demonstratr

A lot of important news today:

First, Seymour Hersh has published an article in the New Yorker magazine which reveals that the CIA has found no conclusive evidence to support the Bush administration’s claims that Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons.  (Here is the article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906H.shtml. You can find the BBC coverage here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm)  Aside from the typical havens of left-wing news, the US media hasn’t really picked up on the story.  But this comes as no suprise, since this is the very same news media that led the war cry in 2002 and 2003.  A Whitehouse spokesperson had the following to say about the article: “The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views.”  I pray the irony is obvious.  The most impressive bit of audacity, however, has to be that the Bush administration really wants to try to start another war.  Haven’t they already fucked things up enough?  Where do they plan to get the troops and resources to fight another war? - they don’t even have the troops and resources to fight the one they’re in.

On that note, I should mention that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, has introduced new legislation in the House to push for a draft. (Find it here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112006L.shtml)  According to Rangel, this will be a means of deterring politicians from going to war.  As he sees it, we wouldn’t have gone to fight in Iraq if the politicians voting in favor of the war thought that young people from their own communities would actually be affected.  All this sounds well and good to me, but I think Rep. Rangel drastically over-estimates his colleagues - these are, after all, the same people who can’t seem to stop themselves from taking bribes from insurance companies and defense contractors or from making overtures toward underage interns.  Why wouldn’t they do as politicians have always done and invent ways to make sure that their loved ones and the loved ones of their very rich friends and campaign contributors are not put in harm’s way?  Indeed, this whole idea seems suspect when one considers that the Pentagon is currently considering a major swelling of US forces in Iraq. (Find it here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112006M.shtml) Where do they plan to come up with 30,000-60,000 troops?  Will the American people stand for it?

This leads me to the final thing I want to talk about: recent attempts to limit activism.  The New York Times today reported on project Talon - “An antiterrorist database used by the Defense Department in an effort to prevent attacks against military installations…” (Find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/washington/21protests.html)  Basically, the database has included reports on local meetings and activities of organizations associated with the peace movement. “One tip in the database in February 2005, for instance, noted that ‘a church service for peace’ would be held in the New York City area the next month. Another entry noted that antiwar protesters would be holding ‘nonviolence training’ sessions at unidentified churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan.”  The director of the project Daniel J. Baur claims to be worried about the ‘chilling effect’ this public controversy could have on the collection of data about terrorists.  Of course, it fails to occur to him that collecting such information could have a great ’chilling effect’ on dissent in America.  But, never mind that, right?  I mean homogenous and uninformed public opinion is the loadstone of genuine democracy.  There ought truly to be a cacophony of affirmation and agreement with any policy of the US government.  Not that dissent has ever stopped them from doing anything…  Add to this the recent passing of legislation that makes it a felomy for animal rights activists to engage in any activity that results in the loss of money - the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - and there’s a storm brewing.  Indeed, it’s hard to see how anyone could be confused about whether or not peace and animal rights activists belong on a database of information about terrorists.  Obviously, we do.  The very legislation introduced against us defines us as terrorists - dimishing profits are quite frightening.  I’m not even certain anymore that I care if they call me a “terrorist.”  I have never and probably will never blow anything up or order that anything be blown up.  “Our” President, on the other hand, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds daily.  If their (our) use of words is so loose that the absurdity is not obvious, perhaps they deserve the world they are working to create.

Brandon 

TO:  Senator Ted Kennedy
ALABAMA VOICES: Let troops leave Iraq with heads held high

November 11, 2006
By William Z. Messer and Robert J. Varley
Iraq is a wildfire burning out of control. The question is whether the presence of American troops in that embattled nation is dousing that fire with water or feeding it with gasoline. Right or wrong, for better or for worse, our government has placed our country in this situation, and our troops in harms way. Whether a righteous cause or an unholy alliance, we have wedded ourselves to a weak and fragmented Iraqi government while alienating a sizable portion of the population.
History does not travel backwards, so we cannot undo what has been done. Instead, we must figure out where we are now and how best to proceed from here. Our choice is not of victory or defeat, or any other stark and illusory dichotomy. Instead, the question is which path will lead us through the quagmire and out of the dark forest of death and destruction.
We can later blame the administration, the media and ourselves for the mistakes and mendacity that have led us to this place. We can later honor and mourn the courageous men and women who have left behind their families, their careers, and even their lives on our behalf. Our duty now is to protect them, and to ameliorate the dangerous and desperate conditions in Iraq.
It is far easier to destroy despotism than to develop democracy. By its very nature as being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, democracy cannot be imposed from without, regardless of the benevolent intentions of any foreign power. Only the Iraqis can choose whether and how to govern themselves. As long as we remain in Iraq, we will be an occupation force, at best stifling internal progress, at worst perverting it. As long as we stay in Iraq, we will be viewed as oppressors, an inviting target for insurgents, revolutionaries, and terrorists.
Even if we were not by our presence in Iraq giving birth to a whole new generation of anti-American zealots, staying the course means exposing American troops to death, destruction, and dehumanization on a daily basis for an ill-conceived and ultimately doomed strategy of imposing our will upon a sovereign foreign nation. We cannot put out the fire by sending young men and women to burn in the flames.
Perhaps in toppling Saddam Hussein, we lit the match that ignited the conflagration. Possibly through incompetence and abstinence we fanned the flames. It is done, and cannot be undone. Our troops have served well and valiantly; it is time for us to allow them to return to their families. The Iraqi people have suffered egregiously; it is time for us to allow them to determine their own destiny.
We must leave Iraq. Not in victory or in defeat, but in the realization that Iraqis must decide their own future. We should not cut and run; instead, our troops should march out proudly, with their heads held high, confident that whatever errors of omission or commission were perpetrated in this country, our personnel in Iraq did all they could with what they were given. We should not abandon our soldiers far from home to sweat, bleed, kill, and die for who knows how long.
Instead of occupying Iraq, let us provide food, medicine, and other humanitarian and economic assistance to the Iraqi people. There will continue to be deadly religious and political struggles in Iraq, whether we are there or not, as the nascent democracy struggles to survive. The civil war in Iraq will continue with or without us. What the ultimate result will be, only the Iraqis can decide.
We cannot, and we must not, decree Iraq’s present or design Iraq’s future, only the Iraqi people themselves can do so. We must allow them the freedom, the agonizing freedom, to become a nation of their own.

President Bush had two interesting meetings today: one with with the Baker Commission and the other with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.  (There was also the visit to the ceremony dedicating the new Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in the Washington Mall but as anyone who listens to Kanye West knows - George Bush doesn’t really care about black people.)  The Baker Commission is the group led by former Secretary of State James Baker (a veteran of the Nixon era and a close friend of George 1) which is charged with rethinking US strategy in Iraq.  According to NPR, Bush said he was “looking forward to interesting ideas.” (Find it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6481730).  Apparently, he remains unable to hear the majority of Americans who support immediate US withdrawal…  This comes after the Democrats announced their intentions over the weekend to push for “phased re-deployment.”  “Phased re-deployment” is politician-speak for withdrawal.  However, as I’ve said before, any withdrawal that is combined with an increase in US airstrikes is unacceptable. 

In truth, there are two options that are really on the table: 1) let other regional powers (Iran and Syria in particular) exercise more institutional and financial influence in such a way as to produce a stable settlement between the Sunnis and Shiites and a single federal government capable of actually running the country or 2) divide Iraq into three separate countries and guard their borders so as to prevent violence.  Probably, Baker and his team will push strongly for the first option and, if the Democrats really do demand major troop withdrawal, Bush may not have any other choice.  The second option has major problems anyway since it will probably leave most Sunnis hopelessly impoverished and will require the displacement of large numbers of people from cities of mixed ethnicity.  It remains to be seen what Iran, Syria, and whoever else is invovled will have to say about all this.  Probably, Iran will be happy to oblige Washington since this will mostlikely lead to a loosening of pressure concerning their nuclear capacity (which may or may not be part of a weapons program.)

This brings me to the second meeting.  President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met today to discuss Iran’s current nuclear capabilities (which are non-existent) and the potential threat to Israel.  According to the New York Times, “Officials in Israel have expressed increasing fear that Mr. Bush will stop pushing Iran as hard to cease its nuclear program as he comes under pressure from European allies and at home to seek Tehran’s help in Iraq.”  (Find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/14prexycnd.html?hp&ex=1163480400&en=b1880e032d3ddfed&ei=5094&partner=homepage.)  Olmert went so far as to claim that Iran poses a threat to the world.  This is an interesting claim since Israel has recently received increasing international criticism for  devastating attacks on the Palestinian controlled Gaza Strip.  On November 8, the IDF fired missiles into a town called Beit Hanoun killing 19 civilians (7 children) and today they killed another Palestinian teenager in an missile strike.  The UN Security Council voted in favor of a condemnation of these attacks today but the resolution was vetoed by the United States.  According to Al-Jazeera, “John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, described the text as ‘unbalanced’ and ‘biased against Israel and politically motivated’.”  As we all know, John Bolton is the freaking paragon of balanced, unbiased, and politically neutral policy making in the UN.  Apparently, everyone but the US thinks that Israel is a more serious threat to world security.  This threat will only increase as Israel finds itself in an ever more compromising position due to failed US foreign policy.  Its also interesting to note in regard to Olmert’s remarks about Iran that the Internation Red Cross has recently urged all nations to end the use of cluster bombs (of course only a very few including the US and Israel actually use them) in response to Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon over the summer.  (Find out about this here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/090500-02.htm.)  Add to this a report in today’s Boston Globe fingering the US as the top arms dealer to already nations already in the midst of conflict (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111306T.shtml) and it becomes obvious who the real threats to international peace are.

159 people were found dead in Iraq on Sunday and 3 more US troops were reported dead.