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