Monday, May 5, 2003

Photo: "Iraqi youth Abbas Abed Ageel, 20, lies in his hospital bed as a doctor looks at the bullet holes on his shirt after he was alledgedly shot by British soldiers in unclear circumstances, at the Basra, Iraq Hospital Monday, May 5, 2003. Law and order is slowly returning to the city after it had descended into chaos following the weeks of the British takeover in Basra. (AP Photo/Elizabeth Dalziel)"

Maybe he threw a sandal at a Brit -- or took exception to being called a "wog" (the Americans like to call them "sand niggers").

"To Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, the Iraqis, like all Arabs, were 'niggers', against whom poison gas could be used," writes John Pilger. "They were un-people; and they still are. "

"Most people, including Muslims, might not be blessed with a wonderful Anglo-Saxon heritage but they are human beings and you can bet that the vast majority of them want much the same from life as we do," notes Gordon McLauchlan.

--

"We saw, earlier than most people, that the world was very dangerous, that America's drift during the '90s was very dangerous," [neocon guru Bill Kristol] said Wednesday at the Weekly Standard, the Rupert Murdoch-financed magazine he edits that promotes the neocon credo. "We were alarmed; we tried to call attention to all that. So I don't want to say we feel vindicated, but we do feel our analysis was right."

Can somebody tell me what Kristol is talking about? He makes it sound like the US was suffering from some peacenik stupor in the 90s, a spell cast by the former dope-smoker commie Bill Clinton.

Of course, this is nonsense -- and a big fat lie (in order to be a neocon you have to be a liar and an unethical double dealer like Richard Perle, that little Zionist demon who once spied for the Israelis).

I guess Kristol does not remember Clinton's brutal bombing of Yugoslavia, or the 79 cruise missiles he launched on August 20, 1998 at "targets" in the Middle East -- one such target was the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Or that he murdered Iraqi civilians in June of 1993, including the renowned artist Laila Al-Attar and her husband. "The day after the bombing, Clinton attended a church service where he was asked about the casualties of the attack," writes the Pacifica Network News. "Clinton responded that all Americans should be proud of how their military performed."

But then maybe Clinton didn't kill enough innocent civilians in Yugoslavia and Iraq for Kristol's liking. After all, the neocons promise continual murder, not simply episodic and political expedient murder of the sort the immoral scoundrel William Jefferson Clinton -- and not immoral, as the Republicans would have it, because he had sex with "that woman" -- engaged in and then went to church and urged Americans to be proud of slaughtered artists and infants.

--

"Promoting democracy has long been a staple of U.S. foreign policy, on the theory that democracies seldom make war on other democracies," writes Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle. "But it has usually been pursued through the 'soft' tools of persuasion and example, commerce and cultural exchange."

Lately, American newspapers have reeked of this sort of revisionist nonsense. Here's a list -- as compiled by Dennis Bernstein and Laura Sydell -- of the sort of people the US has employed to spread the wonderful message of democracy, US-style, over the last few decades or so:

Abacha, General Sani ---------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi --------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio -----------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal --------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto -----------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul ----------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio --------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek --------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo -------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo ----------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois -----------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude---------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco ----------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ----------------------------Germany
Hassan II---------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand ------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut -----------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza --------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George ---------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ----------------Chile
Pol Pot-----------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni -----------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie --------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira -------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian -------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo ----------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General -------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas ----------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge --------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ---------------------Pakistan

--

These days, a sense of apprehension and foreboding lurks in the back of my head and the pit of my stomach. Itâs a gut-wrenching reminder that something very bad has happened and is about to happen anew. It is an anticipation of the next insult and injury in an America that has been defined under the Bush administration by a profound meanness of spirit.

The evidence of this overwhelming meanness of spirit is everywhere, abroad and at home. Even the administrationâs efforts to justify the war in Iraq as one of liberation and declare victory cannot mask the human costs to American troops and their families. How many thousands of Iraqis are dead? Where are the ridiculously named "weapons of mass destruction" that Bush used to justify this invasion? Witness the looting of priceless antiquities, kitsch and cash from Iraqi museums and Saddam Husseinâs palaces and homes, allowed and participated in not only by Iraqis but members of the American armed forces and their "embedfellows," the media.

So Jill Nelson writes in her MSNBC piece, A mean-spirited America. I am both amazed and heartened that MSNBC -- one of the shameless cheerleaders for Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) -- deemed this article important enough to publish it, at least on its web site.

Meanwhile, here in our great democracy, Americans go along with the program or remain silent, too afraid of the Muslim bogeymen thousands of miles away to recognize the Christian ones in our midst. Fearful that we will be verbally attacked, or shunned, or lose our livelihoods if we dare question the meanness that characterizes our government and, increasingly, defines our national character.

Well, unfortunately, this is wimpishness and an inculcated timorousness -- there is no excuse NOT to speak out when fascists threaten to take over our nation and turn a republic into a dictatorship. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to carp about what the Bushites are doing to America, to fill the streets when necessary to let the government know we're not going to take it anymore. Unfortunately, most Americans do not understand what's going on -- brainwashed as they are by the corporate media -- and if they are aware of what's going on, too many of them admit defeat and all too willingly play the "go along to get along" game: "Hey, I can't afford to lose my job, I have a family and a house payment." Instead, they opt to lose their freedom.

I do not feel safer now than I did six, or 12, or 24 months ago. In fact, I feel far more vulnerable and frightened than I ever have in my 50 years on the planet. It is the United States government I am afraid of. In less than two years the Bush administration has used the attacks of 9/11 to manipulate our fear of terrorism and desire for revenge into a blank check to blatantly pursue imperialist objectives internationally and to begin the rollback of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and most of the advances of the 20th century.

Again, I am simply amazed this was published by MSNBC. Maybe there's hope yet... or maybe this is an aberration.

Friday, May 2, 2003

Tell me we have not reached the height of absurdity and draconian theater. Here's Bush dressed up as a co-pilot on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. This is significant for two reasons: 1) from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 Dubya was AWOL for the Texas National Guard where he trained as a pilot, and b) it is ironic this charade was held on a naval vessel named after a president who suspended habeas corpus during a time of war and held "expansive interpretation of presidential powers [that] made him the most imperial president in American history, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for predisposed successors," as Marshall DeRosa and historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. write. Bush is the cr�me de la cr�me of those successors.

"Earlier in the day, in a visit to the carrier that the White House arranged for maximum political effect, it was hard to tell the president from the troops he was visiting," notes the New York Times. "He landed on the 14-year-old carrier in a twin-engine S-3B Viking jet that the president, a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard three decades ago, helped pilot as it left San Diego. The image of the president surrounded by beaming sailors was an image that White House officials clearly intend to use in the 2004 presidential campaign."

Really, Bush should have taken a side tour to Baghdad while in that plane -- maybe push the button that drops a thousand pounder on a residential neighborhood -- and thus experience the whole effect of his bloody invasion of a helpless and impoverished people.

Later, Bush told a passel of lies to the gullible sailors on the Lincoln -- and to the equally gullible American people as well. "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror,'' he said. "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

Of course, there is no verifiable link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but never mind -- it is the hallmark of the Bush un-administration to tell big lies and have those lies become fact in the mind of the American people.

Bush said al-Qaeda will be hunted "from Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa,'' all places where US imperialism casts its deadly beam -- and unloads its awesome firepower and vastly expensive technology of death and destruction.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, speed and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before," Bush said.

In other words, the bribes to Saddam lackeys and top dog Republican Guard did its work in record time.

"The president's address aboard the aircraft carrier was specifically not a declaration of victory," explains Fox News. "The administration is trying to avoid triggering Geneva Convention rules that require the release of prisoners of war, the end of the pursuit of enemy leaders and the designation of the United States as an occupying power once victory is declared."

Translation: the US has a lot of lower level Saddam guys they want to torture -- and like the hapless Taliban and al-Qaeda grunts at Camp Death Ray -- er, X-Ray -- at Gitmo, they have no intention of letting them go anytime soon.

"Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home," said the unpresident. "That is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theatres of war -- after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history -- you are homeward bound."

Americans who have no sense of history -- and their numbers are legion -- may swallow this one hook, line, and sinker, but those of us who know the truth can rattle off a number of nations where the US most definitely stayed on to exploit and occupy: Panama (1901 to 1911), Nicaragua (1912 to 1933), Haiti (1914 to 1934), the Dominican Republic (1916 to 1924) and Cuba (1917 to 1933). See Ashley Smith, Under Uncle Sam's Thumb: The History of Washington's Occupations.

Moreover, Bush is playing a dirty trick on these gullible sailors and soldiers -- soon enough, they will be "called up" again, ordered to fight and die in the next target on the neocon list (Iran, Syria, North Korea -- only Crew Bush knows for sure).

Bush claimed to speak for the victims of 9/11 in his speech. Naturally, Bush speaks for nobody but those who stand to make a bundle on war and occupation -- the death merchants, the oil multinationals, and his friends in banking and the construction business. As for a real and sincere voice from 9/11, consider the words of David Potorti, who lost a brother at the WTC:

"War, to the increasing exclusion of everything else, is the only thing that America collectively cares about anymore. We don't manufacture much of anything; just war. We don't concern ourselves with education; just war. We don't attend to the 40 million Americans without health coverage; just war. We don't focus on the 30 million American children living in poverty; just war. We don't support the arts; just war. Even though a multitude of human needs were in existence prior to September 11, and have only increased since then, we continue to direct our attention and our resources into what we do best: war. Just war."

Amen, brother.

--

"Hello, I'm Don Rumsfeld."

Bush had his macabre theater, and so did Rummy. The intrepid Defense Secretary took to the Iraq airwaves the other day -- never mind that most Iraqis, even those who have TVs, couldn't tune in because they still don't have electricity (they have "democracy," but no electricity) -- and told the shocked and awed country (well, it used to be a country, anyway): "I am pleased to visit Iraq -- your country -- to witness your liberation. The American people share your joy that tyranny is gone."

Arrogant condescension, pure and simple. This man presides over the cynical bombing of Iraq and then has the audacity to go on its TV and speak to the victims? Unbelievable. The Bushites are seriously out of touch with reality.
"The first senior figure from the US administration to visit Iraq since the war, Mr. Rumsfeld stopped in Basra to thank British troops and then went on to Baghdad. Anxious to avoid triumphalism, he opted for a folksychat direct to the Iraqis recorded in Saddam's presidential palace by the banks of the Tigris," reports the Guardian.

"He said: 'Back home in America I have three children and six grandchildren. The youngest is just one year old. I want the same things for them that each of you want for your children and grandchildren -- safety, security and a just society where they have freedom to pursue their dreams'".

Here's what he actually said:

"Back home my kids and grand kids will be safe because they are from a privileged class of white people, they will never serve in the military like the duped and desperate poor white trash and minorities we tricked into 'serving’ our nation -- actually, my nation, and the nation of other white rich people, we own it, we appoint its leaders. Anyway, my name's Rummy, I once shook hands with your president, who our CIA installed because, well, we Americans, or we rich Americans in Washington, we know what's best for you primitives, you vassals who happen to have a whole lot of oil beneath your miserable desert. You can pursue your dreams, so long as your dreams don't conflict with our plans, which are to steal your oil, let multinational corporations run your business, and make sure the Israelis can do whatever they want here in the Middle East."

The Guardian had it right when it said: "Seemingly oblivious to the fact that he was addressing one of the best-educated societies in the Middle East, with a big middle class, his tone was at times that of the colonial governor addressing the natives. 'Building a free society isn't easy. It requires hard work and sacrifice,' he said."

Yeah, sacrifice -- like having your kids eviscerated by a cluster bomb, your grandfather humiliated at an Israel-like checkpoint, your cousin mowed down at a demonstration, your wife spied on by lecherous cowboy soldiers with night vision goggles.

Thursday, May 1, 2003

Photo: "Ahmed Muthanna, 14, sits in the bullet-riddled car, May 1, 2003, in which he said his father was wounded and his uncle killed when U.S. troops opened fire on them two days ago in Falluja, 50 kms (30 miles) west of Baghdad. Seven U.S. soldiers were wounded in a grenade attack on Thursday in the Iraqi city, where American troops killed at least 15 people during protests this week. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra."

--

"It started when a young boy hurled a sandal at a US jeep -- it ended with two Iraqis dead and 16 seriously injured," writes Chris Hughes from al-Fallujah, Iraq. "I watched in horror as American troops opened fire on a crowd of 1,000 unarmed people here yesterday. Many, including children, were cut down by a 20-second burst of automatic gunfire during a demonstration against the killing of 13 protesters at the Al-Kaahd school on Monday." "The youngster had apparently lobbed his shoe at the jeep -- with a M2 heavy machine gun post on the back -- as it drove past in a convoy of other vehicles... A soldier operating the weapon suddenly ducked, raised it on its pivot then pressed his thumb on the trigger... Mirror photographer Julian Andrews and I were standing about six feet from the vehicle when the first shots rang out, without warning... One of the dead, a young man, lay face up, half his head missing, first black blood, then red spilling into the dirt." "American military officials said soldiers returned fire and killed two Iraqis after some protesters fired rounds at a convoy passing by the demonstration," reports the Los Angeles Daily News.

Right -- returned fire for a kid throwing a shoe.

"U.S. officials and Iraqis gave sharply different accounts of the Monday night shootout in Falluja, a known stronghold of support for Saddam Hussein 50 kilometers west of Baghdad," writes Voice of America. ("We will clearly identify the editorial position of the United States government," is how Norman Pattiz, a member of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, described VOA operations in the Middle East.)

Oh, now I see. The shoe thrower and dead people in al-Fallujah -- including the 13 killed on Monday -- were Saddam supporters. This makes it easier to accept the murder of unarmed civilians (or civilians armed with shoes and stones), especially for the families of the victims.

It would appear the revenge attacks for the Falluja massacres have commenced. "Seven US soldiers were today wounded in a grenade attack on their base in the Iraqi city of Falluja, where troops have killed at least 15 civilians during protests this week," reports the Guardian. "An American military spokesman said the incident appeared to be a revenge attack after US troops in the town opened fire on anti-American demonstrators for the second time in three days."

Curious how people get emotional and vow revenge when you kill their relatives. "Residents of Falluja said they had heard relatives of victims vow to avenge these incidents. Today's grenade attack, they said, was the result."

"If anyone thought this occupation of Iraq was going to be easy, send them to Falluja," writes Matthew Rothschild. "My only question is, why is anyone surprised by this? The United States in Iraq is acting like Britain in colonial India (or Britain in colonial Iraq 80 years ago, for that matter). It's also acting like Israel did in southern Lebanon... There will be more Fallujas, and there probably will be suicide bombers attacking U.S. forces... This is what occupation looks like."

Recall that Israel's iron-fisted intrusion into Lebanon essentially created Hezbollah. It was Hezbollah's ferocious response to occupation that eventually drove Israel out of Lebanon.

More than likely the same thing will eventually happen to the US in Iraq. Remember what happened to the US Marines in Beirut. The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more likely an Iraqi version of Hezbollah will emerge.

"Preventing already widespread popular opposition to the American military presence turning into concerted armed resistance will also be increasingly problematic unless the US army can explain why it was justified in opening fire on a crowd comprising a large number of children and teenagers, killing at least 13 and wounding 75," warns the Guardian. "Local residents said that the children were protesting at the occupation of their school by the US soldiers and that the Americans started firing when a rock was thrown. The shooting reportedly went on for half an hour. People were hit by bullets, shrapnel and possibly by heavy machine gun rounds. Ambulance crews said they were also fired on."

Geneva Convention, what Geneva Convention? These are the same sort of things the Israelis do -- shoot unarmed civilians and fire on ambulance crews as they attempt to help the wounded.

"Even though the war is over, US soldiers continue to kill Iraqi civilians almost every day, for a variety of reasons. But Falluja's tragedy is of a different order of magnitude. To prevent more such disastrous incidents and stop the security situation deteriorating further, an inquiry must be urgently held, preferably with UN oversight and with reference to the Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying forces. For reasons of law, morality and self-interest, our relentlessly self-righteous government has a clear obligation to demand that its ally comply. Meanwhile, 82nd Airborne units should be withdrawn from Falluja. If necessary, they could be replaced by better-disciplined British troops."

"Shooting schoolboys is sometimes necessary, especially when you've taken their school, and they want to take it back, and they don't want you there, and they're armed with rocks, or whatever's on hand," writes Gary Leupp. "And occupation is liberation, and good is bad, and up is down, and Iraq is free."

"Fallujah is seared into Iraq's collective psyche as completely as the attack on the Ameriyah civilian air raid shelter, bombed by U.S. planes during the Gulf war," notes Felicity Arbuthnot. "Also in 1991, the market in Fallujah was bombed, reportedly by U.S. planes flying very low. Other reports say the U.K. planes were also involved. When residents ran to help the injured and seek the dead, in a familiar pattern, the planes returned and bombed the rescuers... To visit Fallujah is to be shamed -- and stoned. The only place in Iraq I have ever experienced hostility. It is a hostility easy to understand. A tour of the re-established market -- or anywhere else, reveals traders with amputated limbs who survived the attack -- and not a person, seemingly, who has not lost one or more of their family."

Why do they hate us?

--

This arrived as an email this morning...

Google Rejects 'Liberators Of The World' Cards Ad And Removes WarFolly.com From Its Listings

I received an e-mail from Google this morning advising me that my ad was rejected. A copy of their e-mail and my response follows. Clearly, this is blatant censorship. It violates yours and my freedom of speech and self expression. Google must be held accountable for their discriminatory practices. The Internet must be and always remain an uncensored medium for free speech.

You can contact the PR manager at Google and tell him how you feel about this.

Nathan Tyler
Public Relations Manager
650-623-4311; nate@google.com

Here is Google's e-mail and my reply:

On 4-30-03, Regina of The Google AdWords Team wrote:

You were unable to see clicks or impressions for your ad because our editorial guidelines require that certain keywords are reviewed before an ad is approved. Upon reviewing your ad and website, I found that we would not have permitted your ad to run on Google. We do not permit the advertisement of sites that advocate against any individual, group, or organization.

As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, Google reserves the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site.

Regina,

I am advocating against the loss of personal freedom in America and against unnecessary war. Is there something wrong with that? Google's advertising policies are obviously unconstitutional and violate my civil rights and the rights of other advertisers. Your policy favors the sale of "Iraqi Most Wanted" cards which is obviously discriminatory against a group of people who were illegally invaded, against the UN charter and international law. Yet, on the other hand Google discriminates against "Liberators Of The World" cards opposing point of view. The problem with Google's advertising policy is that either Google "can't handle the truth," or is being coerced to hide it. It appears its guidelines are imposed upon them by the current draconian Bush administration policies. In regards to the second part of your reply: >

However, Google believes strongly in freedom of expression. We therefore offer broad access to content across the web without censoring results. Please note that the decisions we make concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver.

This is not entirely true. The website "Warfolly.com" has been submitted for inclusion in Google numerous times and was listed recently along with sites that were linked to it. Now, it has obviously been purged from Google's database. Perhaps you have a credible explanation for this? I'd like to hear it. Why isn't it listed anymore?? Why is WarFolly.com being censored???

I request that my ad be reconsidered immediately, and that your apparent censorship of the website WarFolly.com from your database be corrected and subsequently listed in Google. Please forward this reply to your supervisor or management if this request is beyond the scope of your authority.

Sincerely, T. Naz

--

Strictly speaking, this is not censorship, since Google is a private, for-profit corporation and not a public institution. Nonetheless, it is obvious the entire corporate media (including internet corporations) are running scared from the Bushites and any criticsim of this invasion and resulting occupation is frowned upon in no uncertain terms. Google, of course, is spineless for not running the ad, but then spinelessness -- from congressional Democrats to antiwar actors worried about their precious careers -- is now commonplace.

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Photo: "An Iraqi man stands near an unexploded cluster bomb in Najaf. Weeks after Saddam Hussein's fall, unexploded cluster bombs still litter the Iraqi city of Najaf.(AFP/File/Karim Sahib)."

Imagine having these things in your neighborhood. Imagine worrying sick about your kids going out to play. Imagine one of your relatives or neighbors losing his or her arms, legs, or life because of a clusterbomb.... Naw, forget it, maybe there's a reality TV show on we can watch.

--

"There may be NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted yesterday," and the UK Mirror reported. "He told the Commons that war was declared because the regime had ONCE been in possession of them." Impeccable logic! So, if there were once Nazis in Germany, does that mean we should invade again? I mean, you never know, some Germans might get funny ideas the same way some Iraqis might.

"And he insisted they did not have to be found to justify the invasion."

Of course not -- because this war wasn't about WMD -- it was about oil and security for Israel.

"Mr Straw said: 'I'm absolutely certain that Iraq HAD illegal possession of weapons of mass destruction and had these RECENTLY and there is every reason why these ought to be found.'"

Yes, they had WMD before the Gulf War and even had some after -- subsequently destroyed by UN weapons inspection teams. Straw, of course doesn't tell us who sold Saddam these nasty weapons: American and German corporations with the blessing of the US government.

"Mr Straw's remarks are a clear watering down of the Government's position. Critics of the war said the move was a blatant attempt to prepare the public for the failure to find weapons."

Not that it matters now -- Bush and Blair had their war; the reason is now a historical footnote. I expect there will be less and less talk about WMD -- and after a sufficient amount of time the Bushites may even claim the war was not predicated on WMD but on "liberation" for the Iraqi people.

"Senior Labour backbencher Ian Gibson said: 'The justification for war was that Iraq had weapons and could use them. Apparently that wasn't the case after all.'"

No, of course not. You know, they have a bunch of rocket scientists in the British House of Commons -- just like they have a bunch here in Congress.

"'The public should beware the point where spin and lying by politicians comes together.'"

Really, most of the public doesn't lend two cents worth of attention to these things -- and if they do they get all their info (or disinformation) in thirty second bites from Fox News. I mean, far too many people think Osama and Saddam are the same person. In six months they probably won't even remember why this invasion was launched. Of course, they will be reminded by the news guys with the metal flag lapel pins -- it was to liberate the poor abused Iraqis. We Americans are kind, generous, and freedom-loving. (In fact, we're so generous and thoughtful a recent Save the Children/USA appeal for Iraqi kids flopped dismally.)

"Labour MP Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, accused the Government of hoodwinking the nation. He said: 'We were told again and again the reason for going to war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they could be used within 45 minutes... Now it's clear that the Iraqis have had no weapons for some time and that Parliament was given a completely false impression.'"

No, really? This guy's pretty clueless for being "the Father of the House." I'd suggest he go get that Who CD with the song "Won't Get Fooled Again" and give it a good listen.

"President George Bush said then: 'We know he had them and whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth.'"

He should know since his daddy -- back when he was working for Reagan -- oversaw the sale of nasty chemicals and biological agents to Iraq.

Photo: Iraqi demonstrators throw stones at a U.S. military station in Fallujah, Iraq Wednesday April 30, 2003 minutes before U.S. soldiers in a convoy opened fire on them for the second time this week. Iraqis marched Wednesday to protest the previous shooting. The mayor said two people were killed, and a hospital administrator said 18 were wounded. U.S. Central Command said soldiers in a convoy passing the demonstrators were shot at, and then returned fire. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

--

Iraq didn't have WMD, I repeat Iraq did not have WMD, which is to say Bush's main excuse for killing Iraqis was bogus.

"High-ranking Iraqi prisoners are uniformly denying Saddam Hussein's government had any weapons of mass destruction before the war, U.S. officials familiar with their interrogations said Tuesday," according to the Associated Press.

Well, they're lying. I mean, it stands to reason Iraq had all kinds of terrible biological and chemical weapons, which they would sell to guys like Osama or worse. (Where is the sarcasm tag when you really need it?) "The officials said they believe many of the prisoners are lying to protect themselves."

Seems to me if they lied and said Iraq did have WMD, they'd be in a better position. They may even be permitted to live in America, like that guy who helped Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

"Secretary of State Colin Powell, under questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, predicted prisoners would yet help U.S. forces find the alleged weapons. 'They will be found,' he said."

Or if they're not, the US will plant them. But more than likely the corporate media will move on to the next lie, the next provocation, the next invasion because, well, there's no WMD in Iraq -- not since the UN destroyed those WMD sold to Saddam by US and German corporations before the Gulf War.

Iraq's WMD and the whereabouts of Saddam -- these things will go the way of Osama.

"Around Iraq, American forces are finding suspicious chemicals and other possible signs of weapons programs, but nothing conclusive, officials said. So far, thorough testing has not verified any of the chemicals are weapons."

You can find "suspicious chemicals" under my kitchen sink, too.

--

"However delighted they are to be rid of the Saddamite nightmare, Iraqis mentally live in a world of conspiracy theories, causing many to harbor deep suspicions of coalition intentions," writes Islamophobe Daniel Pipes.

"Iraq needs -- and I write these words with some trepidation -- a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman. This may sound like a contradiction, but it has happened elsewhere, for example by AtatŸrk in Turkey and Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan. Yes, it goes against every American instinct... but that's not a reason to reject it."

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them," Orwell explained. This is precisely what Pipes is doing here when he says Iraq needs "democratically-minded" "strongman." In other words, Iraq needs the facade of democracy plastered over a dictatorship. You see, for Zionists such as Pipes who hates and distrusts Arabs, the primitive Iraqis need a dictatorship to keep them in line (in other words, away from Shi'a Islam).

"Who should fill the all-important role of strongman? The ideal candidate would be politically moderate but operationally tough; someone with an ambition to steer Iraq toward democracy and good neighborly relations."

Moderate = takes orders from Washington. Operationally tough = willing to kill people who disagree with orders handed down from Washington. Good neighborly relations = willing to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations.

"As for the coalition forces, after installing a strongman they should phase out their visible role and pull back to a few military bases away from population centers. From these, they can quietly serve as the military partner of the new government, guaranteeing its ultimate security and serving as a constructive influence for the entire region."

In other words, the same kind of deal they had in Iran before Khomeini, complete with a SAVAK-like secret police. Of course, the US didn't invade Iran, they sponsored a CIA engineered coup, threw out a democratically elected prime minister because he talked about nationalizing the oil fields. The CIA couldn't get at Saddam, so an invasion was necessary. Obviously, Pipes is in favor of this sort of "democracy."

In the end, an Iranian-style revolution will be the same result in Iraq.

--

"Religious Shiite parties and militias in Iraq have recently stepped into the gap resulting from the collapse of the Baath Party, especially in the sacred shrine cities," writes Juan Cole. "This development must have come as a shock to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who in early March preferred Iraqis as US allies to Saudis, saying that they are secular and 'overwhelmingly Shia, which is different from the Wahhabis of the peninsula, and they don't bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory.' Wolfowitz and other pro-war policymakers were right that large numbers of Shiites, from the educated middle class to factory workers, are secular Iraqi nationalists. But they were dead wrong to discount the power of the religious forces, and seem ignorant of the centrality of the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala. The neo-conservative fantasy of Iraq is now meeting the real Iraq, on the ground, in the shrine cities as well as in the smaller, mostly Shiite towns in the south of the country."

--

"In a recent study, Yale University economist William Nordhaus said Iraq had experienced 'one of the most catastrophic economic declines in modern history" under President Saddam Hussein, with living standards falling by 90 percent,'" reports Reuters.

This is one of the reasons people all over the world have problems with the United States -- Americans have about a fifteen minute grasp on history, thanks to their corporate media and their own lack of interest in the history and culture.

If we take this paragraph on its face -- and the rest of the articled offers no additional information -- the impression is imparted that it was Saddam Hussein's fault Iraqis suffered under economic decline. In fact, before the Gulf War, Iraq had a very healthy and robust economy -- that is until Bush Senior decimated the country. 12 years of brutal sanctions finished the job, reducing Iraq to an impoverished Third World country.

"Even before the war, large numbers of Iraqi children were in poor health. A U.N. report found the average Iraqi child had 10 to 20 cases of diarrhea each year, mainly from drinking contaminated water."

Again, no mention of why this situation exists -- we are left to conclude the obvious: it was Saddam who did this, the invasion was a good thing because it got rid of Saddam, Iraq is better off now thanks to the US bombing.

"Where do you hear about our responsibility and our accountability for the three wars we have already destroyed Iraq with? In 1991, 110,000 aerial sorties in 42 days. 88,500 tons of bombs. 150,000 dead. The Pentagon says we lost 155, more than one-third to "friendly fire," the rest to accidents, no combat casualties. It was slaughter. You don't slaughter with impunity. It is a war crime. It is a crime against humanity," Ramsey Clark wrote before the invasion. "Then we impose the unbelievable sanctions on Iraq that have killed a million and a half people. Every day it continues, every day and every day infants, children, elderly die from those sanctions. We just got back from Iraq in September, where we heard the health minister say the death rates continue to increase. The number of children born below normal weight, below 2 kilograms, are now one in four. A midget generation. We have killed 1 and a half million people with genocidal sanctions."

Many Americans, however, are not interested in all of this, especially the vindictive Americans over at the far right-wing "news" site NewsMax.com.

"Ramsey Clark is obviously crying out for help," writes Adam Sparks. "Will someone please arrest him, once and for all? It should be done not for America's sake, but for Ramsey's own sake. Let's respect this man's innermost wishes before we all go insane."

Indeed. Maybe all of us who reveal the truth should be arrested.

Or at least have our careers ruined like George Galloway.

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

"The 'smoking gun' document on Galloway [supposedly indicating his complicity with Saddam Hussein] was further played up on Fox News Sunday," writes Wayne Madsen. "William Kristol, an ally of Perle and a dean of the neo-conservatives, and Fox's Brit Hume, a right-wing ideologue who masquerades as a reporter, said the documents implicating Galloway in accepting money from Saddam Hussein was the 'tip of the iceberg.' They then suggested that French President Jacques Chirac, other Western politicians, and Arab journalists working for such networks as Al Jazeera, would soon be 'outed' by further Iraqi intelligence documents. For good measure, Fox also announced that Galloway may have given classified satellite imagery to al Qaeda. As is so often the case, the Fox News panelists provided no evidence for their slanderous claims."

Truly, the far right-wing neocon nut cases have gone over the deep end. They can't stand the fact people actually disagree with them, so they have to "out" them -- or rather have military intelligence or the CIA do it for them.

Well, at least they are still alive, unlike the non-embedded journalists in Iraq targeted by the military. Increasingly, this is how these people deal with the opposition -- either destroy their careers or kill them. Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Muller (who ran the Nazi Gestapo) had nothing on these guys.

"Welcome to the new digital and satellite age McCarthyism. Phony documents are 'dropped' into the hands of a right-wing London newspaper owned by Conrad Black. They are amplified by Black's other holdings, including the Jerusalem Post and Chicago Sun-Times. The story is then picked up by the worldwide television outlets of News Corporation, Time Warner, Disney, and General Electric and echoed on the right-wing radio talk shows of Clear Channel and Viacom. Political careers are damaged or destroyed. There is no right of rebuttal for the accused. They are guilty as charged by a whipped up public that gets its information from the Orwellian telescreens of the corporate media... The media operating in concert with political vermin to whip up popular opinion to stamp out criticism is nothing new. It was practiced by Joseph Goebbels quite effectively in Nazi Germany."

"Having been on the receiving end of smear campaigns designed to assassinate the character of someone in opposition to the powers that be, I have grown highly suspicious of dramatic revelations conveniently timed to silence a vocal voice of dissent," writes Scott Ritter. "But I do know a few things about George Galloway and the cause he championed with regards to Iraq. I know that he helped set up the Mariam Appeal, a humanitarian organisation established in 1998 initially to raise funds on behalf of an Iraqi girl who suffered from leukemia and who, because of economic sanctions, was unable to receive adequate medical care... I know that Galloway helped set up the British-Iraqi friendship association. I know because he invited me to come to London and speak at the associationâs inaugural meeting. The message I heard him deliver that night was one of human kindness and compassion. He spoke out against the suffering of the Iraqi people under the effects of a decades-long economic embargo. I heard him decry the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. But I also heard him lambaste the policies of his own country, and those of the US, which were subjecting the innocent people of Iraq to such suffering."

"In an apparent widening of the scandal, the Christian Science Monitor said it obtained papers including direct orders from the Saddam regime to issue Galloway six individual payments, starting in July 1992 and ending in January 2003, totaling more than $10 million," reports WorldNetDaily.

Accusing Galloway of working for Saddam and Osama isn't enough, apparently -- the Daily Telegraph also accuses him of working for Kashmiri separatists. "Galloway is also supposed to have received £140,000 from the Kashmir Front and The Telegraph, pointed out that Galloway in fact possesses two of Pakistanâs highest civil awards... The BBC also obtained documents apparently acknowledging the receipt by Galloway of cheques for £60,000 on behalf of the National Lobby of Kashmir."

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad," opines the Daily Telegraph. "Ever since David Blair discovered the paper trail that led from Baghdad to Glasgow, the mind of George Galloway has increasingly retreated into fantasy. As more documents found in the Iraqi foreign ministry are published and the possibility that they could have been forged becomes more remote, so Mr Galloway's conspiracy theory becomes wilder."

Maybe the gods the hacks over at the Daily Telegraph mention work in the forgery department of the CIA or M16, Britain's Secret Intelligence Service?

Like Cynthia McKinney, George Galloway is targeted for political extinction. "The five-term Georgia Democrat [McKinney] has received thousands of dollars from Arabs -- many of them leaders of U.S. Muslim organizations -- including 25 donations that were either received or posted by her campaign on September 11," the right-wing Washington Times accused last year. Of course, taking political contributions from Muslims is not illegal -- it just looked bad (especially to Arab-hating Americans) and helped get rid of her. Antiwar sentiments will not be tolerated in Congress.

McKinney's sin -- like Galloway's -- was telling the truth: "The American people are being called upon to send their young sons and daughters to go and kill young Iraqi sons and daughters. This war, like all wars, will be brutal and will leave many American and Iraqi families mourning the loss of their children... Before we send our young men and women off to war, we need to really make sure that we're not sacrificing them so that rich and powerful men can prosecute a war for oil," she wrote.