"...When America’s war of terror finally concludes, the international community will have to determine the culpability of the media in abetting the vast devastation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity..."


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11888.htm


Frog-marching the Media to the Gallows


By Mike Whitney


02/12/06 "ICH" -- -- No one knows better than the editors of the New York Times that Iran does not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program. The Times editors comb through mountains of information every day and have not yet produced even a shred of evidence to support their fraudulent claims.

Nothing.

So what’s the game here? Is the Times willing to sacrifice what’s left of its tattered credibility just to pave the way to another unprovoked war?

It seems so.

Apart their from their daily updates, which are invariably skewed against Iran, their February 8 editorial reiterated at least 5 times that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

Huh?

According to the Time’s, Iran has continued to pursue “its two-decade long drive to build nuclear weapons”. The editorial suggests that it would be preferable if the Iranian government was “more willing to put the economic future of its people ahead of building nuclear bombs.”

“Nuclear bombs”?

But, where’s the proof? Or is the Times simply circulating the same speculation, hearsay, and gibberish it did prior to the war with Iraq?

If the Times has knowledge of proscribed weapons-programs they should come forward and dispute the findings of the foremost nuclear weapons inspection team in the world (the IAEA), which has consistently found “no evidence” of nuclear weapons programs.

The Times charges are also refuted by the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) which projects that Iran will not be capable of building nuclear weapons for at least 10 years.

The Times, of course, needs neither evidence nor intelligence to achieve it objective of fabricating a crisis. They simply rely on a steady stream of baseless accusations that contribute to the rising public anxiety.

Judith Miller may have left, but her legacy of deceit still courses through the paper of record like a raging torrent. The strategy for manipulating public opinion never changes. The media settles on a narrative grounded in pure fantasy and simply repeats the same fiction over and over again from its many outlets.

The Times has proved once again that the elite-media is a steadfast partner in mobilizing the masses for unpopular wars. Despite the countless thousands of innocent people who have already been killed by the Time’s fear-mongering coverage of "imaginary" Iraqi WMD, the editors continue to use the corporate-bullhorn to call the nation to arms.

It is truly outrageous.

When America’s war of terror finally concludes, the international community will have to determine the culpability of the media in abetting the vast devastation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. No one should be surprised if the first group frog-marched to the gallows is the editorial staff of the New York Times. Their guilt was already established long before Iran.

"...A “war on terror” that creates terrorism is by definition: an infinite war..."


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_500.shtml


IMPERIAL DELUSIONS


By Devlin Buckley

Online Journal Contributing Writer


Feb 11, 2006, 11:44


“The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war.” –2006 Quadrennial Defense Review [PDF]


“Long wars are usually strategic disasters . . ." – The Long War, William Sturgiss Lind


The Department of Defense’s recently updated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) - [PDF] - adapted from a neoconservative fairy tail -- illustrates the treacherously defective reasoning of an empire in denial. Using the threat of terrorism as a pretext for imperial mobilization, the 113-page 20-year defense strategy is designed to fail.

The preface of the document opens with the following:

The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation has fought a global war against violent extremists . . . who seek to destroy our free way of life.

Incredibly, the DoD is still asserting that terrorists hate our freedom -- a blatantly false premise propagated in order to rationalize the true cause of terrorism: our foreign policy, which the QDR goes on to describe:

Currently, the struggle is centered in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we will need to be prepared and arranged to successfully defend our Nation and its interests around the globe for years to come.

In the language of publicly-released foreign policy, “defending our interests around the globe” -- a phrase repeated in several ways throughout the QDR -- usually translates to: securing America’s global dominance by force.

Similar language, although sometimes far more straightforward, has often been used by members of the Bush administration as well as influential policy groups and think tanks, such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The infamous PNAC document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses [PDF], for instance, states:

The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. [1]

Written by Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby for then Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, the Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) mentioned above clearly states:

Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil . . .

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.

According to the Project for the New American Century, this provided them with a “blueprint” for Rebuilding America’s Defenses - [PDF] - a venture they began in the spring of 1998 in order to “examine the country’s defense plans and resource requirements.” PNAC completed the document in 2000, just prior to transferring over a dozen of its members to the incoming Bush administration. At the time, they wrote that “the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification” for establishing a “permanent” and “substantial American force presence in the Gulf,” which they even admitted, “transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” They went on say:

Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

The QDR uses more discreet and familiar rhetoric:

The pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by Iran is a destabilizing factor in the region. Terrorist networks remain active in many states and could threaten regional energy supplies in an attempt to cripple the global economy.

As shown above, the “global war on terror” is really a global war for resources and territory -- and consequently -- a war to remain the world’s one and only superpower.

Washington Post columnist William M. Arkin writes, “buried in the [QDR’s] hard-to-penetrate bureaucratize is a clear message: The United States will seek to ensure that 'no foreign power' will develop 'regional hegemony' or 'disruptive' capabilities -- and China is the only nation with the capacity to do both.” [2]

As the principal author of Rebuilding America’s Defenses openly explains:

In a nutshell, the practical application of the Bush Doctrine amounts to "rolling back" radical Islamism while "containing" the People's Republic of China, that is, hedging against its rise to great-power status. . .

The pre-9/11 international status quo is not a realistic option in Beijing any more than in Baghdad. The Chinese Communist Party prides itself on its patience and its long view of history, but a five-thousand-year past may prove to be just excessive baggage as the world realigns itself.

The DoD and Bush administration publicly justify this strategy by perpetuating the myth that terrorism is inspired by an absence of democracy -- a problem they insist can be solved by using force, such as they “accomplished” in Iraq.

Most experts agree, however, that it is this very foreign policy that inspires terrorism, not some oxymoronic feeling of freedom-hating election-envy as the DoD would have us believe. Yet, despite a wide-ranging consensus on this issue, the myth is allowed to continue.

Last summer, for example, the following story was widely reported:

New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself. . .

. . . interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land . . .

A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

The CIA’s National Intelligence Council (NIC) has similarly stated that “Foreign jihadists --- individuals ready to fight anywhere they believe Muslim lands are under attack by what they see as ‘infidel invaders’ -- enjoy a growing sense of support from Muslims who are not necessarily supporters of terrorism.” Last year they reported:

Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are “professionalized” and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself. The NIC has concluded that al-Qaeda will “be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq.”

According to official US government statistics , in 2003 the number of "significant" international terrorist attacks hit a 20-year high of 175. That number more than tripled in 2004 to 655, with terrorist attacks doubling in Afghanistan, and rising to nine times the previous year's total in Iraq. The figures from 2005, which have yet to be released, are expected to be worse.

A “war on terror” that creates terrorism is by definition: an infinite war.

But none of this slows Rumsfeld and his boys down a bit. As mentioned earlier, the DoD has recently released a 20-year strategy filled with fantasies about sedating terrorist activity by spreading US forces around the world. [PDF] [3]

It appears our leaders are willing to use any excuse to justify continued military expansion, regardless of the hazardous consequences.


Additional notes:

1. The principal author of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Thomas Donnelly, has said “the fact of American empire is hardly debated these days,” but regrettably, “it is still inflammatory to speak openly of empire -- hence the prevalence of euphemisms such as hegemony, preeminence, primacy, sole superpower, or, a la the French, hyperpuissance.”

2. The QDR states that although “China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States,” the US “will work to ensure that all major and emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system.” This, of course, is the DoD’s candy-coated way of saying force won’t be necessary because:

It is . . . reasonable to believe that the United States and its allies can ‘contain’ China's ambitions, helping it make the transition from communism to democracy, from international outsider to a state satisfied by living within a liberal international order.

3. Ironically, the DoD has also established a new initiative that, according to The New York Times, will attempt to “determine whether more terrorists are being captured, killed or persuaded to give up their violent struggle than are being created,” -- a question that, as previously illustrated, has already been answered in spades. The results of this program should still be interesting considering the DoD’s entire policy is at odds with their stated objectives.


Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal

"...Again, the mainstream sources that most Americans use to get their information will not investigate the facts or give equal time to critics, and the smoke and mirrors of the Bush administration will dominate the debate..."


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11868.htm


THE URGENCY OF NOW: STOPPING THE WAR ON IRAN


We have…come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” - Martin Luther King Jr., Aug. 28, 1963


By Mike Kress


02/10/06 "ICH" -- -- “Last winter, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter revealed that George Bush asked for an Iran war plan ready to use by June of 2005. Seymour Hersh, writing for the New Yorker, has reported for some time about US covert operations in Iran. Today we are told that war in Iran is inevitable by the same observers who warned us about the cooked-up war in Iraq.

Evidently, the neo-conservatives who control the US government decided to wage war against Iran long ago.

Now that International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El Baradei says that Iran isn’t cooperating fully with IAEA inspectors, the neo-cons will use their tool at the UN, Ambassador John Bolton, to help create an international crisis and thereby justify attacks on Iran. Though there’s no evidence to prove that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, Iran’s refusal to halt its lawful nuclear programs will become the pretext for America’s next unnecessary war.

Again, the mainstream sources that most Americans use to get their information will not investigate the facts or give equal time to critics, and the smoke and mirrors of the Bush administration will dominate the debate. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, in the absence of just cause the consent for war will be manufactured.

It now falls upon people of conscience to create and organize a mass movement of nationwide non-violent resistance – in the spirit of Dr. King and Mohandas K. Gandhi – that will stop the war before it starts. At the rate the White House rhetoric is beginning to boil, this movement must start now and swing into full action by the early days of March.

The only way to stop another senseless and unnecessary war is with a mass movement rooted in a moral strategy that brings people together. This movement must also earn the sympathy and trust of those who are undecided about the necessity of another Middle East war. Forget traditional protest rallies – 200,000 people crowding the Capitol Mall make no difference. Large marches that don’t influence the nation’s decision makers will only increase people’s cynicism, as well as the atmosphere of inevitability that the neo-cons wish to create.

Without a moral and unifying strategy that spells out specific non-violent tactics to achieve our goal, the power elite and the corporate media will ignore or marginalize our efforts. Remember the moral claims for justice and the appeals to America’s founding ideals during the civil rights movement, and you’ll understand the type of strategy we need today. Think of the Montgomery bus boycott, the Freedom Rides, and Gandhi’s march to the sea for salt, and you will have inspiration for the actions necessary to stop the march to war.

The leaders of every organization that opposed the Iraq war must reconnect today and formulate a sustained campaign of militant non-violent action that everyone can follow tomorrow. Peace, justice, religious, and human rights leaders must gather and articulate a path to preventing war that people believe is effective – not because that path is safe, but because that path is righteous and they are inspired to overcome their fears.

This path must be part of a moral vision that appeals to the emotions and values of every citizen. Using communication techniques put forth by thinkers such as George Lakoff, we must revive the “revolution of values” that Dr. King called for in his 1967 speech at Riverside Church. In the words of King: “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” Simply debating facts will not prevent war.

People for peace must speak with their mouths, pens, keyboards, and bodies against another war for empire. We must push our peace and justice leaders to act. We must work around the corporate media to spread our message. We must tell our elected officials that they will not receive money or votes if they sell their souls for the neo-conservative agenda. We must take risks, and we must welcome the metaphorical stones and arrows of the warmongers, knowing in our hearts that we were right about the last war and that we act today with our consciences clear.

Innocent Iranians, our children, our military, and all the world waits for us to wrest America’s destiny from the hands of the warlords. There is no time to waste. Gradualism is a luxury we cannot afford. The architects of the war against Iran have a head start – but we can prevail if we put our demands for peace into action.


Mike Kress is a Persian Gulf veteran who left the Air Force as a conscientious objector. He served as vice-chair of the Spokane Human Rights Commission and is a member of the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane (http://www.pjals.org). He also produces and hosts “Take The Power Back” for KYRS FM http://www.kyrs.org

"...That every tyrant who ever lived rationalized his abuse of power by claiming to be protecting the people or the empire or the country is kindergarten basic civics..."


http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8530


February 11, 2006


Hey Bush: Obey the Law


by Charley Reese


It was appropriate that the issue of government domestic spying was raised at the recent funeral of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. Martin Luther King Jr. and his family were victims of a vicious domestic spying program instigated by the federal government.

The parallels with today's domestic spy program are almost exact. It was done in the name of national security. It was authorized by the president, John F. Kennedy, and the attorney general, Robert Kennedy, and carried out by the FBI. There was a war on – in that case, the Vietnam War as well as the Cold War. It was kept secret from the public.

The FBI not only tapped King's telephones but also planted bugs in places where he was staying. One tape, which allegedly implicated King in an extramarital affair, was sent to Mrs. King.

Now think about this. Here is the federal government secretly spying on an American citizen and trying to break up his family and disrupt the civil-rights movement. And this was not done by some right-wing fanatic, but by two bona fide liberals, the Kennedy brothers.

The current president says he has authorized domestic spying without warrants only on those connected to terrorists, but he refuses to provide even Congress with enough information for his claim to be verified. As you can see from the King affair, even people with good intentions can abuse government power in the heated atmosphere of war. We don't know who is being spied upon. We would not even know spying was going on but for a whistle-blower who tipped off The New York Times, which sat on the story for a year before finding the courage to publish it.

That every tyrant who ever lived rationalized his abuse of power by claiming to be protecting the people or the empire or the country is kindergarten basic civics. We should know better at this point in our history. We are a nation of laws, not an empire and not a monarchy. Our Constitution deliberately created a weak chief executive.

The president, for example, is not our commander in chief. He's the commander in chief of the armed forces. As far as we civilians are concerned, he is just the administrator of laws passed by Congress. He cannot make laws. He cannot assume powers not given to him by the Constitution or by Congress. He must obey all the laws just the same as you and me.

A problem for many Americans is that they have never lived in the free republic created by our forefathers. We became a war state during World War II, and the Cold War was used as an excuse to maintain a war state and to expand it. We are spending more on defense than most of the rest of the world combined at a time when the only threats we face are isolated attacks by a loosely organized band of criminals. The government in Washington has become as secretive as the old Soviet Union.

Too many Americans are willing to let demagoguery scare them into writing a blank check to any politician who claims he will protect them from the boogeyman. I, for one, will never surrender this free republic, no matter how many enemies, real or imagined, are at the gates. What would be the point? Our ancestors fought for freedom and independence, not for a dictatorship. You can't be free if you give the president unlimited powers to violate both the laws and the Constitution.

The tension between a government of law and a government of men runs throughout American history. What worries me is that while there seems to be constituencies for every special interest in the world, there is little or no constituency for liberty and the rule of law.

I would like to see all Americans send the president a simple message: "With all due respect, sir, obey the damned laws or resign. Both the law and the Constitution require warrants for domestic spying. Get them. Both the law and the Constitution require that Congress exercise oversight. Cooperate with Congress. You are a public servant, not a God-anointed ruler of a kingdom."


Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969-71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001. He now writes a syndicated column three times a week for King Features, which is carried on Antiwar.com. Reese served two years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner.

From the Los Angeles Times
IN BRIEF/WASHINGTON, D.C.

DeLay Gets Coveted Committee Seat
From Times Wire Reports

February 9, 2006


Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), forced to step down as the No. 2 Republican in the House, scored a soft landing as GOP leaders gave him a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.

DeLay also claimed a seat on the subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, which is investigating an influence-peddling scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.



"Allowing Tom DeLay to sit on a committee in charge of giving out money is like putting Michael Brown back in charge of FEMA — Republicans in Congress just can't seem to resist standing by their man," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.


Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times