Budgets, War and Blind Ambition: The Limited Minds of the American Elite
2 Feb 2010
Chris Floyd
The American elite's unbounded, unquestioned, indeed unconscious sense of imperial entitlement and dominance -- based ultimately on war, the threat of war and the profit from war -- is one of the defining characteristics of our age. And if you would like to see a glaring example of this attitude in action, look no further than the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, where one David Sanger gives us his penetrating "news analysis" of the Administration's just-announced $3.8 trillion budget.
Sanger focuses on the huge, continuing deficits that the budget forecasts over the next decade. Completely ignoring the plain truth that his own expert source tell him later in the story -- that "forecasts 10 years out have no credibility" -- Sanger boldly plunges forward to tell us just what it al... (continue reading)
The American elite's unbounded, unquestioned, indeed unconscious sense of imperial entitlement and dominance -- based ultimately on war, the threat of war and the profit from war -- is one of the defining characteristics of our age. And if you would like to see a glaring example of this attitude in action, look no further than the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, where one David Sanger gives us his penetrating "news analysis" of the Administration's just-announced $3.8 trillion budget.
Sanger focuses on the huge, continuing deficits that the budget forecasts over the next decade. Completely ignoring the plain truth that his own expert source tell him later in the story -- that "forecasts 10 years out have no credibility" -- Sanger boldly plunges forward to tell us just what it all means. You will not be surprised to hear that the upshot of these big deficits is that neither Obama nor his successors will be able to spend any money on "new domestic initiatives" for years to come. But let's let Sanger, savant and seer, tell it in his own words:
In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.
The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.
But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. ...
For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.
What is most interesting here, of course, is not Sanger's noodle-scratching over imaginary numbers projected into an unknowable future, but his total and apparently completely unconscious adoption of the mindset of militarist empire. For as he puzzles and puzzles till his puzzler is sore on how in God's name the United States can possibly find any money at all to spend on bettering the lives of its citizens over the next 10 years, it becomes clear that Sanger -- like the rest of our political and media elite -- literally cannot conceive of an end to empire. Our elites and their courtiers literally cannot imagine life without a permanent war for global dominance, fueled by a gargantuan war machine spread across hundreds and hundreds of bases implanted in more than 100 countries.
And so this consideration, this possible outcome, does not figure in Sanger's "analysis" because it cannot: it lies far outside the scope of his consciousness. The only possible alternative he can conceive to the empire's bloody and bankrupting business as usual is some kind of divine intervention, "miraculous growth" or some "miraculous political compromise."
And make no mistake: the "miraculous political compromise" he is talking about has nothing to do with ending or even trimming the empire. A "compromise" on this issue could only be posited if there was some present conflict over it. But both parties are deeply committed to increasing spending on the wars and the war machine.
No, by "compromise" Sanger means some sort of "Grand Bargain" between the parties to cut Social Security and Medicare, along the lines of the "blue-ribbon panel" of entitlement cutters now being pushed by the Obama Administration. An effort to impose this kind of elitist, unaccountable commission failed in the Senate a few weeks ago -- although the Republicans have proposed such panels before, they didn't like this one because Obama proposed it -- but the idea will keep coming back. Sanger and the elite will doubtless get their "miracle" of slashing the remaining bits of the safety net to shreds in due time.
For these are the only possibilities for deficit-cutting that Sanger can even remotely contemplate: some whiz-bang new techno gizmo -- or maybe some hot new "financial instruments" cooked up by Wall Street -- that will goose the economy with a bright new bubble ... or else finally telling our old, sick, vulnerable and unfortunate to just crawl off and die already. That's it. That's all that our elite can envision.
Yet the ending of the imperial wars and the dismantling of America's global military empire -- and its global gulag -- would save trillions of dollars in the coming years. Not only from direct military spending, but also from the vastly reduced need for "Homeland security" funding in a world where the United States was no longer invading foreign lands, killing their people, supporting their tyrants -- and inciting revenge and resistance.
This would release a flood of money for any number of "new domestic initiatives," while also giving scope for deep tax cuts across the board. Working people would thrive, the poor, the sick and the vulnerable would be bettered, businesses would grow, opportunity would expand, the care and education of our children would be greatly enhanced, our infrastructure could be repaired and strengthened, our environment better cleansed and cared for. In short, people could keep more of their own money while government spending could be directed toward improving the quality of life of all the nation's citizens.
This is no utopian vision. Many problems, much suffering would remain. But it would be a better society -- more humane, more just, more secure, more peaceful, more prosperous than it is now. Such an alternative is entirely achievable, by ordinary humans; it would require no divine miracles, no god-like heroes to bring it about.
But such a society is precisely what our elites cannot -- or, to be more accurate, will not -- imagine. Because, yes, it would "erode" their "influence" around the world to some extent. Although they would still be comfortable, coddled and privileged, they could no longer merge their individual psyches with the larger entity of a globe-spanning, death-dealing empire -- a connection which, although itself a projection of their own brains, gives them a forever-inflated sense of worth and importance.
And on a more prosaic level, the end of empire would mean an end to the horrendous economic distortion wrought by our war-profiteering industries. Other businesses would inevitably come to the fore, economic activity would be sp( click title for more ) evenly across more sectors. And so, yes, those who have feasted so gluttonously for so long on blood money would not be quite as rich as they are now.
A better world -- again, not perfect, by no means perfect, but much better -- is entirely possible. We could easily dismantle the empire -- carefully, safely, with deliberation -- over the next ten years. It is a reasonable, moderate, serious option. It would not require violent revolution or vast social upheaval. But our elites do not want this. They can no longer fathom life without the exercise -- and worship -- of unrestricted power that empire entails. They will not accept -- or even contemplate -- any alternative to it.
And thus every option and policy we are offered -- whether from right-wing Republicans or "progressive" Democrats, or from "serious" news analysts on "serious" papers -- must fall within these pathetically cramped, constricted mental horizons. Empire -- the imposition of dominion by violence and threat of violence, and the financial and moral corruption this breeds, the malevolent example it sets at every level of society -- is the canker in the body politic. Until it is dealt with, there will be no healing, no hope, no change -- just more degradation and disaster all down the line.
(show less)
Death Toll in Haiti Now Stands at over 200,000
4 Feb 2010
Cuban Agency News
Haitian Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive confirmed on Wednesday in Port-au-Prince that the number of deaths as a consequence of the earthquake that devastated that nation's capital and several neighboring cities on January 12 has increased to over 200,000.
Cuba Commemorates Establishment of Vietnamese Communist Party
4 Feb 2010
Cuban Agency News
Cuban Vice President Esteban Lazo presided over a ceremony on Wednesday night to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the Vietnamese Communist Party.
Romania approves US missile deployment
4 Feb 2010
Romania has given the go-ahead to a revamped Washington plan to deploy medium-range ballistic missile interceptors in the Black Sea state.
The for-profit Educational Maintenance Organization: Academica, Inc.
3 Feb 2010
Danny Weil
Academica, Inc.
The for-profit Educational Maintenance Organization
The first Florida charter school statute was approved in 1996, opening the door for the creation of charter schools as part of the state’s public education system, where they would operate independently. Since that time the race has been on, with Florida, along with other states such as Arizona, Louisiana and Texas, becoming the fasting growing charter school environments in the United States (Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools Website).
One of the first players to jump into the foray of for-profit EMO’s in the quickly transforming charter school climate in Florida, was Academica, Inc., a private corporation founded by entrepreneur and attorney, Fernando Zulueta. Originated in 1999, Academica’s website describ... (continue reading)
Academica, Inc.
The for-profit Educational Maintenance Organization
The first Florida charter school statute was approved in 1996, opening the door for the creation of charter schools as part of the state’s public education system, where they would operate independently. Since that time the race has been on, with Florida, along with other states such as Arizona, Louisiana and Texas, becoming the fasting growing charter school environments in the United States (Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools Website).
One of the first players to jump into the foray of for-profit EMO’s in the quickly transforming charter school climate in Florida, was Academica, Inc., a private corporation founded by entrepreneur and attorney, Fernando Zulueta. Originated in 1999, Academica’s website describes itself as: Academica is one of the nation’s longest-serving and most successful charter school service and support organizations.
The Company was founded in 1999 on the principle that each charter school is a unique educational environment governed by an independent Board of Directors that best knows the right path for its school, and Academica’s mission is to facilitate that Governing Board’s vision. Academica has a proven track-record developing growing networks of high performing charter schools (Academica Schools Website). In speaking about its business plan, the website goes on to claim: Academica’s winning business formula has played a major role in the success of Mater Academy and all charter schools under their management. Academica takes care of administrative duties such as payroll, budgeting, accounting and facility maintenance, which allow school principals and teachers to focus on providing top-notch education for their students Academica is a charter school service and support organization that works with schools in Florida, Utah and Texas. It was founded in 1999 on the principle that each charter school is a unique educational environment governed by an independent board of directors that best knows the right path for its school.
Academica’s goal is to facilitate the governing board’s vision (ibid) So, with this in mind Academica’s philosophy, like most for-profit EMOs, was geared to the notion that independent boards of directors would now decide school policy — forget about school boards, public hearings and community input. This is due to the fact that charter schools, managed by their own governing and oversight boards, are legally independent entities. Eleven states grant them outright independence, according to educational researchers Corwin and Schneider, while eight others permit them to be independent. Corwin and Schneider report that:
The thirteen states that curiously require their charters to operate as part of a school district account for only 12% of the nation’s 3,400 charter schools. Their legal status not withstanding, charter schools as conceived, are supposed to operate autonomously, although their actual freedom varies widely in practice (Corwin and Schneider 2007).
Much like the changes in the Ohio law that allowed David Brennan to cash in on the EMO wave that hit the state, Fernando Zulueta the owner of Academica Inc. himself got started early in the movement around 1996 with the initial passage of the Florida charter school law. At the time, Zulueta was a Miami-based Excel Development Corporation president. By 1996, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Zulueta had managed to have the biggest influence on charter school development in the state of Florida.
Today, nearly 300 charter schools are open in Florida. . Zulueta was an innovative if not a clever businessman. In 1997 for example, seeing the tremendous opportunities in the charter school ‘business’, Zulueta was the first Florida builder to put a charter school in a housing development. He then went on to build two 50-student facilities, each costing $300,000. And as The National Center for Policy Analysis noted, he now he owns a retail chain of charter schools across the state (Georgiou 2005). At the time his plan was certainly pioneering in using housing developers and community-based organizations to assist charter schools by leasing, renovating or building new facilities for a profit. Zulueta understood that charter schools contained within housing subdivisions would make the housing developments more appealing to prospective buyers and lenders, thereby increasing housing sales, revenues and profits to his company. Instead of offering a ‘club house’ or golf course, why not offer a charter school? And if a management company could be established or found that could manage the day to day operations of the housing subdivision charter school, well that would represent another golden opportunity for business.
Now, thanks to the politicians in Florida and the first steps made by Zulueta, the recent passage of a new Florida law in 2004 allows housing developers to steer impact fees that would otherwise have gone to school districts to charter schools in their own housing developments. Supporters of the idea claimed at the time of passage that this would encourage developers to build new schools by donating land or money for construction (Ibid). However, many would ague that this is just an example of how neo-liberalism disinvests in the public sector, steering public funds to private interests through legislation favorable to capital, leaving decaying infrastructure in its stead as public financing dries up for traditional public schools.
Similar to David Brennan, Fernando Zulueta established his political connections the old fashioned way, with large campaign contributions to primarily Republicans on both the state and federal level. For example, in the first quarter of 2004 Zulueta gave $2,000 to the campaign of George W. Bush for president, as did Zulueta’s wife. In the first quarter of 2008, according to the Huffington Post, Zulueta gave $2,300 to the campaign of Lincoln Diaz Balart for Congress, and the same amount to the campaign of Rudy Giuliani (Huffington Post Website 2008).
It is no coincidence that these politicians also happen to support the privatization of education. Zulueta has also been quick to ingratiate himself and rub shoulders with influential people in the conservative Florida political establishment and immerse himself into charter school ‘oversight’ committees and charter school ‘fraternities and organizations’, in general. This is too represents no surprise as the marketing of charter schools, Mosaica comes to mind, is a necessity if the schools are to exist and then be managed for a profit – the more charter schools, the more for-profit opportunities for EMOs like Academica, Inc. Also serving on public boards and organizations allows Academica to monitor its business opportunities as well as steer politicians to legislation favorable to their business plans.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools sketches a brief biography of Fernando Zulueta: Fernando Zulueta is the president of Academica Corporation, a successful charter school service and support organization founded in 1999. He is Chairman of the Florida Charter School Review Panel and founding Board Member of the Florida Consortium of Charter Schools. Zulueta has helped establish numerous high performing charter schools that have been recognized on local, state, and national levels for their achievements. In 2005, Zulueta received the “Cervantes Award” sponsored by Nova Southeastern University for his contributions toward excellence in the education of Hispanic students (The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools Website).
As early back as in 1996 Governor of Florida when Governor Jeb Bush signed House Bill 135 into law, a bill that created the Florida Schools of Excellence Commission, a state-level charter school authorizer that the governor said would improve school quality and accountability in the state, not surprisingly, Zulueta was appointed to the commission by the governor. The Commission, according to the pro-charter Center for Education Reform:
allows municipalities and universities to share in the chartering responsibility to help bring into existence new, quality charter schools. Legislators in Florida told CER “we couldn’t have done it without you,” when they successfully passed legislation, and CER has been called on to continue that leading role in working with legislators and charter leaders in the ongoing development of the Commission (Center for Education Reform 2006).
As noted in their website, Academica, Inc. has schools in three states:
Florida, Utah and Texas. In Florida, it operates ten schools, among them the Mater Academy we looked at in chapter four. Academica also operates seven schools in Miami-Dade County and three schools in Broward County. Calling itself, Academica West, the company also operates The Brooks Academy of Science and Engineering, a college preparatory school in Texas, as well as schools in Utah (Brooks Academy Website 2009).
At their Academica West website, the company describes in detail the stages, products and services they offer charter schools, all for a tidy profit, of course:
PRIOR TO CHARTER APPROVAL • Completing the Charter Application • Training and assistance through the Application Process • Corporate establishment and administration • Budget forecasting • Financial reporting • Bookkeeping and records management
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • Site selection and school design • Land use approvals • Site acquisition and development • Construction contractor selection and supervision
SCHOOL SET-UP • Setting up a Lunch Program • Setting up a Student Information System • Student Registration Assistance • Recruiting of Staff • Human Resource Management • Payroll • Governmental Compliance
TRAINING • Computer Training • Board Training • Teacher and Staff training • Special Education Compliance REPORT SUBMISSION (including, but not limited to) • Financial Reporting • October 1 Count Assistance • Economically Disadvantaged Report Assistance • CACTUS Report Submission • Immunization Report Assistance • December 1 Count Assistance • End of Year Report • Grant writing (Academica West Website).
With the recent 2007 expansion of Academica in Utah, according to the Enterprise Business Newspaper Inc. of Utah, Academica West, as it is called, now has its fingers in four different charter schools along the Wasatch Front, a large region in the state. Academica West also provides ‘business services’ to the North Star Academy in Bluffdale, Utah (Moon 2005). Quoting Academica West’s Vice President for the company, Sheldon Killpack:
The main goal is to make sure the principal is freed up do what he does best, which is work with teachers to make sure effective instruction is taking place (ibid).
What Utah found is what many charter schools are finding across the nation, which is why they are calling in firms like Academica West: that they must also acquire start-up funding from investors because money from the government is allocated according to specific grant specifications that usually deal with the day-to-day operations of the school, such as paving for utilities and buying textbooks.
Whether it is Academica, Inc. in Florida or its offshoot, Academica West in Utah and Arizona, the market decision of the company is to expand their EMO services and charter schools to as many states as they possibly can. In fact, one of their company public relations strategies is to attend ‘town hall’ astro-turf like meetings with parents, community leaders and businesses to speak up about charter schools and what they might be able to offer any organization, individuals or groups seeking charter status.
In Magic Valley, Utah for example, where Academica West has been expanding and is now managing ten schools, such a public session was held in September of 2007 at the Twin Falls Board of Realtors and featured speaker Jed Stevensen, head of Academica West. Although Stevensen said he was visiting as only an ‘adviser’ and that he was “also eager to meet those who show up to the meeting and see what the odds are of a school starting up in the Magic Valley”, the real odds are that his presence at the meeting was more than a simple display of altruism, but rather part of a well heeled and cleverly designed public relations campaign to gain charter school contracts.
Again, one thinks of the shoulder rubbing and ‘networking’ done by Mosaica that Wilson alluded to in the company’s launching its successful endeavors. (Poppino 2007). The fact that Academica West as well as other EMOs work with local groups and help sponsor meetings by organizations and individuals seeking to open charter schools is simply because it is part of their marketing campaign – for without charter schools there is no outlet for their ‘products and services’.
Every charter school that opens is another invitation to Academica, or to be fair to any other EMO, to manage the school’s business for profit and sell them instructional ‘kits’ and ‘educational materials’, which is why Academica has been a strong player in encouraging the opening of charter school after charter school in such town hall meetings or quasi-public events. What is not known is if at these public sessions Academica West, or other educational sales entities for EMOs for that matter, tout these companies ability to add innovation through competition to the traditional public schools to improve their services, for after all traditional public schools were supposed to be the beneficiaries of new and exciting practices and curriculum development created by the charter school movement and its for-profit managers, the EMOs.
The answer to the question is doubtful, it is simply not part of these company’s business plans, plans which are clearly built on the creation of ever more independent public charter schools as eventual sites for contractual relationships involving the for-profit management of their day to day operations.
Danny Weil is the author of Charter Schools, an 800 page tome on charter schools published by Grey Publishing Company
(show less)
Siegelman Prosecutor Might Land Key Guantanamo Post
4 Feb 2010
[The Obama administration might appoint a prosecutor with a shaky past to a key position.
The Party of Lincoln falls short on civil rights.
4 Feb 2010
Amanda Terkel
The NAACP released its annual report card looking at how federal lawmakers voted on civil rights issues, such as hate crimes, D.C. voting rights, and expanding children’s health insurance. Glenn Thrush looks at some of the main points from the report:
– All Senate Republicans got an F but two (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine — they got C’s)
– All Senate Democrats and Independents got A’s, B’s or Incompletes
– Senator Arlen Specter, R-to-D-Penn., got a B
– All House Republicans but 6 got an F — 5 of those 6 got D’s — 1 got a C: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
– House Republicans scored the lowest of an sub group.
– All BUT 23 House Democrats got A’s, B’s or Incompletes
– All Congressman who scored a 100% were Democrats
– Of the CBC Members ALL but 2 got A’s, Rep. Artur Davis, D-A... (continue reading)
The NAACP released its annual report card looking at how federal lawmakers voted on civil rights issues, such as hate crimes, D.C. voting rights, and expanding children’s health insurance. Glenn Thrush looks at some of the main points from the report:
– All Senate Republicans got an F but two (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine — they got C’s)
– All Senate Democrats and Independents got A’s, B’s or Incompletes
– Senator Arlen Specter, R-to-D-Penn., got a B
– All House Republicans but 6 got an F — 5 of those 6 got D’s — 1 got a C: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
– House Republicans scored the lowest of an sub group.
– All BUT 23 House Democrats got A’s, B’s or Incompletes
– All Congressman who scored a 100% were Democrats
– Of the CBC Members ALL but 2 got A’s, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., who is moderating his stances in prep for a gubernatorial run, got a B.
(show less)
'More than a book, it's a masterpiece': Gilad Atmon reviews Ramzy Baroud's 'My Father Was A Freedom Fighter'
4 Feb 2010
Ramzy Baroud's My Father Was A Freedom Fighter is more than a book, it is actually a masterpiece. In an overwhelmingly evoking personal style Baroud manages to bring to light the history of the Palestinian people and their battle with Israel and Zionism. Through the story of the Baroud's family the book outlines every event in the history of the conflict and reflects on the way it transformed the Palestinian reality.
The book is a heart breaking depressing story of the Baroud family's journey from paradise to hell. It is a flight that starts in Beit Daras, a small pictorial village in the south of Palestine. It ends in a Gaza refugee camp. It is a tragic journey of a rural self-sufficient population that is driven into total dispossession, humiliation and absolute poverty. And yet, the... (continue reading)
Ramzy Baroud's My Father Was A Freedom Fighter is more than a book, it is actually a masterpiece. In an overwhelmingly evoking personal style Baroud manages to bring to light the history of the Palestinian people and their battle with Israel and Zionism. Through the story of the Baroud's family the book outlines every event in the history of the conflict and reflects on the way it transformed the Palestinian reality.
The book is a heart breaking depressing story of the Baroud family's journey from paradise to hell. It is a flight that starts in Beit Daras, a small pictorial village in the south of Palestine. It ends in a Gaza refugee camp. It is a tragic journey of a rural self-sufficient population that is driven into total dispossession, humiliation and absolute poverty. And yet, there is a beam of light along the book, namely resistance: Ramzy's father Mohammed, was a freedom fighter. He didn't win a single war, not even a battle, yet, against all odds, in spite of his poverty and illness, he managed to educate his children and to plant hope in their young souls, to fuel Ramzy with fierceness, which along the years transformed the young man into a monumental inspirational writer and an icon of intellectual resistance.
(show less)
Israeli Hypocrisy in Haiti
4 Feb 2010
Israeli hypocrisy would be comical, if its consequences weren't so tragic. These days, Israeli media and Israel's powerful friends in the US media have been tomtomming about the noble help and rescue mission Israelis have undertaken in the remote, quake-hit island of Haiti.
Doubtless, the catastrophe that has hit Haiti is truly mindboggling and terrifying. The all-round devastation the island has suffered is beyond words. This is perhaps how our world would look like when the End comes. And one hates to make a political point out of this terrible, terrible human tragedy. But you can't help it when you come across the kind of hypocrisy that Israel displays in Haiti.
While the people it has locked away in their homes in Gaza and across the Palestinian territories live in most despicable... (continue reading)
Israeli hypocrisy would be comical, if its consequences weren't so tragic. These days, Israeli media and Israel's powerful friends in the US media have been tomtomming about the noble help and rescue mission Israelis have undertaken in the remote, quake-hit island of Haiti.
Doubtless, the catastrophe that has hit Haiti is truly mindboggling and terrifying. The all-round devastation the island has suffered is beyond words. This is perhaps how our world would look like when the End comes. And one hates to make a political point out of this terrible, terrible human tragedy. But you can't help it when you come across the kind of hypocrisy that Israel displays in Haiti.
While the people it has locked away in their homes in Gaza and across the Palestinian territories live in most despicable conditions and crave for basics such as food, water, electricity and just about everything else, the magnanimous Israel is sending aid and medical teams to help the luckless people of Haiti.
(show less)
The puppet has good news
4 Feb 2010
As'ad
""I have very good news for Afghans [and for the American occupiers, no doubt]," Karzai said. "The initial figures we have obtained show that our mineral deposits are worth a thousand billion dollars -- not a thousand million dollars but a thousand billion," he said." (thanks Ab)
A Democracy? Are you kidding me?
4 Feb 2010
As'ad
"That sparked a drive in the Israeli parliament to approve an investigation to determine whether the work of those nonprofits undermines Israel's legitimacy. The investigation could lead to the outlawing of some groups." (thanks Laleh)
We won't sit by ...
3 Feb 2010
We won’t sit by ...
while the bankers and militarists plunder this country
and send our loved ones to fight in a war for empire!
“Marines brace for new push
in southern Afghanistan”
U.S. general predicts 300-500 killed and
wounded each month in the coming months.
Even more Afghan casualties expected.
The outrage continues and gets worse.
When tens of thousands march in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles on March 20 – we are going to tie together the issue of endless war and skyrocketing unemployment and poverty.
If we don’t act, no one will.
Consider these scandalous facts:
Today, the Pentagon announced that tens of thousands of Marines are invading the southern provinces of Afghanistan in the next few days. General Barry McCaffrey predicts 300-500 killed and wounde... (continue reading)
We won’t sit by ...
while the bankers and militarists plunder this country
and send our loved ones to fight in a war for empire!
“Marines brace for new push
in southern Afghanistan”
U.S. general predicts 300-500 killed and
wounded each month in the coming months.
Even more Afghan casualties expected.
The outrage continues and gets worse.
When tens of thousands march in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles on March 20 – we are going to tie together the issue of endless war and skyrocketing unemployment and poverty.
If we don’t act, no one will.
Consider these scandalous facts:
Today, the Pentagon announced that tens of thousands of Marines are invading the southern provinces of Afghanistan in the next few days. General Barry McCaffrey predicts 300-500 killed and wounded each month in the next few months. The generals never bother talking about the loss of Afghan lives.
Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Gates submitted the largest military budget in U.S. history. The $708 billion includes nearly $500 million each day for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hours later, the bankrupt insurance giant AIG announced that it was doling out $100 million more in bonuses. AIG exists because it received $180 billion in taxpayers’ bailout. The federal government received an 80 percent share in AIG, which means Obama’s Treasury Secretary Geithner agreed to these bonuses. AIG will give millions more bonuses in March.
More than 25 million people are unemployed or seriously underemployed while the bankers, war contractors and other corporate crooks make record profits and record bonuses.
Personal bankruptcies rose 32 percent in the past year as families lost their jobs, medical benefits and their homes.
Take to streets. Tell every family and friend, co-worker and fellow student that it's time to get on the bus. It’s time for the people to speak out. It’s time to raise hell!
Please make an urgently needed donation!
This is a huge undertaking and we can't do it without the help of thousands of people like you who are opposing the expanding wars and occupations. Please make your contribution today.
Help build the March 20 March on Washington!
Become a transportation organizer
Volunteer
Get on the bus
Download literature
Endorse March 20
See the list of endorsers
(show less)
A giant among thinkers sheds light on how a region has plagued the region for centuries and decades
2 Feb 2010
pilias
In praise of an organization showing moral courage and consistency
4 Feb 2010
pilias
Israel’s latest response to the UN on its investigations into alleged violations of international law by its forces in Gaza a year ago is totally inadequate, Amnesty International said on Tuesday.
Crucial questions about the conduct of attacks in which hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands were made homeless are not credibly addressed in Israel’s update to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
“The investigations undertaken by Israel fail to meet international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness,” said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The Israeli military is investigating itself and in no way can this be adequate in obtaining the truth and ensuring justice for the victims.... (continue reading)
Israel’s latest response to the UN on its investigations into alleged violations of international law by its forces in Gaza a year ago is totally inadequate, Amnesty International said on Tuesday.
Crucial questions about the conduct of attacks in which hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands were made homeless are not credibly addressed in Israel’s update to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
“The investigations undertaken by Israel fail to meet international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness,” said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The Israeli military is investigating itself and in no way can this be adequate in obtaining the truth and ensuring justice for the victims.”
The 46-page update published on 29 January says that Israel has opened investigations into 150 incidents involving alleged violations of the laws of war by its forces during Operation “Cast Lead”, its 22-day military offensive in Gaza which ended on 18 January 2009.
Around 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the conflict that took place in Gaza and southern Israel.
The limited details released indicate that the Israeli authorities are failing to credibly address grave concerns about the army’s use of white phosphorus in densely-populated areas. Attacks on UN facilities and other civilian buildings and infrastructure, as well as direct attacks on Palestinian civilians, including ambulance crews have also not been adequately investigated by Israel.
Such incidents were reported by the UN, Amnesty International and other human rights and media organizations at the time of the conflict.
“There were numerous credible allegations during Operation ‘Cast Lead’ that violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces caused the deaths of hundreds of civilians, led others to be used as “human shields” and destroyed or damaged thousands of homes and other civilian infrastructure,” said Malcolm Smart.
“Yet more than one year on, according to the update, only one soldier has been convicted of an offence as a result of the Israeli investigations, and that was the theft of a credit card.”
All the Israeli investigations have been carried out by army commanders or by the military police criminal investigators and overseen by the Military Advocate General, severely compromising their independence and impartiality. The Military Advocate General’s office gave the Israeli forces legal advice on their choice of targets and tactics during Operation “Cast Lead”.
The military investigations also preclude the possibility of examining decisions taken by civilian officials, who are also alleged to be responsible for serious violations.
The update states that there is no basis for criminal investigations into serious incidents which Amnesty International maintains warrant effective and independent investigations.
These include Israeli strikes on UN facilities, civilian property and infrastructure, attacks on medical facilities and personnel, and incidents in which large numbers of civilians were killed.
Despite enduring concerns by Amnesty International over Israel’s extensive use of white phosphorus in Gaza, the update contends that there are “no grounds to take disciplinary or other measures for the IDF’s use of weapons containing phosphorous”.
During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces often launched artillery shells containing white phosphorus into residential areas, causing death and injuries to civilians.
Other Israeli attacks which resulted in civilian injuries and deaths are dismissed as “operational errors” although the update admits “some instances” in which Israeli soldiers and officers “violated the rules of engagement”.
The Israeli government has not indicated that it will ensure reparations, including compensation, to Palestinian civilians harmed as a result of the “operational errors” or admitted violations of their forces.
Research by Amnesty International into Operation “Cast Lead” showed elements of reckless conduct, disregard for civilian lives and property and a consistent failure on the part of Israeli forces to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects.
Israeli forces continued to employ tactics and weapons that resulted in growing numbers of civilian casualties for the entire duration of the military offensive. This was despite Israeli officials knowing from the first days of the military offensive that civilians were being killed and wounded in significant numbers.
Amnesty International drew a number of incidents to the attention of the Israeli authorities who have not responded to the organization’s repeated requests for clarification on specific incidents.
“In his forthcoming report on domestic investigations by Israel and the Palestinian side, Ban Ki-moon must include a substantive assessment of whether these investigations meet the established UN criteria and are ‘independent, credible and in conformity with international standards,” said Malcolm Smart.
“So far, it appears that neither of the parties are able or willing to conduct investigations meeting those standards. If this remains so, then the responsibility will fall on the UN to ensure accountability for the perpetrators and justice for the victims – and this must include the Security Council eventually considering a referral of the Gaza situation to the International Criminal Court and steps by the General Assembly to establish a fund for victims who were killed or injured or suffered loss or damage resulting from unlawful acts committed during the war.”
Background
The Israeli update was submitted days before the deadline set by the UN General Assembly in November 2009 when it endorsed the recommendations of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone Report) and called on both Israel and the Palestinian side, within three months, to undertake investigations into alleged war crimes and other violations by their forces.
These investigations, the General Assembly, said, should be “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the [UN] Fact Finding Mission, towards ensuring accountability and justice”. Hamas has yet to submit any public report to the UN.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/latest-israeli-response-gaza-investigations-totally-inadequate-20100202
(show less)
School for liars
1 Feb 2010
machetera
Posada Carriles Tells the El Paso Court “I lied because the CIA taught me how.” – Español
By José Pertierra
Translation: Machetera – Tlaxcala
In a motion presented yesterday before the federal court in El Paso, where he is being tried for perjury rather than murder, Luis Posada Carriles offers the curious defense that due to his many years of work with the CIA, his statements when interrogated by U.S. immigration officials shortly after illegally entering the United States in March of 2005 were “the result of confusion, mistake” and “faulty memory.”
Posada alleges that throughout his employment with the CIA, he used various false identities and passports to facilitate his undercover work against Cuba, Venezuela and other Latin American countries. So many lies have led him to be confu... (continue reading)
Posada Carriles Tells the El Paso Court “I lied because the CIA taught me how.” – Español
By José Pertierra
Translation: Machetera – Tlaxcala
In a motion presented yesterday before the federal court in El Paso, where he is being tried for perjury rather than murder, Luis Posada Carriles offers the curious defense that due to his many years of work with the CIA, his statements when interrogated by U.S. immigration officials shortly after illegally entering the United States in March of 2005 were “the result of confusion, mistake” and “faulty memory.”
Posada alleges that throughout his employment with the CIA, he used various false identities and passports to facilitate his undercover work against Cuba, Venezuela and other Latin American countries. So many lies have led him to be confused now, according to the 14 page legal argument his legal team has presented to Judge Kathleen Cardone.
The prosecutors wish to exclude all the evidence regarding Posada Carriles and the CIA from this trial, arguing that it is irrelevant as well as confidential. Washington knows that Posada has plenty to tell and it is trying to limit his testimony and the evidence to the greatest extent possible so as not to expose the crimes committed by Posada Carriles throughout his decades of work for the CIA.
There are declassified CIA cables in existence, for example, as well as confessions from the material authors of the crime, which establish that Posada was the intellectual author behind the explosion of a Cubana airlines civilian airplane on October 6, 1976, where 73 passengers were killed.
Venezuela presented a request for his extradition in June of 2005, and this remains pending, without the White House attending to it. Posada confessed to the New York Times in 1998 that he had orchestrated a terrorist campaign against hotels and restaurants in Havana which caused the cold-blooded death of Fabio Di Celmo in the Hotel Copacabana, as well as wounding many others.
In previous documents, Posada alleged that everything he did in Latin America, he did “in Washington’s name.” He wants the jury, which is to decide whether he is guilty of perjury, to hear all the evidence on March 1st and be made aware of his close relationship with the CIA. He also knows that the more he threatens to reveal about his relations with the CIA, the more those who conceal the skeletons in Washington’s closet begin to tremble.
In order to convince Judge Cardone that his relationship with the CIA is relevant to the trial in which he is being accused of being a liar, Posada Carriles’ defense is that it was the CIA who taught him how to lie. Hmmmm.
Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the author and translator are cited.
(show less)With the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa, boz suggests, the Honduran coup has ended.
Certainly, it is this inauguration that has led to the end of the direct domination of Honduran governance by Roberto Micheletti.
We have already noted that any expectation that this transition will reconcile polarized parties in Honduras, will end the quest by a variety of interested groups for constitutional reform, or erase from historical memory the events of the past months, is unrealistic.
But we agree that it is no longer the same situation, and thus, Honduras Coup 2009 has reached an end. But one that also marks a new beginning for us.
Like boz and Greg Weeks at Two Weeks Notice, we think that Honduras is entering a critical period when it would be well if the world continued to pay attention. An... (continue reading)
With the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa, boz suggests, the Honduran coup has ended.
Certainly, it is this inauguration that has led to the end of the direct domination of Honduran governance by Roberto Micheletti.
We have already noted that any expectation that this transition will reconcile polarized parties in Honduras, will end the quest by a variety of interested groups for constitutional reform, or erase from historical memory the events of the past months, is unrealistic.
But we agree that it is no longer the same situation, and thus, Honduras Coup 2009 has reached an end. But one that also marks a new beginning for us.
Like boz and Greg Weeks at Two Weeks Notice, we think that Honduras is entering a critical period when it would be well if the world continued to pay attention. And like the author of IKN, we are half-expecting the world to turn its collective back and ignore Honduras once more.
And that means that our mission remains: to address "the confusion encouraged by lack of basic knowledge about Honduras" and to continue to call attention to the writing of Honduran writers and scholars who are best positioned to place the struggle to come into broader context.
So we invite you to join us at our new blog, Honduras Culture and Politics. There we intend to continue to foreground the intersection of culture in all its forms with events that involve differentials of power.
We know that many readers of this blog will want to be kept up to date on what happens to the major players who dominated the last seven months, and we will cover developments there. We intend to keep track of stories we have been following-- the devastation of the economy, the distortion of the legal system, the recognition or lack thereof of human rights violations, and the politicization of cultural policy.
But we also hope that people who originally began paying attention to Honduras this last year solely due to a breakdown in constitutional order may have gained an interest in the country that will make it worth a few moments a day to see what we find interesting and worth presenting to you with context, analysis, and yes, opinion.
And if not: thank you for being part of this project. We will continue to support our friends and colleagues in Honduras in every way possible. We will continue to prize the new colleagues we have come to know throughout the world who are dedicated to progressive agendas and not disheartened by the struggle. This has been a transformative year for us and for many of our close colleagues and friends, and we appreciate those readers who were not willing to settle for the simplifications and misrepresentations of mainstream media.
(show less)
How Corporate Dollars Dominate the Black and Latino Conversation on Network Neutrality
3 Feb 2010
Bruce A. Dixon
Lecture On US Policy In Rwanda
3 Feb 2010
ColoredOpinions
Howard Zinn Tribute on Democracy Now! with Naomi Klein (5/5)
28 Jan 2010
Chomskyan
Howard Zinn Tribute on Democracy Now! with Naomi Klein (5/5)
Howard Zinn passed away suddenly at the age of 87 yesterday. He was an inspiration to many. His passing is a great tragedy for all peace loving people in the world. I had the good fortune to know him personally in his last few years, he was always encouraging and kind and helpful. I will miss him deeply. Charngchi Way "I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past fugitive moments of compassion, rather than the solid centuries of warfare. " --Howard Zinn
From:
Chomskyan
Views:
608
37
ratings
Time:
07:37
More in
News & Politics
Some thoughts of a newcomer to the 9/11 Truth movement
3 Feb 2010
VINEYARDSAKER:
It has been about 6 months now since I wrote my first post here about the 9/11 Truth movement. Following this initial article, I posted another one trying to encourage my readers to go and dig for the facts by themselves. Hoping to encourage independent research, I have now posted some 9/11 links on this blog, and an RSS feed from 911Truth.org. So far, the reactions to the new "truther" orientation of the blog have been rather restrained. My sense is that some of you knew about all this all along, and some are politely refraining for expressing their disapproval for what they probably see as a useless exercise in "conspiracy theories". Fair enough. Having myself spent eight years being a "9/11 agnostic" I certainly can relate to the incredulity of those who believe that while the ... (continue reading)
It has been about 6 months now since I wrote my first post here about the 9/11 Truth movement. Following this initial article, I posted another one trying to encourage my readers to go and dig for the facts by themselves. Hoping to encourage independent research, I have now posted some 9/11 links on this blog, and an RSS feed from 911Truth.org. So far, the reactions to the new "truther" orientation of the blog have been rather restrained. My sense is that some of you knew about all this all along, and some are politely refraining for expressing their disapproval for what they probably see as a useless exercise in "conspiracy theories". Fair enough. Having myself spent eight years being a "9/11 agnostic" I certainly can relate to the incredulity of those who believe that while the US government has plenty of ugly deeds on its conscience, the idea that 9/11 was some kind of "inside job" is really "too much".
Today, I would like to spell out here what exactly brought me around and made me into a committed "truther". The second thing I would like to do, is to give some "shortcuts" to those who are "on the fence" or confused about this entire topic.
Let's begin by the one thing which really opened my eyes. For this, I need to first identify the reasons for my previous 9/11 agnosticism.Basically - I believed that the US government could not have pulled off such a major operation as the covert installation of hundreds of tons of explosives inside WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 without this somehow becoming public. Likewise, I did not believe that having used at least three planes (2 in NY and the one which crashed in Shanksville) the putative "conspirators" would have chosen a rather convoluted "no plane" option to strike the Pentagon. Finally , I did believe very strongly that the USA "had it coming" for decades already and that an organization like al-Qaeda had clearly warned the USA that it would retaliate for the perceived occupation of Saudi Arabia by "infidels" and for the US support Israel. So I applied Occam's Razor and decided that there is no need to seek some really complex and convoluted solution when the simple and straightforward explanation made sense and seemed to be supported by all the facts.
This reasoning looked all fine and dandy to me until I came to a truly momentous realization: the "official theory" did not explain one major fact: there is absolutely no way that the planes could have brought down the three buildings in New York. Not only that, but the way the buildings fell simply cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse induced by fire.
Let me stress something crucial here: one need not have an explanation for HOW something happened if this something is observed and irrefutably established. Or, put in another way - the fact that somebody cannot explain a phenomenon is not a logical basis to dismiss or deny the phenomenon itself.
Let's take for example the following fact: the US government - through NIST - officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,25 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse - what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives.
The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed. At this point, we are faced with two basic and mutually exclusive options:
a) to deny the reality of indisputably established facts
b) to accept the compelling logic of Conan Dolye's Sherlock Holmes who said: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case - fires causing the observed collapse - VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Furthermore, we also know that WTC1 and WTC2 could not have collapsed as a result of the combined effects of the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires (anyone doubting that should watch 9/11 Blueprint for Truth - a presentation by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization which now counts over 1000 members).
Unlike the case of WTC7 for which we do have a de-facto government admission that only explosives could have cause the observed collapse, the case of WTC1 and WTC2 not yet elicited any kind of oblique admission by the US government. What Uncle Sam did was even more basic: its latest report officially analyzes the events leading up to the collapse, but does not look at anything which happened once the collapse was initiated. In other words - the government does not even have an explanation, theory or even hypothesis of what could have triggered the type of collapse which was actually observed by millions, if not billions, of people.
So let's now put it the simple and direct way: the ONLY explanation for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 is a controlled demolition by pre-planted explosives. This is not "one of the" theories - it is the ONLY theory (a theory is an explanation which makes it possible to explain that which is observed). I need to repeat this again: the US government has already admitted that WTC7 did collapse at free fall speed for 2,25 seconds and the US government has simply no explanation at all for the any of the building collapses which happened on 9/11.
Since all the WTC center building were highly secure (especially WTC7 which had all the following organizations as tenants: DoD, CIA, FBI, IRS, USSS and many others) is unthinkable that any entity not affiliated with the US government could have covertly introduced hundreds of tons of high-explosives in these buildings, and most definitely not "al-Qaeda". Again, we need to turn to the compelling logic of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case - a non-US government entity bringing in tons of explosives into WTC1/WTC2/WTC7 without being caught - VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
That's it.
That is all it takes to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an "inside job".
There is no need to explain all the seemingly unexplainable events which happened on that day, nor is there any need to explain HOW what we know happened was actually organized and executed. When a crime is committed, the forensic experts can establish that, say a murder was committed with a knife before the police investigators establish who did it, why or how. Put it differently, the fact that the police cannot establish motive, means and opportunity or charge a suspect beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that no murder happened.
This is why the all the numerous members of the 9/11 Truth movement all agree on one key demand: a new, independent and free, investigation into the events of 9/11 (conversely, those who oppose such an investigation are accessories to a clear case of obstruction of justice!).
What about the Pentagon?!
Here I need to caution any newcomers to the 9/11 Truth movement: the fact is that the 9/11 Truth movement is deeply divided on this issue. Many "truthers" are absolutely convinced that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, while many others are equally sure that only a plane could have caused the damage which was observed. The debate on this topic is so heated that both sides sometimes resort to exactly the same tactics as the other: dismissing eyewitnesses are "notorious unreliable" and accusing each other of being government plants, disinformation agents.
Let me candidly share my own view on this with you: I have seen many pictures of the damage on the Pentagon and I cannot imagine that an aircraft would simply vanish the way this one seemed to have vaporized itself. Not only that, but I think that a plane hitting a building at full speed would cause much more structural damage then what is actually seen on the photos. However, and this is a big however, I am not an expert on air crashes. Not only that, but the idea that whoever would have used 3 planes in NY would suddenly decide not to use one at the Pentagon makes no sense to me whatsoever. Nor do the "alternative" theories such as a cruise missile strike or a "bombing flyover" of the Pentagon by a mysteriously disappearing aircraft. On this issue I personally still remain a total 'agnostic' and I am quite willing to be convinced either way.
I am aware of the fact that some 9/11 truthers are constantly warning the rest of us that there is a real risk that the US government is deliberately muddying up the waters around the Pentagon attack to commit as many truthers as possible to a "no-plane" theory only to better ridicule us all by eventually releasing an indisputable video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon (and we know that they have many such unreleased videos). I think that this warning should be taken very seriously by all.
But let's come back here to Occam's Razor. Here is how Wikipedia sums it up: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question". In practical terms for the 9/11 Truth movement this translates into a fundamental principle: we do not need to refer to whatever happened at the Pentagon to prove that 9/11 was in inside job.
The official narrative (it does not even deserve to be called a "theory") so full of holes that even a fully empowered independent investigation would have a very hard time making sense of it all. There are literally dozens of issues which should be investigated: the damage to the Pentagon, of course, but also the real fate of United 93 (was it shot down?), the impossible phone calls made from the aircraft, the lack of debris in Shanksville, the close connections of the supposed hijackers to the CIA and FBI, the role of "high-fiving" Israelis and the so-called "Israeli students" spy network, the financing of the alleged hijackers by the Pakistani ISI (whose head was in DC on 9/11), etc. These are all valid topics worthy of careful analysis, but they are not needed to establish that 9/11 was in inside job.
The big news of 2009 was the publication by a group of prestigious scientists in the Open Chemical Physics Journal of a of a peer-reviewed article entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" which established that the dust from the WTC buildings which was collected in NY is full of not only of residue of explosives, but even from unexploded materials (see also Jim Hoffman's paper"Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust"). Not only had a "smoking gun" been found, a "loaded gun" had been found too. This was, of course, terrific news for the 9/11 Truth movement, a monumental achievement for the scientists involved in the research and publication of this seminal paper. But establishing that explosives have now been found is not needed to make the case that 9/11 was in inside job.
Why is this so important? Because any discussion about HOW 9/11 was done can turn into a refutation of WHAT was done that day. For example, the explosives expert Ron Craig has regularly attacked Richard Cage with the following fallacy: since he - Ron Craig - would not have been able to bring down the WTC buildings with regular explosives without a number of phenomena which were not observed on 9/11 and since he - Ron Craig - knows of no other explosives which could have brought these buildings down the way they were seen to collapse, it follow therefore that explosives could not have been used and the cause of the collapse itself and all the phenomena seen and heard that day could only have been a gravity induced collapse. Ron Craig is basically saying this: "since I cannot explain it - it did not happen".
So here is what is so crucial: the 9/11 Truth movement should never accept to be placed in the position of having to explain what kind of explosives were used, how they were placed, how they were detonated, how they were brought into the buildings, or how they were manufactured. Our position should be crystal clear: we know that the buildings were brought down with explosives, we think that we have some solid evidence about at least some of explosives which were used, we even have a very good idea of how they might have been brought in, but none of that is central to our thesis: that 9/11 was in inside job. What the 9/11 Truth movement needs to reply to the Ron Craigs out there is: we have proven that the buildings were brought down with explosives and since you claim to be an explosives expert we don't you find out how exactly this was done instead of denying the facts?!
The main point is this: the way those who are still 9/11 "agnostics" must focus their internal debate about what happened on 9/11 is exactly the same as those who have joined the ranks of the "truthers" must focus the debate when talking to sceptics: First, only stick to those few but crucial facts which are sufficient to prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives as demonstrating this is enough to prove the fundamental thesis of the entire 9/11 Truth movement that 9/11 was an 'inside job". Second - refer all other outstanding issues to a future independent 9/11 investigation. This way, we can transform each challenging question thrown at us into yet another reason for a new investigation.
This pretty much sums up the conclusions to which I have come. I am open to other opinions and to criticisms, and I am not in any way claiming that what I wrote above is THE truth about 9/11. It is simply an outline of where I am at this moment in time. My goal in posting all this is to "compare notes" with others in a similar situation and to encourage the doubting agnostics to take a second, hard, look at the facts. Lastly, my hope is that some newcomers (such as myself) might steer clear of some of the logical traps and pitfalls which are placed ahead of them by the proponents of the official narrative.
The Saker
(show less)
Stand with the people of Haiti!
13 Jan 2010
Stand with the people of
Haiti!
What the U.S. government isn't telling
you
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
All of us are joining in the
outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending
humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.
At such a
moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social
context. Without this context, it is... (continue reading)
Stand with the people of
Haiti!
What the U.S. government isn't telling
you
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
All of us are joining in the
outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending
humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.
At such a
moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social
context. Without this context, it is impossible to understand both the monumental
problems facing Haiti and, most importantly, the solutions that can allow Haiti to
survive and thrive. Hillary Clinton said today, "It is biblical, the tragedy
that continues to daunt Haiti and the Haitian people." This hypocritical
statement that blames Haiti's suffering exclusively on an "act of
God" masks the role of U.S. and French imperialism in the
region.
In this statement, we have included some background
information about Haiti that helps establish the real
context:
Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive stated today that
as many as 100,000 Haitians may be dead. International media is reporting bodies being
piled along streets surrounded by the rubble from thousands of collapsed buildings.
Estimates of the economic damage are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Haiti’s
large shantytown population was particularly hard hit by the tragedy.
As CNN, ABC and every other major corporate media outlet will be
quick to point out, Haiti is the poorest country in the entire Western hemisphere. But
not a single word is uttered as to why Haiti is poor. Poverty, unlike earthquakes, is no
natural disaster.
The answer lies in more than two centuries of U.S.
hostility to the island nation, whose hard-won independence from the French was only the
beginning of its struggle for liberation.
In 1804, what had begun as
a slave uprising more than a decade earlier culminated in freedom from the grips of
French colonialism, making Haiti the first Latin American colony to win its independence
and the world's first Black republic. Prior to the victory of the Haitian
people, George Washington and then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson had supported
France out of fear that Haiti would inspire uprisings among the U.S. slave population.
The U.S. slave-owning aristocracy was horrified at Haiti’s newly earned freedom.
U.S. interference became an integral part of Haitian history,
culminating in a direct military occupation from 1915 to 1934. Through economic and
military intervention, Haiti was subjugated as U.S. capital developed a railroad and
acquired plantations. In a gesture of colonial arrogance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was
the assistant secretary of the Navy at the time, drafted a constitution for Haiti which,
among other things, allowed foreigners to own land. U.S. officials would later find an
accommodation with the dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and then his son
Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, as Haiti suffered under their brutal repressive
policies.
In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. policy toward Haiti sought
the reorganization of the Haitian economy to better serve the interests of foreign
capital. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was instrumental in
shifting Haitian agriculture away from grain production, paving the way for dependence
on food imports. Ruined Haitian farmers flocked to the cities in search of a livelihood,
resulting in the swelling of the precarious shantytowns found in Port-au-Prince and
other urban centers.
Who has benefited from these policies? U.S.
food producers profited from increased exports to Haitian markets. Foreign corporations
that had set up shop in Haitian cities benefitted from the super-exploitation of cheap
labor flowing from the countryside. But for the people of Haiti, there was only greater
misery and destitution.
Washington orchestrated the overthrow of the
democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide—not once, but twice, in
1991 and 2004. Haiti has been under a U.S.-backed U.N. occupation for nearly six years.
Aristide did not earn the animosity of U.S. leaders for his moderate reforms; he earned
it when he garnered support among Haiti's poor, which crystallized into a mass
popular movement. Two hundred years on, U.S. officials are still horrified by the
prospect of a truly independent Haiti.
The unstable, makeshift
dwellings imposed upon Haitians by Washington’s neoliberal policies have now, for many,
been turned into graves. Those same policies are to blame for the lack of hospitals,
ambulances, fire trucks, rescue equipment, food and medicine. The blow dealt by such a
natural disaster to an economy made so fragile from decades of plundering will greatly
magnify the suffering of the Haitian people.
Natural disasters are
inevitable, but resource allocation and planning can play a decisive role in mitigating
their impact and dealing with the aftermath. Haiti and neighboring Cuba, who are no
strangers to violent tropical storms, were both hit hard in 2008 by a series of
hurricanes—which, unlike earthquakes, are predictable. While more than 800 lives were
lost in Haiti, less than 10 people died in Cuba. Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated
evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the
Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized
according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the
Cuban people.
In a televised speech earlier today, President Obama
has announced that USAID and the Departments of State and Defense will be working to
support the rescue and relief efforts in Haiti in the coming days. Ironically, these are
the same government entities responsible for the implementation of the economic and
military policies that reduced Haiti to ruins even before the earthquake
hit.
The ANSWER Coalition has called for a mass
national march and rally in Washington, D.C., on March 20 to oppose the wars and
occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. We will also demand an end the foreign
occupation of Haiti and reparations to Haiti for the vast wealth that has been looted
from the country by foreign imperialist
countries.
Help build the March 20
March on Washington!
Endorse March
20
Organize
Transportation
Volunteer
Download
literature
Find out about transportation from around the
country
(show less)
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They
Shock Again
14 Jan 2010
mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!)
Journalist and author Naomi
Klein spoke in New York last night and addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be
absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no
circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular
corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations. This is not conspiracy theory.
They have done it again and again.” [includes rush transcript]
US Policy in Haiti Over Decades "Lays the Foundation for Why Impact of
Natural Disaster Is So Severe"
14 Jan 2010
mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!)
We discuss the situation in
Haiti following Tuesday’s massive earthquake, as well as the history of Haiti, with two
guests who have spent a lot of time there: Bill Quigley, the legal director at the
Center for Constitutional Rights, and Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for
Justice & Democracy in Haiti. [includes rush transcript]
AfterDowningStreet.org
After Downing Street is a nonpartisan coalition working to expose the lies that create and sustain wars and occupations and to hold accountable those responsible. We have speakers available. If you register on this site, you will have the option to receive occasional Email updates from us. Please read our policy regarding posting comments on this site. Would you like to see ADS news every time you go to Google.com? Use this widget or this widget to put ADS news on any website. We're on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, and have an RSS feed.
Prof. Francis Boyle: Israel Is Committing Genocide
4 Feb 2010
Chip
Prof. Francis Boyle: Israel Is Committing Genocide
By Michele Steinberg | Scoop
According to Boyle, the question of the Gaza opening must be immediately taken up by the Obama Administration. ``We need all the openings to Gaza, the crossings from Egypt and Israel, opened immediately. {Massive} provision of humanitarian assistance, medical supplies to Gaza--exactly what Obama's doing today, with respect to Haiti--I support that! But why aren't they doing it to Gaza? You have 1.5 million people over there.
``Unless this step is undertaken, certainly on Gaza, relieving the people of Gaza with massive humanitarian relief supplies, I really think we're going to see a dog-and-pony show,'' being run by the Obama White House, and the sending of Sen. George Mitchell to the region.
So far, what ... (continue reading)
Prof. Francis Boyle: Israel Is Committing Genocide
By Michele Steinberg | Scoop
According to Boyle, the question of the Gaza opening must be immediately taken up by the Obama Administration. ``We need all the openings to Gaza, the crossings from Egypt and Israel, opened immediately. {Massive} provision of humanitarian assistance, medical supplies to Gaza--exactly what Obama's doing today, with respect to Haiti--I support that! But why aren't they doing it to Gaza? You have 1.5 million people over there.
``Unless this step is undertaken, certainly on Gaza, relieving the people of Gaza with massive humanitarian relief supplies, I really think we're going to see a dog-and-pony show,'' being run by the Obama White House, and the sending of Sen. George Mitchell to the region.
So far, what the U.S. has done is, ``once again, provid[ed] diplomatic cover for Israel to stall and delay its objectives, and meanwhile, they continue to steal Palestinian lands, destroy their orchards, destroy their olive fields, and build more settlements. This has been going on, right from the beginning of the Middle East peace negotiations in 1991, when I was legal advisor to the Palestinians and the Syrians at that time.''
"What we're seeing in Gaza now, is pretty much slow-motion genocide against the 1.5 million Palestinians who live in Gaza.... If you read the 1948 Genocide Convention, it clearly says that one instance of genocide is the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a people in whole or in part,'' stated Francis A. Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois in Champaign. ``And that's exactly what has been done to Gaza, since the imposition of the blockade by Israel; then the massacre of 1,400 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were civilians, in Operation Cast Lead. And that also raises the element in the Genocide Convention, of murder, torture, and things of that nature."
Boyle spoke to {EIR} on Jan. 15, 2010, giving his assessment of Gaza, one year after the Israeli attacks. He stressed that he was speaking only for himself. Read more.
( click title for more )
(show less)
White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies
4 Feb 2010
Chip
White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies
SCOTUS Watchers Believe Justices Stevens and Ginsburg Could Decide to Step Aside
By Ariane de Vogue | ABC News
Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring.
Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court.
Last week, when Obama took the nearly unprecedented step of criticizing the court's opinion in a major campaign finance case during his State of the Union speech, some believed he was sh... (continue reading)
White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies
SCOTUS Watchers Believe Justices Stevens and Ginsburg Could Decide to Step Aside
By Ariane de Vogue | ABC News
Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring.
Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court.
Last week, when Obama took the nearly unprecedented step of criticizing the court's opinion in a major campaign finance case during his State of the Union speech, some believed he was showcasing for the American people that presidential elections, and Supreme Court nominations count. Read more.
( click title for more )
(show less)
Brown Bailout: Will Lobbying Pay Off? Congress Preps to Intervene Between Corporations
4 Feb 2010
Chip
( click title for more )
CIA Video of Missionary Plane Shootdown - Mother & Child Killed
4 Feb 2010
Chip
Tomgram: Robert Lipsyte, The Commercials Are the Super Bowl
4 Feb 2010
Chip
Tomgram: Robert Lipsyte, The Commercials Are the Super Bowl | TomDispatch.com
Tom of TomDispatch wrote: As Robert Lipsyte, former New York Times sports columnist and host of PBS's LIFE (Part 2), makes clear, the Super Bowl is our highest holy day, not for the celebration of the game itself but for the ads. This year, college quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother made non-stop news for the 30-second Super Bowl advocacy commercial they did for Focus on the Family, a Christian group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. It's been the talk of the Internet and, writes Lipsyte, though no one knows quite what the ad will contain, "whatever happens, the controversy put the game’s spotlight back where it belongs -- on the advertising."
Lipsyte makes his own declaration early: "I am a... (continue reading)
Tomgram: Robert Lipsyte, The Commercials Are the Super Bowl | TomDispatch.com
Tom of TomDispatch wrote: As Robert Lipsyte, former New York Times sports columnist and host of PBS's LIFE (Part 2), makes clear, the Super Bowl is our highest holy day, not for the celebration of the game itself but for the ads. This year, college quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother made non-stop news for the 30-second Super Bowl advocacy commercial they did for Focus on the Family, a Christian group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. It's been the talk of the Internet and, writes Lipsyte, though no one knows quite what the ad will contain, "whatever happens, the controversy put the game’s spotlight back where it belongs -- on the advertising."
Lipsyte makes his own declaration early: "I am a Super Bowl ad fan. I'd rather go to the bathroom during a third-down play than miss a commercial. You’ll want to know my all-time favorites." And then he uses those favorites to take us on a wild ride through the weirdnesses that our Mad Men and Women caught in past superbowls, and so the zeitgeist they helped to define, especially leading up to and during the eight losing seasons of the Bush administration. He explores their eerie prescience, as in the 1999 Super Bowl ad "Kenyan Runner": "a black African runner in a singlet, loping barefoot across an arid plain. White men in a Humvee are hunting him down as if he were wild game. They drug him and, after he collapses, jam running shoes on his feet. When he wakes up, he lurches around screaming, trying to kick off the shoes... Colonialism anyone? Racism? Forcing our values on developing countries? Mission accomplished."
Or how about on the domestic front, the ad "Money Out the Whazoo": "imagine a middle-aged man wheeled into an emergency room. Doctors and nurses turn him over and someone says, 'He has money coming out the whazoo.' A hospital administrator officiously asks his distraught wife if they have insurance. A doctor calls out, 'Money out the whazoo!' The administrator says, 'Take him to a private room.' The tag line was: 'You should be so lucky.' This was 2000. The sponsor was E*Trade, the online stock gambling outfit. How did they know that the economy was going to tank just when the health-care system would go up for grabs? And catch a wonderful TomDispatch audio interview with Lipsyte.
30-Second Warnings
Chips, Beer, Voyeuristic Horndogs, Hot Babes, Flatulent Slackers, and God’s Quarterback Star in the Big Game
By Robert Lipsyte
In 1987, an evangelical Christian missionary in the Philippines, Pam Tebow, sick and near term, ignored doctors’ advice to abort her fifth child. How could they know he would grow up to win a Heisman Trophy and lead the University of Florida to two national titles?
Twenty-three years later, before he even turned pro, Tim Tebow made himself the player to beat in Sunday’s Super Bowl XLIV by starring in a 30-second commercial for Focus on the Family, a Christian group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. That the ad would run represented a reversal of CBS’s long-time policy against advocacy ads. At this late date, it is still not certain if Tim’s creation myth will be included in the commercial, or even if the ad will be aired at all.
Whatever happens, the controversy put the game’s spotlight back where it belongs -- on the advertising.
Super Bowl Sunday is America’s holiest day, our all-inclusive campfire, and with 100 million viewers, almost half of them women, about as close as we get, without a presidential election, to taking the national pulse. The ads tell us who we are and where we are going. Read more.
( click title for more )
(show less)
Sanders with MSNBC's Ed Schultz: "We're Being Lectured To By the Guys Who Caused This Crisis"
4 Feb 2010
Chip
( click title for more )
Sanders Introduces Major Solar Energy Initiative
4 Feb 2010
Chip
Sanders Introduces Major Solar Energy Initiative | Press Release
WASHINGTON, February 4 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate’s green jobs subcommittee, today introduced legislation with nine cosponsors to encourage the installation of 10 million solar systems on the rooftops of homes and businesses over the next decade.
“At a time when we spend $350 billion importing oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries every year, the United States must move away from foreign oil to energy independence,” Sanders said. “A dramatic expansion of solar power is a clean and economical way to help break our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, improve our geopolitical position, and create good-paying green jobs.”
At a Senate committee he... (continue reading)
Sanders Introduces Major Solar Energy Initiative | Press Release
WASHINGTON, February 4 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate’s green jobs subcommittee, today introduced legislation with nine cosponsors to encourage the installation of 10 million solar systems on the rooftops of homes and businesses over the next decade.
“At a time when we spend $350 billion importing oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries every year, the United States must move away from foreign oil to energy independence,” Sanders said. “A dramatic expansion of solar power is a clean and economical way to help break our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, improve our geopolitical position, and create good-paying green jobs.”
At a Senate committee hearing today, Sanders questioned Energy Secretary Steven Chu about President Obama’s budget for next year. The White House requested $2.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The requested 5 percent boost overall included a 22 percent increase for solar power.
The potential for solar power also was the subject of testimony last week before Sanders’ green jobs subcommittee by Jeff Wolfe, chief executive officer of groSolar in White River Junction, Vt. Wolfe said Sanders’ bill “would help homeowners and small businesses stabilize their energy costs.”
Sanders’ bill would authorize rebates which, along with other incentives, would cover up to half the cost of the 10 million solar power systems and 200,000 water heating systems. Non-profit groups and state and local governments also would be eligible. The legislation would ensure that participating homeowners and businesses also receive information on incentives to improve energy efficiency.
Sanders said a recent report shows that solar power could help make every state more energy independent if solar units were installed on available rooftop space, because every state can meet 10 percent or more of its electricity needs just through rooftop solar. Moreover, because solar energy creates more jobs per megawatt than other energy sources. Sanders’ bill could create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next ten years in the solar industry.
The legislation’s cosponsors include Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).
Sanders’ measure is patterned after successful state programs promoting solar energy in New Jersey and California, where prices have fallen as the number of solar units increased.
To read a copy of the bill, click here.
( click title for more )
(show less)
Jeff Sessions Warns That Following The Rule Of Law Will Result In 'Dire Consequences'
4 Feb 2010
Chip
Jeff Sessions Warns That Following The Rule Of Law Will Result In 'Dire Consequences'
By Jason Linkins | Huffington Post
Therein, we get the following quote from Angry Leprechaun Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.):
"Instead of trying to excuse the inexcusable, the administration should take responsibility for the dire consequences of its decision to swiftly grant civilian rights to this foreign terrorist."
...A dire consequence of the right's insistence on politicizing the Christmas Crotchfire attack is that they've transformed an al Qaeda failure into an al Qaeda victory. A dire consequence of insisting that Abdulmutallab isn't entitled to Constitutional rights is that more people might start believing that this is true, when it isn't. And finally, a dire consequence of treating Jeff S... (continue reading)
Jeff Sessions Warns That Following The Rule Of Law Will Result In 'Dire Consequences'
By Jason Linkins | Huffington Post
Therein, we get the following quote from Angry Leprechaun Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.):
"Instead of trying to excuse the inexcusable, the administration should take responsibility for the dire consequences of its decision to swiftly grant civilian rights to this foreign terrorist."
...A dire consequence of the right's insistence on politicizing the Christmas Crotchfire attack is that they've transformed an al Qaeda failure into an al Qaeda victory. A dire consequence of insisting that Abdulmutallab isn't entitled to Constitutional rights is that more people might start believing that this is true, when it isn't. And finally, a dire consequence of treating Jeff Sessions opinions on the matter as credible is that there may be yet more newspaper articles titled "Criticism of Obama on national security likely to remain big issue," when the facts in evidence very clearly state that it should not be an issue at all. Read more.
( click title for more )
(show less)
"Every Citizen Is A Media Outlet"
4 Feb 2010
Chip
"Every citizen is a media outlet" | The Economist
Excerpt: ...In the Green Movement, however, the dynamics of organisation are yet more diffuse, hard to pin down and, thus, harder for the regime to break. Mr Mousavi has been criticised by many, most of them outside Iran, for excessive caution in his rhetoric. But it appears there was no need for him to be any more radical than he has been. Why should he risk arrest by trying to radicalise the masses with fiery rhetoric? Through Facebook, sms and Twitter, his movement has radicalised itself. Read more.
( click title for more )
American Military Deaths in Pakistan
4 Feb 2010
Chip
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Noel Shachtman from Wired's Danger Room: 3 G.I.s Killed in Pakistan. Now Can We Start Treating This Like a Real War? (Updated Once More)
( click title for more )
Goldstone co-author: The court of world opinion is determined to see the report prevail
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
Hanan Chehata of Middle East Monitor goes to Dublin to interview Desmond Travers, the retired Irish colonel who was one of the authors of the Goldstone Report. The money:
The best statement I can make about that is the one that Richard Goldstone made when an American spokesperson for the State Department said it was a very biased, flawed report and he said to them by way of response, “Show us where the bias is and where the flaw is and we’ll do our best to correct it.” That invitation stands. I have subsequently issued the same invitation in a Dutch newspaper and elsewhere; so far, no substantive critique of the report has been received.
Funnily enough, I did get a reply back from a most virulently, anti-Goldstone, pro-Israeli, right-wing, blogspot saying more or less, “Travers doesn’t... (continue reading)
Hanan Chehata of Middle East Monitor goes to Dublin to interview Desmond Travers, the retired Irish colonel who was one of the authors of the Goldstone Report. The money:
The best statement I can make about that is the one that Richard Goldstone made when an American spokesperson for the State Department said it was a very biased, flawed report and he said to them by way of response, “Show us where the bias is and where the flaw is and we’ll do our best to correct it.” That invitation stands. I have subsequently issued the same invitation in a Dutch newspaper and elsewhere; so far, no substantive critique of the report has been received.
Funnily enough, I did get a reply back from a most virulently, anti-Goldstone, pro-Israeli, right-wing, blogspot saying more or less, “Travers doesn’t realise that various academics, politicians and military officers have written magnificent tracts disproving the Goldstone Report…”, but they haven’t. They’ve just written magnificent whinges.
The attacks on two of my colleagues have been really horrific and they have included death threats. They have also targeted family members.
…the critiques, if you go through them, would fill several times the volume of material compared to the report and none of them are valid. The tsunami of criticisms that have been slapped against the report funnily enough already started long before the report was published. Such early criticisms suggest, perhaps, an awareness of the guilt of the perpetrators; a question of getting one’s retaliation in first, in a manner of speaking. They are signalling their guilt….
The very first public statement made by the American government, the State Department, while it criticised in its opening paragraph the Report for being flawed, on the third or fourth paragraph down they said nevertheless Israel should investigate. Now that is the strongest statement America has ever made in its history about the state of Israel. It’s the strongest criticism, and in that, both myself and my colleague Professor Richard Norton of Boston University, who was a peacekeeper with me, we’ve both said, the abuse they heaped on the report in the opening paragraph allowed them to make this statement three paragraphs down. So, in reality, it was an amazingly important letter.
…The court of world opinion has decided this Report’s merits. Politicians and diplomats should take heed of that fact, no matter what they believe their governments want them to do. Israel has been frightened severely by this. It wandered around Europe begging Europe not to impose sanctions on it. It’s jet-setting around the place. They are now on notice as far as I am concerned, that they want to think twice before they try on another similar act again. Did you hear *Israeli Prime Minister+ Netanyahu make this statement, “Israel has three problems, three enemies, Iran, Palestine and Goldstone”?/
…Efforts to muddle the report and to block it have failed. The court of world opinion seems determined to see the report prevail and therefore we must be hopeful that this process continues to achieve one or other of the recommendations in the report’s findings with respect to the ending of impunity…
Gaza has now come into the history books in the same way as Guernica, Dresden, Stalingrad. Gaza is a gulag, the only gulag in the Western hemisphere; maintained by democracies; closed-off from food, water, air.
Related posts:Wide-eyed college kids flood Ramallah, determined to change the world in a monthmy wife’s opinion of Obama’s considerations in choosing the next Supreme Court JusticeFive years after the International Court of Justice decision against the Wall, Palestinians are still waiting for the world to act
(show less)
Haaretz: Bronner’s son’s service has fostered ‘mini blog storm’
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
I’m on record saying that Ethan Bronner’s son serving in the IDF is going to affect his assignment at The New York Times. The Times doesn’t like its reporters making news, and Bronner’s making it. From Anshel Pfeffer at Haaretz, who advises Bronner how to spin the deal:
I’ve been thinking about this a great deal since discovering the mini blog storm brewing in recent days regarding the New York Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner. Apparently his son has joined the Israel Defense Forces and some pro-Palestinian bloggers believe this is [etc]…
While I of course respect Bronner’s desire to shield his family from undue scrutiny, I wish his or his paper’s response could have been something more along these lines: "Bronner Junior has indeed recently joined the IDF and we believe that... (continue reading)
I’m on record saying that Ethan Bronner’s son serving in the IDF is going to affect his assignment at The New York Times. The Times doesn’t like its reporters making news, and Bronner’s making it. From Anshel Pfeffer at Haaretz, who advises Bronner how to spin the deal:
I’ve been thinking about this a great deal since discovering the mini blog storm brewing in recent days regarding the New York Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner. Apparently his son has joined the Israel Defense Forces and some pro-Palestinian bloggers believe this is [etc]…
While I of course respect Bronner’s desire to shield his family from undue scrutiny, I wish his or his paper’s response could have been something more along these lines: "Bronner Junior has indeed recently joined the IDF and we believe that Bronner Senior can only benefit as a journalist from his son’s experience."
For better or worse, the IDF is a major player in this region. I’d certainly hope that Private Bronner’s stories at the Shabbat dinner table (if such a thing exists in Chez Bronner) would enrich his father’s reports, as I am sure they will a few months down the road if the by-then corporal gets sent with his unit to the West Bank.
How much better to learn of the injustices of the occupation up front, rather than have a source on the frontline.
Related posts:I passed along a false report re Ethan BronnerBronner: ‘My son joined the IDF five weeks ago’Mearsheimer on the Times’ Ethan Bronner
(show less)
Bronner to speak in S’ta Barbara on Monday
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
I’m doing my little part to promote the speaking tour…Here’s the info, from the Santa Barbara Independent: "This Monday, February 8, [NYTimes Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan] Bronner will appear at UCSB’s Campbell Hall to deliver a free public lecture:Covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in 2010: A Report from the Ground." Thanks to Seham.
Related posts:A question for BronnerI passed along a false report re Ethan BronnerRage at Bronner, and at the Times
It’s a happy day around these parts
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
We’ve had joyous news at this site, I’ve done all I could to contain myself. A day or so ago, Adam Horowitz and his partner became the parents of twins. Everyone’s healthy, I gather the parents are deliriously happy, and deliriously tired. Adam’s going to be busy for the next few weeks, but is sure to check in now and then. (Oh and one other thing I’ve observed, friends– email is his last priority right now, so I for one am not seeking updates.)
Related posts:This Just In: Niall Ferguson Uses ‘All Happy Families Are Alike’ Lead In New Republic‘Because Your Face Is Not Beautiful’ (Routine Humiliation at a West Bank Checkpoint)don’t worry, be happy, slag Muslims
Rabbis for Human Rights: witchhunt endangers the state of Israel
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
A few times now I’ve referred to the democracy crisis that Israel is experiencing over the official threats to the New Israel Fund for its support of dissident groups inside Israel. Below is a letter from Arik Ascherman, a leading rabbi with Rabbis for Human Rights, who is extremely concerned about the situation. Even if you don’t share our criticism of Gaza, he says, you must be alarmed by a McCarthyite campaign that will "endanger the state and abandon our children." (I must say that there has been a crisis of Israeli democracy long before these attacks on Jewish Israelis, but this is a good fight.) Ascherman:
Dear Friends and Supporters,
In light of the smear campaign being run by a group called "Im Tirtzu," it should be clear to all that we are engaged in a struggle for Israeli dem... (continue reading)
A few times now I’ve referred to the democracy crisis that Israel is experiencing over the official threats to the New Israel Fund for its support of dissident groups inside Israel. Below is a letter from Arik Ascherman, a leading rabbi with Rabbis for Human Rights, who is extremely concerned about the situation. Even if you don’t share our criticism of Gaza, he says, you must be alarmed by a McCarthyite campaign that will "endanger the state and abandon our children." (I must say that there has been a crisis of Israeli democracy long before these attacks on Jewish Israelis, but this is a good fight.) Ascherman:
Dear Friends and Supporters,
In light of the smear campaign being run by a group called "Im Tirtzu," it should be clear to all that we are engaged in a struggle for Israeli democracy. That is not an exaggeration. This is also a not to be missed opportunity, because many people are waking up and realizing the just how dangerous the situation has become. Please find below a description of the situation, a list of things that every one of us must do coming out of an emergency meeting with the New Israel Fund and fellow Israeli human rights organizations on Monday, and helpful links. Many of the links in the body of this message are to Hebrew websites, but there are English language links below.
To paraphrase Mattathias the Macabee, "Everyone who is for democracy with us."
Many of you know that the de-legitimization campaign being waged against Israeli human rights organizations was taken to another level on Friday when Ben Caspit attacked the New Israel Fund (NIF) and many Israel NGO’s (Including RHR) in the newspaper Ma’ariv and on the NRG news website. The attack was based on the vicious and inciteful report issued by the extreme right wing organization, "Im Tirtzu," claiming that most of the information in the Goldstone Report incriminating Israel was supplied by Israeli NGO’s supported by the NIF. A second Ma’ariv/NRG journalist, Ben Dror Yemini, added an additional article in Maariv on Monday. On Wednesday the chair of the Knesset Constitutional Committee MK David Rotem has threatened to set up a sub committee to investigate funding from abroad, and, during a special Knesset debate on the Im Tirtzu report, MK Otniel Schneller called for a Parliamentary Committee to look into what Israeli NGO’s passed on to the Goldstone Committee. On Channel B radio this morning (Thursday) MK Yisrael Hasson went so far as to say that he intends to check whether Israeli HR organizations are receiving money from enemies, and that if he were Hamas he would be setting up three organizations to do what Israeli HR organizations do.
The smear campaign has included expensive banners on the YNET and NRG websites (the banners are still on the NRG website), a full page ad in the Jerusalem Post, and who knows where and what else. The various statements in the ads, banners and on the Im Tirtzu website include an ugly caricature of former MK Naomi Chazan (currently NIF chairperson) with a large demonic horn with "NIF" written on it is growing out of her forehead (In Hebrew, "keren" is both "fund" and "horn."). This caricature sends shivers up my spine as I recall the pictures of Yitzhak Rabin z"l dressed in an S.S. uniform at that infamous demonstration in Zion Square in Jerusalem not so long before he was murdered. A sampling of the texts accompanying the caricature include:
"Now it is a fact: Naomi’s fund endangers the State." "We love Naomi Chazan and hate the IDF" (Signs at an Im Tirzu demonstration outside her house dressed as Hamasniks with keffiyas.) "Fact: the NIF headed by Naomi Chazan is behind the Goldstone reports defamation of the IDF"
"In the past three years Naomi Chazan’s fund granted 8 million dollars to 16 anti-Zionist organizations that gave the ammunition to charge Israel with war crimes."
"Naomi Goldstone Chazan"
True, it is difficult to know where to draw the line between harsh but legitimate criticism, and incitement. However, Im Tirtzu has clearly crossed red lines, lied and mislead. I find it very disturbing that YNET sold banner space to Im Tirtzu, but in December refused to run a "B’Tselem ad campaign on Gaza , saying that they did not want to defend the public.
I have only quickly read through the section on RHR in the Im Tirtzu report, but the "proof" that we are anti-Zionist and are responsible for the Goldstone report was the fact that the report mentions items the letter we send to the Israeli attorney general calling for an independent and transparent Israeli investigation, the petition we published in HaAretz and on the mini-website we set up for our Gaza campaign and our High Court appeals and other activities on behalf of Palestinian human rights. .
Nothing in our activities, those of the NIF, or in the activities of the other targeted organizations justifies Im Tirtzu’s vicious and dangerous campaign. The Im Tirtzu campaign crosses so many red lines that even the controversial Christian Zionist Reverend Hagee is repudiating it. As I write, there are initial reports that Reverent Hagee has now announced that he will stop funding Im Tirtzu.
I could be content to simply issue a call to defend democracy and claim Lashon HaRa (slander). We could minimize our connection to Goldstone and disassociate ourselves from our the NGO’s who contributed information to the committee. However, that would be wrong. The struggle of RHR and our partners is just and essential for the future of Israel . Our struggle is a just and Zionist struggle. It is the struggle over "Who are we" and who we want to be. It is a painful struggle, and we pray that an independent investigation will prove that all of our suspicions were wrong. And yes, our struggle is faithful to what we and our partners have said consistently from the outset, "Citizens must not be targets – not Israelis in Sderot and not Palestinians in Gaza ." We care about every human being because, by virtue of being human, we are all created in God’s Image. I am proud of all that we and our partners have done and are doing here in Israel to achieve an independent and transparent Israeli investigation. I only wish that we were doing more.
The de-legitimization did not begin on Friday. As always in these matters, evil grows when good people prefer not to know. At our Gaza conference in May, Im Tirtzu demonstrated outside with "Matza dipped in blood." We of course invited them in to be a part of the conversation. (A few came in, asked one question, and then left.)
Im Tirtzu’s report cites Gerald Steinberg’s "NGO Monitor," an organization which for years has smeared any NGO which Professor Steinberg defines as "anti-Israel" or "extremist," without ever giving the public a definition of these terms which they throw around. This is but one example of how The Monitor pretends to be holding NGO’s to standards of reliability, but consistently violates these very same standards.
I once asked Professor Steinberg how it is that they advertise themselves as an organization holding all Middle East NGO’s to standards, but in practice only reports on NGO’s that deal with Israeli HR violations. He answered that Israel is in a battle for her survival and that the real goal of his organization was to be a part of the PR battle. The Monitor has been working in the Knesset and abroad to dry up funding sources for Human Rights organizations, as well as left wing organizations.
We must take action along two lines:
1. All those who value Israel ’s democracy, especially those who do not agree with us regarding Gaza , must say as one, "Sharp public debate yes – Incitement no.!"
2. We can not expect the entire public to defend our position calling for an Israeli independent and transparent inquiry into the Gaza War. However, we can not accept a situation in which all that is said publicly after this attack is "Well, you are right that what HR organizations did was controversial and we don’t agree with everything either, but that is democracy." We must say loudly and clearly:
1. The positions taken by Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor, Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini endanger the State and abandon our children.
2. A moral army is not handed to us on a silver platter, but is achieved through constant vigilance, willingness to investigate, ask questions, and educate in ways that make it clear that we do more than pay lip service to our declared values.
3. If former attorney Mani Mazuz had not waited until the day after he stepped down to support an independent investigation, but had ordered one a year ago when Israeli HR organizations first wrote to him, there might never have been a Goldstone Commission. If today the Government would not allow Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Perhaps the person with the most to lose if an investigation would sadly find that there had been systematic violations of international law and Jewish values.) to block an Israeli independent transparent investigation, we might yet avoid an international investigation.
4. We are Israeli patriots and Zionists who believe with all our heart that what we are demanding is not only the just and Jewish thing to do, but is what is best for our country.
At an emergency meeting with the NIF on Monday, we came up with several simple things which all of us can do:
1. Write to the press expressing our utter rejection of this attack, warning of its dangerous implications, and expressing support for the position of RHR and fellow human rights groups on Gaza . Your local Jewish paper is certainly covering this story, and the general press may be covering it as well.
2. Write to President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, MK’s and other Israeli decision makers. The NIF suggests a very simple text to Prime Minister Netanyahu bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il, "I wish to express my support for the New Israel Fund and human rights organizations for their work to strengthen democracy and free speech in Israel . The witch hunt and incitement must be stopped immediately."
3. Write comments for the talkback/blog sections to the many pro and con articles currently in cyberspace.
4. We will continue to update you when there are other things to be done.
You can send a clear message that you are not deterred or silenced by fear tactics by making an enhanced donation today to RHR, the NIF and/or our fellow Israeli human rights organizations. In North America, please donate to RHR via RHR-North America by clicking here. If you reside in the U.S., your contribution will be tax deductible to the extent allowable by law. If you reside in Canada, a U.S. $ account may be tax deductible. From other parts of the world, please click here to donate to RHR directly.
Below there is a list of links to a letter by Israeli HR organizations, examples of the incitement, a sampling of articles on the subject and other helpful information.
The Talmud tells of Nahum Ish Gam Zo, who whatever ill befell him would say "Gam zo l’tova," (This is also for the good.) There is no pleasure to be gained from this threat to our democracy and the danger both to our society and to targeted individuals should in no way be dismissed. However, for too long, too many have been unaware of what is happening in our society. If history will record that this was the moment in which supporters of Israeli democracy and human rights united to defend those values they held most dear, then Gam zo l’tova.
B’Vrakha (In Blessing)
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director
Related posts:When will ‘Rabbis for Human Rights’ speak out for human rights in Gaza?Still waiting for ‘Rabbis for Human Rights’ to live up to their nameRoss defends Rabbis for Human Rights, and Alterman too
(show less)
Rage at Bronner, and at the Times
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
Toward the end of Ethan Bronner’s appearance at Vassar last night, a woman in the aisle melted down yelling at him. "What I’m hearing from you is only one side. Your son is in the IDF. You are Jewish… The way you talk is totally pro-Israel." Then Fanny Prizant of Woodstock demanded, What is it about the New York Times? Why don’t they have someone else to at least put across the other side of the story?
Prizant was quite upset, and I found myself nodding in agreement. It had been a bizarre evening. It was like a lecture in a Hitchcock film, the setting a gaunt Edwardian-era hall at an upstate NY college, and only a few people in the room are in on the story and the man on the stage is clueless. Prizant’s was the third or fourth hostile question. I wondered why Bronner went through with t... (continue reading)
Toward the end of Ethan Bronner’s appearance at Vassar last night, a woman in the aisle melted down yelling at him. "What I’m hearing from you is only one side. Your son is in the IDF. You are Jewish… The way you talk is totally pro-Israel." Then Fanny Prizant of Woodstock demanded, What is it about the New York Times? Why don’t they have someone else to at least put across the other side of the story?
Prizant was quite upset, and I found myself nodding in agreement. It had been a bizarre evening. It was like a lecture in a Hitchcock film, the setting a gaunt Edwardian-era hall at an upstate NY college, and only a few people in the room are in on the story and the man on the stage is clueless. Prizant’s was the third or fourth hostile question. I wondered why Bronner went through with the lecture to begin with. He must be a little masochistic, or he has a strong sense of journalistic duty. That is how he came off, as a dutiful New York Timesman, a little hectic, with little sense of the new American scene. When the story of his son being in the Israeli army broke, I said it was going to dog him and the Times, and you can see that that is happening.
The problem isn’t the son. It’s Bronner’s degree of identification with Israel. I kept looking at my watch waiting for him to say One Palestinian Name. Finally it came at about minute 45: university president Sari Nusseibeh. I’m pretty sure it was the first mention of any Palestinian he knows. The world according to Bronner is a Jewish one. There was the friend who invited him to an orthodox Westchester congregation. His writer friend in Israel who counseled him to tell Jewish audiences back here that Israel is an apartheid state (and to tell college audiences the opposite; Israeli dissimulation). There was a string of Israeli generals and officials’ names. Meridor, Ben Gurion, Barak, Netanyahu. And Michael Oren–favorably of course.
Bronner said that it was a lot harder to cover Arab societies because they are closed, don’t have a free transparent democratic discourse. Well you might extend yourself.
He made all kinds of excuses for Israelis. He said that they killed civilians in Gaza because they warned people in Arabic over the telephone to leave their homes and then the next day they went into the neighborhood and if there were people still around, they assumed they were Hamas fighters. I wonder if he ever printed any of that defense of war crimes in the newspaper? He said the settlers were openly flouting the "moratorium" on building–has he told his readers that?–and he related the settlers’ story with empathy. "History is made by people who never stop, and these people never stop… They are not going to walk away just because someone declares a moratorium. … They have an almost erotic attachment to the land."
Then he said there was a case you could make that the occupation was not illegal. Though yes, most countries regard it as illegal. He spoke with real feeling, warmth and understanding about Zionist history. I learned about Zionism from him; and of course he followed it up by lauding the achievement of the Jews in making this Israel, with $30,000 GDP, a high-tech "hothouse."
It wasn’t a worldly talk–there was no sense of a wider world. No mention of BDS, or of the Palestinian rage at the wall, or changing Jewish attitudes in the U.S., or the crackdown on critical groups in Israel. Bronner has no scope. Asked "Do you have a son in the IDF, yes or no?", he blurted a confession: "My son entered the IDF five weeks ago." He added not a moment’s thoughtfulness about this event; why did it happen, what is your sense of attachment to Israel, how does the son’s decision (was it a decision? is he a citizen?) affect him? This made the evening bizarre; because he had spent a lot of the previous 45 minutes praising the effectiveness of the army, saying they shut down attacks from Lebanon post ‘06, and shut down the Gaza rockets with Operation Cast Lead.
I cringed hearing his rationalization of the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem. He said the house evictions arose from the technicality that many Jews owned real estate in East Jerusalem before the city was split in ‘48 and the Jordanians took over east of the Green Line and Palestinians moved into the houses. Now that Israeli courts have cleared the titles, some Jewish owners have chosen to sell their houses to settlers. Bronner said the problem is that by granting pre-48 title to Jews, the court opened the door for Palestinians to claim their old houses in West Jerusalem.
"I live in West Jerusalem. My entire neighborhood was Palestinian. … So I think it’s a very worrying decision… and one causing a great deal of anxiety there.."
Does he have any idea how this sounds? All the Jews worried about losing their houses in West Jerusalem. Gosh. Where does his heart lie? What is the likelihood of the Said family getting their house back, or Ghada Karmi getting hers?
Bronner said a lot of smart things. About Iran, about Israel’s crisis. He has a good working mind, and his meritocratic professional code. Maybe I will pass along some of his smart points in days to come, to be fair. But the spirit of the night was, This is a man completely engaged by the Jewish story (and yes, hosted by Jewish Studies at Vassar). That is why Fanny Prizant lost it in the aisle. Bronner seemed scared by her. He said he couldn’t speak for the Times. I raised my hand to ask a question. He didn’t point to me, but I was going to say, "Being a Jew means that Zionism will call on you. Myself I said ‘No thank you.’ So my question is, Are you a Zionist?" I think he is so masochistic and so dutiful that he would speak honestly, and say Yes.
I return to the mood of a lecture in a Hitchcock movie, a little scary, a little funny. At least a dozen people out of 120 there are angry at the Times for its imbalance. This rage is out there. The most important international story and the Times has a not very reflective man in Jerusalem who is in the pocket of one side, and people know it. I got the feeling Bronner was shocked by the rage that is now abroad in the U.S. Don’t expect him to write about it.
Related posts:Bronner: ‘My son joined the IDF five weeks ago’Terry Gross interviewed Times’ Ethan Bronner yesterday…Mearsheimer on the Times’ Ethan Bronner
(show less)
Yvette Clarke’s retraction
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
Last night I said that Brooklyn congresswoman Yvette Clarke’s climbdown from supporting the brave Gaza "collective punishment" letter has gone unreported in the U.S. press. I’d done a google news search, but I was wrong. The Forward’s Nathan Guttman got the story:
The Jewish leaders’ intervention produced an open letter to Clarke’s Jewish constituents in which she expressed her regret for supporting the congressional letters. “Unfortunately, these letters are uneven in their application of pressure and do not sufficiently present a balanced approach/path to peace,” Clarke wrote, adding that the letters have “a provocative and reactionary impact.”…
Clarke’s retraction of her support for the Gaza letters echoes similar pressure put on lawmakers in the run-up to J Street’s first national ... (continue reading)
Last night I said that Brooklyn congresswoman Yvette Clarke’s climbdown from supporting the brave Gaza "collective punishment" letter has gone unreported in the U.S. press. I’d done a google news search, but I was wrong. The Forward’s Nathan Guttman got the story:
The Jewish leaders’ intervention produced an open letter to Clarke’s Jewish constituents in which she expressed her regret for supporting the congressional letters. “Unfortunately, these letters are uneven in their application of pressure and do not sufficiently present a balanced approach/path to peace,” Clarke wrote, adding that the letters have “a provocative and reactionary impact.”…
Clarke’s retraction of her support for the Gaza letters echoes similar pressure put on lawmakers in the run-up to J Street’s first national conference, in October 2009. Then, too, some members of Congress from strongly Jewish districts came under constituent pressure to withdraw from a list of sponsors for the event.
Look at the picture at the Forward of Clarke surrounded by Jewish constituents. Ooga booga; I’d sign anything.
Related posts:54 congresspeople who penned brave Gaza letter may be only 53 now2 congressional letters against Gaza blockade unite new coalitionPost-Gaza pattern: rage, defensiveness, McCarthyism, more rage
(show less)
It’s OK for Americans to fund settlements, but aid human-rights groups? No way
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
The Christian Science Monitor has a good piece on the campaign against the New Israel Fund, which supports democracy in Israel and is now under fire for connections to the Goldstone report:
A center-right group, "Im Tirtzu," issued a report last week charging that the Goldstone report relies on documentation from 16 local rights organizations that were vocal critics of Israeli conduct during the war. The report singled out a common financial thread, the multimillion-dollar New Israel Fund, which raises money among American Jews and foundations for progressive causes.
That sparked a drive in the Israeli parliament to approve an investigation to determine whether the work of those nonprofits undermines Israel’s legitimacy. The investigation could lead to the outlawing of some groups.
Th... (continue reading)
The Christian Science Monitor has a good piece on the campaign against the New Israel Fund, which supports democracy in Israel and is now under fire for connections to the Goldstone report:
A center-right group, "Im Tirtzu," issued a report last week charging that the Goldstone report relies on documentation from 16 local rights organizations that were vocal critics of Israeli conduct during the war. The report singled out a common financial thread, the multimillion-dollar New Israel Fund, which raises money among American Jews and foundations for progressive causes.
That sparked a drive in the Israeli parliament to approve an investigation to determine whether the work of those nonprofits undermines Israel’s legitimacy. The investigation could lead to the outlawing of some groups.
The hypocrisy I point out in my headline is one that Jeff Blankfort pointed out to me.
Related posts:Rabbis for Human Rights: witchhunt endangers the state of IsraelHuman rights investigations for Africa not Gaza, says France’s Kouchner20 Israeli groups call on Norwegian pension fund to divest from occupation
(show less)
54 congresspeople who penned brave Gaza letter may be only 53 now
4 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
Israel lobbyists are calling the 54 brave congresspeople who signed the letter to Obama against the Gaza blockade "the gang of 54," and trying to light a fire under em. One of them has cold feet. From Arutz Sheva wire:
At least one of the signatories to the letter, U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY), has apparently withdrawn her signature, change her political attitude when the issue hit a little closer to home. A long-standing representative of the Brooklyn community of Crown Heights, Clarke recently joined a photo-op snapped with Brooklyn Jewish community leaders who had gathered donations for the earthquake-stricken people of Haiti.
“We all see the swift and expert work of Israeli doctors and rescue teams on the ground almost immediately following the 7.0 earthquake,” she tol... (continue reading)
Israel lobbyists are calling the 54 brave congresspeople who signed the letter to Obama against the Gaza blockade "the gang of 54," and trying to light a fire under em. One of them has cold feet. From Arutz Sheva wire:
At least one of the signatories to the letter, U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY), has apparently withdrawn her signature, change her political attitude when the issue hit a little closer to home. A long-standing representative of the Brooklyn community of Crown Heights, Clarke recently joined a photo-op snapped with Brooklyn Jewish community leaders who had gathered donations for the earthquake-stricken people of Haiti.
“We all see the swift and expert work of Israeli doctors and rescue teams on the ground almost immediately following the 7.0 earthquake,” she told reporters covering the event at the time. “The Jewish response to the pain of others is legendary — and today’s gathering is a continuation of the special heart the Jewish community always shows in times of crisis.”
Is this a story in the US? No one seems to be covering this climbdown, if that’s what it is. And here in the New Jersey Jewish News, pressure on three congresspeople from Jersey who took a stand.
Related posts:Two more congresspeople go to Gaza!Yvette Clarke’s retractionWhy congresspeople fear to cross the lobby
(show less)
Bronner: ‘My son joined the IDF five weeks ago’
3 Feb 2010
Philip Weiss
Electronic Intifada broke the story a week back. Tonight, responding to a question at Vassar College, Ethan Bronner, Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times, confirmed it. Dennis Loh, of Brooklyn for Peace: "Do you have a son in the IDF, yes or no?" Bronner: "My son joined the IDF five weeks ago."
I’ll have more on Bronner’s appearance later tonight. A lot about the IDF, before that disclosure…
Related posts:I passed along a false report re Ethan BronnerRage at Bronner, and at the TimesNYT’s Bronner blames Islam for dwindling Christian life in Jerusalem
Budgets, War and Blind Ambition: The Limited Minds of the American Elite
2 Feb 2010
chris@chris-floyd.com (Chris Floyd)
The American elite's unbounded, unquestioned, indeed unconscious sense of imperial entitlement and dominance -- based ultimately on war, the threat of war and the profit from war -- is one of the defining characteristics of our age. And if you would like to see a glaring example of this attitude in action, look no further than the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, where one David Sanger gives us his penetrating "news analysis" of the Administration's just-announced $3.8 trillion budget.
Sanger focuses on the huge, continuing deficits that the budget forecasts over the next decade. Completely ignoring the plain truth that his own expert source tell him later in the story -- that "forecasts 10 years out have no credibility" -- Sanger boldly plunges forward to tell us just what it a... (continue reading)
The American elite's unbounded, unquestioned, indeed unconscious sense of imperial entitlement and dominance -- based ultimately on war, the threat of war and the profit from war -- is one of the defining characteristics of our age. And if you would like to see a glaring example of this attitude in action, look no further than the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, where one David Sanger gives us his penetrating "news analysis" of the Administration's just-announced $3.8 trillion budget.
Sanger focuses on the huge, continuing deficits that the budget forecasts over the next decade. Completely ignoring the plain truth that his own expert source tell him later in the story -- that "forecasts 10 years out have no credibility" -- Sanger boldly plunges forward to tell us just what it all means. You will not be surprised to hear that the upshot of these big deficits is that neither Obama nor his successors will be able to spend any money on "new domestic initiatives" for years to come. But let's let Sanger, savant and seer, tell it in his own words:
In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.
The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.
But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. ...
For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.
What is most interesting here, of course, is not Sanger's noodle-scratching over imaginary numbers projected into an unknowable future, but his total and apparently completely unconscious adoption of the mindset of militarist empire. For as he puzzles and puzzles till his puzzler is sore on how in God's name the United States can possibly find any money at all to spend on bettering the lives of its citizens over the next 10 years, it becomes clear that Sanger -- like the rest of our political and media elite -- literally cannot conceive of an end to empire. Our elites and their courtiers literally cannot imagine life without a permanent war for global dominance, fueled by a gargantuan war machine spread across hundreds and hundreds of bases implanted in more than 100 countries.
And so this consideration, this possible outcome, does not figure in Sanger's "analysis" because it cannot: it lies far outside the scope of his consciousness. The only possible alternative he can conceive to the empire's bloody and bankrupting business as usual is some kind of divine intervention, "miraculous growth" or some "miraculous political compromise."
And make no mistake: the "miraculous political compromise" he is talking about has nothing to do with ending or even trimming the empire. A "compromise" on this issue could only be posited if there was some present conflict over it. But both parties are deeply committed to increasing spending on the wars and the war machine.
No, by "compromise" Sanger means some sort of "Grand Bargain" between the parties to cut Social Security and Medicare, along the lines of the "blue-ribbon panel" of entitlement cutters now being pushed by the Obama Administration. An effort to impose this kind of elitist, unaccountable commission failed in the Senate a few weeks ago -- although the Republicans have proposed such panels before, they didn't like this one because Obama proposed it -- but the idea will keep coming back. Sanger and the elite will doubtless get their "miracle" of slashing the remaining bits of the safety net to shreds in due time.
For these are the only possibilities for deficit-cutting that Sanger can even remotely contemplate: some whiz-bang new techno gizmo -- or maybe some hot new "financial instruments" cooked up by Wall Street -- that will goose the economy with a bright new bubble ... or else finally telling our old, sick, vulnerable and unfortunate to just crawl off and die already. That's it. That's all that our elite can envision.
Yet the ending of the imperial wars and the dismantling of America's global military empire -- and its global gulag -- would save trillions of dollars in the coming years. Not only from direct military spending, but also from the vastly reduced need for "Homeland security" funding in a world where the United States was no longer invading foreign lands, killing their people, supporting their tyrants -- and inciting revenge and resistance.
This would release a flood of money for any number of "new domestic initiatives," while also giving scope for deep tax cuts across the board. Working people would thrive, the poor, the sick and the vulnerable would be bettered, businesses would grow, opportunity would expand, the care and education of our children would be greatly enhanced, our infrastructure could be repaired and strengthened, our environment better cleansed and cared for. In short, people could keep more of their own money while government spending could be directed toward improving the quality of life of all the nation's citizens.
This is no utopian vision. Many problems, much suffering would remain. But it would be a better society -- more humane, more just, more secure, more peaceful, more prosperous than it is now. Such an alternative is entirely achievable, by ordinary humans; it would require no divine miracles, no god-like heroes to bring it about.
But such a society is precisely what our elites cannot -- or, to be more accurate, will not -- imagine. Because, yes, it would "erode" their "influence" around the world to some extent. Although they would still be comfortable, coddled and privileged, they could no longer merge their individual psyches with the larger entity of a globe-spanning, death-dealing empire -- a connection which, although itself a projection of their own brains, gives them a forever-inflated sense of worth and importance.
And on a more prosaic level, the end of empire would mean an end to the horrendous economic distortion wrought by our war-profiteering industries. Other businesses would inevitably come to the fore, economic activity would be sp( click title for more ) evenly across more sectors. And so, yes, those who have feasted so gluttonously for so long on blood money would not be quite as rich as they are now.
A better world -- again, not perfect, by no means perfect, but much better -- is entirely possible. We could easily dismantle the empire -- carefully, safely, with deliberation -- over the next ten years. It is a reasonable, moderate, serious option. It would not require violent revolution or vast social upheaval. But our elites do not want this. They can no longer fathom life without the exercise -- and worship -- of unrestricted power that empire entails. They will not accept -- or even contemplate -- any alternative to it.
And thus every option and policy we are offered -- whether from right-wing Republicans or "progressive" Democrats, or from "serious" news analysts on "serious" papers -- must fall within these pathetically cramped, constricted mental horizons. Empire -- the imposition of dominion by violence and threat of violence, and the financial and moral corruption this breeds, the malevolent example it sets at every level of society -- is the canker in the body politic. Until it is dealt with, there will be no healing, no hope, no change -- just more degradation and disaster all down the line.
(show less)
Obama's Wild Weekend: A Worldwide Surge in Warmongering
1 Feb 2010
chris@chris-floyd.com (Chris Floyd)
Even as progressives were savoring Barack Obama's "masterful" – indeed, "brain-searing" – performance at the House Republicans' retreat last Friday, their dazzling champion was busy applying himself with renewed and reckless vigor to that most un-progressive of occupations: saber-rattling around the world. The last few days have certainly seen a remarkable display of bellicosity by the Obama Administration, putting almost every tool in the militarist kit to use: nukes, ships, missiles, money, proxies and war-profiteering. With just a few flicks of the imperial wrist, Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.
There was the sale of $6.4 billion in military hardware to Taiwan: a bumper crop of boodle for America's war-profiteering community, ... (continue reading)
Even as progressives were savoring Barack Obama's "masterful" – indeed, "brain-searing" – performance at the House Republicans' retreat last Friday, their dazzling champion was busy applying himself with renewed and reckless vigor to that most un-progressive of occupations: saber-rattling around the world. The last few days have certainly seen a remarkable display of bellicosity by the Obama Administration, putting almost every tool in the militarist kit to use: nukes, ships, missiles, money, proxies and war-profiteering. With just a few flicks of the imperial wrist, Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.
There was the sale of $6.4 billion in military hardware to Taiwan: a bumper crop of boodle for America's war-profiteering community, but a hard slap to the Chinese – who have responded to this stirring of hair-trigger cross-strait tensions by "canceling talks between senior Chinese and US officials on strategic security, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation," as the Guardian notes. Well, if there's one thing the world needs less of today, it's more cooperation on strategic security, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, right?
Especially the latter. In fact, so unconcerned is Obama with nuclear proliferation that he is asking Congress to increase funding for the nation's nuclear arsenal by $5 billion, as McClatchy reports (via Antiwar.com). Much of this extra money will be spent on new facilities that will enable the government to build new nuclear warheads whenever it chooses. "There is no question that some counties, friends and foes, will see the increased spending as a sign of U.S. hypocrisy," said arms control expert Joseph Cirincione, in an obvious bid for the "Understatement of the Year" award. But this kind of higher hypocrisy is meat and drink for the American establishment, whose guiding motto for the earth's lesser breeds has ever been: "Do as we say, not as we do."
Obama was also busy slaughtering a few more villagers in Pakistan with his ever-accelerating "drone" attacks. The latest attack was Saturday night, which killed nine people in North Waziristan. This capped a month in which American drones killed "123 innocent Pakistanis," as The News of Pakistan reports. Ten of the 12 raids "went wrong and failed to hit their targets," but the robots did manage to assassinate three men alleged, by someone somewhere on some kind of evidence, or not, to be "al-Qaeda leaders."
The News also notes that the increase in drone killings by the United States (123 civilians killed this January in contrast to "only" 36 killings in January 2009) seems due in large part to "revenge attacks" by the U.S. in retaliation for the December 30 suicide bombing that killed seven CIA agents at a border base in Afghanistan. Everyone knew the American security organs would be stern in their reprisals for the attack; after all, the U.S. killed a million Iraqis as "payback for 9/11," to quote the rationale for war most often quoted by American soldiers as they stormed into Iraq in 2003. So at this point, 123 for seven seems almost a model of restraint. But it's early days yet; the Reprisal-by-Robot campaign will no doubt harvest much more blood fruit in the months to come.
II.
But of course, the centerpiece of Obama's wild warmonger weekend was the leaked-on-purpose news of the deployment of a bristling "missile shield" to four countries in the Middle East, along with the dispatch of even more warships to join those already poised with minatory intent around the Persian Gulf. The ostensible aim of this sudden outpouring of ordnance to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait is to "protect" these nations from an attack by Iran – a nation which has not attacked anyone for centuries, but which is itself under relentless, open, repeated threat of attack from, er, the United States, and one of its regional proxies, Israel.
Word of the new deployment came just hours after the U.S. Senate voted to impose even more draconian sanctions on Iran: crippling measures that will only make life much more wretched and dangerous for millions of ordinary Iranians. The Senate measures are aimed chiefly at strangling Iran's supplies of gasoline --- a truly noble act of "humanitarian intervention," which, if successful, would see deliveries of essential food and supplies grind to a halt, fire trucks and ambulances parked, schools closed, mass business failures across the country, with the subsequent loss of jobs, homes, health and opportunity. The Iranian ruling elite will of course be spared any of these discomforts – just as our own ruling elite forever escapes even the slightest unpleasant consequence of its actions.
Some observers seem to regard the Senate move as some kind of rebuke to Obama, "taking Iran policy out of his hands" by force; but the deployment of the new war machinery to the region – which was accompanied by sales of military upgrades to the savagely oppressive religious extremists in Saudi Arabia – shows that the American political elite is, as usual, marching in lockstep when it comes to "projecting dominance" and threatening grave punishments (up and including "obliteration," because, as we all know, "all elements of national power" are always "on the table" at all times) for any rogue nations that fail to follow the Potomac line. (And a comparison between the repressive regime in Iran and the far more repressive regime in Saudi Arabia shows us clearly that it the line-following, not lack of freedom, that determines whether a nation is "rogue" or not.)
But we should not see this weekend's machinations in the Persian Gulf as moving the United States closer to war with Iran. The United States has been at war with Iran for a long time now, running and/or assisting armed terrorist groups inside the country to kill scores of people year after year, as we noted here last year. No, what we are seeing now is just another "surge" in the barely covert war with Iran – a war that in some ways has been going on for decades, and flares up any time a government in Tehran fails to show due obeisance. As I noted in that earlier piece, which came out just before the disputed Iranian election, and just after yet another terrorist attack in Iran:
Because the ultimate aim -- the only aim, really -- of the militarists' policy toward Iran is regime change. They don't care about "national security" or the "threat" from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal; they know that there is no threat whatsoever that Iran will attack Israel -- or even more ludicrously, the United States -- even if Tehran did have nukes. They don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people under a draconian, repressive and corrupt regime. They are not worried about Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism," for, as we've seen, the militarists thrive on -- when they are not actively fomenting -- the fear and anguish caused by terrorism. This fear is the grease that drives the ever-expanding war machine and 'justifies' its own ever-increasing draconian powers and corruption.
No, in the end, the sole aim of the militarist policy is to overthrow Iran's current political system and replace it with a regime that will bow to the hegemony of the United States and its regional deputy, Israel. There is no essential difference in aim or method between today's policy and that of 1953. (Except that the regional deputy in those days was Britain, not Israel.) What they want is compliance, access to resources and another strategic stronghold in the heart of the oil lands -- precisely what they wanted, and got, with the installation of the Shah and his corruption-ridden police state more than a half-century ago.
They play the long game, our militarists. For example, they agitated openly -- and plotted covertly -- for the invasion of Iraq for almost 10 years before they finally got their way. They have worked for 30 years now to restore a client regime in Iran, and today, with the relentless bipartisan demonizing of the Iranians -- and the "mushroom cloud" fearmongering over a non-existent nuclear weapons program -- they are as close as they have ever been to their goal.
The obscene folly of all this is so self-evident that it seems not only redundant but downright insulting to point it out. Yet in a land so marinated in its own myths, a nation whose imperial sense of entitlement runs so deep, embedded in so many unconscious, unquestioned assumptions that even its "progressives" cannot see the howling evil being done by their leaders (as long as those leaders make even the slightest "progressive" noises now and then), this redundant, insulting task remains an unfortunate imperative.
III.
And no one has laid out the case against attacking Iran with more depth, power, eloquence and persistence than Arthur Silber. What's more, Silber has offered practical steps that even those obsessed with retaining their "serious" and "politically savvy" cred could employ. Of course, most of these steps were first offered back in the bad old Bush days, when "progressives" were castigating the government for its reckless warmongering toward Iran -- not to mention its drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan, its plans for "modernizing" the nuclear arsenal, and its war-profiteering sale of death machinery in every volatile region on earth. Back then, you could still hope -- or pretend -- that the dissent against Bush's rapacious and criminal policies was more principled than partisan, and thus that reasonable suggestions for lowering the war fever might gain some traction.
These days, alas, we find that to many progressives, actions that were considered rank crimes and national shames under Bush have been magically converted into "tough choices," "necessary evils," "practical politics" or even far-seeing "11-dimensional chess" when they are committed by Obama. So the anti-war row is now a lot harder, and longer, to hoe.
But some hardy cultivators, like Silber, are still out there hacking away at the flinty soil, planting seeds of truth in the almost-but-quite-yet-impossible hope that they will bear good fruit some day, in some way, somewhere down the line. And so I urge readers to set themselves to school on some or all of these remarkable Iran-related articles by Silber, while following up on the wealth of links each one provides: here, here, here, here, here, and here.
(*And while you're there, consider contributing something to the tip jar, if you can. Silber continues to suffer from catastrophic health problems, and the website is his only means of support.*)
(show less)
From Dublin to the Rio Grande: Resurrecting the "San Patricios"
30 Jan 2010
chris@chris-floyd.com (Chris Floyd)
We are the San Patricios, a brave and gallant band
There'll be no white flag flying within this green command
We are the San Patricios, we have but one demand,
To see the Yankees safely home across the Rio Grande...
This looks like something worth looking for on the radar: "San Patricio," an upcoming release by The Chieftains and Ry Cooder:
‘San Patricio' (the Spanish name for St. Patrick) tells the nearly forgotten story of the brave San Patricio battalion - a downtrodden group of Irish immigrant conscripts who deserted the U.S. Army in 1846 to fight on the Mexican side against the invading Yankees in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
Although the members of the San Patricio Battalion were reviled as traitors and deserters in the U.S., Chieftains' founder and frontman Pad... (continue reading)
We are the San Patricios, a brave and gallant band
There'll be no white flag flying within this green command
We are the San Patricios, we have but one demand,
To see the Yankees safely home across the Rio Grande...
This looks like something worth looking for on the radar: "San Patricio," an upcoming release by The Chieftains and Ry Cooder:
‘San Patricio' (the Spanish name for St. Patrick) tells the nearly forgotten story of the brave San Patricio battalion - a downtrodden group of Irish immigrant conscripts who deserted the U.S. Army in 1846 to fight on the Mexican side against the invading Yankees in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
Although the members of the San Patricio Battalion were reviled as traitors and deserters in the U.S., Chieftains' founder and frontman Paddy Moloney says, "the men of the San Patricio Battalion are remembered by generations of Mexicans to this day as heroes who fought bravely against an unjust and thinly veiled war of aggression." ‘San Patricio' brings their story to life through heart-stirring ballads and effervescent dance songs from both countries, including traditional "sones" that the San Patricios might have heard while in Mexico, and Irish airs and reels that evoke the homeland they left behind. ....
‘San Patricio' showcases a brilliant roster of Irish, Mexican and American guest artists including Linda Ronstadt, actor Liam Neeson, Los Tigres del Norte, legendary 92-year-old Mexican ranchero singer Chavela Vargas, Van Dyke Parks, and Lila Downs, among many others. It will be released March 9 on Fantasy Records/Concord Music Group.
(show less)
Blood is His Argument: Tony Blair's Gentle Cuddling at Iraq "Inquiry"
29 Jan 2010
chris@chris-floyd.com (Chris Floyd)
On Friday, Tony Blair appeared before the "Chilcot Inquiry," the panel of hoary, lugubrious Establishment worthies set up to "examine" -- with extreme circumspection, exquisite politeness, and all due reverence to authority -- the "origins" of Britain's involvement in the mass-murder spree known as the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The event could be summed up entirely in a single headline:
Tony Blair to a million dead Iraqis, and the grieving survivors of British soldiers: Fuck you.
Blair's appearance before the panel has occasioned some entirely misplaced and uninformed kudos from some in the American progressiverse, who laud the Brits for holding such a bold inquiry. "It's the kind of thing you would never see in the United States," they say, forgetting, if they ever knew, such ... (continue reading)
On Friday, Tony Blair appeared before the "Chilcot Inquiry," the panel of hoary, lugubrious Establishment worthies set up to "examine" -- with extreme circumspection, exquisite politeness, and all due reverence to authority -- the "origins" of Britain's involvement in the mass-murder spree known as the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The event could be summed up entirely in a single headline:
Tony Blair to a million dead Iraqis, and the grieving survivors of British soldiers: Fuck you.
Blair's appearance before the panel has occasioned some entirely misplaced and uninformed kudos from some in the American progressiverse, who laud the Brits for holding such a bold inquiry. "It's the kind of thing you would never see in the United States," they say, forgetting, if they ever knew, such minor matters as the Watergate hearings -- which actually had the power to send people to jail for lying, unlike the completely powerless Chilcot panel -- or the Watergate grand jury, which named a sitting president as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a criminal case, or even the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton by the United States Senate, which I believe happened well within the adulthood of at least some of our leading progressives.
In any case, there was never any chance that the well-wadded Chilcot worthies were going to lay a glove on former PM turned corporate shill and Catholic saint-in-waiting. Blair was never going to do anything but repeat the bluster -- and outright lies -- he has regurgitated ad infinitum about his blood-soaked adventure with George W. Bush -- and the Chilcotniks were never going to call him on his bullshit. [Blair's knowing and deliberate lies are thoroughly detailed here.]
And so it proved. Blair strutted in -- through a back entrance, to avoid protestors -- and did the expected regurgitation. The war was legal, the war was righteous, the war was legal, and it was the right thing to do. After all, he claimed over and over, Iraq was clearly "in breach of UN sanctions ordering him to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction." Yet, as one observer noted in the Guardian, none of the Chilcot worthies deigned to point out to Blair that Iraq could not possibly been in breach of UN orders to disarm -- because it had no weapons of mass destruction. It was already disarmed -- a fact which the US and UK had known since 1995, and which could have been reconfirmed by the UN inspection teams in 2003 ... if Bush and Blair had not invaded before the inspections were over.
But Blair's illogical connections were never challenged by the panel, nor did he explain why he and Bush invaded before the inspections were completed. Instead, he simply evoke 9/11 over and over and over again -- and then blamed "the external elements of Iran and al Qaeda" for anything that went wrong after the invasion. Apparently, there was not a single Iraqi opposed to the destruction of their country; it was just a bunch of "outside agitators" causing trouble.
Blair's absolute erasure of the Iraqi people in these passages is a perfect encapsulation of the whole mindset that drove the Anglo-American attack: the Iraqis are non-people, they are worthless chits in a geopolitical game, they are rags and automatons at the mercy of big-time players like the Western powers, Iran and al Qaeda.
Indeed, this was his main theme of the day: it was Iran's fault. In fact, Blair seemed to regard his appearance before Iraq War panel chiefly as an opportunity to foment war fever for a new "humanitarian intervention" against Iran. As Jonathan Freedland notes:
Blair pushed further, apparently touting a new war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iraq's neighbor, Iran. All day Blair used his platform to bring up Iran, even when it was only tangentially related to the topic in hand. The arguments that applied in 2002 – about WMD falling into terrorist hands – applied in spades to Iran in 2010, he said.
Blair took "responsibility" for the war -- but it was a responsibility he gladly shouldered, one he was proud of. As for all the people who have died because of this criminal folly, Blair had nothing nothing to say. As Jonathan Freedland notes:
I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".
Just like the Hutton inquiry into the strange death of WMD whistleblower Daniel Kelly -- the results of which have recently been sealed up for the next 70 years in a "highly unusual move" by UK authorities -- the Chilcot panel was never going to bring any powerful miscreant to accountability. It was set up -- like the American 9/11 Commission -- to siphon off festering anger and suspicion with a show of official concern. By stirring up just enough murk to cover the small nuggets of truth that inevitably surface in such probes, the Chilcot inquiry, like Hutton, the 9/11 Commission, will be able to claim that while there may have been some regrettable "system" failures here and there on this and that, no actual powerful person should be held accountable for any inadvertent "mistakes" that were made.
And the scam is already working. One of the panel of Guardian commentators, writing alongside Freedland, the "moderate," Broder-like Martin Kettle, was already chewing up some conventional wisdom cud by the end of the day:
On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.
Yes, as good old Kevin Drum always used to say back in the old days, when splitting the difference between some atrocious Bush policy and the president's "far left" critics, "that sounds about right." That hits the comfortable middle spot: yes, it was all a bit unpleasant, but now the "pain is ebbing," and we can look forward to seeing fewer of those "silly stunts" that shrill extremists have used to draw attention to the mass murder of human beings in a war based on ostensible reasons which even the war's architects now happily admit were unfounded -- and, according to Blair, unimportant. So Saddam didn't have WMDs? So what? It was a good thing to kill all those people anyway.
Another of Kettle's fellow commentators has a different view, however, and we'll give the final word here to Seamus Milne:
The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.
(show less)
American History 101: We Are Devo
29 Jan 2010
chris@chris-floyd.com (Chris Floyd)
Entertain conjecture of a remarkable scenario. An American president – born at the margins of society, raised by a pacifist mother – takes office at a time of national turmoil. He inherits a deeply unpopular, highly divisive war from his predecessor and must also deal with a burgeoning, worldwide financial crisis. Yet despite the fractured, fractious political atmosphere, he doesn't dither, doesn't waffle, but immediately launches the most far-reaching program of government activism in half a century.
He doesn't "freeze" domestic spending but greatly expands funding of government benefit programs, and even creates new ones, including direct payments from the general treasury to the poor and needy, in addition to the now-increased Social Security and Medicare funds. He creates new gover... (continue reading)
Entertain conjecture of a remarkable scenario. An American president – born at the margins of society, raised by a pacifist mother – takes office at a time of national turmoil. He inherits a deeply unpopular, highly divisive war from his predecessor and must also deal with a burgeoning, worldwide financial crisis. Yet despite the fractured, fractious political atmosphere, he doesn't dither, doesn't waffle, but immediately launches the most far-reaching program of government activism in half a century.
He doesn't "freeze" domestic spending but greatly expands funding of government benefit programs, and even creates new ones, including direct payments from the general treasury to the poor and needy, in addition to the now-increased Social Security and Medicare funds. He creates new government agencies to rigorously enforce new, sweeping environmental measures. He oversees the most direct and extensive federal intervention in public education in the nation's history, forcibly moving millions of students to different schools in order to impose more equality in society. Denouncing the punitive criminal justice policies of the past, he initiates major prison reforms, creating and expanding rehabilitation programs, stating that "to reform our prisons, we need more teachers, parole officers, psychiatrists, social workers and dollars."
He increases direct government oversight of private businesses, with new agencies to ensure workplace health and safety. He proposes radical reforms in health care, including an initiative that would require employers to provide insurance for their workers while also creating a national insurance program that all could join at whatever level they could afford to pay. He supports "radical feminists" in their push for a constitutional amendment to enforce equal rights for women throughout society.
In response to the financial crisis, he doesn't seek to save the current order but takes unilateral action to completely revamp the global financial structure that had been in place for decades. Perhaps astonishing of all, he even takes direct control of the core operations of the nation's most powerful corporations, dictating the wages they can pay and the prices they can set. As one stunned commentator puts it, the president is carrying out "the largest peacetime intrusion of government in the economy in American history, surpassing even the dreams of the New Dealers."
In foreign policy, after launching several controversial "surges," he does, belatedly, end the unpopular war he inherited. What's more, despite virulent opposition from several quarters, including many in his own party, he astounds the world by openly seeking rapprochement with sworn enemies of the United States – forces dedicated to a fundamentalist ideology whose avowed goal is the destruction of the American way of life and the imposition of their ideology on the entire world. Yet the president not only calls for dialogue and negotiation with these enemies, he even goes to meet their leaders, treats them with respect and public honor, feasts with them, negotiates with them.
**
A strange, even hallucinatory scenario, to be sure. But we haven't even gotten to the weirdest part. Imagine a president who does all these things – surpassing Franklin Roosevelt in government activism; slapping restraints on major corporations; providing vast new funding for the poor, the sick, for prisoners, for the environment; imposing social equality by force; seeking to nationalize health care; meeting and treating with the nation's enemies – yet is not regarded as a commie, a radical, a socialist, a progressive, a liberal, or even a "centrist," but as one of the most rock-ribbed conservatives of his day. Indeed, for many people, he is the arch-conservative of the age, a retrograde, reactionary figure, the embodiment of all that stands in the way of progress.
Yes, the presidential history of Richard M. Nixon paints a striking, even shocking contrast to the prevailing political weather today. It shows, with stark power, how very far the center of political gravity has shifted in the past 36 years. For Nixon was a rock-ribbed conservative by the standards of his day; yet compared to the timorous, time-serving "progressive" now in the White House, Nixon looks like Eugene Debs.
Even Nixon's downfall provides an instructive – and dispiriting – contrast to our day. Done in for covering up a little break-in at his opponent's headquarters? For this the entire machinery of government was convulsed, great investigatory panels convoked, grand jury indictments handed down, a sitting president impeached by the House? It's like some tale from antiquity, or maybe a work of science fiction, especially in our modern world, where the most outrageous crimes – warrantless surveillance, torture, indefinite detention, assassinations – are carried out and countenanced by presidents in broad daylight, with barely a hint of controversy … and no thought whatsoever that they might be answerable for these misdeeds.
Of course Nixon was, despite his famous protestations, a "crook" (and war criminal) of the highest order. He was also very much one of the Founding Fathers of our modern American Post-Republic; indeed, it was Nixon who crafted the one-line constitution that now governs our state: "If the president does it, it's not illegal." I've dealt at length with his perfidy in these pages and elsewhere over the years. (See here, here, and here for examples.)
But looking back at some of the actual policies he had the brass to carry out and/or advocate, (whether from conviction or cynical opportunism doesn't matter; we're looking at deeds here, not intentions or style), many of which were actually designed to address genuine problems and imbalances in society and decrease tensions around the world, one cannot but conclude that, in some ways at least, we used to get a slightly higher grade of mass-murdering war criminal in office back in those long-departed days.
(show less)
Dissident Voice
a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice
My Visit to Iran
4 Feb 2010
Azita Ebrahimi
I went to Iran, the country of my birth, in November of 2009 and stayed there for two months after being away for 30 years. I had left Iran right before 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah. Before I left for my visit back to Iran, I was feeling very agitated and depressed about the ( click title for more )
Extinct: Andaman Tribe’s Extermination Complete as Last Member Dies
4 Feb 2010
Survival International
The last member of a unique tribe has died on India’s Andaman Islands.
Boa Sr, who died last week aged around 85, was the last speaker of ‘Bo’, one of the ten Great Andamanese languages. The Bo are thought to have lived in the Andaman Islands for as much as 65,000 years, making them the descendants ( click title for more )
Haiti: The Broken Wing
3 Feb 2010
MediaLens
It matters that the media have lavished so much attention on the aftermath of Haiti’s January 12 earthquake. The coverage has helped inspire people around the world to give of their time, energy and money in responding to the disaster. On the Democracy Now! website last week, filmmaker Michael Moore described how almost 12,000 members ( click title for more )
Child Slavery in Haiti
3 Feb 2010
Stephen Lendman
In November 1989, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, recognizing “that in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration.” Then in May 2000, the General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the ( click title for more )
A Basis of Unity
2 Feb 2010
John Jensen
A choir is practicing. After a pause, the conductor signals but the sound is like fingernails on a chalkboard. The conductor taps the music stand and says “A little alertness please. We’re on page four, measure three.” This time when the baton rises and descends, everyone sings not the same note, but one ( click title for more )
Iraq snapshot
4 Feb 2010
Common Ills
Thursday, February 4, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Little Nouri attacks the press, Little Nouri tries to reinstate banning of political opponents, the Iraq Inquiry forgets the "Iraq" part, and more. The Times of London notes this week's bombings resulting in mass fatalties and that "Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, has made security a central theme in his re-election campaign."
But the inquiry might hurt elections!!!!!!
4 Feb 2010
Common Ills
Defence chiefs had to cut projects for helicopters, warships and Nimrod spy planes after Gordon Brown "guillotined" their budget, the Iraq inquiry was told yesterday.A former top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) yesterday spoke of the "crisis period" when Mr Brown as Chancellor slashed military spending six months after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.The numbers of Armed Forces
If it's election confusion, it's Iraq
4 Feb 2010
Common Ills
Yesterday came news of a decision reached by a ruling body in Iraq on the elections issue. Already Nouri is striking back at the decision. To recap, we'll note this from yesterday's snapshot:On Al Jazeera's Riz Khan yesterday, the issue of the elections were addressed with Riz Khan asking, "How free and fair is an election when a government bans certain people from running? Iraq goes to the
Iraq snaphsot
3 Feb 2010
Common Ills
Wednesday, February 3, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed with another deadly blast, the Iraq Inquiry may be hitting the road (that is not a joke), sexual assaults get some attention from the US Congress, election news out of Iraq, and more. Iraq has been slammed with another bombing resulting in mass fatalities today. Yousif Bassil and CNN report a Karbala motorcycle
Elfyn Llwyd says Blair promised Bush at Crawford (July 2002) they'd go to war
3 Feb 2010
Common Ills
[Correction to title: Crawford Ranch meet up was April 2002.]Tony Blair "leaned on" the Attorney General to mislead the Cabinet by saying the Iraq invasion was legal, Clare Short told the Chilcot inquiry yesterday.The former International Development Secretary made a damning attack on Labour's "unsafe" style of Government -- accusing it for "secrecy and deceit" and saying too much power now rests
Swiss Take Two Guantánamo Uighurs, Save Obama from Having to Do the Right Thing
4 Feb 2010
by Andy WorthingtonCongratulations to the Swiss Canton of Jura, which recently accepted the asylum claims of two Uighur prisoners at Guantánamo, and to the Swiss federal government for agreeing to accept Jura’s decision on Wednesday.( click title for more )
Beer Battles: Workers in Belgium Take on Brewing Giant
4 Feb 2010
by Benjamin DanglFor two weeks in January Belgian brewery workers
blocked roads, set fire to beer crates, kidnapped managers and handed
out free beer as part of their tactics against job cuts proposed by
Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world's largest brewer. The company announced
the cuts in spite of profits of $1.55 billion in the third quarter of
2009. ( click title for more )
A Progressive Tax: It's Not Socialism, It's Correctionism
4 Feb 2010
by Paul BuchheitPeople don't want to talk about taxes. Most of us are afraid that a tax increase will impact ALL of us. The media shies away from such a controversial topic. Certainly the rich don't want to talk about it. And even lower-income people seem to have this sense that they will be wealthy someday, and government shouldn't interfere with their plans.
( click title for more )
A Festival of Peace
4 Feb 2010
by Robert C. Koehler
“I ran away from my foster mother, became homeless, lived on the street for three years. Because I was handicapped I couldn’t get into an apartment building to get out of the snow. Your skin feels like it’s on fire when you’re that cold. I’d stand in the doorway, where bright lights shine on the manikins, and psych myself into believing I could feel the heat coming off the light bulb.”( click title for more )
30-Second Warnings
4 Feb 2010
by Robert LipsyteIn 1987, an evangelical Christian missionary in the
Philippines, Pam Tebow, sick and near term, ignored doctors' advice to
abort her fifth child. How could they know he would grow up to win a
Heisman Trophy and lead the University of Florida to two national
titles?( click title for more )
We Wanted a Nelson Mandela; We Got a Clarence Thomas
4 Feb 2010
by Roberto Dr. Cintli RodriguezPresident Barack Obama is an enigma. No one quite seems to know what
he actually stands for.
Most progressives saw in the election of Obama, a Nelson Mandela
figure. Based on his first year in office, many are understandably
disillusioned.
Conversely, much of the right wing of this country demonize(d) him as
a Joseph Stalin figure, this in a “right-center” country.
( click title for more )
On the Claimed 'War Exception' to the Constitution
4 Feb 2010
by Glenn GreenwaldLast week, I wrote about a revelation buried in a Washington Post article by Dana Priest which described how the Obama administration has adopted the Bush policy of targeting selected American citizens for assassination if they are deemed (by the Executive Branch) to be Terrorists. As ( click title for more )
The Contrarian Manifesto
4 Feb 2010
by Ted RallNEW YORK--My father taught me to go left.Not politically. He was a right-wing Republican. At the movies."Most people choose the right entrance," he told me. "There are
usually more seats on the left side of the theater." I've found that to
be true.He dressed like a conformist. But Dad was a contrarian. "If you
don't know what to do," he said, "do the exact opposite of what
everyone else is doing. On average, conventional wisdom is always
wrong. Run away from the crowd--and you'll come out ahead in the long
run."( click title for more )
Sidelining Cap and Trade’s Green Critics
4 Feb 2010
by Neil deMauseThe sweeping bill to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions that moved through
Congress over the last year received relatively scant media attention,
taking a distant back seat to the healthcare reform bill and its
attendant public uproar.( click title for more )
Volcker Rules
4 Feb 2010
by Robert ScheerFinally President Barack Obama has come to his senses on financial regulation. His endorsement of what he calls the “Volcker Rule” for once puts him squarely on the side of ordinary Americans as opposed to the banking bandits who have so thoroughly fleeced the public. ( click title for more )
Shrimp's Dirty Secrets: Why America's Favorite Seafood Is a Health and Environmental Nightmare
4 Feb 2010
by Jill RichardsonAmericans love their shrimp. It's the most popular seafood in the
country, but unfortunately much of the shrimp we eat are a cocktail of
chemicals, harvested at the expense of one of the world's productive
ecosystems. Worse, guidelines for finding some kind of "sustainable
shrimp" are so far nonexistent.( click title for more )
Bring Back Van Jones! Blindsiding Clean Energy With Dirty Coal
3 Feb 2010
by Jeff BiggersI miss Van Jones. A lot of us miss President Obama's former green jobs visionary.
That includes coal miners, and residents on Coal River Mountain.
If President Obama's brilliant green jobs administrator hadn't been
hounded out of office in a bizarre witch hunt last fall, we would be
engaged in an exciting discussion about pursuing a just transition to a clean energy economy at ground zero in our nation's energy policy and climate debate--the coalfields.( click title for more )
Obama's State of the Union
3 Feb 2010
by Stephen ZunesFor eight years, I wrote annotated critiques of the foreign policy segments of George W. Bush’s State of the Union speeches. Despite two ongoing wars, it was striking that Obama focused so little in his first State of the Union speech on the world outside our borders other than the call to be competitive in the global economy.( click title for more )
How Did an Idealistic President Become a Champion of Nuclear Power and By Default, Weapons Proliferation?
3 Feb 2010
by Helen CaldicottIn 1983, Barack Obama, a senior at Columbia University described his
visions of a "nuclear free world" in an article titled "Breaking the
War Mentality" in the university newsmagazine, Sundial. He described
discussions of "first- versus second-strike capabilities'' that "suit
the military-industrial interests'' with their "billion-dollar erector
sets,'' and called for the abolition of the global arsenals of tens of
thousands of deadly warheads.( click title for more )
Republicans Out of Touch as Middle Class Sinks
3 Feb 2010
by Jim HightowerAmerican politics is a hoot! Where else can raw ignorance rise to such high places — and then flaunt itself shamelessly for all to see?
For example, who needs Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien for comic relief, when we've got Andre Bauer? He's the Lieutenant governor of South Carolina (a state, by the way, that really is a comer on the political comedy circuit — especially after Gov. Mark Sanford's madcap schtick last year involving his disappearance, the Appalachian Trail and an Argentine mistress.( click title for more )
Stop the Green Tech Coup, Military Industry on the Offensive
3 Feb 2010
by Sam Daly Environmental NGO's have been uncritically thumping the green tech
funding plank and they're generating funding that could be harder to
hold onto than a fistful of sand in the Iraqi oilfields.( click title for more )
Eat Your Spinach: Time for Peace Talks in Afghanistan
3 Feb 2010
by Robert NaimanIn the last week the New York Times and Inter Press
Service have reported that the Obama Administration is having an
internal debate on whether to supports talks with senior Afghan
Taliban leaders, including Mullah Muhammad Omar, as a means of ending
the war in Afghanistan. Senior officials like Vice President Biden are
said to be more open to reaching out because they believe it will help
shorten the war.
( click title for more )
Focus on the Family: Funding Extremism Millions of Dollars at a Time
3 Feb 2010
by Amie Newman
The Super Bowl advertisement being funded and produced by Focus on the
Family, using NFL player Tim Tebow and his mother Pam to highlight the
beauty and importance of a woman being able to decide for herself whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or terminate
choosing to carry her pregnancy to term, has been discussed, dissected
and critiqued enough, I realize.( click title for more )
Howard Zinn: The People’s Historian
3 Feb 2010
by Amy GoodmanHoward Zinn, legendary historian, author and activist, died last week at the age of 87. His most famous book is “A People’s History of the United States.” Zinn told me last May, “The idea of ‘A People’s History’ is to go beyond what people have learned in school ... history through the eyes of the presidents and the generals in the battles fought in the Civil War, [to] the voices of ordinary people, of rebels, of dissidents, of women, of black people, of Asian-Americans, of immigrants, of socialists and anarchists and troublemakers of all kinds.”( click title for more )
Obama Wants You to Create the Next YouTube
3 Feb 2010
by Megan TadyHe's said it before,
and now he's said it again -- but this time President Obama's unwavering
statement in support of Net Neutrality couldn't have come at a better
time in the fight for our Internet freedom. ( click title for more )
Counterpunch
CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude. Out Of Bounds magazine calls us "America's best political newsletter".
Most of the content on this page is extracted from RSS sources from
various websites, blogs, and youtube channels. If an author prefers their
content not appear on these pages please email the below address
and the offending material will be immediately removed.
The reader is urged to click through to the
original material appearing on the original websites.
If the reader is thereby introduced to new and useful content
then this humble news aggregator has fulfilled its purpose.
