Dear Readers and Friends –
One of the things I do with my time is umpiring tennis. For the next couple of weeks, I will be down in Florida working a couple of events, one a youth tournament and the other a professional wheelchair player’s event. We put in long days at these things, so probably won’t have access to a computer or time to write a daily blog. I will write and post if and when I can, but chances are there will be no new blog in this space on most days from April 1 through 12 or so.
Wheelchair tennis, BTW, is one heck of an event to watch. If you ever get the chance attend a tournament. Those folks are amazing. I’m a fair tennis player myself, but I couldn’t stay on the court with some of these guys. Big serves, hot ground strokes, great lobs and some surprising net play characterize these matches. The speed at which these folks move around the court is impressive, but their ability to be in the right position to cleanly stroke the ball is awesome. I’m really looking forward to this event.
I hope you’ll check this space from time to time while I’m gone just in case I get a chance to post, and I really hope that you’ll come back regularly after I’m back in the saddle. In the meantime, thanks for coming here at all, let alone regularly. I’ll see you in a couple of weeks. May they be weeks of peace for you as they will be for me.
Yours in Peace –
Bob Ranney
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. - Jimi Hendrix
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
WHO HAS YOUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
Not long ago, I read a column in our local paper asserting that the reasons for starting the Iraq war don’t matter any more; that now that the war is on everybody ought to just shut up about whatever BushCo did to get us into it. That ought to make any right wing party radical happy enough to dance on the nation’s grave.
There will never come a time when the arguments against our starting that war will be moot. When a president and his cabinet institute a program of deception to lead a democratic nation into war, that administration has betrayed its country in the most profound way possible. That nation must recognize and purge its negative leadership or its people ultimately will lose their freedom.
It is impossible to be misled to a positive path. Ergo, if we were misled, we are on a negative path. If this nation doesn’t take a hard look at the facts, we are certain to follow our current negative path to ultimate self-destruction. As an individual, if I once took a certain position because I was misled, shouldn’t I re-evaluate that position in light of later information? Should a nation do less?
The facts are: 1. Iraq had no connection to 9/11; 2. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction; 3. Intelligence was fixed around policy to convince people to support the war, and; 4. Our presence in Iraq foments terrorism. There are many more, but they are more complex. These points have all been proven and widely reported even in the mainstream press that usually prints nothing that isn’t pre-certified by the government.
Instead of considering facts, we too often argue party lines, but party politics should play no part here. Because I oppose the war, I have been called everything from a Democrat to a Communist. I am neither. In fact, my position is classically conservative on some issues and ultra-liberal on others. Call me anything you want, but defending this administration because of party loyalty is to pledge your allegiance to the Republican Party instead of to America. No political party deserves loyalty if its leaders are willing to mislead the nation into war and turn America into a nation that attacks sovereign nations without serious provocation.
We are in a terrible situation because people with ulterior motives have led us there. Those people should be removed from office and we, the people, should make it clear to all political parties that such behavior will not be tolerated. Otherwise, we are doomed to blindly following anyone who convincingly waves a flag.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
There will never come a time when the arguments against our starting that war will be moot. When a president and his cabinet institute a program of deception to lead a democratic nation into war, that administration has betrayed its country in the most profound way possible. That nation must recognize and purge its negative leadership or its people ultimately will lose their freedom.
It is impossible to be misled to a positive path. Ergo, if we were misled, we are on a negative path. If this nation doesn’t take a hard look at the facts, we are certain to follow our current negative path to ultimate self-destruction. As an individual, if I once took a certain position because I was misled, shouldn’t I re-evaluate that position in light of later information? Should a nation do less?
The facts are: 1. Iraq had no connection to 9/11; 2. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction; 3. Intelligence was fixed around policy to convince people to support the war, and; 4. Our presence in Iraq foments terrorism. There are many more, but they are more complex. These points have all been proven and widely reported even in the mainstream press that usually prints nothing that isn’t pre-certified by the government.
Instead of considering facts, we too often argue party lines, but party politics should play no part here. Because I oppose the war, I have been called everything from a Democrat to a Communist. I am neither. In fact, my position is classically conservative on some issues and ultra-liberal on others. Call me anything you want, but defending this administration because of party loyalty is to pledge your allegiance to the Republican Party instead of to America. No political party deserves loyalty if its leaders are willing to mislead the nation into war and turn America into a nation that attacks sovereign nations without serious provocation.
We are in a terrible situation because people with ulterior motives have led us there. Those people should be removed from office and we, the people, should make it clear to all political parties that such behavior will not be tolerated. Otherwise, we are doomed to blindly following anyone who convincingly waves a flag.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Reinstate the Draft?
Well, I made it back from Florida. Had a great trip and made some new friends from Puerto Rico, one a one-legged giant baskteball player and the other a dwarf who must live in a twisted body, but does not believe in handi-caps. They were partners in an International Tennis Federation tournament. Some of the twelve year olds strutting their way through the second tournament I worked should have been required to attend the first as a means of developing their character and teaching a little humility, but more on that later perhaps.
For now, a comment on today's news that Mr. Bush is trying to find a "war czar". He wants to hire a retired general to manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hopefully he will have to look a long way before he finds one that is also willing to handle a new war with Iran. BUT - Isn't he supposed to be the commander-in-chief??! What exactly did we elect (or should I say what exactly did the Supreme Court appoint) him to do? I guess, though, given that he has screwed up everything he's tried to do in his life outside of weaseling his way into public office, we should be thankful that he is hiring folks to do his job for him.
Given that it is getting harder and harder to recruit new fodder for his wars and that 80% of the officers in the ready reserves have resigned, I have a suggestion for the new faux commander-in-chief, whoever he may be:
Please reinstate the draft.
There is no future in starting wars, but we need a standing army to shield us from invasion, and the world needs to know that we stand ready in case they need protection.
Undoubtedly my regular readers are at this juncture thinking that I’ve gone off the deep end. Maybe I’d better explain.
I was drafted into the Army in 1965 in the first push to bolster the U.S. presence in Vietnam. Though I was on orders to go to Nam three different times in the course of my two years of service, I thankfully never had to do it. I’d never claim to have been a model soldier. A true history of my military service would read more like Catch 22 than On the Beach, but the bottom line is that the experience did add some maturity to my development and was, largely due to not having to go to Nam, a positive thing for me. Most people 19 to 25 or so don’t have their feet firmly enough planted on the ground to know who they are or where they want to end up. A service experience can help them to center themselves and become more valuable to society than they would otherwise have been.
That said, please understand that when I say we should have a draft I don’t mean that everybody drafted should spend time in the military. I just think that everyone should be required to give two years of their time in service to their country – and through that to the world community – during their youth. We could set up a draft that allowed people to choose the nature of their assignment. For instance, a young person who might want to teach as a career could serve as a teacher’s aid in a public school. Someone thinking of going into nursing could serve in a public hospital, military or otherwise. The Peace Corps, Americorps and other organizations designed to provide public service could be among the choices available to draftees. International agencies could be formed in alliance with other nations and non-profit organizations to provide service in developing countries. As a result, the U.S. could begin, once again, to legitimately call itself benign and maybe even achieve that designation in the eyes of the world.
I have long believed that the world has outgrown the value of nation-states and that we should see ourselves more as citizens of the world than as citizens of a nation separate from the rest of the world. This kind of effort could help citizens of all countries to understand their relationship to one another. The more we identify with one another, the less likely we are to consider each other enemies. I believe the ultimate result of this kind of effort would be beneficial to all of us.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix
For now, a comment on today's news that Mr. Bush is trying to find a "war czar". He wants to hire a retired general to manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hopefully he will have to look a long way before he finds one that is also willing to handle a new war with Iran. BUT - Isn't he supposed to be the commander-in-chief??! What exactly did we elect (or should I say what exactly did the Supreme Court appoint) him to do? I guess, though, given that he has screwed up everything he's tried to do in his life outside of weaseling his way into public office, we should be thankful that he is hiring folks to do his job for him.
Given that it is getting harder and harder to recruit new fodder for his wars and that 80% of the officers in the ready reserves have resigned, I have a suggestion for the new faux commander-in-chief, whoever he may be:
Please reinstate the draft.
There is no future in starting wars, but we need a standing army to shield us from invasion, and the world needs to know that we stand ready in case they need protection.
Undoubtedly my regular readers are at this juncture thinking that I’ve gone off the deep end. Maybe I’d better explain.
I was drafted into the Army in 1965 in the first push to bolster the U.S. presence in Vietnam. Though I was on orders to go to Nam three different times in the course of my two years of service, I thankfully never had to do it. I’d never claim to have been a model soldier. A true history of my military service would read more like Catch 22 than On the Beach, but the bottom line is that the experience did add some maturity to my development and was, largely due to not having to go to Nam, a positive thing for me. Most people 19 to 25 or so don’t have their feet firmly enough planted on the ground to know who they are or where they want to end up. A service experience can help them to center themselves and become more valuable to society than they would otherwise have been.
That said, please understand that when I say we should have a draft I don’t mean that everybody drafted should spend time in the military. I just think that everyone should be required to give two years of their time in service to their country – and through that to the world community – during their youth. We could set up a draft that allowed people to choose the nature of their assignment. For instance, a young person who might want to teach as a career could serve as a teacher’s aid in a public school. Someone thinking of going into nursing could serve in a public hospital, military or otherwise. The Peace Corps, Americorps and other organizations designed to provide public service could be among the choices available to draftees. International agencies could be formed in alliance with other nations and non-profit organizations to provide service in developing countries. As a result, the U.S. could begin, once again, to legitimately call itself benign and maybe even achieve that designation in the eyes of the world.
I have long believed that the world has outgrown the value of nation-states and that we should see ourselves more as citizens of the world than as citizens of a nation separate from the rest of the world. This kind of effort could help citizens of all countries to understand their relationship to one another. The more we identify with one another, the less likely we are to consider each other enemies. I believe the ultimate result of this kind of effort would be beneficial to all of us.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix
Let's Get Real
Mr. Bush continues to hold forth on the value of his “surge”. Give time a chance to prove that the policy will work, but don’t declare any deadlines for withdrawal because the effect would be for the “enemy” to sit quietly until after the deadline and then resurge, he says.
Point one: The last several days have proven how ineffective the surge is. Over 100 deaths have been inflicted each of the last two days due to suicide bombings – a condition that did not exist in Iraq until we invaded. Additional fighting has broken out in northern cities over the past few days, too.
Point two: I reluctantly voted with MoveOn to approve the funding measures passed in the Senate this week even though I would much rather see them pass funding only for withdrawal. I don’t believe Bush’s assertion that the insurgency would subside until after an announced withdrawal for more than one reason. One, the insurgents are more concerned with their role in the country after we are gone than while we are there. They aren’t fighting us. They are fighting each other with a few bombs thrown in at us just because we are there. Two, every day we are there, the insurgents and the rest of the Iraqis, too, have one more reason to resent us. The majority of Iraqis want us out of there. The longer we stay, the more entrenched becomes their fear and belief that our motive is more to occupy than to liberate.
Finally, if Bush’s assertion that the insurgency would subside until after our withdrawal date were true, it would be one more reason to name the date so that we could look forward to reduced loss of life while we handle the withdrawal logistics.
There is no question about our having to get out of Iraq. The only question is when, and all of BushCo’s answers deny that reality. Every day we delay is just one more day filled with opportunities for violence against us and continued violence between the armed factions of Iraqis.
At this point the only argument against our withdrawal is that it would keep us from meeting the neo-cons’ goals for American hegemony. Those goals have been proven disastrous for America and the Middle East, and threatening to the rest of the world. We must send them the message that they are no longer welcome anywhere. What their goals deserve is a well placed boot – the same boot Germany should have given Hitler in the ‘30s. If had my way, we’d boot them into jail, but I’d be satisfied if we could just find a way to kick them out of Washington, D.C. and every other place where they have been granted an office.
Be patient with us world. I know we haven’t done anything to deserve it for a very long time, but some of us are trying.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix
Point one: The last several days have proven how ineffective the surge is. Over 100 deaths have been inflicted each of the last two days due to suicide bombings – a condition that did not exist in Iraq until we invaded. Additional fighting has broken out in northern cities over the past few days, too.
Point two: I reluctantly voted with MoveOn to approve the funding measures passed in the Senate this week even though I would much rather see them pass funding only for withdrawal. I don’t believe Bush’s assertion that the insurgency would subside until after an announced withdrawal for more than one reason. One, the insurgents are more concerned with their role in the country after we are gone than while we are there. They aren’t fighting us. They are fighting each other with a few bombs thrown in at us just because we are there. Two, every day we are there, the insurgents and the rest of the Iraqis, too, have one more reason to resent us. The majority of Iraqis want us out of there. The longer we stay, the more entrenched becomes their fear and belief that our motive is more to occupy than to liberate.
Finally, if Bush’s assertion that the insurgency would subside until after our withdrawal date were true, it would be one more reason to name the date so that we could look forward to reduced loss of life while we handle the withdrawal logistics.
There is no question about our having to get out of Iraq. The only question is when, and all of BushCo’s answers deny that reality. Every day we delay is just one more day filled with opportunities for violence against us and continued violence between the armed factions of Iraqis.
At this point the only argument against our withdrawal is that it would keep us from meeting the neo-cons’ goals for American hegemony. Those goals have been proven disastrous for America and the Middle East, and threatening to the rest of the world. We must send them the message that they are no longer welcome anywhere. What their goals deserve is a well placed boot – the same boot Germany should have given Hitler in the ‘30s. If had my way, we’d boot them into jail, but I’d be satisfied if we could just find a way to kick them out of Washington, D.C. and every other place where they have been granted an office.
Be patient with us world. I know we haven’t done anything to deserve it for a very long time, but some of us are trying.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. – Jimi Hendrix
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Isn't It Time?
Isn’t It Time?
Now that Americans have come to realize what the world has been saying about the Bush Administration for years, maybe the iron is hot for a complete rethinking of our national direction. We have proven that pre-emptive war does not lessen terrorism, but increases it. We have proven that cutting taxes and approving deficit spending does not improve the economy. We have proven that cutting trade deals to satisfy huge corporations neither provides wanted jobs for the world nor helps protect the environment. We have proven that spurning diplomacy and rejecting other nations’ thinking out of hand does not win international acclaim.
Isn’t it time we proved something positive? Isn’t it time we gave up mankind’s age old belief in warfare as a problem solver? Isn’t it time we began assessing the impact of our actions not just by looking at short term corporate profits, but by considering the long term potential of living up to the teachings of all of the greatest leaders the world has ever known? Why is it that we preach the words of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, King, The Dalai Lama and all the other representatives of the highest levels of light and thought ever to grace the earth, but do not follow them?
Isn’t it time to try developing political policy around the faith we say we follow? Isn’t it time that we try to teach others a better way through example instead of through violence? Isn’t it time that we devoted a fair share of our national wealth to the well-being of all the peoples of the earth and a peaceful future instead of an overwhelming share to the development of weapons of war and competitive striving for one-upmanship in the marketplace? Isn’t it time we tried putting more of our money into efforts to create peace than preparations to make war?
Isn’t it time we talked to the rest of the world about how we can all work together to reduce our arsenals of nuclear weaponry instead of threatening them with plans to develop new ones? Isn’t it time we recognized that America is just another nation and not a special case more blessed by God than anyone else? Isn’t it time that we subject ourselves to world law rather then holding ourselves aloof from it while demanding that others follow it?
Isn’t it time that we consider the idea that the era of nation-states has outlived its usefulness just as much as the era of city-states has? Isn’t it time for us to help develop and then pledge to abide by a body of law to govern the interactions of people on the globe as well as the interactions of nations? Isn’t it time for all of us to recognize that each of us has the right to the same level of security as any one of us possesses?
Isn’t it time for each of us to take some action to ensure that these high ideals can become reality? What are you going to do?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
Now that Americans have come to realize what the world has been saying about the Bush Administration for years, maybe the iron is hot for a complete rethinking of our national direction. We have proven that pre-emptive war does not lessen terrorism, but increases it. We have proven that cutting taxes and approving deficit spending does not improve the economy. We have proven that cutting trade deals to satisfy huge corporations neither provides wanted jobs for the world nor helps protect the environment. We have proven that spurning diplomacy and rejecting other nations’ thinking out of hand does not win international acclaim.
Isn’t it time we proved something positive? Isn’t it time we gave up mankind’s age old belief in warfare as a problem solver? Isn’t it time we began assessing the impact of our actions not just by looking at short term corporate profits, but by considering the long term potential of living up to the teachings of all of the greatest leaders the world has ever known? Why is it that we preach the words of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, King, The Dalai Lama and all the other representatives of the highest levels of light and thought ever to grace the earth, but do not follow them?
Isn’t it time to try developing political policy around the faith we say we follow? Isn’t it time that we try to teach others a better way through example instead of through violence? Isn’t it time that we devoted a fair share of our national wealth to the well-being of all the peoples of the earth and a peaceful future instead of an overwhelming share to the development of weapons of war and competitive striving for one-upmanship in the marketplace? Isn’t it time we tried putting more of our money into efforts to create peace than preparations to make war?
Isn’t it time we talked to the rest of the world about how we can all work together to reduce our arsenals of nuclear weaponry instead of threatening them with plans to develop new ones? Isn’t it time we recognized that America is just another nation and not a special case more blessed by God than anyone else? Isn’t it time that we subject ourselves to world law rather then holding ourselves aloof from it while demanding that others follow it?
Isn’t it time that we consider the idea that the era of nation-states has outlived its usefulness just as much as the era of city-states has? Isn’t it time for us to help develop and then pledge to abide by a body of law to govern the interactions of people on the globe as well as the interactions of nations? Isn’t it time for all of us to recognize that each of us has the right to the same level of security as any one of us possesses?
Isn’t it time for each of us to take some action to ensure that these high ideals can become reality? What are you going to do?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Cloy's Pain
I've known all along that war is a horrible thing. I've written and I've marched and I've sung my heart out trying to get others to feel the same sense of loss I feel when I think about what terrible harm the Bush Administration and its war in Iraq has done to the people and places in Iraq and, of course, to the American soldiers they have so cynically thrown to the wolves of war. BUT I have never as fully felt the pain our Iraq veterans have to deal with as when I read Cloy Richards' poetry about his experiences there.
Please gird yourself for a flood of emotion and then take a rough ride through Cloy's painful memories. (http://www.grassrootsamerica4us.org/CloysStory.html)
Now you, too, know doubly well why we cannot allow the madness of this unnecessary war continue.
Meanwhile, the Congress, via the Senate's new non-binding withdrawal timetable, has sent W another message, however weak, that the nation is no longer following his lead. His response, of course, is that he is not willing to listen to the people or their representatives and so will veto the bill even though it provides the funding he seeks for the war.
Sen. Chuck Hagel of Iowa spoke best about his decision to vote for the bill when he said that Iraq is not a prize for America to win. Though BushCo and their few remaining supporters say that the objective is the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq, it is in reality the establishment of any kind of government favorable to American policies. Even if we accept that as an acceptable goal, it is time that we learned that we cannot establish meaningful long-term relationships at gunpoint. Even if we buy into the idea that in Iraq we are somehow avenging 9-11, we have to ask ourselves how many Iraqi lives it takes to balance the scales against the 3000 who died in the Twin Towers.
We created a horrendous mess in Iraq the day we invaded. It was a Pandorra's box whose contents are going to haunt us for years. Our children and grandchildren are going to have to pony up and pick their own pockets to repay the debt we are piling up. The Middle East will be less stable for years than it was in 2002, and it was no shining example of stability then – thanks to American and European meddling in the region from WWI on. We will suffer additional terrorist attacks here at home because we have are creating so many new enemies every day. We might be able to reinstate the world's faith in the U.S. as a nation dedicated to peace and justice, but it isn't likely.
Our government is going to have to choose between continuing to slide into the muck of secrecy, torture and diminishment of individual rights as instituted by BushCo and reopening itself to public view via repeal of many provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and reinstatement of compliance with the Sunshine Laws. Our only hope lies in the latter course.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
Please gird yourself for a flood of emotion and then take a rough ride through Cloy's painful memories. (http://www.grassrootsamerica4us.org/CloysStory.html)
Now you, too, know doubly well why we cannot allow the madness of this unnecessary war continue.
Meanwhile, the Congress, via the Senate's new non-binding withdrawal timetable, has sent W another message, however weak, that the nation is no longer following his lead. His response, of course, is that he is not willing to listen to the people or their representatives and so will veto the bill even though it provides the funding he seeks for the war.
Sen. Chuck Hagel of Iowa spoke best about his decision to vote for the bill when he said that Iraq is not a prize for America to win. Though BushCo and their few remaining supporters say that the objective is the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq, it is in reality the establishment of any kind of government favorable to American policies. Even if we accept that as an acceptable goal, it is time that we learned that we cannot establish meaningful long-term relationships at gunpoint. Even if we buy into the idea that in Iraq we are somehow avenging 9-11, we have to ask ourselves how many Iraqi lives it takes to balance the scales against the 3000 who died in the Twin Towers.
We created a horrendous mess in Iraq the day we invaded. It was a Pandorra's box whose contents are going to haunt us for years. Our children and grandchildren are going to have to pony up and pick their own pockets to repay the debt we are piling up. The Middle East will be less stable for years than it was in 2002, and it was no shining example of stability then – thanks to American and European meddling in the region from WWI on. We will suffer additional terrorist attacks here at home because we have are creating so many new enemies every day. We might be able to reinstate the world's faith in the U.S. as a nation dedicated to peace and justice, but it isn't likely.
Our government is going to have to choose between continuing to slide into the muck of secrecy, torture and diminishment of individual rights as instituted by BushCo and reopening itself to public view via repeal of many provisions of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and reinstatement of compliance with the Sunshine Laws. Our only hope lies in the latter course.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Joan Collins
Yesterday our local paper published a condensed version of my blog "Unhappy Anniversary" as a column titled Voice of the Day. Today they published one written by a friend and colleague from the Peace Network of the Ozarks. It was written in response to a headline the paper ran a week or so ago about what they headlined as the agony of a sports fan over the local university basketball team's failure to make the NCAA tournament. It is such a fine peace that I decided to share it with you here, but first, let me tell you a little about Joan Collins.
She is retired from a career as a professor of English at what is now called Missouri State University. She can't be classified as a spring chicken, but I've never known anyone with more energy and more focus. Back when Bush was just rattling his sabers about Iraq, she took to the streets, organized the Peace Network of the Ozarks and has been its primary spark plug ever since. Along with the work she does on another board or two to maintain the arts and hold forth some sense of sanity for the rest of the community to try and grasp, she has been the primary spark plug for PNO every step of the way. I've known more than a few really fine people in my day, but I have to put Joan at the top of the list. She has my admiration, my respect, and my love as a friend, and I hope you appreciate the quality of her sentiments as expressed here as much as I do:
"I don't know what planet the News-Leader crew inhabits, but on my planet, the phrase "unbearable agony" is the kind of reactionary hyperbole that muddies up what should be a clear distinction between meaningful, necessary news and variations of infotainment. A fan's reaction to a basketball team's tournament exclusion fails to qualify as "agony" unbearable or otherwise. Our illegal, immoral, unaffordable, and impeachment-worthy war, however, certainly fits the bill.
The huge headlines and bright pictures of a distressed young man headlining the March 12 front page could have been abut the implications of his decision just dawning on a freshly recruited Army volunteer. Unable to afford the education now essential to a decent career in America, this young man chose to accept the $40,000 signing bribe recruiters promised if he'd go to war, leaving his "sanctity for human life" principles in the rhetorical Dumpster. Exploiting those among us with the least, to do the most – now that's what should b e considered "unbearable".
On my planet, the worried faces could also reflect concern for wounded but intact soldiers forced to navigate a bureaucratic maze in search of miserly "benefits" that would not support an aging poodle. If this "unbearable agony" story were about our country's 30,000 wounded or our 117,000 severely traumatized, then the headline would fit the crime. To me, however, that headline reveals a disconnect between the world of human suffering that truly matters and the world of points in the paint that doesn't.
Let's consider how our planet, today, is "unbearable" in ways that subject innocent people to unnecessary "agony". We're enriching corporations that feed off of war, alienating the world, neglecting the poor, ignoring education, and bankrupting our childrens' futures as we empower terrorism, laying the foundation for the now inevitably more dangerous world which Bush can claim as his legacy. Perhaps if the media would just bare the truth about the real "unbearable agony", we'd be sufficiently horrified to throw off the tyranny of perpetual war and the shackles of deceptive propaganda.
Before we blow this planet to smithereens, I'd like to see some baring of our real problems, one of which is not missing out on March Madness. How about the madness of King George. But that's not a problem. It's a catastrophe." Joan Collins, Peace Network of the Ozarks
Thank you, Joan. Would that the paper would pay real heed to what she says and quit printing the pap the Administration generates and calling it news.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
She is retired from a career as a professor of English at what is now called Missouri State University. She can't be classified as a spring chicken, but I've never known anyone with more energy and more focus. Back when Bush was just rattling his sabers about Iraq, she took to the streets, organized the Peace Network of the Ozarks and has been its primary spark plug ever since. Along with the work she does on another board or two to maintain the arts and hold forth some sense of sanity for the rest of the community to try and grasp, she has been the primary spark plug for PNO every step of the way. I've known more than a few really fine people in my day, but I have to put Joan at the top of the list. She has my admiration, my respect, and my love as a friend, and I hope you appreciate the quality of her sentiments as expressed here as much as I do:
"I don't know what planet the News-Leader crew inhabits, but on my planet, the phrase "unbearable agony" is the kind of reactionary hyperbole that muddies up what should be a clear distinction between meaningful, necessary news and variations of infotainment. A fan's reaction to a basketball team's tournament exclusion fails to qualify as "agony" unbearable or otherwise. Our illegal, immoral, unaffordable, and impeachment-worthy war, however, certainly fits the bill.
The huge headlines and bright pictures of a distressed young man headlining the March 12 front page could have been abut the implications of his decision just dawning on a freshly recruited Army volunteer. Unable to afford the education now essential to a decent career in America, this young man chose to accept the $40,000 signing bribe recruiters promised if he'd go to war, leaving his "sanctity for human life" principles in the rhetorical Dumpster. Exploiting those among us with the least, to do the most – now that's what should b e considered "unbearable".
On my planet, the worried faces could also reflect concern for wounded but intact soldiers forced to navigate a bureaucratic maze in search of miserly "benefits" that would not support an aging poodle. If this "unbearable agony" story were about our country's 30,000 wounded or our 117,000 severely traumatized, then the headline would fit the crime. To me, however, that headline reveals a disconnect between the world of human suffering that truly matters and the world of points in the paint that doesn't.
Let's consider how our planet, today, is "unbearable" in ways that subject innocent people to unnecessary "agony". We're enriching corporations that feed off of war, alienating the world, neglecting the poor, ignoring education, and bankrupting our childrens' futures as we empower terrorism, laying the foundation for the now inevitably more dangerous world which Bush can claim as his legacy. Perhaps if the media would just bare the truth about the real "unbearable agony", we'd be sufficiently horrified to throw off the tyranny of perpetual war and the shackles of deceptive propaganda.
Before we blow this planet to smithereens, I'd like to see some baring of our real problems, one of which is not missing out on March Madness. How about the madness of King George. But that's not a problem. It's a catastrophe." Joan Collins, Peace Network of the Ozarks
Thank you, Joan. Would that the paper would pay real heed to what she says and quit printing the pap the Administration generates and calling it news.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
Monday, March 26, 2007
Come the Rebellion
The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass said that "if there is no struggle, there is no progress." Those who profess freedom, yet fail to act - are "men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters... power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
What America needs is a broad bi-partisan movement for democracy. It's happened before: In 1800, with the Jeffersonian Democrats; in 1860, with Radical Republicans; in 1892, with the Populists; in 1912, with Bull Moose Progressives; in 1932, with the New Deal; in l964, with Civil Rights activists - each moment a breaking point after long, hard struggles, each with small beginnings in transcendent faith. – Bill Moyers - A Time For Anger, A Call To Action - a speech given on February 7, 2007 at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
As usual, Bill Moyers has it right. Those of us over a certain age can remember the way things were in forties and fifties. Comparing those days with these should make us all deeply sad and highly indignant. Here are a few examples of what's going on with the country today:
************************************************************************
PERCENTAGE OF POOR AMERICANS IN SEVERE POVERTY REACHES 32 YEAR HIGH
TONY PUGH, MCCLATCHY - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen. A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year. The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period.
The State of Ohio has documented their plummeting fortunes in a paper you can access at http://www.communitysolutions.com. I tried to copy some excerpts, but couldn't make the function work, but the basic picture is that during the 1940s that states job growth rate exceeded the national averages, but since then they have been unable to keep pace. A look at the national picture shows that while states like Ohio were falling behind the national averages, those averages have also been slipping so that people are effectively worse off all around the nation. For instance, here's an excerpt from a February 13, 2007 Congressional testimony by Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Instutute of Washington, D.C.:
• Our current approach to measuring poverty is far outdated and fails to provide an accurate count of the extent of need in America.
• Newer methods that correct many of the problems with the official measure show more people in poverty than the 37 million officially poor (12.6% of the population), including 13 million children. These methods should be adopted to replace the current, official measure.
• The fact that the current measure is adjusted only for price changes and not for income growth, in tandem with rising income inequality, has led to large and growing gaps between the officially poor and the rest of society. Even while today's poor have some goods that were out of reach of the poor in decades past, in relative terms, today's poor are increasingly left behind the mainstream.
• Efforts to gauge the true cost of meeting an adequate, basic living standard in today's economy yield income thresholds that are about twice that of the official poverty lines.
• Relative to prior years, a significantly larger share of poor children are living in families with working parents. The income constraints faced by these working parents underscore the need for increased work supports, including subsidies for wages, health care, child care, housing, and transportation.
His testimony contained this highly important line as well: ". . . to ignore the relative economic distance between the poor and everyone else is to ensure that they will remain outside the mainstream. "
************************************************************************
The growing gap is our real problem. I heard the other day that 95% of our nation's wealth is held by less than 10% of our nation's people. Back in the 50s the average corporate CEO made about 30 times the income of the average worker in the corporation. Now it is more like 400 times as much. Those on the bottom have no expectation of bettering themselves, only of striving to keep from falling further behind.
The U.S. government has come close to Marie Antoinette's let them eat cake many times in the last twenty years from Ronald Reagan's famous assertions that "Ketchup is a vegetable" and "They aren't homeless, they're campers." James' McMurty captured the spirit of the BushCo attitude in his song, "We Can't Make It Here.":
"Let them eat jelly beans, let them eat cake, Let them eat shit if that's what it takes.
They can join the Air Force, they can join the Corps,If they can't make it here any more.
So that's how it is, that's what we've got, If the President wants to admit it or not,
You can read it in the papers, you can read it on the wall, You can read it in the wind, if you're listening at all."
When the powers-that-be brag about the growing economy, they aren't talking about the ability of the man on the street to take care of his family. They are talking about the ability of the nation's top CEOs to drag down a few million more a year.
My father was a dentist who practiced in northern Iowa from 1941 to 1976. His income in his highest earning year was $20,000. Our friend the carpenter who lived down the street made about $4,000 a year. He couldn't put his kids through college like my Dad did, but they never lacked for food or a roof over their heads. Today, the majority of people visiting our local soup kitchen on a regular basis are employed, but can't afford to feed their kids.
It's only a matter of time before the masses finally take Jefferson's advice and rebel against governmental policies designed to make corporate heads richer at the expense of everyone else. Why wait? Avoid the rush, start now!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
What America needs is a broad bi-partisan movement for democracy. It's happened before: In 1800, with the Jeffersonian Democrats; in 1860, with Radical Republicans; in 1892, with the Populists; in 1912, with Bull Moose Progressives; in 1932, with the New Deal; in l964, with Civil Rights activists - each moment a breaking point after long, hard struggles, each with small beginnings in transcendent faith. – Bill Moyers - A Time For Anger, A Call To Action - a speech given on February 7, 2007 at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
As usual, Bill Moyers has it right. Those of us over a certain age can remember the way things were in forties and fifties. Comparing those days with these should make us all deeply sad and highly indignant. Here are a few examples of what's going on with the country today:
************************************************************************
PERCENTAGE OF POOR AMERICANS IN SEVERE POVERTY REACHES 32 YEAR HIGH
TONY PUGH, MCCLATCHY - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen. A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year. The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period.
The State of Ohio has documented their plummeting fortunes in a paper you can access at http://www.communitysolutions.com. I tried to copy some excerpts, but couldn't make the function work, but the basic picture is that during the 1940s that states job growth rate exceeded the national averages, but since then they have been unable to keep pace. A look at the national picture shows that while states like Ohio were falling behind the national averages, those averages have also been slipping so that people are effectively worse off all around the nation. For instance, here's an excerpt from a February 13, 2007 Congressional testimony by Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Instutute of Washington, D.C.:
• Our current approach to measuring poverty is far outdated and fails to provide an accurate count of the extent of need in America.
• Newer methods that correct many of the problems with the official measure show more people in poverty than the 37 million officially poor (12.6% of the population), including 13 million children. These methods should be adopted to replace the current, official measure.
• The fact that the current measure is adjusted only for price changes and not for income growth, in tandem with rising income inequality, has led to large and growing gaps between the officially poor and the rest of society. Even while today's poor have some goods that were out of reach of the poor in decades past, in relative terms, today's poor are increasingly left behind the mainstream.
• Efforts to gauge the true cost of meeting an adequate, basic living standard in today's economy yield income thresholds that are about twice that of the official poverty lines.
• Relative to prior years, a significantly larger share of poor children are living in families with working parents. The income constraints faced by these working parents underscore the need for increased work supports, including subsidies for wages, health care, child care, housing, and transportation.
His testimony contained this highly important line as well: ". . . to ignore the relative economic distance between the poor and everyone else is to ensure that they will remain outside the mainstream. "
************************************************************************
The growing gap is our real problem. I heard the other day that 95% of our nation's wealth is held by less than 10% of our nation's people. Back in the 50s the average corporate CEO made about 30 times the income of the average worker in the corporation. Now it is more like 400 times as much. Those on the bottom have no expectation of bettering themselves, only of striving to keep from falling further behind.
The U.S. government has come close to Marie Antoinette's let them eat cake many times in the last twenty years from Ronald Reagan's famous assertions that "Ketchup is a vegetable" and "They aren't homeless, they're campers." James' McMurty captured the spirit of the BushCo attitude in his song, "We Can't Make It Here.":
"Let them eat jelly beans, let them eat cake, Let them eat shit if that's what it takes.
They can join the Air Force, they can join the Corps,If they can't make it here any more.
So that's how it is, that's what we've got, If the President wants to admit it or not,
You can read it in the papers, you can read it on the wall, You can read it in the wind, if you're listening at all."
When the powers-that-be brag about the growing economy, they aren't talking about the ability of the man on the street to take care of his family. They are talking about the ability of the nation's top CEOs to drag down a few million more a year.
My father was a dentist who practiced in northern Iowa from 1941 to 1976. His income in his highest earning year was $20,000. Our friend the carpenter who lived down the street made about $4,000 a year. He couldn't put his kids through college like my Dad did, but they never lacked for food or a roof over their heads. Today, the majority of people visiting our local soup kitchen on a regular basis are employed, but can't afford to feed their kids.
It's only a matter of time before the masses finally take Jefferson's advice and rebel against governmental policies designed to make corporate heads richer at the expense of everyone else. Why wait? Avoid the rush, start now!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Friday, March 23, 2007
Higher and Deeper
The more one looks into the machinations of the governments, the more garbage tends to turn up.
Jeremy Scahill has been making as much in the way of waves as the popular American press will allow these days by lifting the lid off of a particularly odious can of Washington worms that all goes back to Donald Rumsfeld and – who else? – his merry band of neo-cons.
Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney have both long been champions of the privatization of many government functions. A very big area of interest for both of them has been the letting of contracts for support services for the military. By purporting that private delivery of support is more cost effective that having the military do it themselves, they have succeeded in letting a lot of contracts for things like food service, transportation services and special security forces instead of having enlisted soldiers do the jobs.
Of course it takes a lot of support to keep a gun toting soldier in the field. In the days of the draft, there were enough G.I.s around to handle most such tasks. Kitchen and motor pool staff were needed, but recruitment and the draft brought in the bodies needed to fill the slots. Special security wasn’t needed as much back then. When it was needed, Special Forces, SEALS and other such troops were on hand to fill the bill. These days more special security details are necessary, largely because big power arrogance has angered so many people around the globe that it isn’t safe for representatives of gluttonous governments to stick their heads up very far for fear they might get shot off. But the bad part is that contracting doesn’t stop at those kinds of jobs. We have fielded fighting mercenaries in Iraq.
Even though some Senators and Congressfolk have begun to address the issue, the public remains pretty ignorant on the subject, but Jeremy Scahill has been talking about it. He’s written a book about it, appeared on Democracy Now! and published a major article in April 2 issue of “The Nation” – one of the few American magazines that routinely publishes well documented articles about the abuses of U.S.politicians.
In his article, Bush’s Shadow Army, Scahill progresses from Rumsfeld’s most powerful speech (delivered the day before 9-11) on the need to replace existing Pentagon structure with more covert actions, new weaponry and more reliance on private contractors. i.e. new opportunities for old friends. He quotes Rummy’s 2002 article in Foreign Affairs magazine as saying he wanted the Pentagon to “. . .behave less like bureaucrats and more like entrepreneurs.”
Isn’t that just what we’ve always needed – a Defense Department constantly seeking ways to generate new business!! Sheesh – talk about the military industrial complex. Ike must be spinning in his grave!
Scahill points out that by the time Rummy was ushered out of his Pentagon office, private contracts had brought an estimated 100,000 civilian bodies to Iraq – almost as many as the active-duty soldiers based there. The upshot of this, he says, is that, “Contractors have provided the Bush Administration with political cover, allowing the government to deploy private forces in a war zone free of public scrutiny, with the deaths, injuries and crimes of those forces shrouded in secrecy.”
What it boils down to is a private army that is gaining power in the military structure through a pile of secretive subcontracts. Our enlisted young folks are more and more a front for this Administration’s cloak and dagger ambitions, and it’s enough to make you want to vomit in George W. Bush’s lap.
The central contractor Scahill singles out is a group called Blackwater, and the list of charges he levels against them remind a reader of the Reagan days of Iran-Contra. The upshot is court cases filed against the group and the defense that, due to their designation as part of the military effort, they are above the law. Not a new claim for BushCo, but also not one that should be allowed to stand let alone slip quietly by while the public looks the other way.
Scahill is worth reading. Please check out the story in The Nation and/or his book. It won’t be pleasant reading, but it will definitely be enlightening.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Jeremy Scahill has been making as much in the way of waves as the popular American press will allow these days by lifting the lid off of a particularly odious can of Washington worms that all goes back to Donald Rumsfeld and – who else? – his merry band of neo-cons.
Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney have both long been champions of the privatization of many government functions. A very big area of interest for both of them has been the letting of contracts for support services for the military. By purporting that private delivery of support is more cost effective that having the military do it themselves, they have succeeded in letting a lot of contracts for things like food service, transportation services and special security forces instead of having enlisted soldiers do the jobs.
Of course it takes a lot of support to keep a gun toting soldier in the field. In the days of the draft, there were enough G.I.s around to handle most such tasks. Kitchen and motor pool staff were needed, but recruitment and the draft brought in the bodies needed to fill the slots. Special security wasn’t needed as much back then. When it was needed, Special Forces, SEALS and other such troops were on hand to fill the bill. These days more special security details are necessary, largely because big power arrogance has angered so many people around the globe that it isn’t safe for representatives of gluttonous governments to stick their heads up very far for fear they might get shot off. But the bad part is that contracting doesn’t stop at those kinds of jobs. We have fielded fighting mercenaries in Iraq.
Even though some Senators and Congressfolk have begun to address the issue, the public remains pretty ignorant on the subject, but Jeremy Scahill has been talking about it. He’s written a book about it, appeared on Democracy Now! and published a major article in April 2 issue of “The Nation” – one of the few American magazines that routinely publishes well documented articles about the abuses of U.S.politicians.
In his article, Bush’s Shadow Army, Scahill progresses from Rumsfeld’s most powerful speech (delivered the day before 9-11) on the need to replace existing Pentagon structure with more covert actions, new weaponry and more reliance on private contractors. i.e. new opportunities for old friends. He quotes Rummy’s 2002 article in Foreign Affairs magazine as saying he wanted the Pentagon to “. . .behave less like bureaucrats and more like entrepreneurs.”
Isn’t that just what we’ve always needed – a Defense Department constantly seeking ways to generate new business!! Sheesh – talk about the military industrial complex. Ike must be spinning in his grave!
Scahill points out that by the time Rummy was ushered out of his Pentagon office, private contracts had brought an estimated 100,000 civilian bodies to Iraq – almost as many as the active-duty soldiers based there. The upshot of this, he says, is that, “Contractors have provided the Bush Administration with political cover, allowing the government to deploy private forces in a war zone free of public scrutiny, with the deaths, injuries and crimes of those forces shrouded in secrecy.”
What it boils down to is a private army that is gaining power in the military structure through a pile of secretive subcontracts. Our enlisted young folks are more and more a front for this Administration’s cloak and dagger ambitions, and it’s enough to make you want to vomit in George W. Bush’s lap.
The central contractor Scahill singles out is a group called Blackwater, and the list of charges he levels against them remind a reader of the Reagan days of Iran-Contra. The upshot is court cases filed against the group and the defense that, due to their designation as part of the military effort, they are above the law. Not a new claim for BushCo, but also not one that should be allowed to stand let alone slip quietly by while the public looks the other way.
Scahill is worth reading. Please check out the story in The Nation and/or his book. It won’t be pleasant reading, but it will definitely be enlightening.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Thursday, March 22, 2007
I Want Out!
Some days a fellow just wants to pull his head back, slam his shell shut and withdraw from the whole human race.
This morning’s paper brought news of a car bombing enabled by kindness. Feeling that the two kids in the car seeking entry to a parking lot in Baghdad ensured that the car was safe, security guards watched the driver and front seat passenger leave the kids in the back seat. Witnesses then saw the adults detonate the bomb they had left the kids sitting on.
What kind of humanity possesses a mind that would allow someone to commit such an act? We all rationalize to justify our behaviors, but acts like this should never even enter the mind of anyone with a soul, and those who carried it out are not deserving of the gentle attention a civilized legal system should accord them.
Whether it is Bush complaining that Congress has crossed the line of separation of powers or Democrats still claiming to be the party of the people after Clinton’s shift to the right and introduction of NAFTA, Christians calling for the blood of Muslims or Muslims calling for the blood of Christians, the kind of hypocrisy we humans commit and justify every day is repulsive and sickening.
Just once I’d like to hear a politician speak without spin. Just once I’d like to hear a nation like the U.S. or Israel or Palestine declare that it had made a mistake and was seeking the forgiveness of the world for its actions. Just once I’d like to hear a Christian say that he appreciates the fact that Islam sees Christ as a great prophet. Just once I’d like to hear a Muslim say that there is room in the world for all religions and philosophies.
In the meantime, I think I’ll just go fishing. For today, at least, I’ve had it up to here.
Be the change you want to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
This morning’s paper brought news of a car bombing enabled by kindness. Feeling that the two kids in the car seeking entry to a parking lot in Baghdad ensured that the car was safe, security guards watched the driver and front seat passenger leave the kids in the back seat. Witnesses then saw the adults detonate the bomb they had left the kids sitting on.
What kind of humanity possesses a mind that would allow someone to commit such an act? We all rationalize to justify our behaviors, but acts like this should never even enter the mind of anyone with a soul, and those who carried it out are not deserving of the gentle attention a civilized legal system should accord them.
Whether it is Bush complaining that Congress has crossed the line of separation of powers or Democrats still claiming to be the party of the people after Clinton’s shift to the right and introduction of NAFTA, Christians calling for the blood of Muslims or Muslims calling for the blood of Christians, the kind of hypocrisy we humans commit and justify every day is repulsive and sickening.
Just once I’d like to hear a politician speak without spin. Just once I’d like to hear a nation like the U.S. or Israel or Palestine declare that it had made a mistake and was seeking the forgiveness of the world for its actions. Just once I’d like to hear a Christian say that he appreciates the fact that Islam sees Christ as a great prophet. Just once I’d like to hear a Muslim say that there is room in the world for all religions and philosophies.
In the meantime, I think I’ll just go fishing. For today, at least, I’ve had it up to here.
Be the change you want to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Revenge of the Nerds?
Well friends, today might finally be the day. We’ve sat (relatively) quietly waiting to see if the Democrats would ever show enough fortitude to go at BushCo head-on and been continually disappointed, but today Patrick Leahy is asking the Senate Judiciary Committee for permission to seek subpoenas to deliver to Karl Rove, Harriet Meyers and other luminaries in order to investigate the Justice Department firings of eight federal prosecutors.
Still, as Mr. Bush says, the Dems have a relatively weak position from which to go after Rove. There is no doubt that the man is one of the sleeziest, most manipulative figures to appear in politics since Machiavelli himself, but trying to pin this one on him does look more like a fishing expedition than a well targeted investigation, and if he is found culpable probably won’t get more than a slap on the wrist and a relocated office.
Leahy has every right and reason to go after the perpetrators of the political firings from the Justice Department, but Rove and Cheney are both more culpable for their involvement with the Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war and now, again behind the scenes in the run-up to engaging with Iran than for anything else. The OSP was primarily the handiwork of Rumsfeld and Cheney, but it is hard to imagine that Rove’s fine hand wasn’t in there somewhere. His specialty is sliming opponents like Ann Richards in political races, but there is no doubt that he acts as hatchet man in all sorts of behind the scenes plots to further the neo-conservative agenda.
My hope was always that the first subpoenas would go after Cheney and Rumsfeld for the OSP intelligence manipulation that supposedly duped Bush and the Congress into believing the WMD fabrications that led up to the invasion of Iraq, but it was not to be. Perhaps that story lies too close to the Democratic vulnerabilities to be explored in depth by the powers that be. The fact is that most Democrats as well as all Republicans in the House and the Senate voted to give Bush the power to go off the terrorist hunting track and attack Iraq for political reasons. The kind of money that corporate allies of both parties have pulled down from their contracts for services in Iraq, development and production of arms and armaments, etc. has been too good for our pols to quash without compelling reason. But digging for good reason could uncover a lot of information that might upset enough citizens to really stir things up. Better, from a politician’s point of view, to stir the pot just enough to be able to point sharpened fingers during campaigns than to uncover the whole can of worms and risk having the entire apple cart overturned.
At any rate, it is gratifying to see Mr. Bush with his back against the wall baring his teeth and snarling at Congress. There is little of subtlety about the man and his immediate refusal to accept the idea of subpoenas will force a face to face confrontation that ultimately will not help his image with anybody.
You just can’t be as arrogant as this bunch has been and not expect a come-uppance. It’s high time, and hopefully some low times are in the offing for this administration. If anybody ever deserved a come-uppance it is this bunch. Finally - regime change begins at home.
Be the change you want to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Still, as Mr. Bush says, the Dems have a relatively weak position from which to go after Rove. There is no doubt that the man is one of the sleeziest, most manipulative figures to appear in politics since Machiavelli himself, but trying to pin this one on him does look more like a fishing expedition than a well targeted investigation, and if he is found culpable probably won’t get more than a slap on the wrist and a relocated office.
Leahy has every right and reason to go after the perpetrators of the political firings from the Justice Department, but Rove and Cheney are both more culpable for their involvement with the Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war and now, again behind the scenes in the run-up to engaging with Iran than for anything else. The OSP was primarily the handiwork of Rumsfeld and Cheney, but it is hard to imagine that Rove’s fine hand wasn’t in there somewhere. His specialty is sliming opponents like Ann Richards in political races, but there is no doubt that he acts as hatchet man in all sorts of behind the scenes plots to further the neo-conservative agenda.
My hope was always that the first subpoenas would go after Cheney and Rumsfeld for the OSP intelligence manipulation that supposedly duped Bush and the Congress into believing the WMD fabrications that led up to the invasion of Iraq, but it was not to be. Perhaps that story lies too close to the Democratic vulnerabilities to be explored in depth by the powers that be. The fact is that most Democrats as well as all Republicans in the House and the Senate voted to give Bush the power to go off the terrorist hunting track and attack Iraq for political reasons. The kind of money that corporate allies of both parties have pulled down from their contracts for services in Iraq, development and production of arms and armaments, etc. has been too good for our pols to quash without compelling reason. But digging for good reason could uncover a lot of information that might upset enough citizens to really stir things up. Better, from a politician’s point of view, to stir the pot just enough to be able to point sharpened fingers during campaigns than to uncover the whole can of worms and risk having the entire apple cart overturned.
At any rate, it is gratifying to see Mr. Bush with his back against the wall baring his teeth and snarling at Congress. There is little of subtlety about the man and his immediate refusal to accept the idea of subpoenas will force a face to face confrontation that ultimately will not help his image with anybody.
You just can’t be as arrogant as this bunch has been and not expect a come-uppance. It’s high time, and hopefully some low times are in the offing for this administration. If anybody ever deserved a come-uppance it is this bunch. Finally - regime change begins at home.
Be the change you want to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
More Time or No Time?
At this point, we are not in a war. We are caught in the middle of an Iraqi civil war for whose flames we laid the kindling when we attacked that country. So we are not in a war that can be won, we are in a fight that, at this point, has nothing to do with us except that it was our army that enabled it. Now we are a target without any winnable objectives. The ancient, smoldering animosity between the Sunnis, the Shia and the Kurds has been given air by the removal of the containing blanket of Hussein’s autocratic power. Having been unleashed, it cannot again be contained until either the factions have sated themselves with the blood of their enemies or another strongman emerges to push them back into their corners.
The rest of the world has known what BushCo was up to from the beginning. It’s far beyond high time that
Be the change you want to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Monday, March 19, 2007
Unhappy Anniversary
Four years ago today George W. Bush, mouthpiece for the neo-cons, announced the invasion of Iraq. Last night, to recognize and mourn that date and the lives lost since then -- American and “coalition” troops and Iraqi troops and civilians as well -- about 30 of us gathered together at a local church. We held a short service in the church, but before that began we gathered in a candlelight vigil at the curb out front alongside the busy street, some talking quietly to one another, others in silent reflection, all thinking and speaking of the tragedy of loss of life and property in this war.
Mournful thoughts passed through my mind; thoughts of the many young people our nation has sent to have their sanity strained by the horrors of the experience, the many young people we have sent to have their physical health forever impaired by the weaponry they must handle and face in their daily lives; and finally, those we have sent to their deaths; ostensibly in the cause of “freedom”, but actually under the yoke of a hegemonic ideology to which the U.S. government does not give voice, because so few would follow them into war if their real ambitions were given as the reason to go.
As we stood there at the curb a young woman leaned far out the window of a passing car and shouted at us, “You’re all traitors.” Faces all around me reflected the same emotions. Our thoughts were on those young lives lost. We were collectively in mourning; gathered to honor those who, however falsely motivated, chose to put their lives on the line in behalf of their country. Among us were parents of children now serving in the military. Among us were several military veterans who had "served their country" in their own time. Among us were people who have devoted a great deal of their lives to the cause of peace in the hope that no more of our nation’s children would have to give their arms, their legs, their lives or their souls as grist to the war machine.
And this child, passing in her car, had the shallowness of perspective to hurl such an invective at those patriotic souls mourning not only the lives lost, but the honor our nation has lost through this completely unnecessary release of the dogs of war.
Later as part of the service, we each took a pinch of salt on our tongue; a reminder of the bitterness of war and the fact that we each should be discomfited by the very thought of such negativity. Mixing salt with water, our speaker reminded us of the need for all people, like dissolving salt joining with water, to seek union with all other people because in spite of our differences each of us has the same basic needs and because we are all inextricably linked whether or not we recognize it personally.
Finally, he referred to the woman in the car -- using her reaction to ask a question most of us in this little group have discussed together at one point or another in the course of our protests over the past four and a half years -- “Why is there such a strong negative reaction to those of us who try to speak of peace?” War, he said, is seen by people as a bastion of courage; the means by which one can demonstrate his or her love of country; a place to be brave and heroic; and a way to protect our freedom from threat. Peace, he said, is seen as a position of weakness; a failure to “defend” the nation and the nation’s honor.
Sadly, he’s right, but even more sadly, the common perception is totally wrong. Part of the problem is that peace holds no romantic allure. Those of us marching for peace don’t have our own flag, marching bands, bright shiny buttons or guns to carry on our shoulders like a chip to show how strong we are. We don’t offer fields of mortal danger against which the young can test their mettle. Part of the problem, too, is that there is no common history among peoples that proclaims the nobility of those who have exercised the courage of their convictions by standing in opposition to popular beliefs.
Yes we have our histories that include stories of Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi – even Christ. But for most folks the strength displayed is those stories pales beside the heroics of George Washington, Daniel Boone, Sam Houston, Sgt. York, George Patton, Douglas McArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
If some German citizen had been possessed of the strength of a Gandhi, there might have come a time when she stood out in some incident as starkly as did Gandhi in his resistance to harsh British rule or the unknown Chinese man who blocked the tanks in Tiananmen Square; when she might have stood in some Berlin street and called the world’s attention to Hitler’s having gone too far in stealing the freedom of his own people and in persecuting so many others. Then perhaps that war would have been short circuited and the world might have known peace instead of the horrible havoc that ensued. But had that been the case, would the world then have held parades each year thereafter to recognize her huge courage; her symbolic act that saved the world so much pain?
Not a chance. We can’t celebrate the avoidance of catastrophe because we can’t grasp the gravity of what has not happened. But we can wave our flags, and we can march, and we can blow our bugles and proclaim our victories when, after much horror and bloodshed, we drag ourselves home, weary from the rigors of war and proud to have once again saved freedom from the scourge of tyranny.
Too bad that tyranny only waits behind the next flag and too bad that the bugle that blows last always calls “Taps”.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Mournful thoughts passed through my mind; thoughts of the many young people our nation has sent to have their sanity strained by the horrors of the experience, the many young people we have sent to have their physical health forever impaired by the weaponry they must handle and face in their daily lives; and finally, those we have sent to their deaths; ostensibly in the cause of “freedom”, but actually under the yoke of a hegemonic ideology to which the U.S. government does not give voice, because so few would follow them into war if their real ambitions were given as the reason to go.
As we stood there at the curb a young woman leaned far out the window of a passing car and shouted at us, “You’re all traitors.” Faces all around me reflected the same emotions. Our thoughts were on those young lives lost. We were collectively in mourning; gathered to honor those who, however falsely motivated, chose to put their lives on the line in behalf of their country. Among us were parents of children now serving in the military. Among us were several military veterans who had "served their country" in their own time. Among us were people who have devoted a great deal of their lives to the cause of peace in the hope that no more of our nation’s children would have to give their arms, their legs, their lives or their souls as grist to the war machine.
And this child, passing in her car, had the shallowness of perspective to hurl such an invective at those patriotic souls mourning not only the lives lost, but the honor our nation has lost through this completely unnecessary release of the dogs of war.
Later as part of the service, we each took a pinch of salt on our tongue; a reminder of the bitterness of war and the fact that we each should be discomfited by the very thought of such negativity. Mixing salt with water, our speaker reminded us of the need for all people, like dissolving salt joining with water, to seek union with all other people because in spite of our differences each of us has the same basic needs and because we are all inextricably linked whether or not we recognize it personally.
Finally, he referred to the woman in the car -- using her reaction to ask a question most of us in this little group have discussed together at one point or another in the course of our protests over the past four and a half years -- “Why is there such a strong negative reaction to those of us who try to speak of peace?” War, he said, is seen by people as a bastion of courage; the means by which one can demonstrate his or her love of country; a place to be brave and heroic; and a way to protect our freedom from threat. Peace, he said, is seen as a position of weakness; a failure to “defend” the nation and the nation’s honor.
Sadly, he’s right, but even more sadly, the common perception is totally wrong. Part of the problem is that peace holds no romantic allure. Those of us marching for peace don’t have our own flag, marching bands, bright shiny buttons or guns to carry on our shoulders like a chip to show how strong we are. We don’t offer fields of mortal danger against which the young can test their mettle. Part of the problem, too, is that there is no common history among peoples that proclaims the nobility of those who have exercised the courage of their convictions by standing in opposition to popular beliefs.
Yes we have our histories that include stories of Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi – even Christ. But for most folks the strength displayed is those stories pales beside the heroics of George Washington, Daniel Boone, Sam Houston, Sgt. York, George Patton, Douglas McArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
If some German citizen had been possessed of the strength of a Gandhi, there might have come a time when she stood out in some incident as starkly as did Gandhi in his resistance to harsh British rule or the unknown Chinese man who blocked the tanks in Tiananmen Square; when she might have stood in some Berlin street and called the world’s attention to Hitler’s having gone too far in stealing the freedom of his own people and in persecuting so many others. Then perhaps that war would have been short circuited and the world might have known peace instead of the horrible havoc that ensued. But had that been the case, would the world then have held parades each year thereafter to recognize her huge courage; her symbolic act that saved the world so much pain?
Not a chance. We can’t celebrate the avoidance of catastrophe because we can’t grasp the gravity of what has not happened. But we can wave our flags, and we can march, and we can blow our bugles and proclaim our victories when, after much horror and bloodshed, we drag ourselves home, weary from the rigors of war and proud to have once again saved freedom from the scourge of tyranny.
Too bad that tyranny only waits behind the next flag and too bad that the bugle that blows last always calls “Taps”.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Friday, March 16, 2007
Bushgate?
Some days things pop up that are better than anything I could comment on. Today's email brought the message below. Please take part. The Bush Administration has been seeking to water down the Freedom of Information Act for a long time, and there is a certain juiciness to still being able to put it to such good purpose. This is serious stuff, so I thought it would be best to just share it with you:
This could be George Bush's Watergate.
Eight U.S. Attorneys, fired because they wouldn't follow orders by the Bush Administration.
Fired because they refused to go on witch-hunts against Democrats, or ignored the Republicans' blatant disregard for the law. Fired so that they could be replaced by talking heads and loyalists of the Bush Administration.
When Scooter Libby was convicted, I said that this administration reminded me of Richard Nixon's administration -- more obsessed with their critics than with the jobs the American people entrust them with. But this latest White House scandal takes that comparison to another level.
Just what did George Bush, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the Bush White House and Republican senior staff know about the Justice Department firings -- and when did they know it?
Join us in our effort to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to try to cut through the White House's nonsense -- the finger-pointing, the lies, the cover-up. Americans have a right to access any and all records between the Republican National Committee, other Republican party committees, and the Department of Justice in order to get to the bottom of this investigation.
Sign our FOIA request:
http://www.democrats.org/DOJFOIA
"I can accept that mistakes were made."
When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales uttered those words yesterday, he admitted what many had suspected: that eight U.S. prosecutors were improperly fired -- and, because of a Patriot Act provision slipped in by Congressional Republicans, replaced with Bush Administration cronies. The fired attorneys included:
- Carol Lam, who prosecuted former Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham for bribery, and who was actively investigating Republican House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis at the time of her dismissal;
- Paul Charlton, who was investigating Republican Congressman Rick Renzi for bribery and illegal land dealings, and who had publicly clashed with the Bush Administration over the merits of the death penalty; and
- David Iglesias, a commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve and the basis for Tom Cruise's character in A Few Good Men, who was pressured by Republicans to indict Democratic politicians prior to the 2006 elections.
In January, Gonzales claimed that he would "never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation." Justice Department officials claimed the firings were part of standard personnel turnover.
But when questioned by Congress, Gonzales's deputy, Paul McNulty, claimed they were fired for poor performance -- even though most of the fired attorneys had received excellent performance reviews.
Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and President Bush himself were in contact with Gonzales's office about the attorneys. Just weeks after Bush spoke to Gonzales, they were fired.
Former Washington state GOP Chairman Chris Vance admitted to pressuring fired U.S. Attorney John McKay to investigate Democrats at the urging of the "White House's political office." And emails released yesterday show that White House deputy political director and former RNC opposition researcher J. Scott Jennings used an RNC email account to talk with Justice Department about the appointment of U.S. Attorney and former Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin.
These revelations raise even more questions -- and it's time for answers. Add your name to the FOIA Request, and demand accountability from the White House:
http://www.democrats.org/DOJFOIA
In an all-too-familiar scene, Gonzales's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned over the scandal. But we won't let Sampson be the fall guy for another Bush Administration cover-up.
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, already took the fall for the Bush Administration's orchestrated leak of a CIA agent's identity. And incompetent FEMA Director and Bush buddy Michael Brown took the fall for our president's disgraceful reaction to Hurricane Katrina -- while the Gulf Coast remains in shambles.
Just like the Nixon Administration, cronyism and corruption has hollowed this White House from the inside-out.
It's time for Republicans to stop spinning such a tangled web of deceit to get what they want. Some Democratic Senators have already called for Alberto Gonzales's resignation. But this is part of a much bigger problem.
The purge of U.S. Attorneys wasn't a "mistake," as Alberto Gonzales claims. It was part of a long, calculated effort by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party to silence its critics and remain above the law.
Help us use this FOIA request to go beyond the lies and reveal the truth behind the White House, Justice Department, and Republican Party's corruption. The American people deserve nothing less:
http://www.democrats.org/DOJFOIA
Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
War in Iran?
A few days ago I published a partial outline for a presentation to a local peace group on the subject of whether or not the administration is building toward an invasion of Iran. Below is the final outline. It fails to discuss, by the way, the deployment of four carriers and their contingents to the region, but I covered that in an earlier blog you can check out if you want to know more about it.
*****************************************************
The case for suspecting a build-up for attacking Iran:
I. The pattern established by past behaviors of this administration:
A. The build-up for invading Iraq was foretold in the neo-conservative paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses which stated that
(1) "Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." (p. 4)
(2) "America's role as guarantor of the current great-power peace relies upon the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East, and surrounding energy producing region, and East Asia." (p5)
(3) Included in their list of "missions demanded by U.S. global leadership is the objective of "fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars" (p.5 & 6)
(4) Four and one-half years before the declaration of war against Iraq, came this statement, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."(p.14)
(5) "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."(p.17)
(6) On the same page, the paper discusses how a permanent base in Kuwait can protect against another Iraqi incursion into that country, but now that Saddam has gone, have we pulled any troops out of Kuwait?
(7) "With a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait, the demands for Marine presence in the Gulf could be scaled back as well." (p.18) Instead of being scaled back, what do we see today? – Four aircraft carriers plus cruisers, destroyers and submarines being sent into the Gulf. If not for attack, why are they there?
(8) Recent revelations that the Bush administration summarily rejected Iranian overtures in 2003 to include this neuralgic topic among others in a broad bilateral discussion strengthens the impression that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney actually prefer the military option to destroy Iranian nuclear-related facilities. – Ray McGovern – Wake Up. The Next War is Coming, Feb. 12, 2007 http://www.TomPaine.com
(9) The administration argues that Iran has no need to develop nuclear energy because of its oil resources, but, according to Ray McGovern: "The trouble is that when Cheney was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, he and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld persuaded Ford to give the Shah a nuclear program to meet its future energy requirements. In 1976, Ford reluctantly signed a directive offering Iran a deal that would have brought at least $5.4 billion for U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric, had not the Shah been unceremoniously ousted three years later. The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear-fuels cycle—essentially the same capability that the United States, Israel and other countries now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire."
(10) Philip Giraldi, former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist says, "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps – demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." –Vanity Fair, March 2007: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq, Craig Unger.
(11) The neo-con whitepaper, A Clean Break, presented to Israel in 1996 advocated war with Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon as a strategy to "stabilize the region". Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed with the paper and added Iran as another country that needed invasion. Since then we have seen the invasions of Iraq and Lebanon, and now hear saber rattling directed at Iran and Syria. A Clean Break turns out to have been the blueprint for American/Israeli policy and action under the Bush administration.
(12) The Vanity Fair article mention in item 10 also quotes those who continue to espouse the neo-con agenda. Meyrav Wurmser, one of the authors of A Clean Break, now says of the Iraq war, "It's a mess isn't it? My argument has always been that this war is senseless if you don't give it a regional context." In other words, it should be expanded to the countries addressed in A Clean Break plus Iran.
(13) "Attacking Iraq may have been the wrong step, but then to ignore Iran would compound the disaster. Israel will be left alone, and American interests will be affected catastrophically." – Uzi Arad, former Mossad intelligence chief. Vanity Fair, March 2007: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq, Craig Ungar.
II. Current Administration tactics:
A. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me (Seymour Hersh) that "there is nothing coincidental or ironic" about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. "The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude," Leverett said. "This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them." http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
B. Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.
In the past month, I (Seymour Hersh) was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities and possible regime change.
The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. (Same source as above p.2)
C. The U.S. is openly supporting a group in Lebanon called Mujahideen el-Khalq (MEQ or MEK) which is linked with Al-Qaeda. We support them, though, because they are anti-Iranian Sunnis, and we think they will be valuable allies in a fight with the Iranian government. (Think Chalabi – this is the same kind of thing because MEK includes exiled ex-Iranian leaders who want to be returned to power.)
III. The risks:
A. "Today, the only army capable of containing Iran"—the Iraqi Army—"has been destroyed by the United States. You're now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers." http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh (p.2)
B. If Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz as many analysts say will occur, the price of oil is expected to jump immediately to $125/bbl. Additionally, Iran would be in a position to cut off supply lines from Kuwait to our soldiers in Iraq.
C. Intelligence has reported that the Iranians may be moving some of the nuclear development facilities into heavily populated areas. If that is true and if we bomb them, we will necessarily kill a large number of civilians.
IV. Arguments against attacking Iran
A. Iran is not truly any kind of threat to the U.S.
B. Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. As such, it has the right to build and use nuclear power plants, and, while the International Atomic Energy Agency has expressed concern over the lack of transparency in the Iranian program, they have found no proof that Iran is developing any other kind of nuclear capability.
C. The U.S. claim that they don't trust Iran is not a legitimate legal basis for any action.
D. Any attack on Iran would necessarily be classified as a preventive measure. Such a preventive attack would be in violation of international law.
V. So what should we do?
I agree with the assertions of Phyllis Bennis who is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. She says that the peace movement should:
A. Demand Congressional action designed to preempt any funding for any attack on Iran;
B. Seek diplomatic, not military engagement with Iran on the grounds that Iran is not a threat to the U.S., so any attack would represent a preventive war, illegal under international law;
C. Maintain pressure against escalation of the Iraq War, both in terms of troop strength and of expansion into war with Iran.
D. Build people-to-people ties between Americans and Iranians, including work with the Iranian community in America, thus fighting against the kind of demonization that enables the government to enlist the American people in its oppression of other nations, and;
E. Support calls for a Nuclear-free Middle East including an end to Israel's nuclear arsenal and a prohibition against the presence of U.S. nuclear armed submarines and carriers in the area. We should demand that the U.S. implement its own 1991 call for a WMD-free zone, found in Article 14 of the UN Security Council resolution 687 that ended the 1991 Gulf War.
******************************************************
The bottom line is that in enabling W to invade Iraq pre-emptively, Congress abdicated its responsibility as the only body designated in the Constitution to be capable of declaring war. Under the Constitution, a President must seek Congressional approval before issuing a declaration of war. Congress signed away that job and handed it over to the Executive.
In order to prevent autocratic, arbitrary, and "preventive" declarations of war, Congress needs to take back that authority. On the grounds that, whether or not an Iran invasion is planned nothing else is more crucial to world safety than restraint of the Bush Administration's tendency to wage war, the group's decision last night was to take positive action to seek Congressional support for a piece of legislation ot that effect; in part by petitioning the group United for Peace and Justice to urge all of its members to focus on that single issue until it is accomplished, and in part by engaging in civil disobedience at local legislative offices.
I hope all readers will take some similar action.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. - M.K. Gandhi
*****************************************************
The case for suspecting a build-up for attacking Iran:
I. The pattern established by past behaviors of this administration:
A. The build-up for invading Iraq was foretold in the neo-conservative paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses which stated that
(1) "Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." (p. 4)
(2) "America's role as guarantor of the current great-power peace relies upon the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East, and surrounding energy producing region, and East Asia." (p5)
(3) Included in their list of "missions demanded by U.S. global leadership is the objective of "fighting and winning multiple large-scale wars" (p.5 & 6)
(4) Four and one-half years before the declaration of war against Iraq, came this statement, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."(p.14)
(5) "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."(p.17)
(6) On the same page, the paper discusses how a permanent base in Kuwait can protect against another Iraqi incursion into that country, but now that Saddam has gone, have we pulled any troops out of Kuwait?
(7) "With a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait, the demands for Marine presence in the Gulf could be scaled back as well." (p.18) Instead of being scaled back, what do we see today? – Four aircraft carriers plus cruisers, destroyers and submarines being sent into the Gulf. If not for attack, why are they there?
(8) Recent revelations that the Bush administration summarily rejected Iranian overtures in 2003 to include this neuralgic topic among others in a broad bilateral discussion strengthens the impression that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney actually prefer the military option to destroy Iranian nuclear-related facilities. – Ray McGovern – Wake Up. The Next War is Coming, Feb. 12, 2007 http://www.TomPaine.com
(9) The administration argues that Iran has no need to develop nuclear energy because of its oil resources, but, according to Ray McGovern: "The trouble is that when Cheney was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, he and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld persuaded Ford to give the Shah a nuclear program to meet its future energy requirements. In 1976, Ford reluctantly signed a directive offering Iran a deal that would have brought at least $5.4 billion for U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric, had not the Shah been unceremoniously ousted three years later. The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear-fuels cycle—essentially the same capability that the United States, Israel and other countries now insist Iran cannot be allowed to acquire."
(10) Philip Giraldi, former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist says, "It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps – demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." –Vanity Fair, March 2007: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq, Craig Unger.
(11) The neo-con whitepaper, A Clean Break, presented to Israel in 1996 advocated war with Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon as a strategy to "stabilize the region". Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed with the paper and added Iran as another country that needed invasion. Since then we have seen the invasions of Iraq and Lebanon, and now hear saber rattling directed at Iran and Syria. A Clean Break turns out to have been the blueprint for American/Israeli policy and action under the Bush administration.
(12) The Vanity Fair article mention in item 10 also quotes those who continue to espouse the neo-con agenda. Meyrav Wurmser, one of the authors of A Clean Break, now says of the Iraq war, "It's a mess isn't it? My argument has always been that this war is senseless if you don't give it a regional context." In other words, it should be expanded to the countries addressed in A Clean Break plus Iran.
(13) "Attacking Iraq may have been the wrong step, but then to ignore Iran would compound the disaster. Israel will be left alone, and American interests will be affected catastrophically." – Uzi Arad, former Mossad intelligence chief. Vanity Fair, March 2007: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq, Craig Ungar.
II. Current Administration tactics:
A. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me (Seymour Hersh) that "there is nothing coincidental or ironic" about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. "The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude," Leverett said. "This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them." http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
B. Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.
In the past month, I (Seymour Hersh) was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities and possible regime change.
The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. (Same source as above p.2)
C. The U.S. is openly supporting a group in Lebanon called Mujahideen el-Khalq (MEQ or MEK) which is linked with Al-Qaeda. We support them, though, because they are anti-Iranian Sunnis, and we think they will be valuable allies in a fight with the Iranian government. (Think Chalabi – this is the same kind of thing because MEK includes exiled ex-Iranian leaders who want to be returned to power.)
III. The risks:
A. "Today, the only army capable of containing Iran"—the Iraqi Army—"has been destroyed by the United States. You're now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers." http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh (p.2)
B. If Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz as many analysts say will occur, the price of oil is expected to jump immediately to $125/bbl. Additionally, Iran would be in a position to cut off supply lines from Kuwait to our soldiers in Iraq.
C. Intelligence has reported that the Iranians may be moving some of the nuclear development facilities into heavily populated areas. If that is true and if we bomb them, we will necessarily kill a large number of civilians.
IV. Arguments against attacking Iran
A. Iran is not truly any kind of threat to the U.S.
B. Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. As such, it has the right to build and use nuclear power plants, and, while the International Atomic Energy Agency has expressed concern over the lack of transparency in the Iranian program, they have found no proof that Iran is developing any other kind of nuclear capability.
C. The U.S. claim that they don't trust Iran is not a legitimate legal basis for any action.
D. Any attack on Iran would necessarily be classified as a preventive measure. Such a preventive attack would be in violation of international law.
V. So what should we do?
I agree with the assertions of Phyllis Bennis who is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. She says that the peace movement should:
A. Demand Congressional action designed to preempt any funding for any attack on Iran;
B. Seek diplomatic, not military engagement with Iran on the grounds that Iran is not a threat to the U.S., so any attack would represent a preventive war, illegal under international law;
C. Maintain pressure against escalation of the Iraq War, both in terms of troop strength and of expansion into war with Iran.
D. Build people-to-people ties between Americans and Iranians, including work with the Iranian community in America, thus fighting against the kind of demonization that enables the government to enlist the American people in its oppression of other nations, and;
E. Support calls for a Nuclear-free Middle East including an end to Israel's nuclear arsenal and a prohibition against the presence of U.S. nuclear armed submarines and carriers in the area. We should demand that the U.S. implement its own 1991 call for a WMD-free zone, found in Article 14 of the UN Security Council resolution 687 that ended the 1991 Gulf War.
******************************************************
The bottom line is that in enabling W to invade Iraq pre-emptively, Congress abdicated its responsibility as the only body designated in the Constitution to be capable of declaring war. Under the Constitution, a President must seek Congressional approval before issuing a declaration of war. Congress signed away that job and handed it over to the Executive.
In order to prevent autocratic, arbitrary, and "preventive" declarations of war, Congress needs to take back that authority. On the grounds that, whether or not an Iran invasion is planned nothing else is more crucial to world safety than restraint of the Bush Administration's tendency to wage war, the group's decision last night was to take positive action to seek Congressional support for a piece of legislation ot that effect; in part by petitioning the group United for Peace and Justice to urge all of its members to focus on that single issue until it is accomplished, and in part by engaging in civil disobedience at local legislative offices.
I hope all readers will take some similar action.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. - M.K. Gandhi
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
EVANGELICAL SANITY !
Today’s newspaper actually brought good news – and from an unexpected source as far as I’m concerned. The National Association of Evangelicals has come out against torture. They endorsed a statement that says “the
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Monday, March 12, 2007
Mission Accomplished
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M. K. Gandhi
Friday, March 9, 2007
Isn't It Time?
Now that Americans have come to realize what the world has been saying about the Bush Administration for years, maybe the iron is hot for a complete rethinking of our national direction. We have proven that pre-emptive war does not lessen terrorism, but increases it. We have proven that cutting taxes and approving deficit spending does not improve the economy for anyone except those at the top. We have proven that cutting trade deals to satisfy huge corporations neither provides wanted jobs for the world nor helps protect the environment. We have proven that spurning diplomacy and rejecting other nations’ thinking out of hand does not win international acclaim.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
A Slow Day
Today I spent most of my day working on a deck I am building for a local environmental group to use as an outdoor teaching laboratory. It is out in the woods and overlooks a spring, so there is quite a lot of wildlife activity there. It was a beautiful day full of birdsong and sunshine. Saw a yellow rumped warbler along with cardinals, redwing blackbirds, wrens, and lots of waterfowl.The day didn’t leave me much time or energy for writing, though, so I will just share the outline I have started for a presentation I will make to the local peace network next Wednesday. The point is to provide enough information for attendees to meaningfully consider whether or not an attack on Iran Iran
A. The build-up for invading
(1) “
(2) “
(3) Included in their list of “missions demanded by
(4) Four and one-half years before the declaration of war against
(5) “Over the long term,
(6) On the same page, the paper discusses how a permanent base in
(7) “With a substantial permanent Army ground presence in
A. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me (Seymour Hersh) that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to
More to follow in the next couple of days. . .
Be the change you wish to see in the world. – M.K. Gandhi
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Better Way
“Be the change you wish to see in the world.” – M. K. Gandhi
Monday, March 5, 2007
If I Were King
It is really very simple. All you have to do is list ten things you think would really improve “things”. In other words, ten things you would declare as law if you were named king of the
2. The
3. The
4. The national budget for defense shall be no more than 40% of the total budget except in the event of war waged upon the
5. No one campaigning for national office or anyone supporting or opposing anyone campaigning for national office may advertise in private media of any kind.
6. The only media that can be used for campaigns for national office are national public radio and public television.
7. Those campaigning for national office may notify constituents of scheduled appearances on allowed media via franked mail or in person, but not by any other means.
8. No proposed legislation may consider more than one issue, and proposed amendments must address only that issue.
9. No one employed by any corporation may earn more than 40 times the amount earned by the average employee of that corporation.
10. No species, whether flora or fauna, may be altered by the introduction of the genetic structure of any other species.
So what’s your list?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
That led to a further discussion on the nature of military service and how hard it is to buck the current even if your personal moral compass says you are being steered wrong. The highest level of courage is never shown in facing up to those on the other side of the front line or by following your orders to the letter no matter what. True strength of character is shown by those who stand up to whatever contempt is thrown at them by refusing to take action that contradicts their closely held personal beliefs when they believe the orders to do so are immoral.
People like Eric Watada (see: Lieutenant Watada's War Against the War www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/brecherwebvideo) and Kevin Benderman (see: A Matter of Conscience by Sgt. Kevin Benderman www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/benderman1.html) are shining examples of living up to the true courage of their convictions.
In the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the tribunal condemned soldiers whose defense was that they were only following orders. The grounds for that condemnation were that they should have had the moral turpitude to refuse those orders. That ignored, of course, thee fact that their officers would have shot them on the spot for their refusal, but the principle still stands, and I hope the day will come when the men cited above and others like them who risk their careers, their reputations and even their lives to stand up for the moral principles by which they are guided will be recognized for representing the finest qualities of the American spirit in stead of being condemned for their "cowardice".Be the change you want to see in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
