tBlog - PatriotActs

PatriotActs

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
The Nation
CounterPunch
The American Prospect
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

The Problem Is At the Top

05.31.04 (8:04 am) [edit]

There’s a simple ceremony in this ocean town on Memorial Day. People gather in the morning in the town square, taps are played, there’s a gun salute and then there’s a short walk to the beach, a block away. To honor the naval dead, flowers are placed in a row boat, they’re taken out to sea, right past where the waves are breaking, and tossed into the water.

Not all that far from here, young men and women are coming home from Iraq to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. What sticks in my mind is an article that ran last Monday in The Philadelphia Inquirer about the mortuary chaplain at the base, Lt. Col. John W. Groth.

“After 14 straight months on the job, Groth still can hardly bear the sight of young men and women torn to pieces,” reported Inquirer writer Tom Infield. “But what upsets him most is the body that doesn’t have a mark on it, as if the soldier or Marine had just fallen asleep.”

Groth, an Air Force reservist and Presbyterian minister, explained: “You should be able to walk over, snap your fingers, and say: ‘Wake up.’ But, obviously, you can’t. For me, personally, that’s harder – because you think: ‘Why did this happen?’”

Why did it happen? Because of bad intelligence, because of exaggerations about the threat from Iraq, because we missed the clues before 9-11, and because, once we invaded, we went in too light with not enough troops, not enough equipment, too few allies and no real planning about how to handle things in the “post-war” period – and because of yet another domino theory, this time saying that a new and improved Iraq would send the winds of change blowing throughout the entire Middle East.

As of last week, 84 bodies had arrived at the Dover base from Afghanistan and over 700 from Iraq, in addition to the remains of the 188 people who were killed at the Pentagon in the 9-11 attack. The bodies arrive in what the military now calls “transfer cases.” No cameras are allowed. “After being unloaded from cargo planes, remains are scanned by an X-ray machine to make sure they carry no unexploded shells,” reports Infield. Following the X-rays, autopsies are done to give the military information of what kind of damage is done by various types of bombs and bullets, and to provide information on how body armor might be improved.

Once this processing is completed, the soldiers are dressed in “a crisp new uniform with medals gleaming” – unless the bodies have been too blown apart. “Mangled bodies,” explains Infield, “may have to be wrapped in plastic, with uniforms laid on top.”

Groth’s job is to keep everyone sane, including himself. Especially hard, he says, is the handling of a soldier’s personal effects – a wallet with photos of his girlfriend or wife, his mother’s picture, a ring, a watch. “They will break into crying at a moment’s notice,” says Groth about the new workers at the mortuary, “and they’re not sure why.”

Other troops, more lucky, are coming home to be jailed. They’re supposed to be part of the solution to what went wrong at Abu Ghraib prison. The second part of the solution is an order from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that bans digital cameras, camcorders and mobile phones fitted with cameras from all U.S. military compounds in Iraq. The third part, as proposed last week by President Bush, calls for knocking the prison down, an answer that seems to suggest that President Nixon might well have come out a winner if only he’d have dispatched a few bulldozers to the Watergate.

What’s wrong with blaming a few Army reservists for Abu Ghraib is that it pretends that Major General Geoffrey Miller, the head of interrogation at Guantanamo, wasn’t summonded to Baghdad last year to teach U.S. commanders in Iraq a few new tricks of the trade. It pretends that the Bush administration didn’t decide, long before Army Pfc. Lynndie England put anyone on a leash, that captured members of alleged terrorist networks and other alleged evildoers and “dead-enders” weren’t eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

In all of this, at both Abu Ghraib and Dover, the problem is at the top and those at the bottom are paying the price. - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/r...

The Problem Is At the Top

05.31.04 (8:03 am) [edit]

Bush's Fiasco in Iraq Spins Out-of-Control: Sovereignty, Schmovereignty...

05.31.04 (7:58 am) [edit]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The top U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq ordered the Iraqi Governing Council yesterday to delay nominating a president for a caretaker government that will take power in July.

Paul Bremer, who heads the Coalition Provisional Authority, personally intervened when the council was on the verge of holding a vote to ratify its choice, Ghazi Ajil Yawer, a young tribal leader critical of the U.S. occupation.

Bremer and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi support former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi for the largely ceremonial post and apparently did not want the council to hand them a potential fait accompli.

"Bremer came in and read them the riot act," a Governing Council aide said.

Ala Hashimi, a member of the Dawa Party, who was present at yesterday's meeting, said: "Bremer interfered and postponed the vote until (today)."

Bremer and Brahimi are trying to exert control over an unwieldy process in which individuals and parties represented on the U.S.-backed Governing Council are jostling for posts. The process has sparked a constant shuffling of candidates for posts as leaders of various groups attempt to secure the best deal for themselves and their constituents.

U.S. officials were taken aback Friday when council members nominated one of their own, Iyad Allawi, to the post of prime minister. Allawi is a Shiite and a former Baath Party member with close ties to the CIA. He also headed a group of exiled Iraqis who opposed Saddam Hussein.

Occupation authorities denied yesterday that they were applying pressure to the Governing Council. "We have not been leaning on anybody to support one president over another," said Dan Senor, a spokesman for the coalition. "Under international law, we have the ultimate authority for what happens in Iraq. We are the occupational power."

Despite the disagreements between Bremer and the Governing Council, it appeared possible that a government could be named as early as today.

The Governing Council will be dissolved after members of the caretaker government are announced. Although the new government will not hold power until July 1, they will be expected to help decide key issues such as the status of U.S. troops in Iraq and plans for renegotiating the nation's debt.

Bremer and Brahimi ordered the council to delay choosing a president because they insisted on Pachachi, according to Governing Council members.

Pachachi's staff has been emphasizing his background as a foreign minister and his ability to negotiate complex issues such as the rescheduling of debt.

Council members said they would meet again today to decide the matter, but said they were frustrated by Bremer's stance .

"The CPA and Mr. Bremer are pressuring us not to use our hearts," said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member. "If they insist on this, it will be very bad for the credibility of the U.S. They have no right to impose these things on Iraqis." - http://www.concordmonitor.com...

Bush's Fiasco in Iraq Spins Out-of-Control: Sovereignty, Schmovereignty...

05.31.04 (7:55 am) [edit]

I Have Met the Enemy...

05.30.04 (11:51 am) [edit]

For the first time ever in my life, I had someone threaten to kill me tonight. He was nearly apoplectic with rage, screaming curses, his finger right in my face, his eyes slits of venom. Ex-Navy lifer, I gathered. Probably in his late 50’s. Beer belly. A person so devoid of humanity I was stunned.

Good lord, you might ask. What on earth did you, a 52 year old professional woman, do to provoke that?

All I did was exercise my duty as a very concerned citizen in what I thought was America. I stood silently out on the sidewalk in my California town with a sign in each hand. One sign showed a tally of the number of Iraqi civilian dead from the Iraq Body Count website … the other the number of coalition soldiers dead to date. This is my regular Thursday night gig, something I’ve done every week for 14 months now.

In fact, it was early in the vigil … so early that my retired friend Tom and I were the only ones there. That’s when the car whipped over to the curb directly in front of us and Mr. Ex-Navy got out and came around to confront us.

“I want to tell you both something,” he began belligerently …

To which Tom replied smoothly, “Oh, good … please do.”

“I served in the Navy for 27 years. Served in Viet Nam. And it’s f**cking jerks like you who got a lot of good men KILLED over there!”

And that was just the warm up. He had plenty more where that came from.

Mind you, I’d heard of people like this … fellow Americans who firmly believe things that reasonable, charitable and empathetic people simply could not with any sense of decency believe. But in my sheltered existence, I had never actually met one face to face, much less been on the receiving end of one’s wrath.

Well, I thought … I have my talking points ready. I know my arguments. We’ll just address one issue at a time here.

That’s when I heard him thunder that old bromide, “Three thousand people died in the World Trade Center!!”

Aha … I knew what to say to that. I showed him the sign with the dead Iraqi civilians on it … those 11,000 some odd souls who have died because we invaded their country. “But these people had nothing whatsoever to do with the World … “

He made a dismissive gesture and said, “So what.”

“Huh? We’re talking 11,000 human beings here …”

“You don’t get it, do you? You people really don’t get it. These – people - are - MUSLIMS!”

“So?”

“They are MUSLIMS! They want to kill us all. If they were over here now they’d slit your throat and RAPE you!”

“Bullshit,” I said through tightening lips.

“MUSLIMS are the ENEMY,” he spit.

“Bullshit,” I said again.

It went on. More of the same … a spewing forth of such ignorance and delusion as I have ever heard. People like Tom and I were ruining this country with our protest … ruining it. We were worse than filth. We ought to be locked up.

The man took enough of a breath for Tom to get a word in edgewise. “What about the Constitution?”

“FUCK the constitution! I WILL NOT LET YOU PEOPLE DESTROY MY COUNTRY! I WILL NOT LET YOU!”

“No,” I replied. “It is us who will not let YOU destroy our country. We – will – not – let - you.” Well, OK, I called him an asshole, too. Tom is my witness. I thought of those 11,000 innocent dead Iraqis and I called him an asshole.

As he finally stormed back around to the driver’s side of his car, a shouting match ensued (not on Tom’s part … I’m afraid he was the only adult in the group). And then came the parting shot:

“Bush will win in a LANDSLIDE. And if he doesn’t, WE know where to find you. WE can take care of you. WE can make sure you don’t EVER fuck with this country again.”

Yes, people say that to one another these days in … where was it that I thought I lived? America? The land of Thomas Jefferson? Of mom and apple pie? Of noble, lofty principles? Of goodness, sweetness and light?

That’s when I thought of Abu Ghraib. In fact, the pictures seemed to flash like a slide show through my brain, one after another. Grinning, leering Americans torturing human beings stripped of every shred of their humanity in the eyes of their torturers.

And I understood. Mr. Ex-Navy would have fit right in.

I met the dark underbelly of America tonight. I really did meet the enemy. And he really is ______.

[i][b]Patricia Kneisler (pknize@pacbell.net) of Benicia, CA is one half of the partnership that operates the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website ... and a committed anti-war activist ... and a civil (well, usually civil) engineer [/b][/i]... http://www.commondreams.org/v...

I Have Met the Enemy...

05.30.04 (11:50 am) [edit]

I Have Met the Enemy...

05.30.04 (11:49 am) [edit]

Bush Doctrine Breeds Terror and Tyranny

05.29.04 (6:10 am) [edit]

Bush administration policies in the war on terrorism mutated the global threat, mobilizing anti-U.S. sentiment. The crisis in Iraq, coupled with radical shifts in U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, gave extremists a new focus, allowing radical groups to widen their appeal among Muslims and others. A terrorism alarm sounds everyday somewhere in the world, canceling flights, closing embassies, killing people.

[b]Terrorism on the Rise [/b]

First, the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to define terrorism. In the Bush lexicon, terrorism is a catchall term for interpreting diverse conflicts, from separatist movements to paramilitary activity to arms and narcotics trafficking. The failure to define terrorism enabled the White House to label almost anybody opposed to its policies as a terrorist organization. Groups as diverse in structure and objectives as Peru’s Shining Path, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Communist Party of the Philippines, and Hamas are on the State Department’s list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Early on, this approach served the White House well in its search for recruits in the war on terrorism. Opposition groups in countries whose support the U.S. deemed essential to winning the war were often labeled "terrorist" in an effort to curry support from host governments.

But over time, the failure to define terrorism has become a real liability. The U.S. now has some 5 million names on its master terror watch list, people who are identified as terrorist or believed to represent a potential threat. By listing any terrorist from any terrorist organization, we create a problem, not a solution. We lose focus, and we jeopardize democratic values, trying to monitor that vast number of people. The size of this inclusive terror list also belies official statements that the real concern, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, are relatively small in number, a few hundred or thousand at most.

Related to the first factor is the Bush administration’s eager application of the al-Qaeda label to virtually any Islamic group threatening terrorist acts. Regional terrorist groups are invariably portrayed as having been co-opted by al-Qaeda and subject to its command and control. As a result, geographical and country specialists have been forced on the defensive. With the media focused on the global war on terrorism, the White House is not interested in the historical, political, economic, and cultural factors that shaped regional dissident groups. Take Southeast Asia as an example. All of the U.S.-designated terrorist groups in the region were founded long before al-Qaeda made its appearance. Some originated in the 1940s. Al-Qaeda wannabes are out there, often motivated by Bush administration policies, but al-Qaeda isn’t everywhere.

Third, the Bush administration has come to see Arab-Muslim terrorism as a phenomenon quite separate from its causes. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute remains the central issue in the Middle East, and until Washington returns to the role of honest broker, there is no hope for a peaceful resolution. The Bush administration has largely accepted the Israeli version of the Intifada, viewing the violence of the Palestinians as "terror" and the inevitable Israeli response as "legitimate self-defense." As a result, both sides are trapped in a downward spiral of violence and retaliation. White House support for Israel’s policy of extrajudicial killings, which undermines U.S. initiatives to promote human rights, democracy, and civil society in the region, only compounds the problem.

[b]Military Solutions to Political Problems [/b]

U.S. policy in Iraq exemplifies a growing tendency on the part of the Bush administration to apply military solutions to political problems, often ignoring larger issues. Latin American governments, following the rebirth of democracy in the 1980s, largely ruled out giving police duties to their armed forces. U.S. officials are now pressuring them to expand the military’s role, arguing that it is the only force with the skills and resources necessary to meet new threats. Southeast Asian states also expressed deep concern recently when the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, without prior consultation, announced U.S. plans to curb transnational crime in and around the Strait of Malacca.

In Africa, the Bush administration has opened a new front in the war on terrorism, equipping and training armies in states seen as potential sanctuaries for terrorists or long-term sources of oil. Some 100 special operations groups are training armies in Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, largely Muslim states, in a program known as the Pan-Sahel Initiative. Its goal is to help states guard porous borders against terrorists, arms, and other trafficking. The Pentagon is also expanding its presence through training exercises or military base agreements in other states from Algeria to Liberia to Senegal to Uganda.

The American adoption in Iraq of Israeli tactics employed in Palestine adds to the problem. The early use of plastic handcuffs and hoods was followed by the demolition of Iraqi homes and businesses, together with the prolonged detention of prisoners without rights or charges. Most recently, we have the growing prisoner abuse scandal. The power of images is enormous in the Arab-Muslim world. And the pictures television viewers see of American troops in action in Iraq often mirror images of Israeli troops in action in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli use of dehumanizing force against the Palestinians has proved counterproductive, simply increasing Palestinian opposition to Israeli occupation. The same is true for the U.S. use of similar tactics in Iraq.

Another downside to the growing U.S. dependence on force is that it encourages semi-democratic and authoritarian states to brutalize their own populations. From Russia’s treatment of Chechen separatists to China’s handling of the Uighur Muslim population in Xinjiang province, governments around the world are adopting harsh measures to deal with dissident groups, separatists, and Islamists, applying military solutions to long-standing political issues in the name of fighting terrorism.

[b]Global Terrorism [/b]

Southeast Asian states, long considered the Islamic periphery due to their pluralism, secularism, and moderate Islamic stance, now confront a small but increasingly potent terrorist threat. The rise of extremist terrorism also obscures a fundamental shift in Islam toward an increasingly conservative mainstream. American policies encourage this conservative shift but are not the source of it.

In Indonesia, White House attempts in April to ensure that the leader of Jemaah Islamiya, a militant Islamic organization linked to the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing, remained in jail set off a diplomatic and political tempest. Nationalists and Islamists denounced the move as undue involvement in Indonesia’s internal affairs.

In the Philippines, U.S. officials recently warned President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo that her government was not doing enough to combat terrorism. U.S. concerns centered on the activities of the Abu Sayyaf Group and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. While the need for effective action was real, Washington erred in thinking international terrorists created the situation in the southern Philippines and controlled the combatants. Despite the Islamist foundations of both groups, and the potential for an allegiance with Jemaah Islamiya, the conflict in the southern Philippines is rooted in local issues that predate the war on terror and are unlikely to be resolved through money or arms alone.

In Thailand, the Buddhist-dominated government used overwhelming force in late April to thwart coordinated attacks on police stations and security checkpoints in the predominantly Muslim south. Some 107 militants, most in their teens or early 20s, were killed, including an entire village soccer team. Local residents voiced bewilderment and anger at the killings, especially the slaughter of 30 assailants in the historic Krue Se mosque. Authorities initially offered contradictory explanations for the violence, ranging from drugs and arms trafficking to mafia turf battles to Islamic separatists. Both officials and local villagers later agreed that the foiled attacks were spurred by widely broadcast images of al-Qaeda and the U.S occupation of Iraq. As the father of one of the victims said: "What happens in Iraq and Palestine and Afghanistan really makes me angry. It makes me want to fight back." Events in Thailand sparked fears and arrests in Cambodia because members of its small Muslim minority often study in southern Thailand.

The Madrid train bombings in March confirmed European fears that they are vulnerable to terrorist attack. Terrorists wanted for the Madrid bombings later blew themselves up, killing one police officer and injuring others. Elsewhere, British authorities arrested 10 in anti-terror raids, and Swedish police arrested 4 men, including one U.S. citizen, linked to terrorism. In response, Muslim leaders in Sweden expressed mounting concern at being stereotyped as terrorists.

In Africa, Morocco has become both a target and an operating base for terrorist attacks. Most of the suspects in the Madrid bombings were Moroccan with the suspected mastermind a Tunisian. European officials have complained that the Moroccans tend to blame al-Qaeda for all terrorist plots, rather than recognizing a wider ideological inspiration, because it frees them from responsibility. The Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, successor to an organization formed to overthrow the monarchy, was listed as a terrorist organization last year. Another home-grown concern is the Algerian-based Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which kidnapped 32 tourists last year. Chad’s army allegedly killed 43 Salafists in mid-March in 2 days of heavy fighting near the border with Niger.

In the Middle East, Jordanian police killed 4 suspects believed to have ties to an al-Qaeda cell only 3 weeks after security forces uncovered a major plot to attack U.S. and Jordanian targets in Amman. Saudi Arabia came under al-Qaeda-linked attacks on the following day when a suicide bomber killed 2 and wounded 60 in Riyadh. Extremism arrived in Syria later in April when terrorists exploded a car bomb and engaged in a fierce gun battle in Damascus. Israel remained a frequent target of Palestinian attacks.

In Latin America, U.S. officials continue to paint the Triborder Area, where Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet, as a hotbed of dangerous criminal and terrorist activity. A wide range of radical groups, from Colombian guerrillas to white supremacists to Hezbollah, allegedly meet there to swap tradecraft. On the other hand, the conflict in Colombia offers proof that some of the bloodiest terrorism in the world has no link to Islamic fundamentalism.

[b]Dangerous World [/b]

The world today is clearly a more dangerous place than it was on September 10, 2001, or last year before the invasion of Iraq. This is true for Americans. But it is equally true for Spaniards, Indonesians, and most especially, Iraqis.

Unfortunately, the annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, recently issued by the State Department, belies the dangerous world in which we live. It concludes that the number of international terrorist attacks in 2003 was the lowest since 1969. Describing Iraq as "a central front in the global war against terrorism," the report excludes most attacks during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom on the grounds that they "do not meet the longstanding US definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants." The report also excludes hundreds of Iraqi civilians killed by one side or the other. While it includes Israelis killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, it also excludes Palestinians killed in retaliatory strikes of "legitimate self-defense."

The Bush administration has yet to recognize that the outcome of the war on terrorism will depend on the quality of the peace. By ruling out the peaceful settlement of disputes in Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere, the White House has not eliminated terrorism. It has provoked it. And it has also legitimized terrorism in many parts of the world. A cursory survey of global terrorist activity reveals an incredibly wide array of distinct and interconnected motives. With a growing number of groups declaring the U.S. their number one enemy, the war on terror could last for generations, if we don’t take a different tactic. Until we do, the world in the coming weeks, months, and years will likely remain a very dangerous place. - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s...

Bush Doctrine Breeds Terror and Tyranny

05.29.04 (6:09 am) [edit]

For Shame: What becomes of a country that loses its capacity for repulsion?

05.29.04 (6:05 am) [edit]

We already know the administration’s strategy for damage control on the latest erupting scandal in occupied Iraq, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war. The tactics have served more or less successfully, at least in America, to cover up and survive every earlier scandal and fiasco of this administration at home and abroad. President Bush has already raised his hands in holy disgust, pronouncing the actions contrary to his and the country’s principles and the Army’s policy, the work of a handful of miscreants whom Donald Rumsfeld solemnly promises to pursue and punish. We are already hearing the predictable excuses employed by defenders of corporate corruption, high-paid criminal athletes, and this administration—“This does not represent us or America and its values,” “mistakes have been made,” “no one claimed we or democracy are perfect.” A few obvious culprits will be punished, a few mid-level superiors reprimanded or demoted, dangerous questions held at bay at hearings, a commission possibly named to study the problem, administrative changes promised, and then the administration, denying involvement and responsibility, will move on to other things to distract the public.

They must not get away with this.

Not only is this episode more sickening and shameful than others that have already stained the occupation of Iraq. Not only will it have an even more shattering effect on America’s image and ability to lead abroad. Not only does it end any surviving hopes that Americans can be seen by Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims as liberators, models, leaders, and friends. It reveals as nothing has before the true character of this venture and of the whole policy by which this administration has chosen (allegedly) to fight terrorism and evil in the world. It ought finally to force every American, even the most loyal and patriotic, to face what this country under this leadership has done and is doing in this war. Where is it leading us?

This was not an isolated incident caused by a few bad apples, a shocking but minor and exceptional digression in an otherwise heroic and humane enterprise. This fish that now stinks to heaven began to rot long ago from the head down.

Consider when this happened—in October to December 2003, five to seven months ago. Think about how long many in the Army and outside have known about it; how long the official report investigating it has been in preparation and circulation; how long and often rumors and reports about this and other incidents of abuse of prisoners or civilians have appeared in the foreign press, especially the Arab press our authorities seek to control or repress. Yet in all this time, and to this day, all the higher officials in the Army, the Pentagon, and the White House responsible for policy insist they knew nothing about it. It is not a question of whether there will be a cover-up. There already has been—we are now beginning to learn the extent.

Consider why it happened—not in the superficial sense of why it was allowed to happen rather than prevented, but in the deeper and more important sense of what concrete purpose this abuse served, where it fit into what overall policy. These incidents were not simply a case of a few reservists getting their sadistic kicks or a result of indiscipline, bad chain of command, or other incidental administrative snafus. That would be bad enough and would constitute one more indictment of the incredible levity and mismanagement demonstrated by this administration in the war and occupation. Anyone who knows anything about the history of war and military occupations knows that this is precisely the sort of thing likely to happen, and that if one’s goal really is liberation and winning the hearts and minds of those occupied, this kind of conduct has to be prevented at all costs.

A historical aside: in the summer of 2003, when the Iraqi insurgency was just beginning and the administration still hotly denying its existence, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice insisted that the problem was merely last-ditch resistance by fanatical dead-enders like Nazi resisters in Germany in 1945. The assertion was false, of course—no civilian resistance worth mentioning developed in postwar Germany—but easily buried and forgotten under other more important administration untruths and deceptions. A different resemblance between the two occupations, however, is now dismayingly germane. By far the worst problem the Army faced in 1945 in the relations between troops and German civilians was American soldiers raping German women. The fact has gone relatively unnoticed except by historians, both because Americans at home closed their eyes to it and because it was overshadowed by far worse and vaster Soviet crimes in the Eastern Zone. Yet the Army and the Pentagon should have learned from that experience and from military history everywhere how grave the danger of this kind of conduct was.

The larger point is not, however, that they failed to prevent the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere. It is that they allowed and indirectly encouraged it, in pursuit of a wider and supposedly more important mission. This operation was an integral part of intelligence gathering by both military intelligence and private firms hired by the government for this purpose. The abuse was thus deliberate and purposive, intended to make prisoners psychologically ready for interrogation.

Consider further the context of that interrogation and intelligence gathering. The aim then was not simply or mainly to root out pockets of resistance and ongoing subversion or new terrorism and thereby pacify Iraq and protect American lives. This was the time when the administration was frantically bent on finding proof of the stocks of weapons of mass destruction and the alleged pre-war links to al-Qaeda that were advanced (as we now know, falsely) to justify the war. It was also part of a more massive program of detention of supposed evildoers in Iraq, numbering 10-12,000 by different accounts, an unknown number of them still held without charge or notification to their families—a little-known story with its own cargo of abuses. It fits into the broader pattern of the so-called War on Terror in which the United States covertly and overtly supports a Gulag Archipelago of detention camps and interrogation centers over the Middle East and Central Asia, either on its own bases or on the territory of other regimes, mostly repressive ones, with whom America works.

Consider the ethos behind this massive effort, and how it characterizes and shapes the administration’s entire view of the world and foreign policy. It flows seamlessly from the prevailing Ollie North or (to borrow a phrase from Professor George Lopez of Notre Dame University) Dirty Harry Callahan theory of international politics. It’s a dangerous world out there; hordes of fanatical evildoers are bent on committing unspeakable crimes against us. If we play by the rules they despise, we will lose. We must play dirty to win, and ultimately only winning counts. The end and the unquestioned fact that we represent the forces of light and they the forces of darkness justify the means.

Consider the incentive structure this collective mentality held at the highest level of government creates for people down the line called on to wage this kind of campaign on the ground. Consider what it means to reservists, thrown into a situation for which they are wholly untrained, to be instructed to induce in prisoners a suitable physical and psychological readiness to yield information they were doubtless would save their country or their fellow soldiers’ lives. Consider what it means for military intelligence officers to know that their promotion and careers depend on coming up with the right stuff; for so-called civilian intelligence agents to know their paychecks and their company’s contracts depend on the results, and that nobody higher up worries too much about the methods used to obtain them. Consider what it means for a general commanding a large system of prisons to be told not to obstruct this critically important job of intelligence gathering, knowing that her career is on the line.

Consider also what it says about the administration as a whole when, on top of the many previous outright lies, false promises, failed predictions, abrupt changes of course, and multiple evidences of bad or no planning, corruption, confusion, and failure that have already plagued the occupation of Iraq, this supremely ugly scandal breaks, and no one at the highest level—not Richard Meyers or Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld or Rice or Cheney or Bush—takes responsibility, resigns, is fired, demoted, or even publicly reprimanded. In a government like that of Japan or some other countries, a sense of shame alone would suffice to bring about resignations; in an earlier era it might have meant suicide. But to this crew apply the words that brought Sen. Joe McCarthy down in 1954: “Has it come to this, at long last? Have you no shame—no shame at all?”

Consider finally what it must say about the American public, or at least a major portion of it, if this does not at last produce an overdue and overriding sense of revulsion against leaders and a policy that have led their country to this shameful pass. The Republican slogan in 1996 was “Where’s the outrage?” That outrage, understandable given the disgusting though essentially private misdeeds of President Clinton and important in the 2000 election, today seems strangely absent on the Right. Liberals can now ask conservatives, “Where’s the revulsion?” What must it mean if good, loyal, religious, family-values conservatives—the segment that George W. Bush overwhelmingly commands and that this journal appeals to—find even this degrading spectacle something they can swallow? What if at least a sizeable contingent does not deliver to Bush in November the message that Oliver Cromwell addressed to the English Long Parliament in 1649: “You have been here too long for any good that you have done. In the name of God, go!”

The 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote in an essay that a sign of malfunctioning of the digestive system was the inability to become nauseated or to vomit upon eating spoiled food, and that the remedy was to take an emetic. The disorder that offended him then was spiritual, the failure of Danish Lutherans to share his revulsion at a complacent established church that he believed was betraying real Christianity. His analysis and advice apply in a different way to Americans today. Anyone who does not feel revulsion against this administration for what it is doing and has done in Iraq and elsewhere has something seriously wrong with his political digestive system.
_________________________ _________________________ _

[b]Paul W. Schroeder is professor emeritus of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the author of The Transformation of European Politics, 1765-1848[/b]. - http://amconmag.com/2004_06_0...

For Shame: What becomes of a country that loses its capacity for repulsion?

05.29.04 (6:02 am) [edit]

Al Gore: A Speech That's No Joke Which Is Why Neo-Cons Are Angry & Defensive!!!

05.28.04 (10:31 am) [edit]

[b]A Speech That's No Joke [/b]

It has always been easy to make fun of Al Gore. But if there's any truth to the thunderous criticism he's turned loose on the Bush administration this week, it's time to dispense with the jokes and listen seriously to what the man is saying.

If Mr. Gore is right, the nation is faced with a crisis of leadership that is perilously close to an emergency.

If he's wrong, then all the folks who have made the easy jokes at his expense can consider themselves vindicated.

The war in Iraq, said Mr. Gore, in an interview on Wednesday, "is the worst strategic fiasco in the history of the United States. It is an unfolding catastrophe without any comparison."

In an echo of the growing chorus of criticism here and around the world, he said the war has not only damaged "our strategic interests" and isolated the U.S. from its allies, it has also made the country more — not less — vulnerable to terror.

In a widely covered speech http://www.commondreams.org/v... earlier in the day, Mr. Gore said that Iraq had not become, as President Bush has asserted, " `the central front in the war on terror.' " But he said it has become, unfortunately, "the central recruiting office for terrorists."

The speech was extraordinary — blunt, colorful and delivered with the kind of passion you seldom see in politics anymore. The former vice president described Mr. Bush as incompetent and untrustworthy, and said his policies had endangered the nation.

The president, said Mr. Gore, had "planted the seeds of war, and harvested a whirlwind."

In the view of Mr. Gore (and many others), the essential problem has been the triumph in the Bush crowd of ideology over reality. The true believers knew everything better than everybody else, and the arrogance born of that certainty led, step by tragic step, to the war with no exit doors that we are locked in today.

That arrogance gave rise to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, the contempt for international agreements like the Geneva Conventions, the dismissal of concerns by some of the highest-ranking military professionals about the way a war in Iraq should be fought and the willingness of top administration figures to blow smoke in the eyes of ordinary Americans who were traumatized by Sept. 11 and worried about the possibility of further terrorist attacks.

"The same preference for ideology over reality has turned trillion-dollar surpluses into multitrillion-dollar deficits," said Mr. Gore. "And that same approach has led to the locking up of American citizens without recourse to lawyers or access to courts or even a right of their families to know they're being held in secret."

These and other matters are transforming the United States into a country that is more warlike, more brutal, less free, less just, less admirable and much less appealing than the nation that existed when Mr. Bush stepped into the presidency in January 2001.

Those who disagree with Mr. Gore should challenge him on his facts. Those who agree must look for ways to defend the honor and perhaps the very identity of the United States as we've known it.

The least serious part of Mr. Gore's speech was the part that got the most attention, his call for top officials of the Bush administration to resign. As an attention-getter, it worked.

But this was a speech in which the former vice president said: "What makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have led us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations, more than the people of any other nation."

This is a time to remember the principles that made this a great nation, and to reaffirm them. I don't know what will happen in the election in November. What I know is that the nation is facing a crisis now. The Bush administration needs to step back from the abyss its ideology has dragged us to.

It may be that the president never understood what made the U.S. great. In that case, he'd be among those who could benefit most from a reading of Mr. Gore's speech. If he followed that up with a look at the Bill of Rights (it would only take a few minutes), he'd have a better understanding of what this country, at its best, is about. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

Bush Cuts Children's Health While Rewarding HMOs

05.28.04 (8:02 am) [edit]

During today's trip to Tennessee 1, President Bush will hold a photo-op at a children's hospital and then attend a $2,000-per-person fundraiser at the home of a top health insurance executive 2. The two events provide a perfect display of how the President has misled America on health care policy: at the same time that he has tried to slash funding for children's hospitals, his budget lavishes billions of dollars on health insurance companies who fund his campaign.

During today's first event, the President is expected to praise children's hospitals. However, his budget this year proposes to freeze funding for grants to these hospitals, preventing their federal grants from keeping pace with inflation 3. He also proposes a $94 million cut to the Community Access Program 4 - effectively eliminating another program that provides grants to children's hospitals in need. And he is trying to slash $158 million (68%) from training grants for specialties that include pediatrics 5. These efforts are consistent with his past policies: last year, the President proposed cutting $86 million (30%) from grants to children's hospitals 6. And in 2002, he proposed to cut $35 million (14%) from grants for children's hospitals to train pediatricians 7.

After his photo-op at the children's hospital, the President will attend a fundraiser at the home of Clay Jackson 8, an executive 9 at a health insurance company called BB&T 10. Unlike the children's hospitals whose budgets have been cut, insurance executives like Jackson have a lot to thank the President for. For instance, the President crafted a Medicare bill that gives health insurance companies a new $130 billion subsidy 11, while forcing many seniors off traditional Medicare and into HMOs 12. The President has also done nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of health care, sitting by last year as HMOs raised premiums by 13% 13 and raked in an extra $6.7 billion from Americans 14.

[b]Sources[/b]: - http://www.misleader.org/dail...

1. "Bush to pump health care, campaign coffers with Nashville visit", WATE.com, 05/27/2004.
2. "Bush expected in Nashville for Republican fund-raiser", Nashville City Paper, 05/11/2004.
3. AAMC.org, 02/06/2004.
4. House Budget Committee.
5. House Budget Committee.
6. Democratic Policy Committee, 05/20/2004.
7. Children's Defense Fund Action Council.
8. OpenSecrets.Org.
9. "BB&T to Acquire Nashville-Based Agency", Insurance Journal, 08/04/2003.
10. BB&T.
11. F.A.I.R. Medicare.
12. Public Citizen, 02/13/2003.
13. "Health costs skyrocket", CNN Money, 09/22/2003.
14. "HMO profits jumped 52%", CBS Marketwatch, 05/04/2004.

Bush Cuts Children's Health While Rewarding HMOs

05.28.04 (8:01 am) [edit]

New Report Finds Unprecedented Special Interest Access Under Bush

05.28.04 (7:59 am) [edit]

Special interests are enjoying unprecedented access to government under the Bush Administration, as documented in a report released today by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a government watchdog group. President Bush opened the door when he stacked his transition teams with industry representatives in 2001.

A nonprofit organization formed in 1995 in response to Newt Gingrichs Contract with [i]America, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards[/i] http://www.sensiblesafeguards... has compiled a 148-page examination of President Bushs close relationship with special interest groups dating back to their $200 million investment in his election. The report shows that executives from a wide spectrum of industries and trade associations now hold powerful, policy-setting positions throughout the Bush administration positions they have quickly turned to the benefit of the industries and corporations they previously represented.

The result? Rollbacks on protections for public health and the environment; relaxed corporate oversight; relaxed enforcement of regulations; greatly increased government secrecy, including a clamp-down on granting public and Congressional requests for information; a growing lack of federal accountability, including awarding no-bid, secret government contracts; and the suppression and distortion of scientific information whenever it appears at odds with the administrations political goals.

"Special interests have taken over our government from top to bottom, turning back years of progress on health, safety and the environment," concludes [u]Special Interest Takeover: The Bush Administration and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards[/u]. http://www.sensiblesafeguards... "That this puts the public and our natural resources at significant risk seems to be of little concern to the Bush administration. Rather, the administration appears to view government as an instrument to enrich its political allies."

For example, the report cites Bush's stacking of the Department of Energy's transition team with large-scale donors to his campaign, the so-called "Pioneers" who gave more than $100,000 in individual contributions to help get him elected. Pioneers Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, and Anthony Alexander, president of FirstEnergy, each held seats on the agenda-setting team.

The transition teams, in turn, helped to secure key agency positions for Jeffrey Holmstead, a lawyer for electric utilities (who became EPA's air administrator); Steven Griles, a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry (deputy secretary of the Interior); Mark Rey, a timber industry lobbyist (head of the Forest Service); and David Lauriski, a mine industry executive (head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration).

"Once in place, these special-interest allies literally opened the doors of government for business," the report concludes. Rey scrapped forest protections to make way for clear-cutting; Lauriski weakened black lung and respiratory protections for miners; Griles gave former clients a boon by pushing to open more public land to drilling. And Holmstead outdid them all when the EPA directly adopted language written by lawyers at his former employer, Latham & Watkins, for use in rolling back clean air standards.

The long-term consequences of such unprecedented blurring of the lines between industry and government may be even greater due to the removal of corporate oversight. With nobody holding corporate or industrial America accountable, the report concludes, "the Bush administration is inviting irresponsible behavior that could lead to catastrophic consequences."

###

[b]TAKE ACTION[/b]

To take action and learn more visit www.sensiblesafeguards.org.

###

[b]SOURCES[/b]: - http://www.bushgreenwatch.org...

[1] "Special Interest Takeover: The Bush Administration and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards," Center for American Progress and OMB Watch, May 25, 2004.

Bush Continues Misleading On Prison Abuse Scandal

05.27.04 (7:20 am) [edit]

In his speech before the U.S. Army War College this week, President Bush again tried to absolve himself and his Administration from any responsibility for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison. He said the abuse was "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values" 1. But new reports show that the Administration - and President Bush himself - approved key documents that originally opened the door to the abuse.

Since the scandal broke, the Administration has said that, in Iraq, it always insisted on following the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment for prisoners. However, in a letter to the Red Cross dated December 24, 2003, the Bush Administration asserted that detainees in Iraq "were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Convention" 2. This disregard for internationally-recognize d human rights regulations was consistent with a January 2002 directive by the White House labeling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" 3. It is also consistent with a Newsweek report showing that "President Bush, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods" of abuse and torture as documented at Abu Ghraib 4. Those secret orders were designed "to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions."

Instead of acknowledging these documents and upholding his pledge to "usher in an era of personal responsibility,"5 the Bush Administration is now assaulting those who brought the story to light. Sgt. Samuel Provance told the Associated Press he has "been disciplined by the military and stripped of his security clearance" after he publicly refuted the President's claims that the abuse was only the work of a few soldiers6. Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld banned "digital cameras, camcorders and cellphones with cameras" from all military installations in Iraq7. And, as MSNBC reports, the whole Administration is "lashing out at American journalists, adding their official voices to the chorus of talk radio, conservative Web site and newspaper columnists" who claim the media's coverage of the scandal and Iraq in general "is undermining support for the war"8.

[b]Sources:[/b]

1. President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom, 05/24/2004.
2. "Commander in Iraq to Be Replaced", Los Angeles Times, 05/25/2004.
3. "White House memo criticized", USA Today, 05/26/2004.
4. "The Roots of Torture", Newsweek, May 24, 2004.
5. President Bush Discusses Progress in Education in St. Louis, 01/05/2004.
6. "Soldier Who Spoke Out About Prisoner Abuse Disciplined", WXII12.com, 05/26/2004.
7. "Rumsfeld Bans Camera Phones in Iraq: Report", Agence France Passe, 05/23/2004.
8. "Media takes heat from administration over Iraq", MSNBC, 05/25/2004.

Bush's legacy of lies: Poking holes in the official story of 9/11

05.27.04 (5:54 am) [edit]

Citizens can choose to buy the official line on the events of Sept. 11, 2001 � or they can ask questions about holes in that story as big as the crater at Ground Zero.

This week, at the unlikeliest of locations, the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in west-end Toronto, the International Citizens' Inquiry into 9/11 picks up where it left off in San Francisco in March.

Here, international authors, filmmakers, academics, military and intelligence experts as well as, yes, probably the occasional conspiracy theorist, are mixing it up with ordinary people who can't accept that all the systems simply failed on one terrible and tragic morning.

They're gathering to focus attention on why, still, nearly three years after two planes tore through the World Trade Center, one crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field, the White House still hasn't produced a plausible explanation for why so much went so wrong all at once.

"To ask questions and to ask them fearlessly," says Citizens' Inquiry director Barrie Zwicker. "This is the heart of this."

Indeed, a majority of Canadians doubt the line out of Washington. A poll conducted for the non-profit inquiry (http://www.911inquiry.org) this month shows that 63 per cent of us believe the U.S. government had "prior knowledge of the plans for the events of September 11th, and failed to take appropriate action to stop them."

Perhaps that's a testament to our media, which were not at Ground Zero, not personally affected by events and not waving the flag.

Whatever the explanation, Zwicker, a media critic for more than 30 years, says the U.S. press abdicated its responsibility to probe what happened and has been "complicit" in advancing the official explanation.

"If the corporate media had looked at this from the beginning, we would be living in a different world now," he insists. "(U.S. President) George W. Bush would have been impeached by now."

Inquiry's unasked questions include: Why were fighter jets not scrambled in time to stop the planes from smashing into the buildings? Why did the U.S. chain of command � including the commander-in-chief Bush � not act when the hijackings were in progress? Why were so many warnings missed? And why did it take the Kean Commission � Washington's official 9/11 inquiry � so long to get going, and only after the bereaved families noisily lobbied for more than a year?

Among the questioners coming to Toronto are University of Ottawa economics professor Michel Chossudovsky (War and Globalization, The Truth Behind September 11), French political activist and best-selling author Thierry Meyssan (9/11: The Big Lie), former fighter pilot turned security expert Dr. Robert Bowman of Florida, the Center for Cooperative Research's Paul Thompson, who compiled a comprehensive 9/11 timeline (http://www.cooperativeresearc...), and Ellen Mariani, a 9/11 widow who is suing the government instead of taking a multi-million-dollar payout.

True, some of the participants have some unusual theories. For example, Meyssan, despite eyewitness accounts, has suggested that it was in fact a missile that hit the Pentagon. But at yesterday's opening session at least, not a tin-foil hat was in site among the mostly middle-aged crowd of 100. In fact, they looked like the kind of people you might see slinging hash for the homeless at a soup kitchen.

That despite sneers yesterday from warbloggers and their acolytes. They claim that those who challenge the idea that some suicidal Arabs armed with box cutters managed to outsmart the greatest technomilitary power history has ever known are "conspirazoids," "left-wing loonies" or "fanatical Muslims."

All of which works great for Bush and company. That's because, by lumping 9/11 skeptics with whackos who pick up alien voices with their tooth fillings, the mainstream media can marginalize any and all questioners as "conspiracy theorists."

"The official story is a conspiracy theory: Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators did it," Zwicker emphasizes. "It's a brilliant narrative, but upon examination of the evidence, it crumbles into dust, just like the dust of the World Trade Towers." - http://www.thestar.com/NASApp...

Bush's legacy of lies: Poking holes in the official story of 9/11

05.27.04 (5:52 am) [edit]

Religion & Government ... Government & Religion ....

05.26.04 (7:11 am) [edit]

[b]WHAT WOULD OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAY ABOUT BUSH'S SO-CALLED "CHRISTIANITY"???

Our Republican Stands for the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights-- Not the Bible!!![/b]

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson, http://etext.lib.virginia.edu...

Our Founding Fathers were adament in creating a "wall of separation between church and state" and would have been appalled at the pressure brought to bear to impose hateful intolerence & divisive ideologies by so-called "religious" zealots and tyrannical fanatics like the traitorous & hypocritical Bush (unfit to be president) who is corrupting our system of democracy ... Bush's so-called form of "Christianity (sic)" pathetically has resulted in:

1. Bloody warfare based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods (e.g. phony WMDs posing a so-called "imminent threat" to our national security, phony links between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein, cynically manipulating the fear & anger of Americans in the aftermath of 9/11, when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, unlike the Saudis: Bush's buddies, etc.) for which he should be impeached;

2. Lack of compassion, lack of action to help over 45 million Americans without health care coverage (while Bush brags & smirks about Iraqis getting health care-- that is, when they are not being murdered, tortured, raped, ridden like donkeys, and abused in atrocities committed on orders from Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld ...)-- so Americans live in miserable pain, diseased or go bankrupt with over 18,000 Americans dying each year because they can't afford health care;

3. Lack of concern, lack of action about skyrocketing poverty in the U.S.A. with over 25 million families desperately trying to to make ends meet, living below an out-dated poverty-line established over 40 years ago-- over 4 million Americans who are homeless-- between 9-15 million Americans without jobs;

4. Highest gap between the Hyper-Rich Haves & the Impoverished Have-Nots in over 75 years, with America's backbone, the Middle-Class shrinking;

5. Inflation (e.g. higher gas prices, higher costs in goods & services, more people losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages) hitting the Middle-Class and Working people very hard, while corporations, wealthy oligarchs & hyper-rich plutocrats are awarded immoral tax cuts, tax loopholes and tax boondoggles and living like Emperor Caligulas-- supported by the rest of us who are saddled with Bush's record-level deficits and historically high debts-- that are hurting the value of the dollar and our standard of living.

Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling all around us (e.g. Bush's "Leave No Child Behind" Failure has Left Lots of Children Worse Off because no funds were allocated to enable teachers to teach [Why do you think that the rich send their kids to private schools with 15 kids/class instead of the 30-40/class sizes that public school teachers have to contend with?]!-- No money for fire-fighters-- No money for roads, hospitals, schools, etc.), while the so-called "Christian (sic)" Bush is spending over $5 Billion/Month on Iraq (over $114 Billion thus far in Iraq, with no end in sight!)-- Bush's gang of neo-con thugs bribed the embezzler, crook & liar Ahmed Chalabi with over $33 Million (including $340,000/Month) for false information, and Chalabi betrayed our nation by selling national security secrets to Iran (Which Neo-Con Traitors in the Pentagon gave their "pet" Chalabi Top-Secret US information? Shouldn't these Neo-Con Traitors including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton-- who have gotten us into this mess be fired and tried for treason?) Condi Rice was appointed head of the Iraqi Stabilization Group (ISG) back in October 2003 by Bush and the situtation has continued to spiral out-of-control ever since! Why is Rice still in office, as she is over-rated, incompetent and a liar?

Where are all of these so-called "Christian (sic)" "values"??? Americans are being damaged, harmed and impoverished by a reckless, ruthless gang of neo-con warmongers for war-profiteering... There is nothing "Christian" in their heinous War Crimes and Rape of America.

It is sad to watch the cynical manipulation of uneducated, well-meaning, but foolish so-called "Christians (sic)" who stand behind a dangerously stupid buffoon Bush who acts like a Nazi and not an American. These misguided people are suckered by the Bushies who are using them/us as cannon-fodder, slave labour & sheep to further their own sordid & squalid aims. Those who profess to "love life" should be concerned (or outraged) over Bush's abortions of nearly 800 U.S. Soldiers and between 11,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians (pregnant women with unborn kids are amongst his casualties) with the death toll rising day-in-and-day-out and no end in sight... Moreover, do these so-called "Christians (sic)" approve of murder, rape, torture, putting a harness on the elderly and riding them like a donkey, and abuse of prisoners??? If so, it is no wonder that the Arab world wants none of it... The rest of the world wants none of it ... Conscientious and thoughtful Americans want none of it either...

Let "We the People" reject the hypocrisy of the corrupt Un-Christian, Un-American Bush regime and their over-zealot followers who would make Jesus Christ weep with shame for their heinous & callous treatment of American people and other peoples around the world (especially the Iraqis and the Afghanistianis who have been mercilessly massacred, tortured, etc.) ... And, who would make Our Founding Fathers weep, for we are NOT a so-called "Christian (sic)" nation and this ugly, arrogant and self-righteous religiosity is tinny, false, abhorrent and destructive to our Republic For Which It Stands (Our Republic Stands for our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, and NOT the Bible) ...

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

In a highly informative interview by Bill Moyers (NOW with Bill Moyers http://www.pbs.org/now/societ... ) with Susan Jacoby, author of "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" (excerpt on http://www.beliefnet.com/stor... ), they explore the dangers of our society being turned into a fanatical religious totalitarian system if we do not go back to the roots of our government, our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Indeed, Ms. Jacoby cites John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S., who in the Treaty with Tripoli (1796-97), reassures the Barbary States of Northern Africa that the United States of America is "not to be founded on Christianity" http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/j... ...

"We the People" must extricate ourselves from the dangerously stupid and corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. junta, comprised of vile traitors who are undermining our nation's heritage, system of laws and historical role in the world community ...

[b]Winston Smith's Daily Journal[/b], http://winstonsmith.tblog.com...

Bush's Hypocritical So-Called "Christianity": He Is Destroying America ...

05.26.04 (7:09 am) [edit]

[b]WHAT WOULD OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAY ABOUT BUSH'S SO-CALLED "CHRISTIANITY"???

Our R