http://lnk.nu/select.nytimes.com/6nn.html

-

December 3, 2005

Op-Ed Columnist

W.'s Head in the Sand



By MAUREEN DOWD

-

In the Christmas spirit, the time has come for the reality-based community to reach out to the White House.

The Bush warriors are so deluded, they're even faking their fakery.

This week, the president presented a plan-like plan for "victory" in Iraq, which Scott McClellan rather pompously called the unclassified version of their supersecret master plan. But there would be no way to achieve victory from this plan even if it were a real plan. If this is what they're telling themselves in the Sit Room, we're in bigger trouble than we thought.

Talk about your unknown unknowns, as Rummy would say.

The National Strategy for Victory must have come from the same P.R. genius who gave President Top Gun the "Mission Accomplished" banner about 48 hours before the first counterinsurgency war of the 21st century broke out in Iraq.

It's not a military strategy - classified or unclassified. It's political talking points - and not even good ones. Are we really supposed to believe that anybody, even the most deeply delusional Bush sycophant, believes the phrase "Our strategy is working"?

The president talked about three neatly definable groups of insurrectionists. But as Dexter Filkins reported in yesterday's New York Times, there are dozens, perhaps as many as a hundred, groups fighting the U.S. Army in Iraq, and they have little, if anything, in common.

Mr. Bush's presentation claimed that the U.S. was actually making progress in Iraq. But outside the Bush-Cheney-Rummy bubble, 10 more marines were killed by a roadside bomb outside Falluja, for a total of 2,125 U.S. military deaths so far.

The administration must realize it needs a real exit strategy, because it's advertising for one. The U.S. Agency for International Development is offering more than $1 billion for anyone - anyone at all - who can come up with a plan to pacify and rebuild 10 Iraqi cities seen as vital in the war.

Maybe the White House should apply - Usaid's proffer says the "invitation is open to any type of entity."

When Bush officials weren't telling us fairy tales about the big, bad W.M.D. in Iraq, they were assuring us that the unprovoked war would be a kindness for Iraq, giving it democracy. But they are not just failing to bring democracy to Iraq as they help Iranian-backed mullahs install an Islamic republic with Saddamist torture chambers. They are also degrading democracy in America.

They've tarnished American moral leadership with illegal detentions, torture, secret C.I.A. prisons in countries only recently liberated from the Soviet gulag, and Soviet-style propaganda both at home and in Iraq.

Guess the Bush administration didn't learn anything this fall when federal auditors said it had violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of its education polices. Bush officials got right back into the fake news business, paying to plant propaganda in the Iraqi press. They outsourced this disinformation campaign to something called the Lincoln Group - have they no shame?

You have to admire Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman. He kept a straight face when he called the U.S. "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world." He added, "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of the press."

Exceedingly clear. The Bushies don't believe in it. They disdain the whole democratic system of checks and balances.

At the Naval Academy, President Bush talked about how well the Iraqi security forces were fighting. He claimed that 40 Iraqi battalions were taking the lead in the fight against insurgents, and that in the battle of Tal Afar this year, "the assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces - 11 Iraqi battalions backed by 5 coalition battalions providing support."

Anderson Cooper of CNN swiftly produced Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief, Michael Ware, who was embedded with the U.S. military during the entire Tal Afar battle. "With the greatest respect to the president, that's completely wrong," Mr. Ware said, adding: "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with Al Qaeda. They were not leading."

He also told Mr. Cooper: "I have had a very senior officer here in Baghdad say to me that there's never going to be a point where these guys will be able to stand up against the insurgency on their own."

Mr. Ware recalled that in a battle two weeks ago, he saw an Iraqi security officer put down his weapon and curl up into a ball when he was under attack. "I have seen that on - on many, many occasions," he said.

Curling up in a ball. Good National Strategy for Victory.

-

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

---

"Today the tyrant rules not by club or fist, but, disguised as a market researcher, he shepherds his flocks in the ways of utility and comfort." - Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

"If you understand, the world is as it is; if you do not understand, the world is as it is."

-

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8203

-

December 3, 2005

Words and Reality

by Charley Reese

-

Politicians, like writers, preachers, and professors, are word people. They deal mainly in words, not in actions. If you wish to understand the present political situation, you need to understand how politicians use words.

You can start by scratching off "communication of truth." That is a very low priority in Washington, for the simple reason that if the public knew the complete and whole truth about the federal government, most of the politicians would be looking for work after the next election. Truth may be bandied about on the Potomac occasionally in private, but it is rarely called upon for a public appearance.

Politicians, being word people, are used to imagining that reality conforms to their words. If they say something is successful, it is successful, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Words and beliefs, however, are not reality.

An old Asian saying puts it quite well: "If you understand, the world is as it is; if you do not understand, the world is as it is." Our words and beliefs do not have the power to affect reality. Reality can only be changed by actions.

The president, for example, says we are succeeding in Iraq. To know whether that is true or not would require, first of all, a definition of "success" and then an extensive trip to Iraq to see if conditions on the ground meet the criteria for success. The president has gone to Iraq only once, for a photo opportunity. He spiraled in, in the dead of night, spent an hour or two in the heavily fortified Baghdad Airport, and then spiraled out, never, so far, to return. Since he is so obsessed with the war, one has to wonder why he has not made several trips to the country. Leaders of other countries have done so. It's hard to lead from the rear. If things are going as swimmingly as he says, travel to Iraq should not present a great risk. What a great photo op it would be if he would go out on a night patrol with one of our units.

In fact, his action of not going undercuts his words. His not going says that regardless of what he says, it is not safe for him to put his feet on Iraqi soil. If that is the case, then we don't control Iraq.

Whether drawing down the American forces is cutting and running or a sign of victory depends entirely on which politician is describing the action. The president says we won't cut and run, but others in his administration are talking about reducing troop levels in 2006. The reality will be a reduction of troops. How that reduction is described is the province of words. There will be victory when the president declares there is victory – regardless of the facts on the ground.

The best strategy is to disregard words and watch what actions people take. The Israelis, for example, have long known that creating facts on the ground trumps words every time. Regardless of what they have said through the years, they have put Jewish settlements on Palestinian land and even now are strengthening them on the West Bank, despite having withdrawn from Gaza. Whatever they say, they are, in fact, creating conditions on the ground that will make a viable Palestinian state an impossibility. Watch what people do, not what they say, and that applies to everyone.

The FBI, for example, says it is not abusing the PATRIOT Act, but the fact is, the agency has sent out 30,000 "security letters" demanding the private records of private citizens. Not even the most rabid terrormonger has ever suggested there were 30,000 terrorists in our midst. Who are these people whose privacy a federal law-enforcement agency is invading? Shush, it's a secret. It's classified. You, peon that you are, are not entitled to know.

The very reason secrecy should be strenuously opposed by citizens of a free society is because it is always its actions, not its words, that government seeks to hide. Words have been so abused in Washington that they are practically worthless. I don't even waste my time anymore interviewing politicians. They bloviate, but they don't communicate. Washington is so drowned in words and disconnected from reality that it resembles an open-air insane asylum.

---

Liberty can not be preserved without general knowledge among people." (August 1765) John Adams

http://hnn.us/articles/18719.html

-

How Presidents Use the Term "Democracy" as a Marketing Tool

By Lawrence S. Wittner

-

George W. Bush’s recent claim that the U.S. war in Iraq is part of an attempt to spread “democracy” to the Middle East should not surprise anyone familiar with the use of that word to camouflage sordid realities.

When, in the aftermath of World War II, Stalin had the Soviet Union gobble up the nations of Eastern Europe, he christened them People’s Democracies – although they were neither democratic nor meant to be. This debasement of “democracy” and other noble terms such as “freedom” and “peace” to crude propaganda was undoubtedly what George Orwell had in mind when he wrote his powerful novel, 1984, which portrayed a nightmarish society in which words were turned inside out to justify the policies of cynical and unscrupulous rulers.

Unfortunately, however, “democracy” has also been abused throughout American history. In the nineteenth century, land-hungry politicians, slaveholders, and businessmen defended the U.S. conquest of new territory by claiming that it would extend the area of democracy and freedom. In the twentieth century, President Woodrow Wilson grandly proclaimed that U.S. participation in World War I would “make the world safe for democracy.” A few decades later, Washington officials again sanctified U.S. policy by invoking democracy, for they declared repeatedly that the U.S. role in the Cold War was designed to defend the “Free World.” Indeed, it would be hard to find a U.S. war or expansionist enterprise that was not accompanied by enthusiastic rhetoric about supporting democracy.

In fairness, it should be noted that the U.S. government has economically and militarily supported many democratic nations. After World War II, it forged alliances with a good number of them.

But it has also provided military and economic assistance to numerous nations ruled by bloody dictatorships, including Franco’s Spain, Chiang Kai-Shek’s China, the Shah’s Iran, Somoza’s Nicaragua, Batista’s Cuba, Sukarno’s Indonesia, the Saud family’s Saudi Arabia, Diem’s South Vietnam, Duvalier’s Haiti, Marcos’s Philippines, the Colonels’ Greece, and many other tyrannies. Indeed, the term “Free World” originally included Stalin’s Russia. And, not so long ago, the U.S. government had no scruples about providing military assistance to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Furthermore, on occasion the U.S. government has sought to overthrow democratic governments. Three of its success stories along these lines occurred in Mossadeq’s Iran, Arbenz’s Guatemala, and Allende’s Chile, where democratic governments were succeeded by vicious dictatorships. Based upon this record, observers might well conclude that, for U.S. officials, the defense of democracy has been less important as a motive than as a marketing device.

A good example of “democracy” as a marketing device is its employment in selling the U.S. program of military and economic aid to Greece in 1947. This program had arisen out of the U.S. government’s fear that the Soviet Union, then at loggerheads with the United States, stood on the verge of breaking through the Western defense line to the oil-rich Middle East. To plan President Truman’s address to the nation on the new policy, Francis Russell, the director of the State Department’s Office of Public Affairs, met on February 27 with the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee. The meeting records indicate that, when Russell asked if the speech should emphasize the conflict with the Soviet Union, he was told that it should avoid “specifically mentioning Russia.” Then perhaps, said Russell, the administration “should couch it in terms of [a] new policy of this government to go to the assistance of free governments everywhere.” This proposal was greeted enthusiastically, for it would be useful to “relate military aid to [the] principle of supporting democracy.” Or, as one participant put it, the “only thing that can sell [the] public” would be to emphasize the threat to democracy. Ultimately, then, the president’s March 12, 1947 address, which became known as the Truman Doctrine, did not mention the conflict between two rival nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, but instead emphasized “alternative ways of life,” in which the United States was defending the “free” one.

This approach not only misrepresented the motives of U.S. government officials, but the realities in the two nations targeted for the military and economic aid. Joseph Jones, who drafted the president’s address, recalled: “That the Greek government was corrupt, reactionary, inefficient, and indulged in extremist practices was well known and incontestable; that Turkey . . . had not achieved full democratic self-government was also patent.” According to the minutes of the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee meeting, participants agreed that the Greek government was a rotten one, though “not basically fascist.”

Thus, President Bush’s recent contention that his war in Iraq is designed to further the cause of “democracy” is not out of line with the statements of past U.S. government officials, who have not been very scrupulous about how they have packaged their policies. Nor is it out of line with the behavior of other governments, always eager to put the most attractive face on their ventures.

Even so, given the long-term abuse of the word “democracy” as a public relations device – as well as the collapse of the president’s earlier justifications for the Iraq War – we might be pardoned for viewing his sudden enthusiasm for democracy with a good deal of skepticism.

11-28-05

Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York, Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press).

---

"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." - William Blum

http://www.counterpunch.org/ramakrishnan12022005.html

-

December 2, 2005

To Tell the Truth

Questions for the President

By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN

-

Reminiscent of the Hitchcock series, "Stories My Mother Never Told Me", news conferences, whether featuring the President or other high officials, suggest a similar headline: "Questions Our Reporters Never Ask". Soon after 9/11, I wrote an article called Postcards to the President", a plausible set of responses from ordinary citizens around the world following the tragedy. Today the situation is far more gothic, in no small measure because Congress and the press, which should be asking questions, have voluntarily effaced themselves into pliant cheerleaders and sturdy stenographers, instead of providing the adversarial balance so essential to keeping the executive honest.

After being dismayed by the tameness (...and lameness...and sameness) of the few presidential news conferences Mr. Bush has held, I've often wondered why some obvious questions are never asked. I concluded, finally, that it was because the press was at a disadvantage. The president has people preparing his 'talking points'., whereas the press is all on its own; handicapped without a set of corresponding 'asking points'. So here goes, ladies and gentlemen of the press (and you too, Mr. Woodward), the following question bank is all yours:

1. Mr. President, what exactly was the connection between Iraq and 9-11?

2. Mr. President, you are a religious believer, and by implication, a God-fearing man. What, in your view, is the moral code that permits attacking a country which did not attack us?

3. Mr. President, you launched the Iraq War on the claim that there were deadly weapons of mass destruction stockpiled there. Now that that reason has been proven to be false, what compensation do you think the United States owes Iraq for the damage that has been caused in lives and property to that country?

4. Mr. President, you have often claimed, in recent months, that you will withdraw US troops as soon as an Iraqi army is readied. Since armies are usually raised to defend against foreign countries rather than fighting their own citizens, which foreign countries do you think Iraq will need to fight or defend against when such an army becomes available?

5. Mr. President, one of the reasons for your invading Iraq was that it had a powerful army that menaced its neighbors. Now you say that it has no army, and that is the problem. By definition, now that Iraq has been 'disarmed', has our mission not been accomplished?

6. Mr. President, before the war, the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein kept denying that there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while you and your colleagues asserted that there were. From what we now know, on this specific matter, it appears that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, while you and your colleagues were mistaken in your beliefs. Do you think you owe the country and the world an apology for your mistake? Specifically, the Defense Secretary said he knew exactly where these weapons were, and the Vice President said there was no doubt that Saddam now had weapons of mass destruction. What is your standard of accuracy in your administration, and what is the penalty when officials are so casually wrong on matters of such seriousness?

7. Mr. President, do you think that Iran and North Korea, countries that were not weakened by a decade-long sanctions regime, are in your estimation a greater threat than Iraq was in terms of potentially developing nuclear weapons? If so, why did you choose to focus on Iraq rather than these countries?

8. Mr. President, if Islamic fundamentalism is the foremost enemy of America, as you have frequently said, can you explain why it was in our strategic interest to destabilize one of the few regimes in the Middle East that was, whatever its other problems, a secular country, with rights for women, and in most respects far more modern and westernized than many of its neighbors?

9. Mr. President, your administration has often defended the invasion of Iraq even after it was evident that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, stating that that the objective was to bring democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East. Can explain to the American people exactly when this objective changed from that of disarming Iraq to that of spreading democracy?

10. Mr. President, you often cite the vote in Congress for the Iraq War Resolution as an authorization of the invasion of Iraq. Given that the resolution was passed in the context of the WMD threat, and not on the matter of bringing democracy to Iraq and spreading it to the Middle East, is it fair to say that any such authorization ended the moment no weapons were found, and that the current war is without Congress authority?

11. Mr. President, if the Iraqi elections bring forth a government that is Islamic, anti-American and pro-Iranian in character, as seems likely, will the United States accept the legitimacy of such a government? Already in Southern Iraq, Sharia law has been imposed in many parts, according to reports. How does this correspond with your stated desire to democratize Iraq?

12. Mr. President, some US government officials now admit, after initially denying it, that White Phosphorus was used in the Battle of Fallujah. Do you accept responsibility for its use, as Commander-in-Chief. If so, can you tell the American people what steps you are taking to punish the people who used it, given that its use by Saddam Hussein's forces was condemned by our own reports during the '80's?

-

Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast.

---

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

http://lnk.nu/news.yahoo.com/6nt

-

Rights groups lists 'ghost detainees' held by US overseas

Wed Nov 30, 4:02 PM ET

-

A leading human rights monitor published the names of 26 "ghost detainees" that it accused the United States of holding and possibly torturing in secret overseas locations.

The prisoners, suspected of involvement in such acts as the September 11, 2001, attacks, the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, are being held indefinitely and incommunicado, with no access to counsel, Human Rights Watch alleged.

According to the New York-based monitor, US government officials, speaking anonymously to journalists, have suggested that some of the detainees have been tortured or otherwise seriously mistreated in CIA custody.

"President (George W.) Bush speaks about bringing terrorists to justice, yet not one of these suspects has actually been brought to justice," said John Sifton, the watchdog's terrorism and counter-terrorism researcher.

"The Bush administration has severely compromised the chances of prosecuting terrorist suspects by holding them illegally, and reportedly subjecting some of them to torture and other mistreatment," Sifton said.

Human Rights Watch said the list of 26 names was incomplete and that there were likely many other detainees being held without legal rights, and without being reported to or seen by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Among those on the list were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a suspected al-Qaeda conspirator and former roommate of one of the September 11 hijackers.

None of the 26 people on the list have been arraigned or criminally charged, Human Rights watch said.

Reports of clandestine CIA interrogation centers in Europe and transport flights for terrorist suspects emerged last month, along with suggestions of on-board torture sessions.

The US State Department said Wednesday it would provide a timely and forthright answer to a European Union letter expressing concern over the reports.

US officials have refused to confirm or deny the existence of such secret facilities but defended in general terms the use of tough tactics in the war on terror.

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse.

Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc.

---

MORE...

In Intelligence, One Has Only Temporary Allies

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120205H.shtml

Rice to 'Warn' Europe: Back Off Over Detainees
http://lnk.nu/news.yahoo.com/6nr

95 per cent US dailies ignored report on torture of Iraqi prisoners
http://www.newswatch.in/index.php?itemid=2326

---

“No state at war with another shall permit such acts of hostility as would make mutual confidence impossible during a future time of peace.” - Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Perpetual Peace