Sunday, March 23, 2003
Michael Moore's Oscar Acceptance Speech
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and
Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I
have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and
we would like to ? they're here in solidarity with me because we like
nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We
live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects
a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending
us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct
tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush.
Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope
and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very > much.
Nader calls Bush `dictator'
DEFEATED IN 2000, HE DENIES CANDIDACY ALLOWED GOP TO TRIUMPH
By Kaye Ross
Mercury News
Ralph Nader said his 2000 presidential candidacy -- which some say siphoned off votes that could have meant a Democratic victory -- is not to blame for President Bush or his war.
The war in Iraq developed instead, he said, from ``a messianic militaristic determination turned by a closed mind, facilitated by a cowering Congress and opposition Democrat Party and undeterred by a `probing' press.''
Bush is acting ``in effect as a selected dictator,'' Nader told the Mercury News in an interview Friday. The president has not listened to any of the many retired admirals, generals and foreign-policy experts who have warned against the war, Nader said. And the stated reasons for going to war ``have either been disproved or greatly distorted,'' he said.
The greatest danger will come, Nader said, after the war has been won. Bush, whom he called ``a hit-and-run president,'' will not stick with the difficult, protracted process of rebuilding Iraq and making it democratic, he said.
The warring factions Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has held at bay will dissolve into Shiite Muslims against Sunni Muslims against secular Baath Party loyalists, and Kurds fighting invading Turks, he said.
``For a cheap political advantage, the administration will destroy freedoms and civil rights, undermine our economy and destroy the position of the United States in the world,'' Nader said.
But it's not his fault, he said. In fact, people could just as easily blame David McReynolds, the Socialist Party candidate in 2000, for giving the key state of Florida to Bush, he noted. McReynolds polled 622 votes in the state, and Democratic Vice President Al Gore lost by 537 votes. Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate, got 97,488 votes.
``When people ask me this, I say, `What would you have me do?' '' Nader said. ``Everybody has a right to run for office.''
The Art Of War
"So to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest
excellence; the highest excellence is to subdue the enemy's army
without fighting at all."? Sun Tzu The Art of War
excellence; the highest excellence is to subdue the enemy's army
without fighting at all."? Sun Tzu The Art of War
From Jesus to Jack Daniels
Great satire from Salt Lake City Weekly
Divine Calling
George and his "imaginary friend" look for evil-doers.
by D. P. Sorensen
Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer announced today that God has taken up residence in the White House. “This should lay to rest all the doubt out there about where our Lord and Savior stands on the issue of Iraq,” said the obviously elated Mr. Fleischer. “God has informed President Bush in a private meeting that He is on our side. He said that He had never taken a shine to that Saddam Hussein fellow and was glad the United States was going to quote ‘whack him’ unquote.”
When reporters tried to question Mr. Fleischer as to God’s exact whereabouts in the White House, the cagey, balding spokesman had a quick response: “Surely you must know the Creator can’t be pinned down. He is omnipresent. He’s here, there and everywhere, though He seems to have a thing about the Lincoln bedroom.”
White House insiders say First Lady Laura Bush is not happy about the Lord hanging out at the White House. She has reportedly complained to friends that the president only has eyes for the Lord, and sometimes sits for hours with a beatific expression on his face. Laura tells friends it reminds her of the days when he’d get sloshed on Jack Daniels and stare at a football game on TV. At first Laura described God as Dubya’s “invisible friend” or “imaginary playmate.” These days, according to reports, she calls him “Harvey,” after the invisible six-foot-tall rabbit in the Jimmy Stewart movie.
The First Lady on several occasions has confided to close friends that she is increasingly frustrated with her husband’s “faith-based initiatives,” which are programs run by religions rather than the federal government. After a night out with the girls in a posh Georgetown watering hole, Laura was overheard saying, “I’d like to see some faith-based initiatives in our bedroom.” Friends have encouraged Laura to get in contact with Dr. Phil, who is scheduled to do a show called “My Husband is More Interested in God Than Me.”
Highly placed sources in the White House reveal that the First Lady is not the only casualty of her husband’s infatuation with the Almighty. The president is now totally oblivious to White House staff, whom in happier times he liked to horse around with or play pranks on. Jorge Menudo, a sous chef in the White House mess, smiled as he recalled how the president used to unscrew the cap on the salt shaker, and then collapse in laughter after Vice President Cheney, whose heart condition requires a low-salt diet, would empty the entire shaker on his chicken-fried steak. On other occasions, the president would sneak into the staff dormitory and short-sheet a few beds, or fill assorted shoes with Colgate shaving cream. By all accounts, the president’s favorite prank was sneaking up on the French ambassador and giving him a wedgie.
According to Mr. Menudo, those care-free days are no more. “President Bush fired my friend Arnie, who has been the White House barber for 30 years. He called Arnie an evil-doer after he took a little too much off the sides. And after Mr. Bush almost choked to death on that pretzel, the poor waiter was whisked off to an undisclosed location by the CIA.”
These days, instead of horsing around with the White House staff, Mr. Bush takes long walks on the South Lawn with the Creator of the Universe. On rare occasions, Bush and “Harvey” (the Secret Service has adopted the First Lady’s mocking moniker as the code word for the Lord) will head out to the local mall, where the president likes to try on baseball caps and look for evil-doers on the escalator.
When the president appears on public occasions, observers have noticed that he now wears a tiny earpiece. There is speculation that God is telling Mr. Bush what to say, using a celestial wavelength almost impossible for evil-doers to intercept. Some observers think the divine prompting via the earpiece explains the president’s propensity for verbal gaffes, such as his comment in February of 2000 that “there is madmen in the world, and there are terror.”
In an exclusive interview, the First Lady told City Weekly she longs for the days when George preferred Jack Daniels to Jesus. “I wish he’d go back to booze. He used to get drunk and pick a fight. Now he’s got religion and wants to start a war.”
Divine Calling
George and his "imaginary friend" look for evil-doers.
by D. P. Sorensen
Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer announced today that God has taken up residence in the White House. “This should lay to rest all the doubt out there about where our Lord and Savior stands on the issue of Iraq,” said the obviously elated Mr. Fleischer. “God has informed President Bush in a private meeting that He is on our side. He said that He had never taken a shine to that Saddam Hussein fellow and was glad the United States was going to quote ‘whack him’ unquote.”
When reporters tried to question Mr. Fleischer as to God’s exact whereabouts in the White House, the cagey, balding spokesman had a quick response: “Surely you must know the Creator can’t be pinned down. He is omnipresent. He’s here, there and everywhere, though He seems to have a thing about the Lincoln bedroom.”
White House insiders say First Lady Laura Bush is not happy about the Lord hanging out at the White House. She has reportedly complained to friends that the president only has eyes for the Lord, and sometimes sits for hours with a beatific expression on his face. Laura tells friends it reminds her of the days when he’d get sloshed on Jack Daniels and stare at a football game on TV. At first Laura described God as Dubya’s “invisible friend” or “imaginary playmate.” These days, according to reports, she calls him “Harvey,” after the invisible six-foot-tall rabbit in the Jimmy Stewart movie.
The First Lady on several occasions has confided to close friends that she is increasingly frustrated with her husband’s “faith-based initiatives,” which are programs run by religions rather than the federal government. After a night out with the girls in a posh Georgetown watering hole, Laura was overheard saying, “I’d like to see some faith-based initiatives in our bedroom.” Friends have encouraged Laura to get in contact with Dr. Phil, who is scheduled to do a show called “My Husband is More Interested in God Than Me.”
Highly placed sources in the White House reveal that the First Lady is not the only casualty of her husband’s infatuation with the Almighty. The president is now totally oblivious to White House staff, whom in happier times he liked to horse around with or play pranks on. Jorge Menudo, a sous chef in the White House mess, smiled as he recalled how the president used to unscrew the cap on the salt shaker, and then collapse in laughter after Vice President Cheney, whose heart condition requires a low-salt diet, would empty the entire shaker on his chicken-fried steak. On other occasions, the president would sneak into the staff dormitory and short-sheet a few beds, or fill assorted shoes with Colgate shaving cream. By all accounts, the president’s favorite prank was sneaking up on the French ambassador and giving him a wedgie.
According to Mr. Menudo, those care-free days are no more. “President Bush fired my friend Arnie, who has been the White House barber for 30 years. He called Arnie an evil-doer after he took a little too much off the sides. And after Mr. Bush almost choked to death on that pretzel, the poor waiter was whisked off to an undisclosed location by the CIA.”
These days, instead of horsing around with the White House staff, Mr. Bush takes long walks on the South Lawn with the Creator of the Universe. On rare occasions, Bush and “Harvey” (the Secret Service has adopted the First Lady’s mocking moniker as the code word for the Lord) will head out to the local mall, where the president likes to try on baseball caps and look for evil-doers on the escalator.
When the president appears on public occasions, observers have noticed that he now wears a tiny earpiece. There is speculation that God is telling Mr. Bush what to say, using a celestial wavelength almost impossible for evil-doers to intercept. Some observers think the divine prompting via the earpiece explains the president’s propensity for verbal gaffes, such as his comment in February of 2000 that “there is madmen in the world, and there are terror.”
In an exclusive interview, the First Lady told City Weekly she longs for the days when George preferred Jack Daniels to Jesus. “I wish he’d go back to booze. He used to get drunk and pick a fight. Now he’s got religion and wants to start a war.”
Saturday, March 22, 2003
True Or False ?
Saddam, The Media and Us:
Test Your Knowledge
By Michel Collon
In 1991, the mainstream media in Europe as well as in the US funneled an accumulation of media lies intended to convince public opinion to support a war against Iraq. Today, many European governments have distanced themselves from Bush's tactics. Can we assume that the European media will tell us the whole truth right now? Have they subjected all the information that has been trotted out over the last twelve years to a critical evaluation? Here is a media test.
Answer the following questions:
1. Saddam was punished starting from the moment he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
TRUE FALSE
2. Saddam is solely responsible for the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1998).
TRUE FALSE
3. Saddam willfully gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.
TRUE FALSE
4. Saddam possesses the most dangerous weapons in the world (Bush, January 2003).
TRUE FALSE
5. The West ought to eliminate Saddam because he is a tyrant.
TRUE FALSE
6. Saddam is incapable of being a model for any society.
TRUE FALSE
7. Saddam was an instrument used by the USA, and it's out of the question to consider him to be an anti-imperialist.
TRUE FALSE
8. But it would be good, all the same, if we got rid of Saddam.
TRUE FALSE
9. All the same, it is impossible to support Saddam!
TRUE FALSE
10. Finally, shouldn't one say "Neither Bush nor Saddam"?
TRUE FALSE
1. Saddam was punished starting from the moment he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
FALSE: The US Congress first decided to impose an embargo against Iraq in 1989 after he had made an appeal to the countries of the Middle East to unite in order to become more independent of the USA.
Why have the mainstream Western media carefully hidden the history of Kuwait? It had always been part of Iraq. But British colonialists granted it independence in 1920 "in order to weaken Iraq and to deprive it of access to the sea" (quoted from a letter written by the British governor at the time). No country in the region recognized this separation. And all the successive Iraqi regimes have sought ways to regain this lost province.
2. Saddam is solely responsible for the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1998).
FALSE: It’s true that Saddam unleashed this war, unfortunately, after Iranian provocations, one of which was the attempted assassination of Tariq Aziz. It was Iran’s leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who refused to sign a peace treaty and made the war last eight years.
But most important here is the diabolical strategy of the United States: divide and conquer. The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that he hoped that this war "would last as long as possible and that the greatest possible number of people die on both sides." In fact, the USA never tolerated a Middle Eastern state that had the means to resist Israel, and it has attacked Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians… And Iraq has faithfully supported the Palestinians.
3. Saddam willfully gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.
DOUBTFUL: Let us recall the numerous media lies that were launched in 1991 when the USA and Europe attacked Iraq: incubators supposedly stolen by the Iraqi army from Kuwait City, the oil lake attributed to Saddam (but which was in reality the work of the US army) the alleged torture of Western pilots who were taken prisoner, the nonsense about the "fourth largest army in the world" presented as if it were a threat to all of us…. All of these charges collapsed (see Attention, médias! Les mediamensonges du Golfe, EPO, Bruxelles, see http://www.freeflights.net/carl1/attmedia.htm).
As far as Halabja is concerned, in the January 31, 2003 edition of The New York Times, Stephen C. Pelletiere, a CIA officer in charge of following this war, and professor of the U.S. Army War College, refuted Bush, pointing out that 1) the gassing occurred by mistake during a battle between the Iraqi and Iranian armies; and 2) it was almost certainly the work of the Iranian army, the only one that possessed this type of gas (cyanide-based) used in the battle. His conclusion: "There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them."
Whatever one may think of it, what would people say if Cuba bombed Washington because the United States had committed serial war crimes, attempted to assassinate Castro and to invade the island, and had accumulated weapons of mass destruction in Guantanomo Bay?
4. Saddam possesses the most dangerous weapons in the world (Bush, January 2003).
FALSE: Israel clandestinely acquired and illegally possesses 200 nuclear warheads, and denies it and refuses any inspection. Israel has imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli engineer who was courageous enough to reveal the existence of this nuclear arsenal. This is the great taboo for the Western media. Why must Iraq, a sovereign state, disarm itself when Israel threatens the entire region?
But the greatest danger comes from the USA itself, which has used nuclear weapons (Hiroshima), chemical weapons (Vietnam – Agent Orange) and bacteriological weapons (Cuba). Today, the USA refuses to commit itself to not using nuclear weapons, even against a non-nuclear country. Under the pretext of a "threat." Hitler was also claiming to be "threatened" by Poland.
It's worth noting that even in 1991, when he was attacked by the West, Saddam did not use chemical weapons.
5. The West ought to eliminate Saddam because he is a tyrant.
HYPOCRITICAL: The United States has supported and still supports the worst dictators on the planet: Mobutu, Pinochet, all the dictators in Latin America, and Turkish generals…. because they serve the United States' economic interests.
The true objective of the USA was defined in July 2002 by one of Bush's close aides, Senator Lugar: "[W]e are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well, we are going to make money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there."
Esso, Shell and BP rank among the TOP 15 multi-national corporations. Before 1958, they colonized and pillaged Iraq. Driven out by a revolution of national liberation, they have never stopped wanting to recapture the second largest oil reserves in the world. And they want to oust their French and Russian competitors (Total and Lukoil, respectively). Washington wants to use total blackmail to control the energy supplies of its rivals: Europe and Japan.
The United States' economy is in bankruptcy: imports exceed exports by $450 billion per year. It is holding up only because of German and Japanese loans. And by confiscating petro-dollars from the Middle East, thanks to corrupt emirs and sheiks they impose on puppet states in the Gulf.
6. Saddam is incapable of being a model for any society.
ANSWER: Saddam represents the Iraqi nationalist bourgeoisie, which drove British colonialists out of the country in 1958. Because of this, he presents two different faces.
On the one hand, he certainly does not represent a "model for society" for those who advocate a socialist society and democracy as the only means of assuring the well being of the entire population.
But, compared to the other regimes in the Middle East, his balance sheet is much more positive: instead of pouring petro-dollars back into US multi-national corporations, he used them — and all Western observers have recognized this — to develop education, health care and, in general, the economy of his country.
Iraq is also the only secular state in the Middle East. In his administration, it is not unusual to see women holding important positions, and men working for them. Compare that to the other neighboring countries…
7. Saddam was an instrument used by the USA, and it's out of the question to consider him to be an anti-imperialist.
ANSWER: We must start with facts, with economic reality. The aggravation of the crisis and the global economic war push the multi-national corporations of wealthy countries to leave the capitalist class in each third-world country nothing more than crumbs from the cake. They know how to take complete control of a strategic country, with its enterprises, and its raw materials.
In order to survive, the local bourgeoisie often has no recourse other than opposing imperialism. Its resistance has the effect of involving the largest part of the population in the struggle. However, in order to resist a planetary threat which is today represented by the United States and its allies, it is in the interest of the people that the anti-imperialist front be as large as possible.
What is the principal contradiction in Iraq today? That between the country and the threat of imperialist occupation. To bring another conflict into the foreground, the one between the Iraqi bourgeoisie and its population, plays into Bush's hands.
Imagine a man and his wife having a fight. A thief appears who wants to seize their property and set fire to their home. Which task has priority? Continuing the argument or putting out the fire?
8. But it would be good, all the same, if we got rid of Saddam.
ANSWER: Good for whom? At this moment, Saddam represents the independence of his country, that is to say the right to refuse to give oil away for free to multi-national corporations. Any "imported" leader — whether he is brought in by bombs or by blackmail — will be a puppet. To say "we must replace Saddam", amounts, in the current balance of power, to letting the ruling class of the United States and Europe do whatever it wants.
To replace rebels with puppets is the global strategy of re-colonization. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's Secretary of State, stated: "Saddam's Iraq as well as Arafat's Palestinians need new leaders … capable of leading reforms as in Serbia and in Afghanistan." Let's take a look at the results. In Afghanistan, ten ministers out of sixteen carry a US passport, and President Karzaï is a hired hand of the US multi-national oil company, Unocal. In Serbia, the price of a loaf of bread has gone from four to thirty dinars; the cost of electricity has increased fourfold, depriving people of electric power as well as heating (170,000 families in Belgrade alone). The IMF has demanded that 800,000 workers be let go from firms before privatizing everything for the exclusive benefit of multi-nationals.
Such made-in-the-USA "democratic leaders" are spearheading the re-colonization of the world. It is a merciless process for the country's workers and farmers.
9. All the same, it is impossible to support Saddam!
ANSWER: The first question for any anti-imperialist is: Must everything possible be done to prevent the United States from completely dominating the world, yes or no? The answer is of course, yes. Because, if we let the balance of power deteriorate further to their advantage, it will result in a new fascism that will threaten all the peoples of the world.
When Hitler and Mussolini were menacing the world, it was necessary to support all those who resisted them. Including, for example, the Ethiopian dictator, Haile Selassie, who opposed the Italian invasion.
Is it then necessary to support the resistance of the Iraqi people and their leaders against invasion? The answer is also yes.
After Iraq, Bush will seize Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. If Washington completely controls the Middle East (and the other great strategic regions: Central Asia, the Caucasus, Central Africa, Maghreb, the northern part of Latin America…), the balance of power will be even more disadvantageous during the next wars planned by Bush.
And when the USA occupies a region, the conditions of the struggle become much worse for all the people living there, whether it's the struggle for the right to eat, the struggle for democracy, for the environment or for the solidarity of peoples. A US military occupation is the worst of catastrophes for these various peoples, and for the balance of power in the world. If Iraqi leaders resist US imperialism, is it a good thing to do for their people? Yes.
A Communist Iraqi fled Saddam and took Algerian citizenship. He returned in April 2002 with our mission as an "Inspector of Peace," and stated clearly: "Today, my duty as a Communist is to defend my country and its raw materials from the USA. With the present regime, if necessary. As soon as the threat has been neutralized, it will be up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to transform the regime or to replace it. To let wealthy countries decide instead is merely paternalistic colonialism."
The imperialist countries advocate the suppression of the sovereignty of third-world states in order to justify their rapacious interference, and they are able to threaten all people who resist globalization. But the right to sovereignty is something acquired by the anti-colonial struggle, and it is necessary to preserve it.
This is why the global interest of peoples is to support the countries and leaders who resist seizure by the United States. This does not imply approval of all of their actions, past or present, nor the rest of their political program. But its counter-productive to place such criticism in the foreground at the moment when Bush is looking for a way to swing international public opinion in his favor.
10. Finally, shouldn't one say "Neither Bush nor Saddam"?
ANSWER: This is what the dominant tendency in the Left in Europe has been inclined to say for the last twelve years, and it has borne extremely negative consequences.
In 1991, under the slogan of "Neither Bush nor Saddam," it said "no" to war but "yes" to an embargo against Iraq. In reality, it was another form of warfare: and soon there were two million victims.
In 1995 and 1999, with the slogan of "Neither NATO nor Milosevic," it approved (and in some cases even demanded) NATO bombardments. It was a prelude to imposing an IMF government and a NATO occupation in Kosovo, which today lives under a reign of terror led by the Albanian mafia and the ethnic cleansing of the national minorities: Serbs, Roma, Jews, Muslims, Turks, etc.
In 2001, with "Neither Bush nor the Taliban," they shut their eyes to the neocolonial occupation of Afghanistan, whose goal is to construct a US pipeline and the installation of military bases in the heart of Central Asia. We have heard "Neither Sharon nor Arafat" many times.
Tomorrow, we will hear more "Neither … nor …" propositions when Washington attacks Iran, Korea, Colombia (where a war has already started), the Philippines or other countries. It will always be done with the same humanitarian pretexts; it will always be done with media lies to demonize those who put up resistance. Now is the time to return to the true fundamental position of the Left, which must of necessity be anti-colonialism: the aggressor and the victim of aggression must never be put on the same footing; the war propaganda and media lies disseminated by the ruling class must be unmasked; and most of all, the hidden economic interests behind each war must be denounced.
Subsequently, the only possible anti-imperialist position is to say "no" to the global war and to support the resistance people put up against it. The "Neither … nor …" proposition is condemned to paralysis. The "Neither … nor …" proposition prevents the growth and unification of resistance to US imperialism.
Translated by Milo Yelesiyevich
Test Your Knowledge
By Michel Collon
In 1991, the mainstream media in Europe as well as in the US funneled an accumulation of media lies intended to convince public opinion to support a war against Iraq. Today, many European governments have distanced themselves from Bush's tactics. Can we assume that the European media will tell us the whole truth right now? Have they subjected all the information that has been trotted out over the last twelve years to a critical evaluation? Here is a media test.
Answer the following questions:
1. Saddam was punished starting from the moment he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
TRUE FALSE
2. Saddam is solely responsible for the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1998).
TRUE FALSE
3. Saddam willfully gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.
TRUE FALSE
4. Saddam possesses the most dangerous weapons in the world (Bush, January 2003).
TRUE FALSE
5. The West ought to eliminate Saddam because he is a tyrant.
TRUE FALSE
6. Saddam is incapable of being a model for any society.
TRUE FALSE
7. Saddam was an instrument used by the USA, and it's out of the question to consider him to be an anti-imperialist.
TRUE FALSE
8. But it would be good, all the same, if we got rid of Saddam.
TRUE FALSE
9. All the same, it is impossible to support Saddam!
TRUE FALSE
10. Finally, shouldn't one say "Neither Bush nor Saddam"?
TRUE FALSE
1. Saddam was punished starting from the moment he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
FALSE: The US Congress first decided to impose an embargo against Iraq in 1989 after he had made an appeal to the countries of the Middle East to unite in order to become more independent of the USA.
Why have the mainstream Western media carefully hidden the history of Kuwait? It had always been part of Iraq. But British colonialists granted it independence in 1920 "in order to weaken Iraq and to deprive it of access to the sea" (quoted from a letter written by the British governor at the time). No country in the region recognized this separation. And all the successive Iraqi regimes have sought ways to regain this lost province.
2. Saddam is solely responsible for the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1998).
FALSE: It’s true that Saddam unleashed this war, unfortunately, after Iranian provocations, one of which was the attempted assassination of Tariq Aziz. It was Iran’s leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who refused to sign a peace treaty and made the war last eight years.
But most important here is the diabolical strategy of the United States: divide and conquer. The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that he hoped that this war "would last as long as possible and that the greatest possible number of people die on both sides." In fact, the USA never tolerated a Middle Eastern state that had the means to resist Israel, and it has attacked Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians… And Iraq has faithfully supported the Palestinians.
3. Saddam willfully gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.
DOUBTFUL: Let us recall the numerous media lies that were launched in 1991 when the USA and Europe attacked Iraq: incubators supposedly stolen by the Iraqi army from Kuwait City, the oil lake attributed to Saddam (but which was in reality the work of the US army) the alleged torture of Western pilots who were taken prisoner, the nonsense about the "fourth largest army in the world" presented as if it were a threat to all of us…. All of these charges collapsed (see Attention, médias! Les mediamensonges du Golfe, EPO, Bruxelles, see http://www.freeflights.net/carl1/attmedia.htm).
As far as Halabja is concerned, in the January 31, 2003 edition of The New York Times, Stephen C. Pelletiere, a CIA officer in charge of following this war, and professor of the U.S. Army War College, refuted Bush, pointing out that 1) the gassing occurred by mistake during a battle between the Iraqi and Iranian armies; and 2) it was almost certainly the work of the Iranian army, the only one that possessed this type of gas (cyanide-based) used in the battle. His conclusion: "There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them."
Whatever one may think of it, what would people say if Cuba bombed Washington because the United States had committed serial war crimes, attempted to assassinate Castro and to invade the island, and had accumulated weapons of mass destruction in Guantanomo Bay?
4. Saddam possesses the most dangerous weapons in the world (Bush, January 2003).
FALSE: Israel clandestinely acquired and illegally possesses 200 nuclear warheads, and denies it and refuses any inspection. Israel has imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli engineer who was courageous enough to reveal the existence of this nuclear arsenal. This is the great taboo for the Western media. Why must Iraq, a sovereign state, disarm itself when Israel threatens the entire region?
But the greatest danger comes from the USA itself, which has used nuclear weapons (Hiroshima), chemical weapons (Vietnam – Agent Orange) and bacteriological weapons (Cuba). Today, the USA refuses to commit itself to not using nuclear weapons, even against a non-nuclear country. Under the pretext of a "threat." Hitler was also claiming to be "threatened" by Poland.
It's worth noting that even in 1991, when he was attacked by the West, Saddam did not use chemical weapons.
5. The West ought to eliminate Saddam because he is a tyrant.
HYPOCRITICAL: The United States has supported and still supports the worst dictators on the planet: Mobutu, Pinochet, all the dictators in Latin America, and Turkish generals…. because they serve the United States' economic interests.
The true objective of the USA was defined in July 2002 by one of Bush's close aides, Senator Lugar: "[W]e are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well, we are going to make money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there."
Esso, Shell and BP rank among the TOP 15 multi-national corporations. Before 1958, they colonized and pillaged Iraq. Driven out by a revolution of national liberation, they have never stopped wanting to recapture the second largest oil reserves in the world. And they want to oust their French and Russian competitors (Total and Lukoil, respectively). Washington wants to use total blackmail to control the energy supplies of its rivals: Europe and Japan.
The United States' economy is in bankruptcy: imports exceed exports by $450 billion per year. It is holding up only because of German and Japanese loans. And by confiscating petro-dollars from the Middle East, thanks to corrupt emirs and sheiks they impose on puppet states in the Gulf.
6. Saddam is incapable of being a model for any society.
ANSWER: Saddam represents the Iraqi nationalist bourgeoisie, which drove British colonialists out of the country in 1958. Because of this, he presents two different faces.
On the one hand, he certainly does not represent a "model for society" for those who advocate a socialist society and democracy as the only means of assuring the well being of the entire population.
But, compared to the other regimes in the Middle East, his balance sheet is much more positive: instead of pouring petro-dollars back into US multi-national corporations, he used them — and all Western observers have recognized this — to develop education, health care and, in general, the economy of his country.
Iraq is also the only secular state in the Middle East. In his administration, it is not unusual to see women holding important positions, and men working for them. Compare that to the other neighboring countries…
7. Saddam was an instrument used by the USA, and it's out of the question to consider him to be an anti-imperialist.
ANSWER: We must start with facts, with economic reality. The aggravation of the crisis and the global economic war push the multi-national corporations of wealthy countries to leave the capitalist class in each third-world country nothing more than crumbs from the cake. They know how to take complete control of a strategic country, with its enterprises, and its raw materials.
In order to survive, the local bourgeoisie often has no recourse other than opposing imperialism. Its resistance has the effect of involving the largest part of the population in the struggle. However, in order to resist a planetary threat which is today represented by the United States and its allies, it is in the interest of the people that the anti-imperialist front be as large as possible.
What is the principal contradiction in Iraq today? That between the country and the threat of imperialist occupation. To bring another conflict into the foreground, the one between the Iraqi bourgeoisie and its population, plays into Bush's hands.
Imagine a man and his wife having a fight. A thief appears who wants to seize their property and set fire to their home. Which task has priority? Continuing the argument or putting out the fire?
8. But it would be good, all the same, if we got rid of Saddam.
ANSWER: Good for whom? At this moment, Saddam represents the independence of his country, that is to say the right to refuse to give oil away for free to multi-national corporations. Any "imported" leader — whether he is brought in by bombs or by blackmail — will be a puppet. To say "we must replace Saddam", amounts, in the current balance of power, to letting the ruling class of the United States and Europe do whatever it wants.
To replace rebels with puppets is the global strategy of re-colonization. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's Secretary of State, stated: "Saddam's Iraq as well as Arafat's Palestinians need new leaders … capable of leading reforms as in Serbia and in Afghanistan." Let's take a look at the results. In Afghanistan, ten ministers out of sixteen carry a US passport, and President Karzaï is a hired hand of the US multi-national oil company, Unocal. In Serbia, the price of a loaf of bread has gone from four to thirty dinars; the cost of electricity has increased fourfold, depriving people of electric power as well as heating (170,000 families in Belgrade alone). The IMF has demanded that 800,000 workers be let go from firms before privatizing everything for the exclusive benefit of multi-nationals.
Such made-in-the-USA "democratic leaders" are spearheading the re-colonization of the world. It is a merciless process for the country's workers and farmers.
9. All the same, it is impossible to support Saddam!
ANSWER: The first question for any anti-imperialist is: Must everything possible be done to prevent the United States from completely dominating the world, yes or no? The answer is of course, yes. Because, if we let the balance of power deteriorate further to their advantage, it will result in a new fascism that will threaten all the peoples of the world.
When Hitler and Mussolini were menacing the world, it was necessary to support all those who resisted them. Including, for example, the Ethiopian dictator, Haile Selassie, who opposed the Italian invasion.
Is it then necessary to support the resistance of the Iraqi people and their leaders against invasion? The answer is also yes.
After Iraq, Bush will seize Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. If Washington completely controls the Middle East (and the other great strategic regions: Central Asia, the Caucasus, Central Africa, Maghreb, the northern part of Latin America…), the balance of power will be even more disadvantageous during the next wars planned by Bush.
And when the USA occupies a region, the conditions of the struggle become much worse for all the people living there, whether it's the struggle for the right to eat, the struggle for democracy, for the environment or for the solidarity of peoples. A US military occupation is the worst of catastrophes for these various peoples, and for the balance of power in the world. If Iraqi leaders resist US imperialism, is it a good thing to do for their people? Yes.
A Communist Iraqi fled Saddam and took Algerian citizenship. He returned in April 2002 with our mission as an "Inspector of Peace," and stated clearly: "Today, my duty as a Communist is to defend my country and its raw materials from the USA. With the present regime, if necessary. As soon as the threat has been neutralized, it will be up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to transform the regime or to replace it. To let wealthy countries decide instead is merely paternalistic colonialism."
The imperialist countries advocate the suppression of the sovereignty of third-world states in order to justify their rapacious interference, and they are able to threaten all people who resist globalization. But the right to sovereignty is something acquired by the anti-colonial struggle, and it is necessary to preserve it.
This is why the global interest of peoples is to support the countries and leaders who resist seizure by the United States. This does not imply approval of all of their actions, past or present, nor the rest of their political program. But its counter-productive to place such criticism in the foreground at the moment when Bush is looking for a way to swing international public opinion in his favor.
10. Finally, shouldn't one say "Neither Bush nor Saddam"?
ANSWER: This is what the dominant tendency in the Left in Europe has been inclined to say for the last twelve years, and it has borne extremely negative consequences.
In 1991, under the slogan of "Neither Bush nor Saddam," it said "no" to war but "yes" to an embargo against Iraq. In reality, it was another form of warfare: and soon there were two million victims.
In 1995 and 1999, with the slogan of "Neither NATO nor Milosevic," it approved (and in some cases even demanded) NATO bombardments. It was a prelude to imposing an IMF government and a NATO occupation in Kosovo, which today lives under a reign of terror led by the Albanian mafia and the ethnic cleansing of the national minorities: Serbs, Roma, Jews, Muslims, Turks, etc.
In 2001, with "Neither Bush nor the Taliban," they shut their eyes to the neocolonial occupation of Afghanistan, whose goal is to construct a US pipeline and the installation of military bases in the heart of Central Asia. We have heard "Neither Sharon nor Arafat" many times.
Tomorrow, we will hear more "Neither … nor …" propositions when Washington attacks Iran, Korea, Colombia (where a war has already started), the Philippines or other countries. It will always be done with the same humanitarian pretexts; it will always be done with media lies to demonize those who put up resistance. Now is the time to return to the true fundamental position of the Left, which must of necessity be anti-colonialism: the aggressor and the victim of aggression must never be put on the same footing; the war propaganda and media lies disseminated by the ruling class must be unmasked; and most of all, the hidden economic interests behind each war must be denounced.
Subsequently, the only possible anti-imperialist position is to say "no" to the global war and to support the resistance people put up against it. The "Neither … nor …" proposition is condemned to paralysis. The "Neither … nor …" proposition prevents the growth and unification of resistance to US imperialism.
Translated by Milo Yelesiyevich
Readers Are Crazy Bastards
I've been keeping a list of my reading since 1980 and consider keeping the list a little bit crazy though reading through it brings back fond memories, not only the books, but what I was doing at that time of my life. Here is a fellow that has been keeping a list since 1974 that makes me look like a piker. He keeps track of number of books read 2032. Total number of pages 446102. The average length of each book 219.5 pages. The average time to read a book 5 days and average reading per day 44.33 pages. He keeps individual years, longest books, most frequently read authors, amazon sales rank. In addition he has a comprehensive set of charts and graphs quite remarkable. It looks like he has been slowing down a bit in recent years so perhaps I'll make a race of it. I won't however be adding charts and graphs to my list, that would just take away from my reading time.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Dupes
PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Junior Bush
Iraq has a leader Saddam
Who's trying to dodge all our bombs
He says Junior Bush
Will land right on his tush
Bush says Saddam soon will be gone
Who's trying to dodge all our bombs
He says Junior Bush
Will land right on his tush
Bush says Saddam soon will be gone
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Today I Weep For My Country
"Today I weep for my country," said West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd. "No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
"We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance," Byrd said, adding: "After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."
I'm The King
George submitted this poem to the Poets for the War site but it lost out to this go figure.
Never Misunderestimate Me
by George W. Bush
I'll take your Nukes
Your bugs your gas
I'll take it all
Shove it up your ass
You mess with me
You pay the price
Say good-bye Saddam it's paradise
You had your chance
You scorned inspections
I asked real nice
I asked you twice
You headed in the wrong direction
And now it ends
Your buds and you
I'll take your scuds
and do away with you.
The score now settled
My dad avenged
I love the taste
Of sweet revenge.
Now a word to those
Who dared to say
Oh George do it our way
I've got your names
I won't forget
I've put you on a short short list
We're almost there the job half done
I hope you get the gist
Enemy combatants it'll be fun
My name is George
I am the King
My name is George
I am the King
My name is George
I am the King
My name is George
I am the King
Never Misunderestimate Me
by George W. Bush
I'll take your Nukes
Your bugs your gas
I'll take it all
Shove it up your ass
You mess with me
You pay the price
Say good-bye Saddam it's paradise
You had your chance
You scorned inspections
I asked real nice
I asked you twice
You headed in the wrong direction
And now it ends
Your buds and you
I'll take your scuds
and do away with you.
The score now settled
My dad avenged
I love the taste
Of sweet revenge.
Now a word to those
Who dared to say
Oh George do it our way
I've got your names
I won't forget
I've put you on a short short list
We're almost there the job half done
I hope you get the gist
Enemy combatants it'll be fun
My name is George
I am the King
My name is George
I am the King
My name is George
I am the King
My name is George
I am the King
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Morality
Ted is addressing Tony Blair but of course what he says applies equally to George W. Bush
Ted Honderich: Security one week. Morality the next.
It's enough to turn the stomach It is cant to say Saddam is responsible for a war about to happen, when you are massing armies and about to attack
Ted Honderich is Grote Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University College London
Ted Honderich: Security one week. Morality the next.
It's enough to turn the stomach It is cant to say Saddam is responsible for a war about to happen, when you are massing armies and about to attack
Ted Honderich is Grote Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University College London
The Value Of An American Life
When saying "we're all Palestinians" really means something
Imagine, if you will, that Washington wanted to demonize Israel. The death of Rachel Corrie, a young American who died after an Israeli bulldozer ran over her as she tried to protect Palestinian homes in Rafah, would have been splashed across the front-page of every newspaper. We'd know who she was, where she went to school, who her parents were, what her aspirations were, what her college marks were. But as it is, Rachel Corrie's death will be quickly forgotten, if it were even noticed, and the script will continue as the script-writers in Washington have written it: Sharon is a man of peace defending Israel from Palestinians, who are terrorists and would-be suicide bombers consumed by irrational hatred of Jews.
Imagine, if you will, that Washington wanted to demonize Israel. The death of Rachel Corrie, a young American who died after an Israeli bulldozer ran over her as she tried to protect Palestinian homes in Rafah, would have been splashed across the front-page of every newspaper. We'd know who she was, where she went to school, who her parents were, what her aspirations were, what her college marks were. But as it is, Rachel Corrie's death will be quickly forgotten, if it were even noticed, and the script will continue as the script-writers in Washington have written it: Sharon is a man of peace defending Israel from Palestinians, who are terrorists and would-be suicide bombers consumed by irrational hatred of Jews.
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Texas Clowns
I thought all the clowns left Texas when Bush assumed office. Not so.
via
Talk of war with Iraq has sparked an atmosphere of tension and anxiety. And it may be to blame for a brawl that broke out at the rodeo Thursday night.
With some 15,000 to 20,000 folks at the rodeo drinking beer and having fun, things can get a little out of hand at times. It happened when a tape of Lee Greenwood's song Proud To Be An American was playing. Some rodeo fans were standing and others were sitting down. Felix Fanaselle and his buddies chose to remain seated.
"This guy behind us starts yelling at us (because) we're not standing up," said Fanaselle. "He starts cussing at us, telling us to go back to Iraq."
The 16-year-old said the man seated behind him started spitting at him and spilling his beer on him and his friends.
"By the end of the song, he pulled my ear. I got up. He pushed me. I pushed him," said Felix. "He punched me in my face. I got him off me."
When the dust settled, Fanaselle had been handcuffed and released. He and John McCambridge were cited for "mutual combat" and fighting in public. That's a $200 fine. Fanaselle's lawyer says you don't have to stand for a country and western song.
via
Thursday, March 13, 2003
Cruel Fictions
New York March 13 2003—U. N. Inspector Hans Blix announced the destruction of Iraq's 42nd Al-Soumoud missile today. This he said is good news it is the meaning of disarmament. Hans further reported that although much has been accomplished the inspections have been going more slowly than he would like. He attributes this to the poor quality of western intelligence. Many leads provided by the Americans have led nowhere some even seem to have been fabricated, with that in mind the U.N. beginning today will adopt the Dirk Gently method of detection. Dirk Gently, perhaps the best known detective in the world has theorized that everything in the universe is interconnected. Applying that theory U. N. Inspectors will be stationed all over Iraq and instructed to randomly pick individuals to follow. If the theory is correct they will eventually find any Weapons of Mass Destruction that exist. "Dirk's methods have never failed in the past, said Hans." "We are confident they will succeed this time." Americans pooh-poohed the announcement. "Thinking Dirk Gently's methods can solve these problems is a cruel fiction," said Donald Rumsfeld. " Last time Gently's methods were employed all that happened was that a cat died.
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Smoking Gun
Al-Taji, Iraq—Iraqis: "Smoking gun" made with duct tape purchased at Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart has been accused of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Administration officials today reported that Wal-Mart has shipped an undisclosed number of rolls of duct tape to Iraq to be used in their remotely piloted aircraft (drones) program. The aircraft that the United States believes could be used to spread chemical weapons was made of balsa wood and duct tape A spokesman for Wal-Mart blames Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge. Ever since he told Americans to put away the duct tape our sales have been falling. We counted on a reliable market and the administration failed us. They have no one to blame but themselves. John Ashcroft said, "we have identified the employees who packed and shipped the material and they have been declared enemy combatants. They are traitors, simple as that."
Disclaimer: This story was obtained from Iraqi officials and unnamed administration sources both known to play fast and loose with the truth.
A slightly different version of this story can be found here
Wal-Mart has been accused of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Administration officials today reported that Wal-Mart has shipped an undisclosed number of rolls of duct tape to Iraq to be used in their remotely piloted aircraft (drones) program. The aircraft that the United States believes could be used to spread chemical weapons was made of balsa wood and duct tape A spokesman for Wal-Mart blames Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge. Ever since he told Americans to put away the duct tape our sales have been falling. We counted on a reliable market and the administration failed us. They have no one to blame but themselves. John Ashcroft said, "we have identified the employees who packed and shipped the material and they have been declared enemy combatants. They are traitors, simple as that."
Disclaimer: This story was obtained from Iraqi officials and unnamed administration sources both known to play fast and loose with the truth.
A slightly different version of this story can be found here
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
What The Fuck?
For this first time since 1998 Garry Kasparov was not the winner at the Linares Super Grandmaster tournament. Not only didn't he win but his loss to Radjabov was awarded the best game prize.
Kasparov's outburst over beauty prize in Linares
Justice should be blind, but should beauty? At the closing ceremony the prize for the most beautiful game went to Kasparov-Radjabov. The teen's win over the #1 was a landmark moment, but Radjabov had a losing position and it took a "??" move from Kasparov to create the upset. Kasparov erupted at the ceremony and went after the journalists who had voted. Who was wrong?
Bush Is Out Of Control
In 1963 I was in the army going through my basic training at Fort Ord California. We had a fellow in our platoon, Johnson was his name, that had I real problem marching in step. We seldom made it anywhere but that the sergeant would bark, Johnson god damn it left, left, left right left. Johnson was a good sort. Everyone liked him, but he made it difficult to get where we were going without a stumble or two along the way. We always reached our goal though in spite of Johnson. George reminds me of Johnson, but the George version of Johnson would be screaming that the rest of us were out of step with him. He would be bullying his friends trying to get them to march at his cadence. If bullying didn't work he would try bribery the result would of course be chaos.
The U.N. is irrelevant says the administration, and they're right, but they are wrong about the reason. They claim is that the U.N. is irrelevant because it doesn't agree with the U.S. on the issue of Iraq, but it is the U.S. that is making the choice to bypass the U.N. It is the U.S. that will make the U.N. irrelevant, but why? If the threat from Iraq were imminent that would be one thing, but no one really believes that. Everyone recognizes that Iraq may become a threat in the future, but are not much of one today. If the argument were that the U.N. has shown that they are nothing but appeasers and can never make the right decision that would be a reason to discount them. The U.N. is slow and unweildy and deliberate to a fault at times but willing to act in the face of imminent threats. One need look no further than Iraq in 1991. The whole world participated. George Bush is admired by the right for his resoluteness, but he has demonstrated that resoluteness is exactly what he lacks. He called for regime change last summer, after having locked the Secretary of State in a bunker somewhere. He then appeared to come to his senses and suggest that all Saddam had to do was disarm, but it was all a cheap trick. Face it disarmament without regime change would never satisfy this adminsistration, and that was the big lie repeated over and over. It is the lie George repeated again at his recent press conference. It is the lie some in America and the World continue to believe the lie of disarmament. Bush is right you could never be 100% sure. Well I don't want to spoil the party, but you can change the regime and still not be 100% sure that you've removed those who would commit terror. It would have been better if Bush had just stuck to his lie, Saddam is months away from a nuclear weapon, I'm sorry we cannot wait. That would have caused damage to the world, it would have I think been a mistake but the path he has followed will be far worse. He wavered pretended to be satisfied with disarmament, pretended to make the world a partner, all the while knowing no matter how much it appeared Saddam was cooperating he could and would come back to the argument that he can't be trusted, that we must have regime change. Bush is an absolutist; he wants certainty. As Hans Blix said in a recent news conferecne to a reporter who pushed him on the issue of compliance with 1441. "you'll find that there are many questions in this world that shouldn't be answered with yes or no. " He's right circumstances change it is necessary to adapt to the changes. So Bush plays his game, and inevitably the lies and obfuscations begin to see the light of day. The claims of Iraq gassing their own found to be suspect. The aluminum tubes really were not meant for a centrifuge. The purchase of uranium from Africa was a fraud. The U.K. dossier was a joke. The world paid attention to the reports the inspectors provided. They disliked being duped. So they resist, and the world is in crisis not because of terror but because of American arrogance in the person of George Bush, of Donald Rumsfeld, of Richard Perle, the list is a long one. The administration says all they have to do is support us and all will be well, but that would be even worse. It would truly make the U.N. irrelevant. How can you be relevant if you buckle under the pressure of the worlds new bully. How can the U.N. be taken seriously if all the U.S. has to do is bully, and bribe and the world goes along. So the tragedy that is about to occur is not Iraq, but what it will do to the world. How it will affect the future of the U.N. How it will affect future relations between the major powers. The real loss will be a world that works together as partners, not one bribed and bullied into compliance. A bully is not a leader, a liar is not a leader, George Bush has failed both us and the world by not being a leader. Perhaps it was more than we could have hoped for, perhaps he is simply in over his head. Did you see the look on Ari's and Condi's faces at the recent press conference? A plan any plan would have been better than his insincerity, his waffling. The cynical game he played. The failure is manifold he not only failed us internationally but failed us at home. He, and I think rightly was opposed to a separate department of Homeland Security, but looking at polls and unwilling to take the hits he was receiving at the hands of the Democrats he waffled again. Rather than fix the FBI, the CIA, Immigration and other departments that should be solving the worst of the security flaws he buckled. He saw an opportunity not to create a Department of Homeland Security, but to institutionalize fear in our country. Fear he would use to steal our civil liberties. Fear he would use to deflect our attention from other important issues. So again not only did he shirk his international repsonsibilites but he shirked his responsibility to the citizens of the United States. He may win the battle, but the damage he will cause may well be catastrophic, and he doesn't even know it.
The U.N. is irrelevant says the administration, and they're right, but they are wrong about the reason. They claim is that the U.N. is irrelevant because it doesn't agree with the U.S. on the issue of Iraq, but it is the U.S. that is making the choice to bypass the U.N. It is the U.S. that will make the U.N. irrelevant, but why? If the threat from Iraq were imminent that would be one thing, but no one really believes that. Everyone recognizes that Iraq may become a threat in the future, but are not much of one today. If the argument were that the U.N. has shown that they are nothing but appeasers and can never make the right decision that would be a reason to discount them. The U.N. is slow and unweildy and deliberate to a fault at times but willing to act in the face of imminent threats. One need look no further than Iraq in 1991. The whole world participated. George Bush is admired by the right for his resoluteness, but he has demonstrated that resoluteness is exactly what he lacks. He called for regime change last summer, after having locked the Secretary of State in a bunker somewhere. He then appeared to come to his senses and suggest that all Saddam had to do was disarm, but it was all a cheap trick. Face it disarmament without regime change would never satisfy this adminsistration, and that was the big lie repeated over and over. It is the lie George repeated again at his recent press conference. It is the lie some in America and the World continue to believe the lie of disarmament. Bush is right you could never be 100% sure. Well I don't want to spoil the party, but you can change the regime and still not be 100% sure that you've removed those who would commit terror. It would have been better if Bush had just stuck to his lie, Saddam is months away from a nuclear weapon, I'm sorry we cannot wait. That would have caused damage to the world, it would have I think been a mistake but the path he has followed will be far worse. He wavered pretended to be satisfied with disarmament, pretended to make the world a partner, all the while knowing no matter how much it appeared Saddam was cooperating he could and would come back to the argument that he can't be trusted, that we must have regime change. Bush is an absolutist; he wants certainty. As Hans Blix said in a recent news conferecne to a reporter who pushed him on the issue of compliance with 1441. "you'll find that there are many questions in this world that shouldn't be answered with yes or no. " He's right circumstances change it is necessary to adapt to the changes. So Bush plays his game, and inevitably the lies and obfuscations begin to see the light of day. The claims of Iraq gassing their own found to be suspect. The aluminum tubes really were not meant for a centrifuge. The purchase of uranium from Africa was a fraud. The U.K. dossier was a joke. The world paid attention to the reports the inspectors provided. They disliked being duped. So they resist, and the world is in crisis not because of terror but because of American arrogance in the person of George Bush, of Donald Rumsfeld, of Richard Perle, the list is a long one. The administration says all they have to do is support us and all will be well, but that would be even worse. It would truly make the U.N. irrelevant. How can you be relevant if you buckle under the pressure of the worlds new bully. How can the U.N. be taken seriously if all the U.S. has to do is bully, and bribe and the world goes along. So the tragedy that is about to occur is not Iraq, but what it will do to the world. How it will affect the future of the U.N. How it will affect future relations between the major powers. The real loss will be a world that works together as partners, not one bribed and bullied into compliance. A bully is not a leader, a liar is not a leader, George Bush has failed both us and the world by not being a leader. Perhaps it was more than we could have hoped for, perhaps he is simply in over his head. Did you see the look on Ari's and Condi's faces at the recent press conference? A plan any plan would have been better than his insincerity, his waffling. The cynical game he played. The failure is manifold he not only failed us internationally but failed us at home. He, and I think rightly was opposed to a separate department of Homeland Security, but looking at polls and unwilling to take the hits he was receiving at the hands of the Democrats he waffled again. Rather than fix the FBI, the CIA, Immigration and other departments that should be solving the worst of the security flaws he buckled. He saw an opportunity not to create a Department of Homeland Security, but to institutionalize fear in our country. Fear he would use to steal our civil liberties. Fear he would use to deflect our attention from other important issues. So again not only did he shirk his international repsonsibilites but he shirked his responsibility to the citizens of the United States. He may win the battle, but the damage he will cause may well be catastrophic, and he doesn't even know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)