Friday, May 21, 2004

Listen to Today's Democracy Now!

Don't miss today's show. In fact, download it.

Topics include:

>>The Truth About Ahmed Chalabi: Why the US Turned Against Their Former Golden Boy--He Was Preparing a Coup

>>9-11 Widow Sues the Bush Administration for Intelligence Failures

>>Gore Vidal on the "United States of Amnesia"

One of the preminent essayists of the 20th century gives his thoughts on the 'end of the republic' ("We are not a normal country...we are a homeland") and talks about his new book.


Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Kangaroo Court-martial

The Washington Post (AP Report)

When heads have to roll, it is often the grunts that go first.

The Bush administration has just court-martialled one of its footsoldiers, a 24 year old reservist brought into the fray at Abu Ghraib by his Staff Sergeant. He came, he saw, he took pictures....got court-martialled, sentenced - hooray for justice, hooray for the United States. Another fine example of the Bush Administration's commitment to the highest of moral standards: they tell people to do something, then punish them for it. Do they really expect us to fall for this?


Torturer in Chief: Read Seymour Hersh's expose in The New Yorker about how this buck stopped with Donald Rumsfeld

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Food for Thought: NPR on what June 30th will mean for Iraqis

"Some political power."

This is how NPR's All Things Considered referred to what Iraqis are supposed to get on June 30, 2004, the date of the so-called "handover of sovereignty".

The phrase "some political power" cropped up twice during the short time I had been tuned to National Public Radio in my car Monday evening (May 17). The use of the phrase was concious and, frankly, pretty conspicuous. NPR's on-air personalities pronounced it deliberately, with emphasis on the word "some", so as to make clear to its listeners that the word "sovereignty" is no longer in vogue.

What is interesting is that cynics have long said what NPR now seems to be conceding: that true representative democracy in Iraq is a pipe-dream so long as there are foreign troops occupying the country. But NPR is likely unaware of the implications of its phraseology: They are shifting the goal posts, but probably on the assumption that anything more than "some political power" is unfeasible for the foreseeable future. Sovereignty, NPR's talking heads might say, is just not possible at this time. The truth, however, may be that "sovereignty" for Iraqis was never in the cards at all. Under this reading, "some political power" is the best the Iraqis can hope for. And maybe this, too, is more than the U.S. wants to give them.

The crux of the matter is this: If Iraqis are sovereign in their own country, as they should be, then any other would-be powers are necessarily excluded. But since the U.S. does not plan on leaving Iraq - its new embassy there will be the largest diplomatic outpost in the world -"sovereignty" for the people of Iraq is meaningless, just a word for which any number of equally meaningless words and phrases can be substituted.



Tired of NPR? Tune in to Democracy Now!, hosted by award-winning independent journalist Amy Goodman. Check out her newly published book, The Exception to the Rulers.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Reaping the whirlwind from Abu Ghraib: "American beheaded as torture backlash grows"

Full story: London Independent

It was only a matter of time. Somewhere in Iraq, or elsewhere in the world, someone was going to be killed in retaliation for the now widely publicized mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by Americans. Last night a video was released showing the beheading of Nick Berg, an "American businessman in Iraq". As unfortunate as this is, it should come as no surprise. In fact, no act of retaliation great or small - whether for the officially sanctioned torture now coming to light or for the U.S. occupation of Iraq in general - should surprise anyone.

There were voices - silenced or ignored though they may have been - that before the war spoke of what the fallout of the U.S. invasion might be. By and large their predictions have proved true - alarmingly true. The people of Spain, for example, were summarily punished in the horrible train bombings in Madrid on March 11 2004. Thousands of innocent Spaniards suffered because their leader, Jose Maria Aznar, decided to ignore an overwhelming public outcry and enlist with George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

If the claims of responsibility and the reasons given for the attack are credible, then Spain was attacked simply for being an adjunct to U.S. foreign policy - an enabler.

What happened in Spain should serve as a lesson for the entire world: what your rulers do in your name can and will be used against you. We in the United States of America had better learn this one fast if we hope to head off another September 11th.

Things can change. As for Aznar, he was recently ousted by a socialist who promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.

So what will become of Bush?

It's up to us.


Read Progressive Magazine Editor Matthew Rothschild's"The Slaughter of Nicholas Berg" (Web Exclusive - May 12 2004)

Monday, May 10, 2004

Unmasking the Iraq War

The U.S. occupation of Iraq has come up against an insurmountable obstacle: it has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of those who, despite the now indisputable fact that the war was launched on a campaign of mass deception, might still have believed that the much talked about goal of "democracy in Iraq" was being pursued with at least a modicum of sincerity. Much to the chagrin of the Bush administration, the mask has finally been torn away. Having marched gleefully into the Cradle of Civilization as self-styled “liberators”, it is increasingly clear that the occupiers have become like the regime they ousted: torturers, murderers, despots. [For details see Seymour M. Hersh's recent exposes in the New Yorker: "Torture at Abu Ghraib"(5 May 2004) and "Chain of Command"(10 May 2004)]

This is not a time for half-baked apologies. What can Bush say to the Iraqi woman whose husband has been paraded around stark naked, like an animal, utterly humiliated before his gawking captors? What can Bush say to the young Iraqi boy whose limbs were blown off by American bombs? What can Bush say to Iraqis who want control over their own country and its natural resources and do not understand how this is compatible with military occupation? What can Bush say to account for himself and his administration?

What we are now seeing is the bitter fruit of a war that is not only unnecessary, but absolutely unjust, not to mention illegal under every accepted convention of International Law. Indeed, every single rationale proffered for the invasion of Iraq can be refuted - and even before the war began they had been debunked by anyone who turned a critical eye on the situation. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not have ties to al-Qaida. Iraq did not pose a threat to the region. Iraq certainly did not pose a threat to the United States.

Saddam Hussein was the darling of the U.S. through the period of his worst atrocities, a time when business deals took precedence over human rights. Indeed some of our strongest support for Saddam came after the incident people like to cite to illustrate the dictator’s brutality - the 1988 chemical gas attacks against Kurds in Halabja. It wasn't until 1990 that the U.S. decided to condemn Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses (which we had known about all along); but the condemnation only came when Saddam Hussein openly espoused the cause of Arab Nationalism, which included Arab control of Arab resources. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie reassured him that “the U.S. has no interest in inter-Arab border disputes." We gave Saddam a virtual green light to invade Kuwait, then turned around and launched the Persian Gulf War in response. We then allowed Saddam to crush a post-war rebellion that may have toppled him. And this is not even the half of it. Such hypocrisy is outrageous, yet it continues to this day.

Since the war was unnecessary, everyone who has died in Iraq died unnecessarily. In even starker terms, they died for no reason at all. The Bush Administration's hands are stained with the blood of every American soldier, and every Iraqi man, woman and child who has died or otherwise suffered as a result of the occupation. If this does not classify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" then the phrase should be thrown out and never used again.

George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other principal members of the administration responsible for committing US troops to the invasion of Iraq should be impeached and held criminally liable for the death and destruction wrought by the war they foisted on the public and the world.

If President Clinton could be impeached for lying about sexual misconduct in the Oval Office, it is all the more imperative that we impeach President Bush and his administration for the massive crimes against humanity they have committed. These crimes are manifestly clear by now.

How many more American (or "coalition") soldiers and innocent Iraqis have to die before we take decisive action to stop this? Our moral capital, our integrity, is withering away to nothing. This once great country is falling. We cannot afford to let it sink any further.


Read "Chain of Command" by Seymour M. Hersh