To Bush's GWOT, RIP

Only problem is, Bob. 

Can we be sure that GWOT is really dead or is it still being run by Cheney and his loyalist who still hold offices in the most important agencies of the executive when it comes to foreign policy?

By Robert Parry
March 31, 2009

President Barack Obama has come under some criticism for slowing his promised withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and for beefing up U.S. forces in Afghanistan, but his 70-day-old administration at least has dumped one part of George W. Bush’s bellicose foreign policy: the phrase “global war on terror.”

Burying the “GWOT,” as it was known in Washington jargon, also is not just a semantic shift or a meaningless word game. Bush’s post-9/11 concept of eliminating “every terrorist group of global reach” created the framework for an endless war covering the entire planet, including U.S. territory. The GWOT was to be everywhere and never ending.

(Terror has been with us since....well,.....forever. It always will be, as long a mankind's head rules, uninformed by mankind's heart.)

It became the justification in 2002 for Bush administration lawyers to craft legal opinions that asserted that the President, as Commander in Chief, possessed “plenary” or total power, thus transforming the American Republic into a new-age national security state with all constitutional and legal rights left to the discretion of George W. Bush.

Justice Department lawyers like John Yoo tossed away U.S. constitutional rights almost casually. The “global war on terror” meant scrapping habeas corpus, the ancient right to challenge arbitrary arrests. Out, too, went the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “How Close the Bush Bullet.”]

(John Yoo should be "taken out-back and horse-whipped," as my Grandpa used to say about people whose behavior there was just no rational excuse for, under any circumstances)

The GWOT overrode U.S. treaty and other commitments, opening the door to the torture of detainees in U.S. custody. It permitted the President to dispatch military units and CIA operatives to kidnap or kill suspected terrorists around the world.

Most Americans might have associated the GWOT with the fight against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the “war” actually was much broader, covering any irregular fighting force “with global reach,” which apparently was defined as any group that could pool its resources to buy an airplane ticket, whether they were holed up on an island in the Philippines, in the mountains of Central Asia, in a desert in the Middle East or in the jungles of Colombia.

Beyond intervening in guerrilla conflicts around the world, Bush's GWOT could seek “regime change” against established national governments – in Iraq, Iran and North Korea – the nations he famously labeled the "axis of evil." They were part of the GWOT, though they were not implicated in the 9/11 attacks.

Initially, Iran even joined the coalition against the Taliban as Bush moved to oust the Afghan government which had provided sanctuary to al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, Iran was still lumped into the GWOT. Some Bush administration officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, also raised 9/11 suspicions about Iraq, though the allegations turned out to be false.

(Dick Cheney reminds me of the spooky, old woman peaking out from behind her lace curtains.)

Muslim Resentments

Bush’s GWOT became especially unpopular in the Muslim world, which saw the U.S.-led campaign as directed primarily against Islamic militants

.(Who can possibly blame them?)

A Gallup poll in early 2002 found strong anti-American sentiment in U.S. allies and adversaries alike. The countries surveyed included Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The lowest scores came from Pakistan, a principal U.S. ally in the Afghan war. In nuclear-armed Pakistan, only five percent of the respondents had a favorable opinion of the United States, making any counterinsurgency cooperation with Washington problematic for Islamabad politicians.

Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport said Muslims described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked, biased." Newport added that "the people of Islamic countries have significant grievances with the West in general and with the United States in particular."

(The Muslims aren't by themselves! People from many other nations say the same thing, including my pals in Kiwiland, Oz and Europe.)

How Bush framed the terrorism issue also bred resentment and confusion inside the United States. In answering “why do they hate us?” Bush offered the sophomoric notion that Islamic extremists “hated our freedoms” and wanted to destroy the American Way of Life.

"They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government," Bush said in his Sept. 20, 2001, address to Congress. "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

(This bit of b.s. was what sent me on trips to Egypt. Bush's explanation didn't make any sense. I wanted to talk with Muslims about why they hated us. As it turns out, they didn't until shock and awe. Imagine sitting in the home of an Egyptian, Muslim family while the bombs fell on Baghdad. As the scenes of death and horrendous violence appeared on their T.V., I simply lost it. Egyptian Muslims were comforting me as I wept for the people of Iraq and the people of the U.S. Ironic, eh?)

Though playing well domestically, this self-serving explanation fell flat with many Middle East experts who recognized that bin Laden's goals were focused much more on Middle East politics and had little to do with American freedoms.

Bin Laden's principal grievance was with the government of his native land, Saudi Arabia, which he viewed as corrupt. Toward this end, he sought to drive U.S. military forces from the Persian Gulf and especially from Saudi Arabia, home of the holiest sites in Islam.

Many Middle Easterners also considered Bush’s “hate our freedom” comments ignorant and insulting because it failed to recognize their legitimate concerns about U.S. policies.

In the seven years since Bush launched the GWOT, Muslims have found many more reasons to resent the United States – the bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal, Washington’s neglect of the Palestinian problem, and Bush’s hypocritical rhetoric about democracy and freedom while favoring many Middle Eastern despots and locking prisoners up indefinitely at Guantanamo.

So, in inheriting Bush’s many messes, President Obama doesn’t only face the problem of two ongoing wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – but he also must cope with political instability in Pakistan, a strategic challenge from Iran, simmering anger among Arabs over Israel’s recent war in Gaza, and a rise in regional militancy.

In that sense, a small but not insignificant step was taken by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday when she announced that “the administration has stopped using the [‘war on terror’] phrase, and I think that speaks for itself.”

But an RIP for the GWOT is not just a nod to the sensibilities of the Muslim world. Scrapping the phrase further indicates that Obama is abandoning Bush’s rationale for an imperial presidency, even if the new President hasn’t dropped all his predecessor’s policies.

 
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

American, Peaceful, Grassroots Revolution

One thing is for sure, no one running now, or who has run in the 2008 election campaign, can fix what has befallen this nation....no....not without the help of the people. There must be a grassroots revolution well beyond the election; one that will take up residence in D.C., hound congress 24/7 and work in the hinterlands to help re-build this nation in a new way.

The movement is already there, perhaps in it's infancy, but it is a powerful movement, one that can shake the world, but in a good way, for a change. Obama felt it coming and took advantage of it, like riding the crest of a wave, he has been successful, but I am sure that he will tell you, he is the beneficiary of what is turning into a great movement. Obama did what a good leader does; he senses the mood of the people he wishes to lead, he catches the wave of a movement, he doesn't analyze every little piece of the latest internal or independent poll. Those polls don't show what's really happening in this country.

And one can be sure that the MSM is, as usual, clueless. To them, news is what ever issues forth from the mouths of politicians or natural or man-made disasters. They are as out of touch with the people as the vast majority of the D.C. politicians.

Americans must become accustomed to acting on their own to protect their own interests and that of their states and nation. It will take awhile to clean up Washington to the degree that representatives and senators understand that they work for the people, not the corporate giants.

If there is one thing I hope we learned from the 70s and all that has happened since, it would be that grassroots organizations should have three major concerns, not just one. "One issue organizations" are too easily marginalized. The other thing we should have learned is that organizations should be pro-something and not anti-something.

The pendulum is swinging back toward the left or liberal side of American politics. If liberal is defined as John Kennedy defined it, when he was called a liberal in a derogatory fashion, then count me in. Seems to me it would be impossible for anyone to call themselves conservative today, after the last 8 years of out-right fascism, calling itself conservatism, which has been building for the last 40 years.

The fascist movement, in this country, we have witnessed over the last 40 years, is as politically and morally corrupt as Rome was in her latter years. What's worse, it can be found in other countries as well. Even little New Zealand has her share of neoconservatives who would have had NZ involved in Iraq had Helen Clark not been Prime Minister.

It must all end now! Even now it may be to late. The industrialists, now called Corporatists (which, according to Mussolini, is the same thing as Fascists) have shown themselves prepared to destroy the planet and ever species on it in the name of greed, gluttony and lust for power. God willing, they will destroy themselves first, or the people will.

American Dissatisfaction and the Peaceful Grassroots Revolution, Part 4

By Justin Soutar
05/15/2008 09:53:04 AM EST

Imagine a nonpartisan presidential candidate who lives in a modest house, walks or bicycles around town, mows his own lawn, travels in a 1990s motorhome, and does without air conditioning and TV. Meet "Average Joe" Schriner. Joe explains that his age (52), his height (5'10"), his weight (180 pounds), his yearly income (five digits), his home state (Ohio) and his overall political outlook represent the average American.

In 1990, this Cleveland journalist and inner-city substance abuse counselor relocated to Tiffin in northwest Ohio to experience rural life. In 1992, along with his wife Liz and children Sarah and Joseph, Mr. Schriner embarked on an eight-year, 60,000-mile journey of the nation's back roads, visiting hundreds of small towns to collect research. In 2000 "Average Joe" Schriner registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to kick off his quiet presidential campaign. Since then--with the added company of a third child, Jonathan--he has traveled another 20,000 miles through the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the Southwest. In this 2008 election year, Joe is touring his home state once again.

"We're running as concerned Midwestern parents," he explains to reporters. "What Liz and I are most concerned about are mounting levels of violence, poverty, drug abuse, sex in the media, pollution." The Schriners have devoted their lives to making a real difference in the country, and their enthusiasm is contagious. Joe's campaign slogan? "The common Joe for the common good."

In 1997 the Schriner family had moved from Tiffin to Bluffton, a quiet town on I-75 about one hour north of Sidney. This led to a 2002 book called America's Best Town: Bluffton, Ohio 45817, in which "Average Joe" presents this little-known village as the most accurate representation of his platform.

This is a man who is not simply walking the fence, pandering to each group of voters in order to win votes. No, Joe believes wholeheartedly in each of his positions on each issue. Very few candidates for office have presented so many helpful and innovative ideas, all within a devout Catholic perspective. Not only do most of "Average Joe's" issue positions make good sense by themselves, but they make superb sense when combined into a single, organic, positive and sensible political philosophy.

A holistic pro-lifer, Joe firmly opposes abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research involving embryonic abortion, and the death penalty. He would also open more crisis pregnancy care centers thruout the nation.

No big-name candidate can compete with "Average Joe" on fiscal responsibility. Joe would abolish the personal income tax and the IRS; institute a national sales tax; simplify the tax code down to a one-page form; and ensure corporations pay their fair share. He says we must "tighten our belts and pay... [the record-busting national budget deficit] off so our children don't inherit it."

If elected, Joe would replace landfills with recycling centers and outlaw toxic pesticides. He sees a deleterious trend toward mass-production mega farms, which he hopes to reverse by encouraging the retention and growth of small family farms. He would slash energy prices and clean up the environment by dramatically shifting America's energy sources to electric, wind and solar power. Joe favors US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

On the surface, Joe's agenda of free health care and social security for all Americans sounds like Clinton socialism. Not so, however. "We would shift power in a tremendous fashion back to people at the local level," says Joe. With the federal bureaucracy tamed, less defense spending and America's nuclear weapons program stopped, hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenue will be available for social programs. Banning toxic farm chemicals, tightening emissions regulations, and encouraging sustainable agricultural practices will lead to a healthier populace less in need of professional health care services. An emphasis on natural remedies as well as reining in the corrupt pharmaceutical industry will also reduce health care costs. In light of Joe's comprehensive approach and attention to the root causes of problems, free health care and social security make more sense.

Regarding the complex immigration issue, Joe would first have local communities support the aliens' immediate needs, including temporary employment, and would dismantle the nation's new southern border wall. Then he would cut red tape from the legal immigration system and clamp down on American mega-businesses operating in Mexico; the latter would help expose and clean Mexican government corruption. Then "Average Joe" would aid Mexico in developing its own distributist (free but fair) economic system, giving the Mexican people incentive to remain in their home country.

Joe is no slouch when it comes to foreign policy either. On a colorful website, www.voteforjoe.com, he has compared Middle Eastern terrorism to US inner-city violence: "Frustrated kids in US cities join gangs. Frustrated kids in the Middle East join terrorist cells." Joe will distribute foreign aid more evenly to develop the world's needy countries, initiate global nuclear disarmament to cool off the "arms race," and establish a U.S. Department of Peace. His plan for Iraq includes a formal apology to the Iraqi people for invading their land and stealing their oil, more intensive training of the Iraqi military, humanitarian and financial assistance for rebuilding the country, and a gradual withdrawal of troops effective immediately. "I would also admit there is a tremendous duality in telling other nations they can't have WMD's--when we have the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world," adds "Average Joe."

Finally, Joe gives the current unthinkable atrocity in Sudan, "the first genocide of the 21st century," the attention it deserves. He supports the recent deployment of 18,000 UN-AU peacekeeping troops in Darfur; would demand that Omar al-Bashir halt the Sudanese genocide immediately; and would rally international humanitarian assistance for the millions of starving, destitute and threatened inhabitants of Sudan.

Mr. Schriner's first book about his unique presidential campaign, published in 2000, is entitled The Back Road to the White House. "We wouldn't live in the White House," declares Joe. "We've grown too soft as Americans...We're asking Americans to cut back tremendously on lifestyle." And Joe himself is leading by example. He told Alabama journalist Ken Kifer in 2002: "We share the bath water and then use the water to wash clothes. Not rhetoric, but our way of living." That year the Schriners spent Thanksgiving Day with Kifer, eating a simple four-course meal Liz had prepared the day before.

Says Joe, "I don't want to leave a world of climate change, war, abortion, rural and inner city poverty, violent streets, nuclear proliferation, astronomical national debt, little social security, dwindling access to healthcare... to our children. What sane parent would?" "Average Joe" sums up his grassroots campaign thus: "We believe that if you heal the family, you heal the country."

As a baby boomer, Joe deeply understands his generation's needs such as health care and Social Security, but he also strongly appeals to younger folks with his radically fresh, well-grounded, grassroots approach. Joe's philosophy transcends the ideological warfare of America's two-party system to reflect a perfect balance of individual responsibility and concern for the common good. The common sense, coherence and integrity of this philosophy are incomparable.

In the 2004 election, I wrote Joe Schriner's name on the ballot both to support him and show my dissatisfaction with Bush and Kerry. I intend to vote for Joe again in 2008. Currently, Joe is hoping to get his name on the ballot as the Green Party choice for president. This past September he attended the Green Party convention in Philadelphia and attracted considerable positive attention. After doing what little I can to support and promote his candidacy, I pray for Joe and his family and wish him the best of luck.

Instead of targeting big cities and preaching to emotional crowds about what his lobbyist backers claim America needs, Mr. Schriner ventures into every corner of the country to let people show and tell him what America needs. His courageous, idealistic, open-minded grassroots campaign is successful, vibrant and growing. Less than two months before writing his name on the ballot, I had the honor of meeting Joe personally at a farm festival in Yorkshire, so I can vouch for his honesty and integrity firsthand. He may be just "the little guy" with limited chances of winning the American presidency, but he gets me genuinely excited as no other candidate can. "Average Joe" Schriner has taken to heart John F. Kennedy's famous maxim, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." And he is inspiring the rest of us average folks to live by that motto as well.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Congress: How Freakin' Stupid Can You Get!

It's been 90 years since the Armenian genocide.
Was it necessary to condemn the Turks Now?

Or why not just condemn every genocide that has ever happened anywhere, at any time in recorded history? (Not that our congress has the moral authority to condemn anyone at this point)

U.S. Urges Turkish Restraint On Kurds
Strike Could Imperil Broader War in Iraq

By Molly Moore and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, October 14, 2007; A01

ISTANBUL, Oct. 13 -- U.S. officials began an intense lobbying effort Saturday to defuse Turkish threats to launch a cross-border military attack against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and to limit access to critical air and land routes that have become a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq.

"The Turkish government and public are seriously weighing all of their options," Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said after meetings with Turkish officials in Ankara, the capital. "We need to focus with Turkey on our long-term mutual interests."

But even as the U.S. official appealed for restraint, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking at a political rally in Istanbul on Saturday, urged the parliament to vote unanimously next week to "declare a mobilization" against Kurdish rebels and their "terrorist organization," the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

Fears of a new frontier of instability in the troubled Middle East sent oil prices soaring Friday to a record high of $84 a barrel. U.S. military officials predicted disastrous consequences if Turkey carries out a threat to strike northern Iraq, and they warned of serious repercussions for the safety of American troops if Turkey reduces supply lines in response to a congressional vote last week on the killing of Armenians nine decades ago.

The confluence of two seemingly unrelated events could not have come at a worse time. Thirteen soldiers killed last weekend in Turkey in the most deadly attack by Kurdish separatists in more than a decade had barely been buried when the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington approved a resolution labeling as genocide the mass killings of Armenians during the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey does not deny the deaths but argues that they occurred as part of a war in which Turks were also killed.

"This is not only about a resolution," said Egemen Bagis, a member of the Turkish parliament and a foreign policy adviser to Erdogan. "We're fed up with the PKK -- it is a clear and present danger for us. This insult over the genocide claims is the last straw."

Domestic politics in both countries -- the Armenian lobby that pushed for the genocide resolution in the U.S. Congress and growing pressure on the Turkish president to stop Kurdish rebel attacks -- collided to create an international crisis.

"It's a difficult time for the relationship," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters Saturday during her trip to Russia, noting that Fried and another senior State Department official had traveled to Turkey to reassure the Turks "that we really value this relationship."

A recent poll conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a transatlantic public policy organization, found that Turkish attitudes toward the United States were becoming increasingly hostile. Using its 100-degree thermometer scale, the fund found that Turkish "warmth" toward the United States had plunged from 28 degrees in 2004 to 11 degrees in 2007.

"Each time we have a soldier killed, many people look at Washington and they believe that Americans are responsible for this because they prevent us from stopping the infiltration into Turkey," said Onur Oymen, deputy chairman of the opposition Republican People's Party.

Erdogan is feeling increased heat from his military, which is suspicious of his Islamic roots and acquiescence to Washington in taking no action against Kurdish rebels in Iraq. His public is angry over the genocide vote, frustrated with a European Union that is unwilling to admit Turkey to its club, and outraged that the United States has turned its back on what Turks consider their own fight against terrorism, a 23-year-long war with the Kurdish separatists.

"The Turkish newspapers are printing full front-page pictures of dead soldiers with Turkish flags," said Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The accusation is that this guy is soft on the Kurdish issue and does only what the U.S. wants him to do."

That perception prompted Erdogan to issue a warning to Washington this week: "If you're against [the rebels], make your attitude clear and do whatever is necessary. If you cannot do it, then let us do it."

A major operation by Turkey "would start a war with the Iraqi Kurds," said Henri Barkey, a former State Department official who now heads the International Relations Department at Lehigh University. "Northern Iraq is the only place that the U.S. has managed to achieve a modicum of stability and [it] is afraid that a major operation would unleash violence in the north.

"I'm sure the U.S. would say okay to a limited, one-time operation," Barkey said. "But everyone knows a one-time operation is not going to solve the problem. The Turks want a carte blanche to do whatever they want to do. That's the problem."

Marc Grossman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and undersecretary of state for political affairs during President Bush's first term, said there were three reasons the United States has been reluctant to take action in northern Iraq against the PKK: U.S. troops are already fully engaged, and the north is generally stable. Plus, he said, "there's a lot of sympathy in some parts of our government for the Kurds and some residual disappointment for the Turkish government decision on March 1, 2003," to forbid the United States to launch an assault in Iraq through Turkey.

Human rights groups have long criticized Turkey for the brutal treatment of its Kurdish minority and its efforts to suppress the Kurdish culture and language within Turkish borders.

The PKK problem had become so frustrating to both Turkey and the United States that the retired U.S. and Turkish generals appointed in 2006 to help resolve some of the tensions have left their jobs: The Turk was relieved of his position just before he planned to resign, and the American offered his resignation letter weeks ago, though it was accepted by the Bush administration only this week, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.

Bagis, the soft-spoken Turkish lawmaker and Erdogan adviser, has what for the moment might be one of the world's least enviable positions -- chairman of the Turkey-USA Interparliamentary Friendship Caucus, a group of Turkish lawmakers who meet regularly with their counterparts in the U.S. Congress.

He returned here from Washington on Friday after a failed push to head off the genocide resolution. On Saturday, in the midst of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of the Ramadan fasting period, Bagis's young children were pleading with him to get off the telephone and play.

But Bagis could not shake the frustration of the past several months. He and other Turkish officials, including Erdogan, have been warning the Americans for months that the situation on the Turkish-Iraqi border had deteriorated.

The PKK leadership operates freely in northern Iraq, they argued. The rebels have established camps and a safe haven, and the attacks in Turkey are becoming increasingly bold. Neither the United States nor the Iraqi government had taken any action to arrest PKK leaders or curb their activities.

Even though the U.S. government was the first foreign country to declare the PKK a terrorist organization, it appeared to many Turkish officials that the United States was setting a double standard in not allowing them to launch an attack against the rebels to protect their soldiers and citizens.

After the past two weeks' spate of PKK attacks, which killed a total of 30 soldiers, police officers and civilians, Turkish authorities arrested suspected rebels who were carrying U.S. military-issue 9mm Glock semiautomatic pistols. U.S. officials said at the time that the weapons had been stolen.

Bagis's response: "The good news, we have found your stolen weapons; the bad news, they're killing us."

He added, "And while all this is going on, all of a sudden this resolution comes along with this ally you consider as your most important strategic partner in the world, your strong NATO ally -- insulting you with something that is claimed to have happened back in 1915.

"It's not like we're saying, 'Oh, it never happened,' " Bagis said. "We're saying, 'Let the historians judge it, not the politicians.' "

Wright reported from Washington.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Do You Feel Safer? Freer? Prouder to be an American?

I know I sure as hell don't, but my feelings have little to do with Osama bin Laden or his merry band of "turrsts." Vile and self-righteously murderous as they are, I have a far better chance of getting killed on the highway, dying at the hands of a physician who makes a human mistake or checking out on an influenza ticket this winter.

The thing is, I do not demand unfailing security and a sense of perfect safety from my government in this life, because that would be nutz, unless I am willing to spend the rest of my life in solitary confinement. Even then, I would be dependent on the humanity of my jailers. Eventually, I will die anyway and so will everyone I have ever loved and cared about not to mention a whole bunch of folks I don't give a whit for or have never known.

Face it, people, there is no such thing as real security and safety. Life is not safe. I am not even sure it should be.

My hunch is that if someone wants to blow something up badly enough, they, or someone else, will eventually mange to pull it off. If someone wants to kill me, personally, there is little standing in their way.

Terrorists have been around throughout recorded history. Some of them make up governments. They terrorize their own people and sometimes others. Other terrorists are not leaders or members of any national government, but rather use terrorism as a tactic against a much more powerful state or national military. Terrorism is a horrible, immoral, amoral, barbaric tactic, especially when used on ordinary people as a way of targeting the governments of those people. I imagine that if there was such a thing as hell in the after-life, the deepest recesses would be reserved for people who practice such acts or order such acts to be committed.

I do, however, expect my government to protect Americans and their children from dangerous products distributed by American corporations as well as businesses who export to this country from other countries. How many times must bottom-line sucking corporations have to prove themselves untrustworthy before we can agree, once and for all, that some regulation is necessary.

I expect my government officials to tell me the truth, especially when it comes to really important issues like war and peace, life and death, health and illness, poverty or well-being and what the hell they are doing with my money and in my name. I remember Nuremberg. Those issues, among others, are very important to me.

We all know that terrorists mean us harm. We do not assume that about tire manufacturers, toy makers, dog food makers and fisheries; not to mention pharmaceutical companies, agribusiness and others.

Terrorists, as god-awful and heinous as they are, cannot suspend the Constitution, declare martial law and/or send nut-job mercenaries, armed to the teeth, into my town., but George Bush can.

Terrorists cannot, on their own, force Americans onto their soil, so to speak, so they can kill us daily. Hell would freeze over before Osama bin Laden could rob the U.S. treasury for billions (or is it trillions, by now?), pushing the American economy into recession and inflation with a devalued dollar, if not eventual collapse. But George W. Bush and his administration can and are doing just that.

No terrorist could have ever convinced a good sized majority of the people of the world that this country, my country, is a dire threat to peace in the world; untrustworthy and criminal in its actions internationally. Nope, that took Bush and Company. It's true that the USA was not well-thought of during the Vietnam war, but having lived through both eras, I can say without a doubt that I have never seen, nor did I think I ever would see, my country so roundly despised among the global community.

Oddly, I can't feel any fear anymore, let alone terror....just bone-crushing grief and pure, burning anger.


From The Blog, One Thousand Reasons:

Six years of what?

by Mary Shaw

Sunday September 9, 2007

This week, we mark the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. And where do we stand? Let's see.

Osama bin Laden is still at large, and continues to taunt us.

Al-Qaeda and its sympathizers continue to plan attacks on Americans and our allies.

Top foreign policy experts say that we are losing the war on terror.

And Americans feel less safe today than ever before.

All this despite our having to take our shoes off in airports.

All this despite the fact that I am not allowed to carry a four-ounce bottle of shampoo onto an airplane.

All this despite the Bush administration's insistence that only George W. Bush can keep us safe, and that a vote for John Kerry would have been a vote for the terrorists.

And all this despite Bush's assertions that we are fighting the terrorists over there so we won't have to fight them over here.

Instead of keeping us safe, Bush diverted our attention and resources from a noble effort in Afghanistan, where bin Laden was hiding, and chose to wage an unprovoked war of aggression on an unarmed country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 and posed no threat to us. As of this writing, Bush's Iraq adventure has cost the lives of 3,762 U.S. troops and countless innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.

Instead of keeping us safe, Bush turned the world against us with his arrogant cowboy-style foreign policy, bypassing the United Nations and international law. Shoot first, ask questions later.

And, of course, when questions do get asked, it's done under what they like to call "enhanced interrogation techniques" (so they don't have to call it "torture").

Yes, instead of keeping us safe, Bush has his advisors engage in semantic and legal gymnastics to justify torture, even as he denies its use.

Instead of keeping us safe, Bush kidnaps "terror suspects", their families, and anyone that the bounty hunters care to sell us for whatever reason and whatever price. He locks them up in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and he throws away the key.

Or he sends them to other countries that are known for their use of torture, and lets them do the interrogating.

Instead of keeping us safe, Bush methodically undermines the rights and liberties that until now were guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. He spies on us without court warrants, he does away with habeas corpus, and he establishes secret prisons, and military kangaroo courts that mock the rule of law.

If anyone complains, Bush simply has his servants in Congress pass legislation that legalizes Bush's illegal activities.

And I fear that it will not stop, because Congress chooses to represent the White House rather than We The People.

Barring impeachment, Bush still has another 16 months in office. Imagine how much more damage he can do.

-----

Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views on politics, human rights, and social justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Note that the views expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.

E-mail: mary@maryshawonline.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hey Rudy? What the Hell Have You Been Smoking?

How can we possibly forgetthat when the 9/11 attacks occured, we had a Repulican president and NYC had a Republlican mayor and N.Y. State had a Republican governor.

How in the world can you say that Republicans are better on terrorism?

Jeebus, just how stupid do you think we are?

Message to Rudy Giuliani: Are you certifiably insane?
By Mary MacElveen
April 26, 2007


I could not believe the lunacy coming from Rudy Giuliani’s when he said, "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." He said that to place fear in all of us if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Hey, Mr. Giuliani, I for one am tired of the fear-mongering. Like most Americans and the polls show it, we want to live free, breathe free and have hope restored to all of us. We are tired of the bondage of fear, Mr. Giuliani.

If one looks back President Bush’s speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln in which the sign “Mission Accomplished” hung in the back ground, his only accomplished mission was to place fear in the citizenry. He has turned America into a country that no longer represents the model long ago promised all of us by our founding fathers.

Thanks to his Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act, he stripped our sacred document known as the United States Constitution. With his signing into law both Patriot Acts and the latter Military Commissions Act, he turned a free country into a state that models one being led by a dictator. After all, we know he often refers to himself as “the decider” In essence what he showed in signing those acts into law, is that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked us indeed won.

Speaking of bin Laden, Keith Olbermann compared that statement made by Giuliani to any number of fearful messages coming from bin Laden. I do not want a president that resembles a terrorist.

Speaking of casualties being felt by our men and women in the armed services in which nine died this past weekend due to a suicide car-bomb, I for one am tired of America’s blood and treasure being sacrificed for this present Republican administration. In my last piece in which I spoke of their deaths, I cited how President Bush attended the Virginia Tech convocation, but never attended one single military funeral.

In my email box this morning a striking email was sent to me by a soldier that has served in Iraq in which he said to me, “The war has been going on for so long that it is no longer fore front news, it's horrible to think that people would get sick of see what our boys are doing, but they do.” He also said that he would not want the president or the media to show up at his funeral because it is a time to mourn those lost by family and friends and without the interruption of his presence at it. I can respect that.

In promulgating this war and with the help of the media in past years and even in the present they do not deserve to attend any funeral of a soldier whose life has been cut short.

I think that America is thirsting for a new leadership to stave off these casualties, but not do so in a defensive way as Giuliani alluded to. It is through the act of diplomacy. Diplomacy has not been present within this Republican administration, only the use of force. I have often said any dummy can drop a bomb. Senator John F. Kerry stated in speech when he said he would not be running in 2008, we have to get back to the “heavy diplomatic lifting” as he targeted the Bush administration concerning Iran.

I think in order to stave off further loss of life our soldiers, we need an administration that says to its diplomats, you will not come home until we have brokered a deal for a long and lasting peace.

We cannot remain addicted to war-mongering if we are to survive as a human race and we must end this addiction to it. Those that do support it are in need of some serious rehab.

Should we stay the course through another Republican administration in which anyone of these Republican candidates will continue this war in Iraq; the casualty rate will continue to rise as each day passes. I say that of the Republican candidates because I do not hear any message coming from them that they will take this country in a new direction and divorce themselves from Bush’s brand of fear and war-mongering.

It has been reported by The Lancet that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died who did nothing to us to deserve this and we have displaced millions of Iraqis. Guess where the new wave of those that may wish to do us harm will come from? I have often spoken of the blow-back effect and should we keep on this present course, I believe a ticking time-bomb has been set and just awaits the American people.

Keith Olbermann in his on-air commentary said, “Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?” add to that the number of Iraqis killed as mentioned above. I have often said that the Iraqi people have suffered a 9/11 event from the inception of this illegal war on a daily basis for over four years now. It is time for new leadership in Washington D.C. to stop this slaughter of these innocent people.

Giuliani has stated that by electing a Democrat, it will take us back to a pre-9/11 way of thinking. If anything, I want to go back to a pre-December 12th, 2000 way of thinking. That is the day that the Supreme Court handed down the Bush V. Gore decision that handed this presidency over to Bush. I want the right to have every vote counted. Our democracy and the furtherance of it demand it. Our soldiers protect that freedom and for anyone to usurp the will of the people diminishes our soldiers in the eyes of the American people.

On September 11th, 2001, this is what America’s mayor Giuliani had to say "I turned to Bernie, and I said, Thank God George Bush is our President” Note to Giuliani, God had nothing to do with him being our president, five of the nine black-robed injustices did.

I would give anything to go back in time in which the Supreme Court stayed out of this case in which one of the terms used in handing down that decision was the “irreparable harm to George W. Bush” When I heard that phrase and knowing what has transpired since, I have often asked; well what about the rest of us?

Perhaps with a President Gore in power he could have implemented many of the findings in the commission he chaired on Aviation Safety and Security. In that commission report, please take note of this passage, “Although the threat of terrorism is increasing, the danger of an individual becoming a victim of a terrorist attack -- let alone an aircraft bombing -- will doubtless remain very small. But terrorism isn't merely a matter of statistics. We fear a plane crash far more than we fear something like a car accident. One might survive a car accident, but there's no chance in a plane at 30,000 feet. This fear is one of the reasons that terrorists see airplanes as attractive targets. And, they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols.” While addressing this fear and easing the minds of the American people, he did foresee within this one report that planes would be seen as attractive targets.

You will be amazed as you read this Hardball transcript where it states, “Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.” There is that familiar name, meaning, Richard Clarke who tried to warn President Bush of impending threats coming from al Qaeda. Maybe if Rice had read the complete commission report chaired by Al Gore, she would have been brought up to speed.

Much was lost to all Americans when within that commission report chaired by former Vice President Gore, when it stated, “When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States. They have so little respect for our values -- so little regard for human life or the principles of justice that are the foundation of American society -- that they would destroy innocent children and devoted mothers and fathers completely at random. This cannot be tolerated, or allowed to intimidate free societies. There must be a concerted national will to fight terrorism. There must be a willingness to apply sustained economic, political and commercial pressure on countries sponsoring terrorists. There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice. There must be the resolve to punish those who would violate sanctions imposed against terrorist states.”

I have heard from people throughout these past six going on seven years that Al Gore if he were allowed to go on and become our president would have been soft on terrorism. Oh please look again at what he said in this commission report. He had the forethought and knowledge that this could be done by terrorists. By the way, this report came out on February 12th, 1997. This report could have been used to help stop the attacks we all felt on September 11th, 2001. This report could have been used to save both American and Iraqi lives. It could have been used to save the lives of our soldiers which now total over 3,300 who have lost their lives in Iraq.
When Gore mentioned, “There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice” through those commission findings, in juxtaposition we have this statement coming from President Bush when he shouted out through that bullhorn at Ground Zero, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." One must ask; well have they heard us? No, because this president targeted the wrong people. He has failed at capturing Osama bin Laden. To show the stupidity of this present Republican administration, Bush promised to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” which turned into, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” Yet, Giuliani wants this brand of leadership to continue? What are you certifiably insane, Rudy?

I do believe if Al Gore went onto become our president, he would have paid attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. He would have paid attention to a counter-terrorism expert in Richard Clarke who warned President Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda. You would not have seen a President Gore fix the intelligence to meet any plans on attacking Iraq. You would not have seen a CIA agent in Valerie Plame being outed in a Gore administration.
While I have not stated which candidate I would back for the 2008 Democratic nomination, if Al Gore were to say at some point, “I am willing to fight for you; are you with me?” as he stated at the 2000 Democratic National Convention that would seal the deal for me. I once said of Al Gore, “I thirst to drink from the cup of intelligence” that is because we have seen anything but during this present Republican administration.

Author's note: To contact me, my address is, xmjmac@optonline.net Print Article
-->

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

U.S. Using Terrorism? Nothing New Here...

Only 16 new copies of this out of print hardcover editon available at a special BuzzFlash value price.

Why is it important to remember the U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Allende and the placement of a torturer, Pinochet, in power in Chile?

For one thing, the key architect of using terror to dislodge democratically elected regimes, notably Chile, is Henry Kissinger. He is still, according to news reports, a key advisor to George W. Bush and Cheney.

Central to Kissinger's Machiavellian assertion of U.S. power for the sake of dominance alone is the use of terror. Yes, that is not some sort of radical, far left assertion. It is fact.

Take this excerpt from a cable during the Kissinger orchestration of the overthrow (and "suiciding") of Allende, as included in a New Yorker review of this book written a few years back: "For Chileans, September 11th marks a different tragedy -- the anniversary of the 1973 coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.

This timely book weaves together thirty years of declassified documents with a gripping narrative of America's involvement in the affair. At a National Security Council meeting in 1970, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird said of Allende, "We want to do everything we can to hurt him and bring him down," and a C.I.A. memo from the same year describes efforts of a key ally "to increase the level of terrorism in Santiago."

This terrorism included the assassination of René Schneider, the constitutionalist commander-in-chief of Chile's armed forces, which was carried out with C.I.A.-provided funds and submachine guns. The evidence that Kornbluh has gathered is overwhelming."

In short, the use of terrorism to overthrow a Democratically-elected regime in Chile was unofficial U.S. policy. And once Pinochet was installed, with Kissinger's blessing, a reign of terror was visited upon the people of Chile.

This is the reality: the U.S. replaced a Democratically-elected government with military terrorists.That, again, is just the fact, not some wild theorizing.

READ THE COMPLETE REVIEW >>>


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Justice Department infalted/defalted Terrorism Cases

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer Tue Feb 20, 4:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found.

Responding, a Justice spokesman pointed to figures showing that prosecutors in the department's headquarters for the most part either accurately or underreported their data — underscoring what he called efforts to avoid pumping up federal terror statistics.

The numbers, used to monitor the department's progress in battling terrorists, are reported to Congress and the public and help, in part, shape the department's budget.

"For these and other reasons, it is essential that the department report accurate terrorism-related statistics," the audit concluded.

Fine's office took care to say the flawed data appear to be the result of "decentralized and haphazard" methods of collection or disagreement over how the numbers are reported, and do not appear to be intentional.

Still, the errors led Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to question whether the department had exaggerated the number of terror cases.

"If the Department of Justice can't even get their own books in order, how are we supposed to have any confidence they are doing the job they should be?" said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the department. "Whether this is just an accounting error or an attempt to pad terror prosecution statistics for some other reason, the Department of Justice of all places should be classifying cases for what they are, not what they want us to think them to be."

Auditors looked at 26 categories of statistics — including numbers of suspects charged and convicted in terror cases, and terror-related threats against cities and other U.S. targets — compiled by the FBI, Justice's Criminal Division, and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

It found that data from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys were the most severely flawed. Auditors said the office, which compiles statistics from the 94 federal prosecutors' districts nationwide, both under- and over-counted the number of terror-related cases during a four-year period.

The office has since agreed to change the way it counts and classifies anti-terrorism cases, said department spokesman Dean Boyd.

Boyd denied suggestions that the department pumped up its numbers. He said Criminal Division prosecutors at Justice headquarters and the FBI have overhauled their respective case reporting systems since 2004 for a more accurate picture of terror-related workloads. Both agencies, he said, were strained to accurately report terrorism data in the flood of cases immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The notion that the Justice Department intentionally inflated its statistics is false and flatly contradicted by the OIG report itself," Boyd said.

In all but one area, Criminal Division prosecutors either accurately stated or underreported their data — the ones the department usually uses in public statements about its counterterror efforts, Boyd noted. He said the Justice Department has already completed most of the fixes recommended in the audit.

Much of the problem stemmed from how that office defines anti-terrorism cases.

A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys' office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures.
Other examples, according to the audit, included:

_Charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens.

_Prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application.

_Charges against a suspect for dealing firearms without a license. The prosecutor handling the case told auditors it should not have been labeled as anti-terrorism.

"We do not agree that law enforcement efforts such as these should be counted as anti-terrorism," the audit concluded. Even if those cases were not taken into account, the audit said, the U.S. attorneys' office had overstated statistics in all other categories it reported.
___
On the Net:
The audit can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0720/final.pdf


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.