanded that Iraq prove they had no WMD, while now demanding that Iran prove they do not have a nuclear weapons program, likewise an impossible task.

So the Kool-Aid is being forced down your throat by war mongers; I urge you not to drink it. Do we really need another endless war?

Puzzling Questions on Kosovo

2008-02-19T05:47:00.000-08:00

As one who supports the concepts of freedom, independence, and the right of self determination, I am puzzled by the reaction of the world’s major nations to the declaration of independence that recently came from Kosovo.

First to recognize the independent new nation was the US, who you may recall initiated a 78 day brutal bombing of Serbian infrastructure including bridges, schools, hospitals, trains, farms, communications and water systems, in an effort to help the people of Kosovo secure their freedom.
Next the French stepped forward to welcome the independence of Kosovo, and the British were also prompt to congratulate the newly independent Kosovo.

But wait!
In 1861 when South Carolina and other southern states seceded from the US, the federal government argued that states did not have the right to declare their independence, and the bloodiest war in the history of the nation was fought to prevent a section of the US from gaining independence. During the bloody conflict the US begged foreign nations not to recognize the independence of the Confederate states of America. Imagine our horror if another nation decided to bomb us for 78 days during our civil war?

When the Philippines demanded their independence from the US at the turn of the last century, a brutal war occurred that dragged on for years causing the deaths of unknown thousands while US troops employed water boarding. Why did we not rush to recognize and grant Philippine independence?

France, a former great colonial empire was shocked when its colony of Algeria declared their independence from France in 1954. The French refused to grant independence and fought a brutal war from 1954-1962, doing everything in its power to kill the concept of independence. The French were extremely cruel and estimates suggest as many as one million died in the struggle for independence. At the end of a brutal war, France finally agreed to recognize Algerian Independence. Why did France refuse to grant Algeria independence?

But wait! Fast forward to the 1992 Algerian elections when no party gained a majority and a runoff election was required by law. When it became apparent that Islamists would win the upcoming democratic election the army stepped forward to cancel the elections, and the Algerian army was given a wink and a nod by the US government. So much for self determination!

Great Britain congratulated the people of Kosovo upon claiming their independence, but it was Great Britain who killed hundreds of thousands of Irish who wanted, struggled and fought for their independence for hundreds of years?? Wasn’t it Great Britain who resisted the breakup of its world colonial empire with incredible brutality in India and other places around the world?

So the great powers who slaughtered millions in an effort to stifle independence around the world, now champion the people of Kosovo. I am confused! Have the great powers, enlightened by the concept of independence, changed their ways, or do they have a sinister motive?

An Act Of Aggression????????

2008-01-14T16:51:00.000-08:00

The recent incident off Iran with three small Iranian speedboats committing an alleged act of aggression (frighteningly similar to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf alleged incident that led to the deaths of 57,000 US soldiers) against the US navy, needs comment. We now know of course that the infamous Iranian video presented by the Pentagon was altered, and a voice was dubbed into the video, but that aside I offer the following for your memory.
Do readers recall the destruction of Flight IR 655, an Iranian commercial jet loaded with 294 civilians, mostly women and children by the US navy? Most Americans have long forgotten it, but rest assured the Iranian families of the 294 will never forget. This commercial jet was shot down by missiles launched from the USS Vincennes, destroying a passenger liner on a regularly scheduled flight. First the US insisted it thought it was being attacked by the Airbus 300 and responded, and then the US said it was confused and thought the passenger liner (Airbus 300) was an F-15. The Vincennes was a highly sophisticated electronic surveillance ship and hardly could it confuse an Airbus 300 with an F-15. That would be like you confusing a mouse with an elephant. To add insult to death, the Captain of the Vincennes was given the Legion of Merit medal for (for killing 294 civilians????) and President Reagan refused to apologize for any action committed by his country. Iranians will never forget nightly news videos of children's bodies being recovered from the sea.

So Bush has warned against the "act of aggression" and threatened serious consequences if it occurs again. An "act of aggression"???????

Blowback in Pakistan

2007-12-30T15:02:00.000-08:00

“Blowback”, a term meaning unintended consequences of a foreign policy, is evident in Pakistan, and the US is largely responsible for the Pakistani turmoil.

The US has supported and propped up a very unpopular military dictator for the past eight years by giving him billions to strengthen his military and maintain his power. Despite polls indicating that almost 70% of the Pakistani people want Musharraf to leave the country, we have continued to insure his presence. Pakistanis are well aware the only reason Musharraf survives is because of US financial backing, and he is seen as another US stooge. Strong anti- American hatred has developed among Pakistanis for our continued support of their dictator, while preaching democracy to the world. Extremists in Pakistan have become the leaders of the anti- Musharraf anti-American resistance. The US refers to these extremists as Al Quada, but they are haters of the US government for maintaining a military dictator in their country. There have been five attempts to assassinate Musharraf, and at one point he was guarded by US personnel because he could not trust his own people.

The extremists tapped into the anti-American, anti Musharraf hatred, and unrest has prevailed in Pakistan over the past 6 months. Apparently the US finally figured that the dictator could not survive indefinitely and so US administration went to plan B. Benazir Bhutto living in exile was selected to be the next leader of Pakistan by the US government, and she was coaxed out of exile and promised US support if she would return to lead her nation. Her fate was sealed when Condoleezza Rice finally persuaded Bhutto to return to Pakistan because it was seen as American régime change. Pakistanis were unwilling to trade one US stooge for another and some apparently decided to eliminate Bhutto.

Because the US has backed a dictator who suspended the constitution, arrested rivals, censored media, and imprisoned thousands, anti-American hatred in Pakistan is “blowback”. The assassination of Bhutto is just another unintended consequence of a failed foreign policy and unfortunately now things could really get out of control in Pakistan.

Isn’t it about time the US citizens pay attention to foreign policy, and force administrations to be moral and democratic around the world?

Why they hate us---A Middle East Primer

2007-10-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

In 1993 the World Trade Center was attacked the first time and the plotters came very close to bringing the Trade Center towers down. Few citizens realize that the plotters and planners of that event publicly said two important things. First they told the people of American and the world, why they attacked the WTC, and they also told the American people that they would be back for a second attempt. Both statements were largely ignored by mainstream media and the US public was kept uninformed. In 2001 the plotters returned to bring down the towers, and once again they told the US public why, but once again this was ignored by mainstream media.

Since 9/11 there have been at least 5 five taped messages from Osama Bin Laden and in each of the taped messages he explained why the towers were targeted, and yet his warnings and reasoning were not coved by media. Repeatedly Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists have sent messages to various news sources which contain an explanation for their hatred, but the media has failed to inform the US public of the reasons for the deep hatred people have for the US.

The common thread found in all recorded messages is the unbalanced, immoral, deadly, policy towards the Palestinian people. Repeatedly the American people have been told why the attackers are willing to sacrifice their own lives to inflict death in America, and repeatedly the US public has not been informed of their intent.

A review of US policy towards Palestine/ Israel is in order to better understand why the US is under attack. The US public was shocked in October of 1983 when a Marine barracks in Lebanon was destroyed with the loss of 241 American lives. Predictably their was an emotional response directed at the Lebanese people by the US public, without understanding, or being told by media of the events leading up to the bombing of the Marine barracks. The US public was told that the Marines were in Beirut on a peace-keeping mission, which only added to the public's anger at those who killed US soldiers. The public however, was not aware of a Civil War in Lebanon between Muslims and Christians for political power. The US had backed, both politically and economically, a right wing unpopular government in Lebanon, and prevented the Lebanese people from instituting a popular government. When the Civil War occurred, the US allowed Israel to enter the fray, invade Lebanon, and slaughter possibly 20,000 civilians. With Israeli and US backing, a right wing puppet government was established to carry out the wishes of the US and Israel, but assassinations of the installed leaders by those who resented outside interference, resulted in more violence. The US entered a civil war in Lebanon by siding with the Christian right wing faction, and used the firepower of the battleship New Jersey to lob 2000 pound shells (size of small cars) into the hills of Lebanon, killing civilians. It was because of our involvement in a Civil War, and the killing of Lebanese civilians by US forces, that led to the retaliatory bombing of the marine barracks.

Additional anti American anger resulted because the Lebanese people knew that the US supplied, and supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and saw this alliance as destructive to democratic movements in Lebanon. Middle Eastern people began to view Israel and the US as a team working to subvert the will of the people, and to bring anarchy and chaos to the Middle East.

Recently Israel invaded Lebanon once again, and brutally launched an illegal aggressive war on innocent civilians. The entire infrastructure of Lebanon was destroyed and thousands of innocents were killed. The invasion occurred because 2 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, an incident used by Israel to justify its barbaric assault on an entire nation. Mainstream media neglected to point out that Israel has “kidnapped” and imprisoned thousands of Lebanese without any accusations, trial, or legal representations.
As the assault continued, the Prime Minister of Lebanon went on TV and publicly wept for his people and his nation, and begged the world to demand a cease fire. Not only did the US give Israel the wink and nod to begin the assault, but continued to wink and nod as US made weapons, given to Israel, were used for the slaughter. It was the US who prevented the UN from demanding a cease fire, and it was the US who provided the one million cluster bombs used on civilians by Israel. The media can successfully fool the US public by hiding the facts, but cannot fool the mothers and fathers whose children were slaughtered by the invasion. This marked the second brutal invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

Meanwhile in Palestine the daily killing of Palestinians continued, while the world’s attention was focused on the war in nearby Lebanon. According to UN statistics, since the real turmoil in Palestine began, there have been 4228 Palestinians killed versus 1024 Israelis. Despite living under a brutal illegal occupation, Palestinians managed to hold a very democratic election monitored by international observers, with Hamas getting control of the government. Immediately the US and Israel balked and announced no funds would go to Palestinians until they renounced Hamas and drove them from power. Both Israel and the US are trying to bring about a coup, with the intent of overthrowing a democratically elected government, and restoring the unpopular US/Israeli puppet. The coup is to be achieved through starvation and deprivation of the masses, which would generate conditions intolerable for the Palestinians. As long as the Palestinian people cling to their democratically elected Hamas they will continue to be starved by the US and Israel.

Because of inhuman conditions, including starvation, Palestinian infighting resulted which almost led to civil war. Many observers predicted Civil War due to the intolerable conditions, and many predicted this was the goal of US /Israeli policy all along. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and a meeting of Palestinian factions was held in Saudi Arabia, with the goal of forming a unity government by compromising on many important issues. Both the US and Israel have insisted all along that peace negotiations between Israeli and Palestinians could only occur through a unified government, but once, to the dismay of some, a unified government emerged, the US and Israel threw up another roadblock and obstacle to any peace negotiations. Israel and the US demanded the unity government meet 3 conditions as a prelude to any peace talks. The demands were: 1) the unity government “recognize" Israel’s right to exist, 2) Palestinians must honor past treaties, and 3) Palestinians must renounce violence. Israel and the US maintain there can be no progress until those demands are satisfied. Mainstream American media never discussed the issue of Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, so an illustration is needed to understand the plight of the Palestinians. Suppose your neighbor took 75% of your property through force, and then demanded you recognize his right to exist on your property. Would you? Could you??? It would amount to a concession that his taking of your land is legal. In Israel’s case, the world community has repeatedly declared Israel’s seizure of Palestinian land to be illegal. The international community had declared the seizure of land to be a violation of both the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Charter, and has publicly condemned Israel for its violation of international law. It is allowed to openly violate international law because it has the backing and protection of the United States, and if Palestinians “recognize” Israel, in effect they are recognizing an illegal seizure of land. Israel has been condemned more times by the UN than any nation in history, and the US has used it’s veto power in the UN an additional 39 times to protect Israel from even more condemning resolutions.

Readers should also note that none of the 3 conditions demanded of the Palestinians have been met by Israel. Israel has refused to recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state, Israel has walked away from numerous previously agreed upon treaties, and Israel certainly has not renounced its policy of violence. One might think that any fair minded media outlet might include this in a balanced treatment of the situation.

Although mainstream media in this country avoids any serious discussion of the Palestinian problem, thus keeping the US public totally uniformed, the Arab world is acutely aware of both the horrible situation of the Palestinians and the nature of the problem. As long as the US continues to support a totally one sided, repressive, and incredibly cruel policy towards Palestinians, the country must be prepared for more retaliation and revenge. As none of this could go one without the blind US support of Israel, the world holds the US responsible for the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinian people. Media and politicians appear to be willing to continue to sacrifice American lives to maintain a disastrous policy for the US public. Perhaps it is time for politicians to do what is best for the American public.

Planned Palestinian Chaos

2007-06-15T15:47:00.000-07:00

The tragic news from Palestine is being delivered by mainstream media without factual accuracy, so readers must be mindful that relevant information is being withheld from public consumption.

In January an election took place in Palestine at the insistence of the US and Israel, which, according to international observers, was incredibly democratic and fair. To the dismay of both the US and Israel, Hamas was the clear winner carrying a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Parliament, and who immediately suggested they were willing to renew the unilateral one year truce with Israel. Israel and the US however, teamed up to punish the Palestinian people for voting the "wrong way”. Israel began by withholding tax revenue legally belonging to Palestinians, which constitutes thievery, while the US announced a policy of preventing any aid to Palestine and a policy of starvation. Both the US and Israel had underestimated the political strength of Hamas, and were now determined to bring about the downfall of the newly elected government. Both major powers calculated that without any government infrastructure, in one of the most oppressed regions of the world, public unrest and strife would lead to the collapse of the Hamas government. The policy of starvation and deprivation by Israel and the US did not work. The US then ratcheted up its attempt to foment civil unrest by giving military aid and training to the party that had lost the election (Abbas and Fattah). Despite the rhetoric about spreading democracy in the Middle east, when democracy prevailed the US and Israel did their best to overthrow the democratically elected government.

Both Israel and the US argue their actions are justified because Hamas refuses to accept the existence of Israel; however Israel has never recognized the legal right of Palestine’s existence. Hamas and Israel are strangely enough locked into the same untenable position with respect to recognition of one another. For Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist would infer that Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian lands is legal. If your neighbor illegally took part of your property you would be foolish to recognize his right to do so.
Meanwhile Israel cannot recognize the legal right of Palestine to “exist”, for that would imply that Palestine would have legal recourse to the illegal confiscation of Palestinian lands.

Israel then unilaterally arrested leaders of the elected Hamas government (imagine Russia arresting members of the US Congress) and imprisoned elected officials. Over 30 Hamas leaders were arrested, including the Prime Minister of Education, members of the Parliament, and mayors of four towns. Last month Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya in Gaza, killing seven members of his family causing Palestinian rage. By denying any money to the Palestinian people, by arresting leaders of the newly elected government, by supplying the losers of the January elections with weapons, money, and military training, by attempting to assassinate elected politicians, the US and Israel created the "perfect storm" for civil war in Palestine. Now both the US and Israel sit back and watch Palestinians kill one another. Causing civil war and unrest represents a short term victory for the US and Israel, but will undoubtedly have long term “blowback” consequences.

Hugo Chavez and US hypocrisy

2007-06-13T04:48:00.001-07:00

The US government, mainstream media, and big oil, (who sleep in the same bed) have done their best to demonize Hugo Chavez, the outspoken leader of Venezuela. Chavez threw big oil companies out of Venezuela and nationalized the nation's oil because foreign oil companies were raping the oil resources. He argued that oil proceeds should be used to help the poor and has attempted to redistribute wealth by providing the poor with free food, medicine, and education, paying for his social programs with oil money. Additionally this past winter he offered oil to the poor in the US at discount prices. Meanwhile Exxon-Mobil earns mind boggling profits of one hundred million dollars per day. What has Exxon-Mobil done for you? Who then, would you like to see end up with your gas money; the poor or Exxon-Mobil?
President Bush is indignant because Chavez would not renew the broadcast license of a TV station that participated in an attempt to overthrow him, and some US politicians are highly critical calling it an infringement of the right of free press and refer to Chavez as a dictator, forgetting he has faced the people five times in elections.
We can only speculate as to what Bush would do if CBS participated in an attempt to overthrow his administration. We know what he has done to news outlets that do not give the slant he wants. In November of 2001 the US dropped a 500 pound bomb on the Al-Jazeera news station in Kabul, bombed their office in Baghdad in 2003, and imprisoned numerous reporters with one still being held at Guantanamo because we did not like what they were broadcasting. We also know through leaked British memos, that Bush wanted to bomb their main headquarters in Qatar but Tony Blair talked him out of it. None of this bothered the ardent free speech advocates who are so critical of Chavez. I am confused; do you call this "double standard" or "hypocrisy", or both?

Cancer vs. War

2007-05-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

What is to be said of a nation that spends hundreds of billions more on killing, than on finding a cure for cancer?
Tragically we all know of someone who has died of cancer. Try then to make sense of the following. The National Cancer Institute's budget is less than 5 billion dollars, while the military budget, including the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, is about 647 billion. The National Cancer Institute, the agency responsible for research and finding a cure for cancer, had its budget cut this year, while military spending escalated at unparalleled increases. That means that almost 50 % of your tax dollars finance death, destruction, and war, while 0.17 % of your tax money is spent on finding a cure for cancer. Is this your priority? What have you done about it? What kind of a nation have we become?

Let Democracy End the War in Iraq

2007-02-12T04:36:00.000-08:00

President Bush’s budget calls for an additional $250 billion to finance the quagmire in Iraq, which translates to $800 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The additional $250 billion will bring the cost of the Iraq war to a mind defying $700 billion. Despite the fact that every expert in the world has told him his latest escalation is doomed, the president insists on pushing on with his plan, and now is requesting the funding to implement his policy. Congress meanwhile, demonstrates that it is completely out of touch with the voters and their wishes, as displayed in the most recent election. Much has been said about a meaningless political gesture of debating a worthless non-binding resolution of opposition to escalation. Save for individuals like Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, there are few profiles in courage in the Congress, as evidenced by the titanic struggle to take a stand on a non-binding resolution. Since both the Congress and the President are defying the will of the people, a unique solution is needed. Woodrow Wilson once said: “All the evils of Democracy can be cured by more democracy”, and believing this to be true, consider the following unique solution.

Let the people decide! The President needs an additional $800 per person to finance his war, so those who support the escalation can voluntarily donate his/her $800, and those who do not support escalation can keep their $800. As Congress is too cowardly to reflect the will of the people, and the President simply defies the will of the people, let the people speak and vote with their own money. The President has talked considerably about bringing democracy to the rest of the world, so let us demonstrate the merits of pure democracy. Since Bush is starting wars to “promote democracy”, why don’t we let democracy end a war?
This war will end tomorrow.

The President's "nightmare scenario"

2007-01-24T10:39:00.000-08:00

President Bush in his State of the Union address pushed again for his war plan in Iraq, saying we must avoid the “nightmare scenario” of defeat. Since the US began to focus on Iraq the following have resulted:

Over one million innocent people were killed by brutal UN sanctions, inspired and demanded by the US, and while the world begged to remove the killer sanctions, the US insisted they be maintained.
About 700,000 of those who died were innocent children.
The US invaded Iraq and killed an estimated 250,000 under George Bush Sr.
For the next 10 years the US and Britain bombed Iraq on a daily basis.
Clinton launched 23 Tomahawk missiles on Iraq in 1993.
The US invaded Iraq for the second time in 2003.
The US has killed 765,000 Iraqi citizens since the 2003 invasion.
The nation of Iraq has been reduced to rubble.
The infrastructure of Iraq has been completely destroyed.
The birthplace of civilization has been reduced to anarchy.
Two million Iraqis have fled their country due to the US invasion.
Over 100,000 flee their nation each month.
750,000 Christians have fled Iraq.
1.7 million people in Iraq have lost their homes.
Iraq was a nation of about 20 million.
Since our involvement we have reduced their population by about 5 million people.

The president says if we leave, there will be a “nightmare scenario”.

The Defense calls Donald Rumsfeld!!

2007-01-08T07:36:00.000-08:00

The defense calls Donald Rumsfeld! That, in a nutshell, explains the very rapid execution of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was called Hitler, mass murderer, barbarian; and the US government and mainstream media convinced the American people he was the devil incarnate, and rapid execution was only fitting. Curiously however, for all his alleged horrific crimes against humanity and mass murder, he was tried and executed for killing 148 people who participated in a coup to overthrow and kill him. Mainstream media neglects to inform us that according to Hussein’s defense, the 148 were tried for treason, found guilty, and executed. Certainly one could question the nature of the trial given to the 148, and find sufficient reason to question their execution, just as one could easily challenge the nature of the trial offered to Hussein. His trial was paid for by the US, judges were brought to the US for “training”, the court room was paid for by the US taxpayer, the salaries of judges were paid for by the US, lawyers were assassinated, judges resigned, witnesses were hidden and their identities unknown, and having been found guilty was summarily executed within days.

Certainly it is not this writer's intent to defend Saddam Hussein, but it is interesting to use his case to explore the nature of "justice" and "hypocracy". As an abstract concept, the nature of “justice” is debatable, and one merely looks back at Waco, Texas where Janet Reno presided over the execution of 90 of our own citizens, most of whom were women and children completely innocent of any criminal activity. Not only were the innocent victims denied any kind of trial, they were gassed with poison, and then incinerated. How does this incident compare or differ from the accusation and hanging of Hussein? Another alleged assassination took place in Kuwait in April 1993 when an alleged attempt to assassinate George Bush Sr. was foiled. Without a trial, without accusing or arresting anyone, the new President, Clinton, launched 23 Tomahawk missiles into Iraq killing innocent people, including one of Iraq’s most gifted artists. Despite the fact the assassination allegedly took place in Kuwait, and its accuracy has been challenged by distinguished writers like Seymour Hersh, the retaliation by the US took innocent lives in Iraq. Was this an exercise in “justice”, and was anyone held accountable, tried, or hanged, for these deaths?

Saddam Hussein was not put on trial for the horrific accusations hurled at him by mainstream media and the US government. Did he really gas the Kurds as charged by the US? Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, his hanging prevented any answering of such questions. Perhaps that explains the rapid execution of Hussein for an insignificant crime (relatively speaking). Certainly his defenders would have called Donald Rumsfeld to the stand to explain the infamous photo of Rumsfeld embracing Hussein. Defense lawyers would have asked pertinent questions such as how did Hussein acquire the poison gas, and what role did the US government play in supplying him with either the gasses or the means to manufacture the gases? One can only imagine how Mr. Rumsfeld would answer the following additional questions put to him by defense lawyers. Mr. Rumsfeld, please explain to the court what your mission was when you visited Mr. Hussein and shook his hand representing the US government in 1983? Mr. Rumsfeld were you aware that Saddam Hussein was supplied by the US with virus cultures and a billion dollar contract to build a chemical facility to produce mustard gas, after the alleged “gassing of the Kurds”? Mr. Rumsfeld, are you aware of any chemical or biological substances, devices, or knowledge of how to produce such materials, being transferred by the US, or agents of the US, or by American businesses to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, prior to, or after the alleged “gassing of the Kurds? Mr. Rumsfeld, are you aware of a Pentagon investigation of the “gassing of the Kurds” in 1990, in which they concluded: “we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance.”? Mr. Rumsfeld; was the Pentagon study lying when it found no evidence to confirm that gas was used on the Kurds, or was the US government lying when it insisted he did use poison gas on the Kurds?

Certainly it would be embarrassing ( to say the least) to have Hussein’s legal staff accusing the US of being an “accomplice” to war crimes and asking why the US should not be put on trial for being an “accessory to mass murder” and “crimes against humanity”? The rapid hanging insured such matters will never be discussed.

Somalia for Dummies

2007-01-02T09:19:00.000-08:00

Most think Somalia is a small, brutal, poor, war torn country of no importance, incapable of internal peace, and that is precisely what mainstream media and the US government would like you to believe, so perhaps a brief review of Somalia is needed.

First, Somalia is blessed or cursed, depending on your perspective, with abundant natural resources of oil, uranium, and natural gas. Additionally it has military strategic value as its coastal town of Berbera is situated on the Mideast oil route and is the site of a US naval base, a base unknown by most Americans.
Most think the only US foray into Somalia was a “failed humanitarian mission” when the ungrateful and barbaric people of Somalia rejected our “humanitarian mission” and shot down a US helicopter and killed 18 US soldiers in a firefight a la the movie “Black Hawk Down”? You might be very wrong again!

The US, back in the 70’s while the Cold War was still on, supported Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre who was our man in Somalia and who countered the influence of Russia in next door Ethiopia (just as Saddam Hussein was our man in Iraq who countered the Iranians). To minimize the influence of Russia, we encouraged Barre to invade Ethiopia (as opposed to current day when we encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia). With the end of the Cold War and no Russian threat, we lost interest in Somalia and Barre, but continued to fund his dictatorship, and by the late 80’s the major oil companies of Chevron, (that’s right the same company that Condoleezza Rice was director of from 1991-2001) Amoco, Conoco, and Phillips had secured control of about two thirds of Somalia and it’s oil.

Mohamed Siad Barre, over the years and with the support of US military aid and funding, established himself as a brutal ruthless dictator (something like Saddam Hussein) who repressed any opposition with brutality. Barre was finally removed in a 1991 coup during which the US envoy took cover in the offices of Conoco oil (seems appropriate) and a new government was established. The oil rights however were now threatened by the new government so President Bush (Sr.) sent 20,000 US troops to restore the oil rights to the oil companies, justifying his intervention (1992-1993) as a “humanitarian mission”.

Unfortunately mission creep occurred and soon the US was taking sides in the Somali Civil War. US soldiers showed little respect for the people of Somalia and developed the policy of shoot to kill and ask questions later, an attitude considered callous and racist by the people of Somalia. Strong resentment and hatred occurred among the people of Somalia towards US troops (much like that in Iraq) and US troops became the enemy (much like in Iraq).

After the Mogadishu event resulted in the deaths of 18 US and over 1000 Somali’s, the US withdrew its forces but continued to finance the warlords while Somalia degenerated into what some have aptly described as “Mad Max territory”. For the next 15 years anarchy ruled in Somalia with civil war and wars between CIA backed warlords adding to the instability and chaos. Finally a group of fundamentalist Islamists called the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) began to recapture and restore order to one town after another, sometimes with brutality of their own. The US government, through the CIA in February of 2006, began to finance warlords to the tune of $100,000-$150,000 per month (big money in Somalia) fearing that the Islamic Courts Union might get to friendly with Al-Qaeda, and Islamophobics feared another strong Islamic government might represent a threat to the existence of the US naval base, and might even be a threat to nearby Ethiopia even though Somalia had no military.

Unable to send troops to combat the Islamic Courts Union because of the current quagmire in Iraq, we equipped and trained the Ethiopian army and encouraged them to attack Somalia (not to be confused with our encouraging Somali to attack Ethiopia in the 70’s). The superior military might of Ethiopia easily overcame Somali resistance (as occurred in Iraq) but many now fear a strong resistance movement will develop in Somalia and this war torn nation will enter a new phase of violence ( like Iraq). Recently in a large stadium in Somalia, the Islamic Courts Union held a rally where thousands of Somali’s chanted: “Death to the Americans and Slit the throats of Americans”.

Some have suggested that people hate us “because we are free” but the Somalis hate us for a different reason. Chalmers Johnson coined the phrase “Blowback” in his book: “Blowback: the Consequences of American Empire, and surely there will be consequences in the future.

Gutless Washington Press Corp and the Middle East

2006-12-27T12:39:00.001-08:00

The President rejected the Baker recommendation of face to face talks with Iran and Syria saying we would not talk with them because "they are fomenting violence in the Middle East" while the loyal Washington Press Corps sat there without question.

Not one reporter pointed out to the President that we illegally invaded Iraq with 150,000 foreign forces suffering almost 3000 US deaths and 20,000 seriously wounded. Nor did any reporter point out that according a John Hopkins University study (extremely scientific) we have killed 650,000 innocent Iraqis, nor did any reporter point out that 3,000 Iraqis per day are fleeing their country, nor did any reporter point out that we have completely destroyed the nations infrastructure, and not one reporter pointed out that Iraq is suffering the equivalent of one 9/11 every month. The loyal press corps allowed the President to blame others for the violence without comment.

The Rush to War Again

2006-03-06T08:02:00.000-08:00

Mainstream media continues to beat the drums of war; falsely convincing the populace that Iran represents a threat to the security of the US. The damage has already been done as evidenced by the fact that 80% of the American people believe that Iran has nuclear weapons and will use them against the U S, when if fact this is not true.

Congress further escalated the rush to war with Iran by passing a unanimous resolution condemning Iran for its failure to” live up to its nuclear non- proliferation agreements”. Once again the facts should be noticed. Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike our friends, Israel, India, and Pakistan) and has never been in violation of any provisions of the NPT. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, nor is there a shred of evidence that Iran is in violation of it’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Either the US Congress is guilty of intentionally misleading the American public or they are incredibly ignorant. The US and Israel have insisted they will not tolerate Iran’s acquisition, or attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons, and both have hinted they will use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Interestingly the US and Israel are hinting we will use nuclear weapons to prevent someone from acquiring nuclear weapons, an argument that does not have intellectual credibility. Interestingly again, is that Iran is being asked to prove that they do not have something, and unless they can prove the impossible we will make war. We demanded that Iraq prove they did not have WMD and when they found it impossible to prove, we made war on them. DejaVu?
The hypocrisy of our policy against Iran is exposed when one looks at a map of that part of the world. The US and Israel insist Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon but Israel, Pakistan, and India, all have nuclear weapons and all have refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. While every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program is monitored by human eyes and electronic surveillance, no one is allowed in any way to monitor Israel, Pakistan, and India. So here we have Iran surrounded by hostile nuclear powers and further contained and threatened by 150,000 US forces and bases in neighboring Iraq, combined with US military bases in the surrounding nations of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Kuwait. Iran is encircled by American military power and to suggest that Iran is a military threat to the US is laughable, yet we will soon make war on that country for that reason.

US foreign policy has been hijacked by a group who does not have the interests of the American people at heart. They have their own agenda which is not good for you, your family, or the US public in general. A war with Iran could very well have cataclysmic effects and may even lead to WW III. Before joining their headlong rush to war consider the following:
1. The threat to use nuclear weapons (the US government calls them tactical nuclear weapons) by both Israel and the US, could very well lead to escalation.
2. The Arab world will unite with rage against what they accurately perceive as a war on Islam. An attack on Iran will instill rage that will make the “cartoon” rage around the world pale in comparison.
3. The Russians have already warned the US not to strike at Iran (a fact not covered by mainstream media).
4. The Chinese are now completing a $100 billion dollar oil deal with Iran and they will not sit idly by, while their $100 billion dollar deal is ruined with a US attack on Iran.

War will come not because it is a good thing for American people. War will come because powerful people are driving US policy and I beg the public to become engaged, as we will be the victims of those driving for war. Pay attention to those who directly or indirectly call for war and ask yourself who are these people and what is their agenda? As we were led blindly down a path of war with Iraq by those very same people, we are now being led to the next war with Iran, to be followed by the next war with Syria, and the next with Saudi Arabia.

Regretfully I fear my plea will fall on deaf ears as the war propaganda is already deeply rooted, however I make my plea and consider it my civic duty of a citizen of this democracy.

The Folly of it all, the trial of Saddam Hussein

2005-12-12T04:52:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussein’s two biggest alleged crimes were: 1) he invaded Kuwait 2) he gassed thousands of his own people, but he is not being tried for either. What gives? Hussein is being tried for the murder of 140 people after an assassination attempt on his life. Why are the two most serious alleged crimes not on the agenda? Since the current trial is taking place in an American built courtroom, by judges who were brought to the US for “training”, with all expenses and salaries of the prosecution team being paid for by the US, one must wonder about the fairness of such a trial. It might be fairer to bring in a “Dunking Stool” from the Salem witchcraft trials.

Could it be that he is not being tried for his invasion of Kuwait because he was given the “green light” by the US ambassador April Glaspie just seven days before his invasion of Kuwait? The Glaspie transcript clearly shows when the US ambassador met with Hussein she indicated the US would not interfere with his invasion. Was Hussein “set up”?? Is the US afraid if he is charged with the invasion of Kuwait the defense might bring up some embarrassing facts about the set up? Could the defense team turn the table and suggest that if Hussein is guilty of invading Kuwait, why is the US not guilty of invading Iraq?

One also must question the “gassing of his own people” accusation?? Could it be that if he were tried for this offense the defense might substantiate charges that the US (then a good friend of Hussein) supplied him with the gasses and is therefore an accomplice? Could it be that it might be difficult to prove that Hussein really did gas his people because a Pentagon statement issued in 1990 indicates there is no evidence to substantiate such and accusation?

That leaves the current charge of killing 140 people who attempted to assassinate him. When found guilty of this crime (the verdict is a forgone conclusion as we bought the best justice money can buy) one must think about similar crimes. Recall the alleged attempt to assassinate former President George Bush when he visited Kuwait. In June of 1993 President Clinton retaliated by ordering the launching of 23 Tomahawk missiles against Iraq. It never made sense that the attempt on Bush’s life was in Kuwait but we turned around and attacked Iraq, but that’s another story. The Tomahawk missiles had the capacity to carry 1000 pound bombs, and according to a variety of news services, several of the missiles hit residential neighborhoods causing many civilian casualties.

If Hussein is guilty of killing people because of an attempted assassination, isn’t Clinton guilty of the same?? Only folly comes from a war based on lies.

If it smells like oil, it probably is oil.

2005-12-10T05:35:00.000-08:00

Many have argued that the attack on Iraq was simply a pretext to get Iraq’s oil, a charge vehemently denied by the administration. Now that the administration has lost its credibility it may be appropriate to review some pertinent facts.

Recall that in the 1980s Saddam Hussein was our good friend (i.e. the infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein). We willingly and happily supplied him with all his needs including gasses and WMD but suddenly Hussein was depicted as the Hitler figure of his day. What changed? Saddam Hussein announced that all foreign oil companies must leave Iraq and the entire oil industry was taken over by the Iraqi government. The oil companies lost their right to access and sell Iraq’s oil. Although Hussein skimmed millions, he used the oil profits to build infrastructure, to build one of the best education systems in the Middle East, and poured the oil money into a remarkable health care system for the people of Iraq. He miscalculated oil’s power in American politics and his erroneous belief that Iraq’s oil resources belonged to the people sealed his fate. The propaganda began, overnight he became a monster, and Hitler was reborn.

The attack commenced with “Shock and Awe” unleashed on Iraq’s entire infrastructure. A few eyebrows rose when the only government facility untouched by US bombs was the Oil Ministry building, and additionally when US forces invaded Iraq, the very first military move was to secure the oil fields of Iraq. Coincidence?

When the country was secured (it no longer is), Paul Bremer was sent in to administer the new provisional government and one of his first acts was to begin the privatization of Iraq’s oil industry. Shortly thereafter the neocons, the architects of the war, began talking about building an oil pipe line from Kirkuk to the Israeli port Haifa, as reported by the highly respected British paper The Guardian, in April of 2003, and also by the Israeli paper Haaretz. This story went virtually uncovered by mainstream US media but imagine how well that played in the Arab world.

In May of 2003 Congressman Henry Waxman discovered that Halliburton was in charge of pumping Iraq’s oil. Halliburton had been given a contract to extinguish Iraq’s oil fires but abuses and over billing were alleged. Congressman Waxman investigated, and while questioning the Army Corps of Engineers found that Halliburton was also in charge of pumping Iraq’s oil, and that it was not being metered by anyone. This story also went unreported by mainstream American media. Halliburton was formerly run by Dick Cheney who still receives a huge sum from Halliburton each year, which is placed in a blind trust. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Cheney has refused to divulge who attended his energy task force and what topics were discussed, prior to the invasion of Iraq? We now know, through documents made public by court action, that four oil companies attended a meeting with Mr. Cheney and maps of Iraq’s oil fields were used in that very meeting. Was this payback for the oil industry’s large financial support to the Bush campaign without which he may not have been elected?

Just recently an organization called Platform released a publication entitled Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Wealth revealing multinational oil companies are planning a corporate oil grab and will “plunder” $194 million by signing secret deals to gain access to Iraq’s oil. Obviously this illustrates how wrong Hussein was in thinking Iraq’s oil belonged to the people for this represents $194 million taken from the people of Iraq.
This story was not carried by mainstream media in this country.

On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization)

Noteworthy also is that Saddam Hussein had offered oil exploratory rights to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia, but those rights were not acted upon because of the US imposed sanctions. If Hussein were the victim of “regime change”, those rights would be null and void and not recognized by the new government.

Add to the mix that Vice President, Mr. Cheney, ran Halliburton (a gigantic oil corporation) for five years before becoming Vice President. When Mr. Cheney left Halliburton he was awarded a 34 million dollar severance package, and he continues to collect an annual check from the corporation. The Secretary of State, Ms Rice, formerly worked for Chevron and to show their gratitude named one of their new supertankers (Condoleezza) after her. Both the President and his father have very close ties to the oil industry, and the President’s staff and cabinet are completely dominated by former oil people. Not surprisingly, a new Zoogby Poll shows 76% of Arab people in the Middle East believe the war is an attempt to get Iraq’s oil.

Oil is not the only reason for the invasion and occupation of an unarmed country, but it certainly is one of the major contributing factors.

A win, win, exit plan

2005-10-31T18:41:00.001-08:00

Last week the death toll in Iraq quietly surpassed the 2000 mark, and in the next few days an additional 15 were killed, yet not one political leader suggests any kind of plan for exit. Indeed the President shrugged off the 2000 milestone, and casually warned that many more will die in the future. Since the entire war was based on lies, deceptions and ever changing reasons for fighting, it is time to plan for exit.

The administration argues that one of the main reasons for fighting is to introduce democracy to Iraq, which some suggest is another lie put forward by the administration, but giving the President the benefit of the doubt, consider this truly democratic exit plan.

Bear in mind the British recently conducted a “secret” poll in Iraq, in which as many as 80% of the Iraqi people wanted British forces out of Iraq, and that most of the violence in Iraq by the resistance, is directed towards US forces and the puppet government we have helped to install. It is obvious that, given the choice, the people of Iraq would send US forces home instantly. Based on these two observations, consider the following exit plan.

1. A call for an immediate cease fire and a “stand down” order given to US forces for the next 60 days, pending a national referendum to be held throughout Iraq with one simple ballot question. The ballot question would read: US forces should leave Iraq immediately. Certainly resistance groups would honor the cease fire because their aim is to drive foreign troops from their nation, and this vote would allow the Iraqi people to drive out the foreign forces democratically. Mr. Bush has repeatedly called for a simple up or down vote for his judicial nominees, and would be a hypocrite to deny the same right to the people of Iraq.

2) To insure an honest election, teams from Switzerland would be brought in to run and supervise the election, and also to count the ballots.

3. An agreement by the US to respect the democratic will of the Iraqi people.

Overwhelmingly the Iraqi people would vote to expel US forces. We would respect their will and leave Iraq, claiming to have successfully introduced democracy by allowing the people of Iraq to exercise their democratic right of self determination. The people of Iraq would be left to determine their own future without the presence of 150,000 foreign troops.

This is a win, win, proposition for all. The people of Iraq would have exercised the right to vote, and their future will be in their hands, as it should be. The US could proudly say we have planted the seed of democracy in Iraq and leave, respecting the will of the majority and most importantly, death would end. An additional further bonus might be that some nations of the world might begin to rethink their position regarding the US invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately no one will propose this exit plan because we have no intention of ever leaving Iraq. The administration needs military bases in Iraq to better enable us to fight wars with both Syria and Iran in the very near future, and because we want Iraq’s two most precious natural resources. We and our only ally in the Middle East want Iraq’s oil, (a pipeline from Iraq to Haifa is now in the planning stages), and Israel want Iraq’s abundant water. The pillaging of oil and water will continue, and death will come to many more Americans in the future.

Neocon March to the Next War

2005-08-18T09:33:00.000-07:00

The neocons with their willing soldiers, the media, are on the march toward another war; this time with Iran. Using the tactic of “saturation bombing”, the media outlets are barraging the American public with frantic stories of Iran’s unwillingness to do the bidding of the neocon cabal. Hundreds of anti-Iranian stories permeate the media, all with the goal of creating the newest “monster” that must be stopped by any means. The scare tactics used so successfully by the neocons and the media to create the last “monster,” are hard at work using what proved to be so successful in the past. Half truths, lies, distortions, and “dissident” Iranians sources, are being used to confirm your worst fears. Recall the truthfulness of the last “dissident source” in the run up to the war with Iraq, and notice how the two confirming source rule, has been ignored by the media to soften the American public to the need for war.

Least we forget amid the frenzy, Iran has done nothing wrong. It voluntarily stopped its nuclear program pending a permanent agreement. When a permanent agreement could not be worked out Iran resumed its program under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Everything is monitored and supervised by that watchdog agency and Iran is only doing what it is legally allowed to do in accordance to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The agreement that the EU attempted to force on Iran would deny to Iran what the three bargaining member of the EU have now had for years. France, for example, produces about 70% of its electricity though nuclear energy, but is telling Iran they do not have this right. Iran exists in one of the more hostile places on earth, and its neighbors India, Pakistan, and Israel all have huge nuclear programs. The US has labeled Iran a member of the “axis of evil” and has threatened to use nuclear weapons on Iran. The last “axis of evil” member has been attacked, invaded, and occupied, and reduced to anarchy by the US, and with an American army of 130,000 camped next door it might make Iranians a bit more secure with deterrent weapons.

Unfortunately when the neocons get their war with Iran, it will not be their children who die; only your children are good enough for that kind of sacrifice. A war with Iran will only turn into a world conflagration unlike any other. This will be the third Muslim nation in three years to be set upon by the neocons, and this will force the Muslim world into retaliation. Clearly a world war with the Muslim world has been the goal of the neocons all along, and with their willing soldiers the media, have convinced the American public that Muslims everywhere are evil. This impending war which will precipitate world wide revenge and bombings will insure your children’s children will pay in blood for the sins of the neocons. In no way is a war with Iran good for America or its people, but neocons are in fact very un-American, and simply use the blood of good Americans to fulfill their agenda.

Answer the following:

Why is Iran not allowed to have one nuclear weapon when we have 6,000?

Why do we subsidize China to go nuclear but insist Iran cannot?

Why is the greatest proliferator of nuclear information (Pakistan), our good friend?

Why is Israel, our other good friend, allowed to have 300 nuclear weapons, and refuse to join or participate in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Why is Iran, a signer and member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, subjected to rigorous inspections while our good friend Israel has neither signed nor participated?

If you were in Iran’s place and had been labeled as part of an “axis of evil” by a President who illegally attacked the last member of the “axis of evil” and who has threatened to use nuclear weapons against you, would you feel a bit safer with some nuclear weapons of your own?

Why is the media obsessed with Iran’s attempts to go nuclear and is equally obsessive about avoiding the fact that Israel is the 5th largest nuclear nation in the world and not subjected to any inspections or verification?

What is the real agenda of the neocon cabal who have the President’s undivided attention?

Hear the screams of the founding fathers?

2005-08-04T09:07:00.000-07:00

In 1776 a group of “insurgents”, in those days called Patriots, Minutemen, and rebels, took on the world’s greatest military superpower. The “occupiers” were exploiting the “insurgents” and stealing their resources, but the poorly equipped and untrained “insurgents” prevailed because there is no greater cause than fighting for freedom and the right to self determination. “Insurgents” invented and used the concept of “guerilla warfare”, and did such cowardly things as attacking from buildings, and from behind stone walls, which were considered barbaric tactics by the superpower. Fighting with greater motivation, the “insurgents” brought the world’s military superpower to its knees ands drove the “occupiers” from their land, and exercised the universally recognized right of “self determination”.

Fast forward to Iraq where another group of ill equipped, poorly trained “insurgents” are taking on the worlds greatest superpower using guerilla warfare tactics.
“Insurgents” are focused on driving the “occupiers” from their land, seeking freedom, and exercising the universally recognized right of “self determination”.

Hear the screams of the founding fathers from their graves, as they see how far this nation has strayed from its history, origin, and principles?

"The Dogs of War"

2005-07-13T17:26:00.000-07:00

President Bush used 9/11 to declare a War on Terror and subsequently attacked both Afghanistan and Iraq. The entire infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed by the US, including water systems, sewage systems, and electrical systems, (illegal according to the Geneva Convention). As the US does not keep civilian death statistics, the only attempt to determine civilian deaths was a study done by John Hopkins University, which determined the war resulted in the loss of about 100,000 innocent civilians. Additionally in the 10 year run-up to the war, the UN, at the insistence of the US, maintained the most brutal sanctions ever imposed on any nation, resulting in the loss of about one million innocent lives.

Now, as the horrible bombs explode in London, some are in shock. Did American administrations really think the world would just sit by idly and accept the deaths of 1.25 million innocent people without fighting back? Did you really believe that they would not seek revenge? Did we sit back passively after 9/11?

Although not reported by the media, those who claimed responsibility for the London bombings stated unequivocally, the attack was in retaliation for Britain’s role in the “massacres” in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for Britain’s role in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. This weekend Tony Blair admitted the Middle East conflict was one of the major causes of terrorism.

Attacking and occupying a nation, bringing pain, suffering and death to its people will guarantee retaliation. When Mr. Bush attacked Iraq, many experts cautioned: when you make war, “the dogs of war are unleashed.” He of course knew better.

The Social Security Sham, more sinister than you think.

2005-03-20T18:12:00.000-08:00

Since President Bush has a difficult time with the truth, I immediately became concerned with his “reforming” social security rhetoric. As there is always an ulterior motive with this President, I began to investigate and have concluded the president is not really concerned with Social Security, but he is willing to use it as a pretext to accomplish something more sinister.

I t does not take a financial whiz to understand that all the facts indicate a huge financial bubble is about to burst. A review of the current situation shows key economic realities as follows:

· The $7 trillion national government debt (accumulated debt over the years by the US government) is the largest debt in history of mankind, in part because of the endless war policy the President has employed by misleading the American public.

· The budget deficit (the amount by which government spending exceeds revenues) this year alone will be about $500 billion. The cost of constant wars is almost beyond human comprehension (see: http://costofwar.com/ ) and the national debt is appallingly dangerous.

· In addition to the government’s debt, the public debt is at an all-time high, with Americans mortgaged to the hilt and credit card balances at an all time high.

· The trade deficit for 2004 was $617 billion and has been breaking records every month this year. We have an enormous trade deficit because we no longer are a manufacturing nation, and therefore have very little except Weapons of Mass Destruction to sell to the world. On the other hand, we are giant consumers of goods and our needs can only be met by purchasing foreign goods. Hence the huge trade deficit, and as more and more money leaves the country, we become poorer as a nation.

· Meanwhile to further complicate things, the value of the dollar is shrinking rapidly in comparison to other currencies, while the federal government prints more paper money to pay for it's wars and its debt. As money is printed and the spending continues, the value of the currency depreciates. This brings us to a most frightening situation. Historically, the accumulated debt has been bought by foreign investors who purchase US bonds and notes. Recently however, foreign investors have watched the value of their investment shrink as the dollar shrinks, while the federal government on the other hand, can only pay it's bills by floating more loans to meet expenses. Presently many foreign investors are no longer willing to buy government bonds as the US dollar continues to lose buying power, and investors have begun to shy away from financing the American debt by purchasing bonds and notes.

· Additionally oil producing nations have been using the dollar as the means to buy and sell oil, but as their accumulated dollars continually lose value, they are beginning to question why they should use the dollar in the selling of their oil. They collect and accumulate dollars for oil sales, but then must use shrinking dollars to make purchases of products on the world market. Each time they exchange dollars for others currencies they lose money, as the dollar now is worth much less than major currencies. It is no wonder they are reluctant to trade oil in dollars.

So what does Social Security have to do with the diminishing dollar one might ask? The President has called for private accounts as a supplement to Social Security, which accomplishes two things. It lessens government expense by not requiring the government to fully subsidize Social Security, and the creation of private investment accounts will force the public to invest in stocks, and bonds. The President will argue that a percentage of the citizen’s portfolio must go to US bonds, as a hedge against risky investments. The President is hoping that his “reform” will force the public into supporting the US debt by investing in government bonds. As foreign investors retreat from using and buying dollars, someone must step forward to support the debt.

The President’s real motive behind Social Security Reform is to help prop up the enormous national debt by forcing taxpayers to purchase government bonds, as part of their private portfolio. The American public will be collecting dollars that are depreciating. So there you have it, a sinister plot of “forcing” the people into buying increasingly worthless dollars because no one else in the world will. All the while you probably thought the President really cared about Social Security.

The Whitwashing of America

2005-03-17T05:54:00.000-08:00

The Whitewashing of America continues with the Pentagon’s newly released “investigation” of the torture at Abu Gharib, Guantuanamo, and Afghanistan, with the committee finding that no one was culpable for the incidents save for a few low ranking soldiers. Unanswered questions that were never addressed in the “thorough investigation” need to be posed. Both Major General Taguba and Brig General Janice Karpinski in earlier testimony, referred to “foreign agents” being present while the torture was taking place. These comments were casually and slyly dismissed by the “investigators” and surprisingly when General Taguba let the cat out of the bag, while testifying before Congress, not one Congressman pressed him on what country those agents came from. Even more surprisingly, not one member of the media ever bothered to ask what foreign nation those agents represented, and why were they present?

Many Americans now buy into the administrations line that “torture” was confined to a few “bad apples”. Most of us have forgotten however that when the infamous “torture” pictures surfaced, over 1,000 of the “worst” were kept secret by the US Congress, who decided that the remaining pictures were so horrible they would not be released, for fear of their consequences in the Arab world. These pictures were never mentioned nor discussed in the "thorough investigation” by the Pentagon. Do the American people have a right to see what was done in their name, and with their money? How can the public make an informed decision regarding torture, without being allowed to see the evidence? Can a jury accurately decide guilt or innocence without seeing the evidence?

So now we have the closing of another “thorough investigation” by a government agency with an all too familiar conclusion. The last three major investigations: 1)the 9/11 investigation which tragically cost almost 3,000 American lives, 2)the “bad intelligence” investigation which lead the nation into a needless war causing over 1500 great Americans lives and 100,000 innocent Iraqis, 3) and now the torture “investigation, have closed with the same results. No one is to blame. Not one person has been fired because of 9/11 failures, not one person has been fired because of the “bad intelligence” that caused a war, and now, not one person has been fired when “torture” is rampant.

Not only are the “investigating committees” to be ridiculed for their whitewashing of the American public but more serious is the complicit media who faithfully looks the other way and never “investigates” the investigations. Media never questions the babble put forth to the American people by such committees, but merely echoes whatever the government put forward. This is truly frightening and it explains why so many Americans have abandoned major media as their source for news, and surf the web for their own truth.

The American public is left in the dark with respect to the major issues of today, but we are all experts and extremely well informed on such trivial issues as the Michael Jackson and the Lacy Peterson trials. One must ask, is this media attention to the mundane and insignificant an intentional diversion from the real issues of the day by a complicit press? Is the American public aware that all media outlets in this nation are now controlled by seven giant corporate conglomerates?

Perhaps before attempting to make the “world” more democratic, we might concentrate on making our own nation more democratic. Concepts such as a “free and uncontrolled” press, and the right of the people to “know”, are essential for the survival of democracy. Secrecy and government cover-ups are incongruous with the concept of “Democracy”, and when secrecy prevails, democracy fails. This nation is at its most critical point in its history and our fear should not be focused on the external “terrorists”, but on the “terrorists” from within.

Presidential Logic??

2005-03-10T04:03:00.000-08:00

The President insists that Democracy cannot flourish with Syrian forces occupying that nation.

Are we not in violation of the President’s own logic by having 150, 000 troops next door in Iraq? If Syria is wrong for having 14,000 troops in Lebanon, isn't the US wrong for having 150,000 troops in Iraq? Adjacent to Lebanon, the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands has now gone on for 37 years? Can democracy flourish in Iraq while occupied by 150,000 foreign troops, or can democracy flourish in Palestinian lands while illegally occupied by Israeli forces? Why is Syria wrong for its occupation, while the US and Israel are not?

If the President would follow his own logic and withdraw every last soldier from Iraq, and Israel would also withdrew its forces from occupied Palestinian lands, while Syria withdraws from Lebanon, the President and I would finally be in agreement.

2005-03-06T07:47:00.000-08:00

Current events quiz

What two nations are most threatened by “terrorists” and terrorist attacks?

What two nations are present day “Occupiers”?

What two nations have illegally invaded another nation?

What two nations have disregarded the UN??

What two nations have resorted to “torturing”, and have been condemned by Human Rights groups??

What two nations pride themselves in being “Democratic”?

What two nations have imprisoned over 10,000 occupied people respectively, while attempting to put down insurgents who oppose the “occupations”??

What two nations are the world’s greatest nuclear powers but are willing to bomb or threaten anyone else who might attempt to gain one nuclear weapon??

What two nations have used the tactic of the “black hood” for their prisoners??

Which two nations refused to sign and participate in the International Criminal Court; a court designed to prosecute war criminals, people who commit genocide, and crimes against humanity??

Which two nations have signed a treaty with one another that mutually protects one another to be free of prosecution from the International Criminal Court at The Hague??

Which two countries pushing the hardest for the end to Syrian”occupation” of Lebanon, are “occupiers” themselves?