American Samizdat Guernica
Saturday, January 18, 2003
President Bush, Ashcroft and Thompson Sued in Civil Court for Aiding and Encouraging Illegal Immigration ( Racketeering)
Media blackout also in progress
THE PRESIDENT of the United States of America, and other government officials are being sued for their personal assets for $177,000,000,000 in a lawsuit filed in DC September 4th. The information on the first page of the suit follows:

US Code Title 8, Section 1324a states "Any person who hires/harbors/transports any illegal alien regardless of his knowledge of their immigration status is guilty of a felony punishable by 10 years jail + $2000 fine per illegal alien + forfeiture of the vehicle or property used to commit the crime"

(T)he Constitution of the United States is being violated by Heads of State. Wherefore, every other law enforcement agency refuses to enforce the Law, because the one (1) question to be answered is, "George W. Bush, the President of the United States, Tommy Thompson, the Department of Health and Human Services, and John Ashcroft, the Attorney General of the United States; Are they or Are they not upholding the Law for the citizens within this United States, against each and every illegal alien who has forcefully crossed the United States border without the permission of our Government.

#32. I pray this Court has the ability to see that this case is not a question of any given dollar, we, the citizens, which I am one of, need this answer, not money. It is costing the American citizens over $177,000,000,000.00 each year in tax payer money to support illegal immigration.

Regardless of your personal feelings on immigration, and in this case illegal immigration, the Bush cartel is breaking the law, and it should be noted.
Global protests against Iraq war
A day of worldwide protests against a looming US-led war on Iraq has culminated in giant peace rallies in Washington, San Francisco and other US cities. More than 50,000 Americans converged on the National Mall in the centre of Washington, in one of the biggest protests since the build-up for war began.
Friday, January 17, 2003
The 'Israeli Art Student' Papers
Secret Government Report on Israel’s Spy Operation in the US
In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States. Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. These incidents have occurred since at least the beginning of 2000, and have continued to the present. The number of reported incidents increased in November/December 2000, and has continued to date.

These incidents have involved several other law enforcement and Department of Defense agencies, with contacts made at other agencies' facilities and the residences of their employees. Geographically, these incidents are very widespread, ranging from California to Florida. The majority of the incidents have occurred in the southern half of the continental U.S. with the most activity reported in the state of Florida. Since April 2001, the number of reported incidents has declined, however, the geographic spread of the incidents has increased to Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Los Angeles.
Also see:
Disgruntled Artists Do It Better.
War, baby, war! Some graphic designers and artists just ain't into it, and they're making some very fun, very free imagery for anti-war.us. You can download print-quality PDFs for making stickers, illustrations, posters, or whatever you like... or just browse... or contribute something fabulous of yr own. -mag
Senators vow to halt `data mining' project
Reflecting increased alarm about a Pentagon plan to find terrorists by trolling the electronic records of all Americans, several senators took steps Thursday to rein in the project and halt other ``data mining'' efforts until Congress can review the implications on civil liberties. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., drafted an amendment Thursday night to the $390 billion federal spending bill now being considered by Congress to temporary stop the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness project.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
America: Enemy of globalisation
In the first part of a major new series Tom Nairn lays out his surprising and important thesis. Globalisation is not Americanisation. Rather, the onrushing process of globalisation will render America just another country. In this context, the looming conflict in Iraq should be seen not as a war of oil, still less as a response to Osama bin Laden. It is a war over globalisation itself - as Washington seeks to militarise the economic domination it enjoyed in the 1990s.

What the assault aims to do is drag this process backwards, under ‘Western’ (but really American) leadership. Its aim is to force an awakened American nationalism into a more decidedly imperial mould - which can only be done by ‘old-fashioned’ techniques. Barbarians must be reinvented, to keep Homelanders together, to prop up a half-elected President, and to re-align restive or dissident satrapies. With all its shortcomings and contradictions, globalisation had been showing signs of escaping from US Neo-liberal hegemony over the past few years. Tragically, it is believed in some places that a ‘good war’ will help to rein in such trends, by establishing a new kind of empire-boundary, namely an apocalyptic (and by definition unceasing) fight against Terrorism.

This effort stands no chance of long-term success; a fact unlikely to influence the policy makers in Bush’s Washington. Their attempt to harness, rein in and control globalisation is embedded in their current Iraq policy – whether this remains limited to the subordination of the United Nations (UN) to the White House and an inspection process designed to humiliate Saddam, whether it results in his swift downfall, or concludes in a desperate battle and widespread violence.
[more]

via What's Left
What the North Korean "standoff" is really about

By Stephen Gowans

Nuclear stand-off on the Korean peninsula. The Korean crisis. North Korea playing with matches. Pyongyang becomes increasingly belligerent. President Bush won't reward North Korea's bad behavior. An irrational regime plays brinkmanship.

From the headlines you'd think North Korea had declared the United States part of an axis of evil, and had put the country on a nuclear hit list, rather than the other way around.

You might also think North Korean submarines, equipped with nuclear tipped missiles, were lurking off the coast of the United States, while tens of thousands of North Korean GI's lay in wait in Mexico, ready (according to a thin official story) to push back an American invasion of Mexico, should it come. You might think this was true, though it is North Korea, not the United States, that is surrounded by a vast, nuclear-equipped, and hostile military presence.

What's more, you might think there was far more to the "stand-off" than this: Washington says North Korea can't have nuclear weapons, and Pyongyang says "piss off."

But that's all there is to it. So, why the fuss?

Who is Washington to tell North Korea that it can't have nuclear weapons? Granted, as the world's most powerful country, the United States is able to use its leverage to get its way. It can wage an economic war against North Korea (which it has done), and it can threaten military intervention (which it has also done), but that's simply using economic hardship and the threat of force to extort concessions. In other words, it's behavior that fits Washington's own definition of terrorism to a tee.

But what legitimate authority does Washington have to issue diktats to other countries? You'd think from the way Washington is behaving, that it is perfectly within its rights to tell North Korea what to do.

Moreover, from the media's references to North Korea's "bad behavior" and "defiance" you'd think North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was a naughty child who has to be disciplined by papa. Indeed, the White House, in its paternalistic way, even talked about North Korea needing to "feel a firmer hand."

But as it turns out, Washington has absolutely no legitimate authority to tell North Korea it can't have nuclear weapons. While it had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), once it decided to reopen its mothballed Yongbyon nuclear power plant (which is capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium), Pyongyang announced its withdrawal from the treaty. Washington, it will be recalled, not too long ago announced its withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, on grounds the treaty was no longer compatible with US defense requirements. Similarly, the NPT no longer serves North Korea's defense requirements.

Given that Washington virtually declared war when it said North Korea was part of an axis of evil (North Korea's inclusion reflecting Washington's need to take a firmer hand, according to David Frum, the White House speechwriter who coined the phrase) and given that North Korea, along with six other countries, have been declared fair game for a US nuclear first strike, it's hardly surprising Pyongyang has decided it needs to develop a nuclear deterrent. Far from being irrational, as the country's leaders are often called in the press, the move is entirely rational.

History, it can be said, is the story of how the powerful have used law, morality, and religion to turn the ability to force compliance into a shared expectation of compliance. Kings, it was said, ruled by divine right; the aristocracy, it was claimed, ruled by virtue of inherited traits congenial to governance. Britain's conquest of other people's land and resources was based on a moral mission of civilizing the dark corners of the world, it was said, as today, the Anglo- American, Washington-London axis portrays its program of conquest as a mission of bringing democracy and human rights to countries presided over by dictators. Wherever a class of people or country has grown powerful enough to compel compliance through force or sanction it seeks to justify its raw exercise of power through law or morality or religion.

Having no legitimate authority to demand North Korea fall in line with its edicts (not only on leaving itself defenseless to US military depredations by foregoing a deterrent nuclear weapons program, but also in refusing to open its doors to US trade and investment on terms favorable to US capital), the media, ever the willing janissaries of Washington, have stepped up to the plate: if Washington has no legitimate grounds to assume the role of world dictator, the media will confer it upon them.

It's not as if the press is unaware that Washington is vastly overstepping its bounds; it just doesn't say anything about it. When the Pentagon starting abducting Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan and elsewhere, throwing them like animals into cages at Gauntanamo Bay, a reporter grilled White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on whether Washington had the authority to do what it was doing. After ducking and weaving, Fleischer finally said in exasperation, "Look, there's a war going on." In other words, Washington has no legitimate authority whatever to abduct and cage al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, but uses, wherever it can, the events of Sept. 11 as legitimation for scores of illegal, immoral, indecent, inhumane and repellent acts that it gets away with by virtue of having a larger military and more economic leverage than anyone else. Lamentably, vast sections of the American population, including large parts of what passes itself off as the political left, have bought into the idea that the deaths of 3,000 on Sept. 11 justify all manner of US outrages. Sept. 11, with all its associated rhetoric of good vs. evil, has become what the divine right of kings was to monarchs: an excuse to exploit, plunder and abuse the weak.

Regrettably, you'll hear few Americans complain about the treatment of abductees at Gauntanamo Bay, or the flagrant Constitutional violation that has seen American citizens tossed into military brigs without charge, where they're to be held indefinitely as combatants in a war that has no planned end. "The bastards should be treated even more severely," is the accustomed cry, while the minority that lean away from these punitive excesses hold their tongues, cowed by the prospect of being seen to defend monsters, for how can al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters be seen as sympathetic figures, worthy of a defense? Though hardly admirable and cleaving to reactionary and repellent views, they are human beings, and are deserving of respect as such by a country that professes to be civilized and humane. And while their views are repellent to us, how many can say their own views are not repellent to the viciously right- wing thugs who have their hand on Washington's tiller, and may decide, some day, for the sake of homeland security, that you too should be locked away?

For as long as governments have resorted to propaganda to justify acts of war and conquest, demonizing the enemy has been the standard way of drawing attention away from relevant questions, like, Have all countries a right to defend themselves?, to irrelevant questions, like, What are we going to do about this monster?

This technique has been used repeatedly by Washington to great effect, in Yugoslavia, where all kinds of wildly exaggerated claims were made about Slobodan Milosevic, including the charge that he ordered the killing of 100,000 ethnic Albanians (whose bodies were never found), and in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein has been portrayed as more evil than Old Nick himself.

"What are we going to do about this monster?" it is asked. Well, what has the "monster" Saddam done that we need to do something about? Not a hell of a lot, except, we're told, he has cleverly hidden weapons of mass destruction, after the UN told him to disarm. Of course, we don't know that Iraq is hiding weapons. The UN inspectors have turned up zilch, and all we have to go on is the word of Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush who have shown themselves over and over again to be notorious liars.

And then we can ask whether an edict from the UN Security Council for Iraq to disarm is legitimate. Doesn't the demand that Iraq disarm amount to the world's great powers forcing a country that is strategically situated atop great oil wealth to abandon its right to self-defense, thereby allowing one or more of those powers to take control of the country's assets for their own benefit? Doesn't Iraq have a right to defend itself from aggression, either that of neighbouring countries, or that of UN Security Council members?

But these issues -- though central to the question of war in the Middle East -- aren't addressed. Instead, the discussion centers on Saddam Hussein's personal qualities, as the pro-war propaganda's standard operating procedure prescribes. But Saddam Hussein's personal qualities, and whether there's a dictatorship of capital (under the guise of a US imposed democracy) or a dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, are completely irrelevant to the question of whether (a) the United States or NATO or the UN Security Council or any other group has a legitimate authority to go to war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction and (b) whether Iraq has the right to defend itself against attack. (Equally, do Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters have the right to defend themselves from US attack on Afghanistan soil? The answer is obvious -- they do; the question, however, is never asked.)

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il is also a target of a demonization campaign. We're told (by the ultra-reliable source George W. Bush) that Kim starves his people, and the equally reliable media heap all manner of pejorative adjectives on Kim, the meaning of which -- other than implying something bad -- is unclear. Kim and his country are irrational, unpredictable, neo-Stalinist, secretive, reclusive, bizarre, militaristic. No article on North Korea can be written without using at least two of these words. Press accounts conjure up a picture of a vast and grim concentration camp, where an evil and irrational dictator indoctrinates ordinary North Koreans into supporting his malefic designs on the world, including a nuclear strike on the US and its allies, carried out because Kim resents US power and hates American freedoms and democracy -- another Osama bin Laden, but this time one with a bad haircut and a funny jacket and a neo-Stalinist moniker.

Kim should forget about the American left springing to his country's defense. It's too concerned that to do so would invite the charge that it's Stalinist and supports dictators, a charge it will twist itself into innumerable contortionist knots to avoid, even siding with decidedly conservative and neo-liberal forces such as the MDC in Zimbabwe and the DOS in Serbia to avoid the taint of being seen to support a victim of Washington's demonization exercises.

The demonization is necessary. Without it, Washington can't make its case, can't be seen to be reacting, rather than instigating, for the truth of the matter is that Washington instigates, while pretending it's simply reacting to a threat. As one writer of a letter to a newspaper editor sarcastically put it, "Sure, when I hear Mike Tyson say that Woody Allen threatened him, and that he'll have to beat the snot out of the filmmaker in self-defense, I believe Tyson."

It's a nasty world out there, we're led to believe, where all kinds of crazy and evil dictators are plotting harm to the US, and if you doubt it, remember September 11. The United States government must be tough if it's going to protect its citizens, and if that means telling unpredictable dictators like Kim Jong Il that he can't have nuclear weapons, so be it.

Were Kim (or equally Saddam Hussein) portrayed otherwise, the deceit wouldn't work. Neither can be allowed to attend to their country's self-defense by acquiring weapons of mass destruction, because (the deception goes) they may use those weapons against the United States in an unprovoked attack. After all, they're evil, they're unpredictable, they're unbalanced and they resent US power, US democracy and US freedoms. Would you leave the world's most destructive weapons in the hands of unpredictable, irrational, evil dictators?

That the view is kindergarten-like is, of course, no deterrent to its being imbibed holus bolus, and regurgitated in an attractive package by the Anglo- American media, resulting in a level of discourse on world affairs that operates at the level of a nine-year old. They're evil and unpredictable; we're good and moral; therefore, they must be smashed. Remember Sept. 11?

A more adult view, far closer to the truth, is that the powerful seek ways of extending their power, because they can. Washington has made no secret of its desire to establish its primacy in the world by containing regional rivals (countries that are large enough and strong enough to pursue an independent course), and by undermining anti-capitalist countries (those that don't wholly respect the claimed right of US firms and investors to exploit the former's labor, resources and markets.) Countries that have weapons of mass destruction aren't so easy to push around, and can hardly be expected to submit to US primacy or leadership or however else you want to dress it up to hide what it is -- global hegemony, a dictatorship of US capital.

And it is very much a dictatorship of US capital that Washington desires; this, too, the White House has made no secret of. The President's National Security Doctrine reads like a handbook on spreading US trade and investment to every corner of the world, which it is. National security, it must be understood, means freedom for US firms to go anywhere they wish, to sell into any market they wish, and to extract profits from any country they wish, with the security of their investments safeguarded. Ultimately, to borrow from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, it is the US military that vouchsafes that security, and, through threat or war, that smashes down the doors that lock US investment out. It's no surprise that Washington's axis of evil countries, whether the original three or the larger list that includes Cuba, with Venezuela and Zimbabwe as satellites, are either completely closed to unfettered US trade and investment, have nationalized, or are planning to nationalize, key parts of their economy, or have threatened what stands as US capital's -- and therefore, Washington's -- highest good: private ownership and the security of private investment.

Capitalism is the only sustainable model, says Bush. And he's got a $400 billion per annum military to back him up on it.
If you're going to San Francisco (or DC) be sure to wear some flowers in your hair...

This weekend will see a huge anti-war march in both washington dc and san francisco. details on International Answer and Vote No War.

A fitting activity for Martin Luther King Day.
Empty Gun, No Smoke

No, it's not another rant about John Lott fudging his numbers.

The weapons inspectors in Iraq have found empty warheads. That's right. Another example of finding nothing.

The inspectors found 11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads and one warhead that requires further evaluation. the warheads are similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s, the spokesman said.

Imported in the 1980's? imported from where, we wonder?

Unfortunately for the press, empty chemical warheads really don't mean a whole heck of a lot. Now, if they had found full warheads, that might be a different story. Wolf Blitzer might be putting war graphics up on his screen even as we speak. But alas, it's hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and equally hard to make a smoking gun out of an empty bullet cartridge.

However, the press, ready for action, is trumpeting this find as a possible "trigger" for war. Guess the economy is not that exciting of a story.

Speaking of the economy, here's some good news, if you believe the spin: new unemployment claims fell 32,000 last week.

Claims dipped by 32,000 to a seasonally adjusted 360,000 in the week, down from a revised 392,000 in the prior week.

But remember, that's new unemployment claims, not total. And it's not really good news if you're one of the 360,000 people who filed new claims for unemployment last week, like Skippy did.
The Perpetual War Portfolio
The Perpetual War Portfolio is an evenly weighted basket of five stocks poised to succeed in the age of perpetual war. The stocks were selected on the basis of popular product lines, strong political connections and lobbying efforts, and paid-for access to key Congressional decision-makers.
Wednesday, January 15, 2003


"Escalate non-violence." --MLK

Today is Martin Luther King's birthday.

Also today: President-Select Bush announced that his administration would lend some legal aid to the fight against the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan. He added, "And if we had never had affirmative action in the first place, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, neitha . . . "

Well, no, he didn't say that, actually, but the Trent Lott connection should be clear, right? This is, after all, the party of racists . . . What is that called, "the Southern Solution?" Whereby Republican power is culled by courting the bigotry-friendly American southern states? Oh hey now, and don't forget the re-nomination of Judge Pickering--who fights for the little man, as long as the little man is burning a cross on the lawn of the nigra and his honky ho.

And they do both of these things right after the whole Trent Lott fiasco?

Aw man, they're just throwing it at you.

And to do it on Martin Luther King's birthday?

That's just a little extra something for you,


the taxpayer


the citizen


the slave


Israel to kill in U.S., allied nations
Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has forbidden the practice until now, these sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Israeli statements were confirmed by more than a half dozen U.S. foreign policy and intelligence officials in interviews with UPI.
USA prepares rebuild plan for post-conflict Iraq
Not like it's for sure or anything...but...
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is preparing for its role in rebuilding Iraq after a projected US-led invasion and is expecting significant demands for units that can provide intelligence capabilities, chemical and biological detection and defence, civil affairs and force protection, US defence officials have disclosed to Jane's Defence Weekly.

The US armed forces are expected to maintain a significant presence in Iraq, well beyond the end of combat operations, to deal with what defence and humanitarian experts say could be a dangerous and volatile situation. Predictions range from the formation of armed resistance factions to water and food shortages. US officials would also want to seek out and destroy or secure any remaining stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and related equipment. They also are preparing for more conventional threats against US forces.
Anxiety Bubbles Beneath Support For War With Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
A solid majority of Americans consistently tell pollsters that they favor attacking Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein. But beneath that bedrock of support lies a deep sense of anxiety.

The worries poured out in dozens of interviews conducted in recent days across the nation, from this bustling Atlanta suburb to the North Side of Chicago, from Maryland shopping malls to Los Angeles coffee shops. Americans wonder whether the nation can wage war even as the economy is slumping, and worry that war would make things worse. They are concerned that the Middle Eastern world will label the United States a bully if it attacks Iraq, and they fear retaliation. And there are new fears about North Korea. [MORE]
Old Words on War Stirring a New Dispute at Berkeley
In her own day, the Russian-born anarchist Emma Goldman roused emotions including considerable fear with her advocacy of radical causes like organized labor, atheism, sexual freedom and opposition to military conscription. "Emma Goldman is a woman of great ability and personal magnetism, and her persuasive powers are such to make her an exceedingly dangerous woman," Francis Caffey, the United States attorney in New York, wrote in 1917. Goldman died in 1940, more than two decades after being deported to Russia with other anarchists in the United States who opposed World War I. Now her words are the source of deep consternation once again, this time at the University of California, which has housed Goldman's papers for the past 23 years. In an unusual showdown over freedom of expression, university officials have refused to allow a fund-raising appeal for the Emma Goldman Papers Project to be mailed because it quoted Goldman on the subjects of suppression of free speech and her opposition to war. The university deemed the topics too political as the country prepares for possible military action against Iraq. [MORE free reg-req.]
Turkey prepares for Iraq refugees
The Turkish Red Crescent has started preparations for the arrival of refugees from Iraq in the event of war.
A 24,000-tent refugee camp is planned near Turkey's border with Iraq. During the Gulf War, almost half a million refugees entered Turkey from Iraq. A 10-member team from the Red Crescent has been in the border province of Sirnak for four days. In all, the Red Crescent hopes to be able to accommodate up to 100,000 refugees. [MORE]
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
Annan Sees No Reason for Attack on Iraq
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday he sees no reason for an attack on Iraq and is optimistic that war can be avoided if the international community maintains pressure on Saddam Hussein and inspectors do their job aggressively.

Nonetheless, he said the United Nation is making plans to deal with an exodus of refugees and potential humanitarian crisis in the event of military action. U.N. experts are also doing some "preliminary thinking" about a possible post-conflict political organization and administration in Iraq, he said.
India and China face off in space
A Chinese astronaut, making China only the third nation able to send anyone into space, will be galling to the Indians. That is why they are developing their Moon plans now and preparing for an Indo-China space race.
the place to be if you're in the S.F. Bay Area...
on January 28th, Cal Berkeley, Graduate School of Journalism
Christopher Hitchens VS. Mark Danner debate
How Should We Use Our Power?;
7:30 PM, Zellerbach Hall, and the best thing about it?
IT IS FREE & OPEN to the PUBLIC!
Get there Early!
9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis: How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition
Acceptance of the official narrative of what happened on September 11, 2001 has become widespread, not merely on the right, but also on the left. In this paper, I take issue with the writings of several commentators who attempt to forcefully argue firstly that acceptance of the official narrative is justified, and secondly that certain kinds of inquiry into anomalies and inconsistencies in that narrative are illegitimate and unnecessary. The main bulk of this writing is available online at a new section at the well-known progressive website ZNet, and is somewhat representative of the mainstream approach to 9/11.[1]

In reviewing the work of these commentators on 9/11, I analyse in detail the failure of the U.S. intelligence community in preventing the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks; the casual repression and/or misrepresentation of facts related to 9/11; the failure of U.S. defence measures on 9/11; the historic and institutional basis for skepticism about the official narrative; and some salient facts which illustrate the need for proper research into the linkages between U.S. government, military, intelligence, and corporate policy, and the ease with which the September 11 terrorist attacks went ahead.
The Stadium of the Mind
If Americans spent as much time learning about world affairs or our Constitution and Bill of Rights as they do passing percentages and field goal ranges, maybe more than 13% of people aged 18-24 could locate Iraq on a map.
Monday, January 13, 2003
The dissent smackdown
How anti-democratic tactics continue to be used to stifle debate over national security
Ethnic Cleansing: Some Common Reactions, by Ran HaCohen
More background and arguments from one of Israel's best columnists regarding ethnic cleansing, past, present, and future.
American Arabs and Jews Want Peace in Mideast: Poll
While internet killbloggers try to tear the two sides apart as part of a "no compromise" atttidude towards "terror," Arab Americans and Jewish Americans largely agree on the basic issues that define the conflict. In the poll, over 95 percent of Arab Americans said they believe Israel has a right to secure and independent existence, and 87 percent of Jewish Americans said Palestinians have the right to live in an independent state. This directly contradicts the daily diatribes of warbloggers who hold that Arabs (even "fifth column" American Arabs) are opposed to the very existence of Israel. The reality is that both sides want peace, and want the US to do something about the problem, and do it soon before more innocent lives are sacrificed for political gains on both sides.
Sunday, January 12, 2003
Found over at Dack Ragus' invaluable Warlog:

U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past

Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set

On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2 1/2-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.

...

The decision to confront Iraq was in many ways a victory for a small group of conservatives who, at the start of the administration, found themselves outnumbered by more moderate voices in the military and the foreign policy bureaucracy. Their tough line on Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001, was embraced quickly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney after the attacks. But that shift was not communicated to opponents of military action until months later, when the internal battle was already decided.
The full article is here.
It's their turn now
A well written Israeli editorial that exploresd both sides of the relationship of Israel's Arab minority to the Jewish majority.
'Fuck That Flag' - a short story by the mutant

I am Jack's complete lack of patriotism.

The sickness swept across the company, and with it now came the labels, "Jack is un-american. Jack is a communist. Must be a democrat. Child abuse, I heard. A satanist..." They just could not understand it. Why would anyone hate the flag so much?

Thou shalt have no other god before me. Unless it's the flag. Amen.
Terror Suspect Pleads Guilty
Where is the alleged Ringleader of this Buffalo cell? Oh...
One of six men alleged to be part of an al Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., pleaded guilty to a reduced charge yesterday in exchange for an agreement to testify against his fellow defendants, marking what prosecutors described as an important breakthrough in the case.

Faysal Galab, 26, a U.S. citizen of Yemeni descent, pleaded guilty in the Western District of New York to a charge of providing "funds and services" to al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, by attending a terrorism training camp in Afghanistan in the spring of 2001.
The prosecutors, calling this a "breakthrough," are trying to put the best spin on this as possible. Well, what can they say, "It looks like the CIA bumped off our star witness"? Kamal Derwish, the ringleader, was killed in that CIA Predator attack in Yemen. Derwish would have testified about some intriguing details on Bin Laden's visit and the defendents' training at Al Farooq training camp.
Grade A BlackJade analysis. Not to be missed.
UK 'rejects' lone action against Iraq
The UK would not join American unilateral military action against Iraq, according to International Development Secretary Clare Short.
Ms Short said the UK had a duty to try to keep the world united over the Iraq crisis and ensure the danger of Saddam Hussein was only tackled through the United Nations.

Other ministers have shied away from saying whether or not the UK would join America if it decided to act alone against Iraq.
US accelerates Gulf build-up
The United States is dramatically accelerating its build-up in the Gulf, with the deployment of another 27,000 troops.
A senior Pentagon official told the BBC that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had signed his second order in 24 hours, adding to 35,000 personnel who were deployed on Friday.

Powell's Books

Site Meter



www.iraqbodycount.org








Creative Commons License