Barbara Lee
LATEST NEWS
Iraq
Colombia
The Philippines
North Korea
France
NEWS LINKS
NewsDissector
tomdispatch
AlterNet.org
Big, Left, Outside
Black Commentator
BuzzFlash
Tom Paine.common sense
Common Dreams
The Daily Mis-Lead
Google News
http://www.indymedia.org/
indymedia.org
Information Clearing House
In These Times
MotherJones
The Nation
Politech
The Progressive
portland.indymedia.org
pulpnonfiction.blogspot
rationalmind.net
Rolling Stone Magazine
Salon.com
ScoopMedia.NZ
TruthOut
Wired
Working for Change
Zmag
MediaChannel.org
WORLD WIRES
IRNA
REUTERS
ALTERNATIVE
to Right Wing Media: LIVE!
10:00 pm to 1:00 am Monday-Friday
The Sunshine Tony Wong Show, featuring Uncle Bernie Ward aka
the Lion of the Left!
Then hear Ray Taliaferro and Operation American Freedom
from 1:00 to 5:00 am Pacific Time.
 KGO - San Francisco
 
ACTION ITEM
Wal-Mart Liberation Front
GEEZE LINKS
911 Preparation
9/11 Timeline
911review.org
America Coming Together
Black Box - Diebold
bringthemhomenow.org
Center for American Progress
Center for Public Integrity
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Common Cause
costofwar.com
conspiracy-theory-news
democracymeansyou.com
FBI Cover-Up
Global Public Media
Globalization Research
Gold Anti-Trust Action
Government Information Awareness
Guerrilla News Network
Gulf War Vets
Hermes Press
Iraq War Casualties
Cynthia McKinney
Online Journal
Peak Oil & Gas Study
Re-Call Bush
Michael Ruppert
Danny Schechter
SeptemberEleventh.org
Stop Bush in 2004
TIKKUN
Un-answered Questions
VERPA.org - Vets
votetoimpeach.org
Watley Review
Where is the Money?
|
"There is no way to commercialize giving thanks." -- Bernie Ward
"Life in the USA is a whole lot less fun than it used to be..."
Don Hazen - AlterNet
28JAN2004
News coverage: Girl Next Door War on Terrorism
Does anyone remember the Palestinians?
WARNING
VIRUS ALERT :
From Carl Worden - "I've just received a whole bunch of attempts to infect my PC with a message that
looks like this: 'The message cannot be represented in 7-bit ASCII encoding and has been sent as a binary
attachment.' It comes with an attachment. Norton isn't catching it, but it's just too obvious. I didn't
open the attachment. [MORE INFO]
Ed. note: I kid you not! Jack Paar died! There is only one Mad Cow story today suggesting some effort to protect us against the
spread of mad cow disease in cows and humans; the FDA is banning the use of cattle blood in livestock
feed, and the use of cow brains in cosmetics and dietary supplements. [MORE]. And in Mad Chicken
news, Kentucky Fried Chicken is substituting fish for chicken and will be known in Cambodia and
Vietnam as
Kentucky Fried Fish. I kid you not! [HEAR MORE]
A Heartfelt Get Well, Jack Paar
By TOM SHALES - Washington Post
Wednesday, December 23, 1998; Page C01
Almost everything I need to know about life I learned from Jack Paar. And that was years before I ever met him. In the late '50s and early '60s, I watched Jack when he hosted "The Tonight Show" and his weekly prime-time variety hour, "The Jack Paar Program," both on NBC. Paar's shows weren't just entertainment, they were an education. The lively arts were rarely livelier.
At this moment, Jack Paar, 80, lies in a New York hospital bed recuperating from a triple heart bypass and from an embolism that was discovered during the operation. He'll spend Christmas either in the hospital or, if doctors think it's safe to move him, in a cardiac rehab center in White Plains, N.Y.
Even though he's made only sporadic public appearances in recent years -- to be honored at a testimonial dinner given by the Museum of Television & Radio, for instance -- the world needs to have a Jack Paar in it. There's a critical shortage of giants now, and we cannot afford to lose another.
Sometimes Paar falls under the delusion that no one remembers him. Nonsense. He still has countless fans, baby boomers and beyond, who grew up on his smart, civilized, sophisticated brand of entertainment. When PBS aired "Jack Paar: As I Was Saying" as an "American Masters" entry in 1997, the retrospective broke all ratings records for the series. Paar beat out previous shows on Edward R. Murrow, Albert Einstein, Helen Hayes, Tennessee Williams, Placido Domingo, Cole Porter and Will Rogers.
Regis Philbin, one of many avid Paar fans, has arranged for get-well letters to be transmitted via e-mail from a Web site devoted to "Live With Regis and Kathie Lee," the show Philbin hosts with Kathie Lee Gifford. The Internet address is www.regisandkathielee.com and the site includes instructions on how to drop Jack an e-note. Charles Grodin, the former actor who has a weekend talk show on MSNBC, is using his Web site to pass along fan mail to Paar as well.
Paar was supposed to have been Philbin and Gifford's guest recently, but the appearance was called off when he was rushed to the hospital.
During his brief but eventful reign as TV's most combustible personality, Jack was far more than a "talk show host." He was raconteur, world traveler, virtuoso conversationalist and wicked wit. He was sort of a cross between Lowell Thomas and Noel Coward -- Noel Lowell. But he didn't just emcee his shows, he put them together himself, inviting guests whom he considered entertaining to drop by and chat -- Judy Garland or Richard Burton or Bobby Kennedy or Muhammad Ali or Robert Morley or Richard Nixon or Billy Graham or Fred Astaire or Beatrice Lillie.
They were all better on Jack's show than they were on anybody else's -- if, indeed, they showed up on anybody else's. And Jack's interests went far beyond show business. He took his viewers to Africa, to Cuba (immediately after the revolution), to Hawaii shortly after it became a state, and to the late and unlamented Berlin Wall. Paar was a true television auteur; his shows were all reflections of his own insatiable curiosity and fascination with the world.
Jack Paar was so good, he seemed to be in color when TV was still black-and-white.
It's hard to evoke or explain the Paar era now. Jack was considered racy because he'd talk about jockey shorts. He walked off the "Tonight Show" once because NBC insisted on censoring a joke he did about a toilet, except the word was never used; only the quaint euphemism "water closet" was. Jack would not be comfortable in today's TV, where late-night hosts like Jay Leno and David Letterman joke about oral sex, venereal disease and Viagra.
Jack was full of mischief, but he had class. Even at his silliest, he maintained a dapper dignity.
Thanks to home video, today's viewers can get some idea of what he was like. A new three-tape set called "Jack Paar: As I Was Saying -- and More," available from various mail-order video outlets (including the popular Critic's Choice service) offers a wide-ranging sampler of Paar's art. The first two tapes in the set are the PBS special, which Paar basically produced himself, culling clips from hours and hours of old film, tape and kinescopes.
The third tape consists of added moments from Paar's personal library of video clips -- highlights of his interview with Nixon (who played the piano as part of his appearance); film of Jack and his beautiful wife, Miriam, in Africa, one of their favorite places; and appearances he made on programs like "Candid Camera" and "Password," the old game show. The idea on "Password" was to give a clue that would help your partner guess a secret word. Repeatedly, Jack simply blurted out the word itself. He wasn't good at games, he explained.
One collector's item: Jack tells a famous anecdote about attending a performance of "Hamlet," starring Richard Burton, and losing a valuable shirt stud down his pants. He had to limp out of the theater gripping his groin while photographers' flashbulbs popped. Like many of his best stories, it's mercilessly self-deprecating. Paar took his daughter Randy (now a lawyer in Manhattan) to the performance and warned her that the crowd might make a fuss over her father. All that happened, he said, was that a woman with a shopping bag followed his limo down the street thumbing her nose at him.
Whenever Jack Paar was on TV, the picture seemed to get sharper and more vivid. His infectious zest for life comes through in all the clips, whether he's gabbing with a guest or telling a classic anecdote or pretending to fight a bull in Spain. What his fans hope now is that the old zest will see him through, partly because once it's over, he's bound to have funny stories about even this life-threatening experience.
After an ovation that greeted him at the beginning of one program, Paar told the studio audience dryly, "You don't know how humble that makes a big star like me feel." And at the start of another show, after the loud applause subsided: "Thank you. That's the only part of my act that goes well. By the way -- what is my act?"
At the dawn of TV, even before Paar blossomed, ABC aired a weekly panel show called "Life Begins at
80." For Jack Paar, one can hope the cheerful declaration of that title holds true. Few figures in the
history of the medium have done more to make better television or to make television better. He is
indeed a living legend. And let's keep it that way. [Thanks to The Washington Post]
Besides the
Girl Next Door War on Terrorism story, we've got a nice link to Neil Bush - who was among those sued in
the savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, and who Kitty Kelly is writing a book about; The Bush Dynasty.
Now divorce lawyers are asking him about sexual encounters in Hong Kong and Taiwan and business dealings in
China [MORE].
So sez the brilliant Democrat front-runner John Kerry, the South was not absolutely
crucial to a Democratic win in November. [MORE]. So sez Daily Mislead: Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the
Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised,"1 President Bush and the White
House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions today."2 The New York Times reported, "White
House officials are no longer asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found"
after their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed" after the 1991 Gulf
War.3 [MORE]
The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks says it needs more time to finish its
final report, putting it at odds with House leaders who oppose a delay that would push the report's
release closer to the November election. [MORE]
And does anyone remember the Palestinians? George Bisharat does, in
Two-State Solution Again Sells Palestinians Short. Congrats to L.A. Times for presenting a great piece on THE subject, if THE subject is peace.
Woman ticketed for appearing naked on Internet
It wasn't the fact that Melissa J. Harrington appeared naked on the Internet that got her in trouble
with police. It was where she got naked.
The 21-year-old Web designer was busted for violating Lincoln's public nudity ordinance by posting
pictures on her Web site that apparently showed her naked in a downtown bar.
Meet our new friend Melissa. She's a fairly ordinary 'girl next door' who has a day job and does web
design. She also has a healthy respect for human beauty and is completely unashamed of her body. She
has combined the two and built a web site that features, among other things, nude pictures of her,
some in what appear to be fairly public places ... and found that she really likes the feeling this
gives her. She compares it to a natural high.
Harrington was to be arraigned in Lancaster County Court on January 29. If convicted, she faces a
maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $500 fine.
Original documents:
The Smoking Gun
Melissa's site
The Liberty Round Table's "Free Melissa" project
For our part, we are not exhibitionists, but do believe that anything that de-mystifies sex, shows that
good clean fun and healthy bodies are not 'dirty', is a very positive thing. There's no end to the
flood of misery produced by people's twisted ideas about sex, love, and the human body, so we
say: 'Hurray for Melissa's one woman war against benighted puritan attitudes!' That Melissa's site has
a commercial side makes her work no less valuable -- have not libertarians and objectivists always said
that freedom is so valuable that there ought to be a way to promote it at a profit? We agree with
Melissa; she has nothing to be ashamed of, not her body, not her pictures, not her profit.
Unfortunately the police don't see it our way -- or perhaps they do, but have their hands tied by
blue-nosed laws that should be stricken from the books. Whatever the reason, Melissa has been targeted
and ticketed for "public nudity" and faces a $500 fine and possible jail time of up to six months.
Even if everything Melissa is accused of is true (and with photoshop being what it is these days, no
one can really claim that pictures on a web site prove anything anymore), it would not be as though she
had flashed anyone, nor subjected anyone who did not want to see it to the sight of her body. Her
pictures were taken in a discrete environment of consent, and viewed online by people who chose to see
them. The only crimes committed are those of the authorities who are willing to apply the full force of
law to a woman who has hurt no one. Make no mistake, for daring to enjoy her freedom, her self, and
sharing that fun, Melissa is to be arraigned on January 29, and could soon be the victim of legalized
theft and enslavement.
We should also say, lest anyone think we are trying to mislead freedom activists (or Melissa herself),
that she never claimed to be a libertarian. In fact, while she does believe her web site has artistic
merit and should be protected by the First Amendment, and the playful banter on the site is an unabashed
sales pitch ('unabashed' just seems to go hand in hand with Melissa), she says it's really all about
having fun. She would do it anyway, even if there was no money to be made, and she says she's willing to
spend every last penny she gets from the site fighting for her freedom to express herself (and everyone
else's freedom too).
So, how can you help?
Well, Melissa says that she wants to fight this "all the way" and has no intention of taking any plea
bargains. So, of course, there're legal expenses. But rather than asking people to contribute to a
legal defense fund, she asks folks who want to help to "sign up" for her web site (register as paying
subscribers to gain access to the full content of the site). Even if you don't want to see pictures of
Melissa, this will help her, financially, of course, but also to show that many people approve of what
she's doing -- or, at least, disapprove of what the state is doing to her. It seems to me that there is
no better way to show appreciation for an artist than to pay for her work; it has a better, cleaner feel
than straight charity and allows her to be able to give some value in return for the help.
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at www.politechbot.com
Moderated by Declan McCullagh www.mccullagh.org
Ed. note: Along with the
Iranian agent warned US of impending al-Qaida attack story, Carl Worden sez: This
may be one of the reasons the Bush Administration has been less than
cooperative into the investigation of 9/11, who knew what and when. In all
fairness, tips like this can be mistaken for a deliberate negligence, as if
the Bush Administration knew it would happen and when, and allowed it.
I don't believe that at all, but there is no denying the Bush Administration
exploited the incident.
"Could have, and should have" are arguments that have little merit. In a
perfect intelligence world, the attack on Pearl Harbor could have, and
should have been thwarted. The conspiracy nuts exploited that failure to
the extent they accuse FDR of allowing the attack to bring America into the
fray. Yeah, right, like FDR would allow his entire Pacific Fleet to almost
entirely decimated? No, common sense dictates that was not the case. You
don't nearly lose the war in the first attack just to get into it! The Bay
of Tonkin incident is the kind of ploy you use to go to war in Viet Nam,
just like the fantasy "imminent" threat Saddam Hussein posed to the rest of
the "free world". Now those were ploys.
This makes good and informative reading. Enjoy. Carl F. Worden
Iranian agent warned US of impending al-Qaida attack
By BEN ARIS - The Guardian UK
The United States was warned of impending September 11 terrorist attacks by an Iranian spy, but ignored him, German secret service agents testified yesterday in the trial of an alleged al-Qaida terrorist.
The spy, identified as Hamid Reza Zakeri, tried to warn the CIA after leaving Iran in 2001, but was not believed, two German officers who interviewed him told the Hamburg court.
Zakeri worked in the department of the Iranian secret services responsible for "carrying out terrorist attacks globally", one of the officers said.
Prosecutors called the spy as a surprise witness against a Moroccan man, Abdelghani Mzoudi, who is on trial for being a key aide to three of the September 11 hijackers.
He is said to have handled money, covered for absences by members of the al-Qaida cell based in Hamburg and trained in an Afghan al-Qaida camp himself.
He is charged with 3,066 counts of aiding and abetting murder, one for each of the victims of the New York and Washington suicide attacks.
Mzoudi is one of a clutch of suspected al-Qaida operatives being held around the world.
Iran said for the first time yesterday it was planning to try a dozen suspects who have been detained in the country.
The Bush administration, which has accused Iran of harbouring al-Qaida militants, countered by saying Tehran should send the suspects to their home countries for judgment.
The US has long suspected that the detainees slipped into Iran from neighbouring Afghanistan following the American-led invasion in 2001.
"We want to see action, and the action we want to see is that they turn over those al- Qaida members in their custody to their country of origin," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Western intelligence officials believe that among the Iran-held figures could be an Egyptian, Saif al-Adel, the security chief of Osama bin Laden's network.
A son of Bin Laden and a spokesman for the network chief could also be in Iran, Saudi sources said.
The testimony at the Hamburg trial could heap more embarrassment on the US state department and secret services, which have denied allegations that they were forewarned of the attacks.
The White House and US intelligence agencies have been plagued by accusations of a catastrophic
failure since the four planes were hijacked to such devastating effect in 2001. [MORE]
Taking Liberties - The War on Our Rights
By DAVID COLE - The Nation
"Even in times of national emergency -- indeed, particularly in such times -- it is the obligation of
the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive
Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike." So wrote the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 18, ruling that foreign nationals held as "enemy combatants"
at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base have a right to seek court review of the legality of their detention. The
same day, a Court of Appeals on the other coast ruled that the President acting alone lacks authority to
detain US citizens as "enemy combatants."
Never before has the Administration suffered such setbacks to its domestic war on terrorism. And the backlash has been growing. On December 3 a Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional significant portions of the federal statute criminalizing "material support" to designated "terrorist organizations." The statute has been the linchpin of most of the Justice Department's terrorism prosecutions precisely because it does not require proof of individual involvement in, or support of, actual terrorism--only proof of some "support" to a proscribed group. The court held that the prohibitions on providing "personnel" and "training" to such groups impermissibly penalized constitutionally protected activity.
On December 9 the military embarrassingly admitted that it did not even know whether supposedly secret information seized from Capt. James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo, was classified. Yee had been arrested and detained for more than two months, with much fanfare about national security breaches at Guantánamo, for allegedly taking his own notes off the base in a notebook. Meanwhile, in one of the most vindictive prosecutions in years, the military is prosecuting Yee for committing adultery and having pornographic images on his computer, hardly matters of national security.
For all John Ashcroft's blustering, only one 9/11 terrorism case has actually gone to trial--and the outcome of that trial has now been called into serious question. The case, tried in Detroit, resulted in a mixed verdict this past June. Two defendants were convicted of conspiracy to support some unspecified terrorist act in the unspecified future, and two others were acquitted on the terrorism charges. On December 16 the federal district judge in the case formally admonished Ashcroft for interfering with the trial by violating a gag order and officially praising the government's principal witness while the jury was deliberating. And on December 12 the judge held a hearing on whether to vacatethe convictions altogether on the ground that federal prosecutors had failed to disclose evidence that the same witness had lied on the stand.
These developments suggest why the Administration has sought to avoid any meaningful review of its detention of enemy combatants. Due process, checks and balances, and judicial review all have the potential to reveal error and abuse. And when the government launches a "preventive" law-enforcement strategy based on predictions about future behavior rather than actual evidence of illegal conduct, error and abuse are bound to follow.
As the Ninth Circuit said, courts have an "obligation" to "prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike." Precisely to avoid the confining effects of that "obligation," the Administration has insisted that the more than 650 people held at Guantánamo have no right to any judicial review or even to a hearing before military officers. It has similarly argued that US citizens designated by the President as "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely, incommunicado, without access to courts or lawyers. In essence, it has argued that when it comes to detentions in the war on terrorism, the President is above the law.
Now two courts have squarely rejected that view. The Ninth Circuit held that the Guantánamo detainees have a right to go to court to make sure the President is acting within the law. And the Second Circuit held that absent authorization from Congress, US citizens captured on US soil may not be detained as "enemy combatants" at all. In both cases, the courts have insisted that in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law has an essential role.
The Guantánamo issue is already before the Supreme Court in another case, which will be decided by
June. The Court is also virtually certain to take up the question of whether US citizens may be held
as "enemy combatants." Will the Supreme Court live up to the "obligation" identified by the Ninth
Circuit? It was willing to step in to protect the rights of George W. Bush as he sought to block a
recount in order to be selected President with fewer votes than his opponent. But how will it respond
to the Administration's argument that Bush ought to enjoy not only the powers of a President in a
system of checks and balances but the prerogative of a king, unfettered by the limits of law? [MORE]
Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
By LINDA DEUTSCH
A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.
In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.
The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.
The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.
The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.
"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature..." [MORE]
CBS Censorship
From MoveOn.org
During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.1 But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.2
Meanwhile, the White House is on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,3 allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech.
Over the last year, you've been a part of our incredible campaign against media consolidation. CBS's censorship demonstrates why this issue is so important: a few big media companies can effectively stop political speech. If we can successfully highlight CBS's unfairness in the media, we'll be able to push forward our FCC campaign as well.
Click HERE to
watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign our petition to CBS, or to skip the ad and just sign the petition, click HERE.
We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.
You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy about this decision.
Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain to them why you believe CBS'
decision hurts our democracy.
Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected.(4) But this isn't even
a progressive-vs.-conservative issue. The airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right
to hear viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. That's why we need to let CBS know that this
practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial" -- especially if they're
controversial simply because they take on the President -- just isn't right.
CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of the ad is a simple statement
of fact, supported by the President's own figures. Compared with 2002's White House ad which claimed
that drug users are supporting terrorism,5 it hardly even registers.
CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions courting the White House to stop FCC reform.6 According to a well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.7
This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be fair and open to all
speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and unless we speak up, the pattern may continue.
Please call on CBS to air ads which address issues of public importance today.
Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains simply how CBS and the FCC rule
change are integrally linked. Check it out at:
www.mediareform.net
Footnotes:
1. Who's Buying What At the Super Bowl, Ad Age, 1/20/04
2. CBS fax to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 1/14/04
3. Democrats Fold on 39% TV Cap Fight", Broadcasting and Cable, 1/21/04
4. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
5. New Media Campaign Stresses Link between Drugs and Terrorism, U.S. Dept. of State
6. CBS Television Network Soft Money Donations, Opensecrets.org
7. Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll
Two-State Solution Again Sells Palestinians Short
By GEORGE BISHARAT
The right of Return. It is a tragic irony that, more than 55 years ago, one desperate people seeking sanctuary from murderous
racism decimated another - and continue to oppress its scattered survivors to this day. In 1948, about
700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, their land and possessions taken by the new
Jewish state of Israel. This included the Jerusalem home of my grandparents, Hanna and Mathilde
Bisharat, which was expropriated through a process tantamount to state-sanctioned theft.
Today, many assume that to achieve Middle East peace, we Palestinians must surrender our right to
return to our homes and homeland. Millions of Palestinians - with memories and photographs of our stolen
properties, keys to our front doors, and an abiding sense of injustice - are expected to swallow our
losses in order to facilitate a "two-state solution."
But it's not that simple. Although Israel has claimed that Palestinians willingly abandoned Palestine
after being urged to leave in radio broadcasts by Arab leaders, a review of broadcast transcripts by
Irish diplomat Erskine Childers in 1961 revealed that Palestinians were exhorted by Arab leaders to
stay, not leave their homes. In fact, Yigal Allon, commander of Palmach, the elite Zionist troops, and
later Israeli foreign minister, launched a whispering campaign to terrorize Palestinians into flight.
Nor were we simply unintended victims of a war launched by the Arab states against Israel. As far back
as the late 19th century, leaders of Political Zionism (the movement to create a Jewish state in
Palestine) advocated "transfer" of the Palestinians, by force if necessary. In 1948, Jews owned only 11%
of the land allocated by the United Nations to the Jewish state ‹ not enough for a viable economy. As
David Ben-Gurion said in February 1948 before he became prime minister of Israel: "The war will give us
the land. The concepts of 'ours' and 'not ours' are peace concepts only, and in war they lose their
whole meaning."
Zionist leaders knew that an Arab minority of 40% would challenge the Jewish demographic dominance they
sought. Hence, nearly half of the Palestinian refugees ultimately expelled were forced out before the
Arab states attacked Israel in May 1948. Israeli historian Benny Morris documented 24 massacres of
Palestinian civilians, some claiming hundreds of unarmed men, women and children, during subsequent
fighting. Thousands more Palestinians were, like the residents of Majdal (now Ashkelon) - a southern
coastal city 15 miles north of the Gaza Strip - chased across the border into Gaza after the armistice
of 1949.
Palestine had to be "cleansed" of its native population to establish Israel as a Jewish state.
Ironically, those who today protest that the return of the refugees would destroy Israel unwittingly
confirm this viewpoint, for the refugees are simply the Palestinians and their offspring who would have
become Israeli citizens had they not been exiled.
Israel's denial of responsibility for the refugees and rejection of their repatriation (intransigence
that was condemned early on by a U.S. official as "morally reprehensible") is nearly as offensive as the
original expulsion itself. Israel welcomed immigrant Jews from all over the world but shot Palestinians
who tried to return to recover movable property, harvest the fruit of their orchards or reclaim their
homes. Oxford professor Avi Shlaim concluded in his book "The Iron Wall" that "between 2,700 and 5,000
[Palestinian] infiltrators were killed in the period 1949-56, the great majority of them unarmed."
Nothing the Palestinians had done merited this treatment, something the international community has
consistently recognized. A 1948 U.N. resolution recognizing the Palestinian right of return has been
annually ‹ and almost unanimously ‹ reaffirmed ever since. The Palestinian right of return is also
supported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
The two-state solution envisioned today would probably ameliorate the conditions of the one-third of the
Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There,
Palestinians face incessant military attacks that have demolished homes and orchards and killed an
average of nearly 70 Palestinians per month over the last three years. A smothering matrix of closures,
curfews and checkpoints restricts movement and has caused unemployment to soar to more than 70% and
threaten Palestinian children with malnutrition. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers, shock troops in the
grinding 36-year campaign to seize and colonize yet more Palestinian land, speed through the West Bank
and Gaza Strip on "Jewish only" roads. The oppressive features of Israeli military occupation were
entrenched long before Palestinians resorted in the mid-1990s to the desperate - yet still
indefensible - tactic of suicide bombings to slow the colonizing juggernaut.
But this two-state solution would not address the concerns of 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel
as second-class citizens. Palestinian citizens there possess formal political rights - that much Israel
can afford after expelling most Palestinians in 1948. But these Palestinians have restricted access to
land (most real property in Israel is owned by the state or the Jewish National Fund and is leased to
Jews only). They are also forced to carry identity cards that brand them as non-Jews, and they cannot
serve in the armed forces (the key to many benefits in Israeli society). Palestinian towns and villages
are starved of resources, with many lacking connections to the country's electrical or water systems.
Government policies, from immigration to family planning, are designed to counter the "demographic
threat" Israelis fear in the higher birthrate of Palestinian citizens. Israeli law enshrines the
principle that Israel is the "state of the Jewish people," and it lacks firm guarantees of the legal
equality of all citizens.
Nor would the two-state solution fairly redress the rights of diaspora Palestinians - permitting us
only return to a new, already overcrowded and underfunded "statelet" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
There is no bar to implementing the Palestinians' right of return. If there is room in Israel for a
million Russian immigrants (including many non-Jews), there is room for those Palestinians who would
elect return over other legal options. The sole obstacle is Israel's desire to maintain a "demographic
balance" favorable to Jews.
Why is it self-evident that our international legal rights should give way to cement dominance of Jews
over Palestinians in Israel? Why is this assumption unquestioned - especially in the U.S., which fought
a civil war for the ideal of equal rights under the law? How do claims that are 2,000 years old trump
our rights when we have modern deeds in hand? Why should Palestinians pay for a European holocaust? Why
do U.S. officials - including our two Democratic senators in this multicultural state - unconditionally
support Israel with billions in tax dollars while ignoring glaring contradictions between Jewish
exclusivism and truly democratic values? Would Americans tolerate any group placing its religious symbol
on the national flag, appropriating the state for some citizens rather than all and pursuing policies
systematically giving privileges to its members over others?
Palestinians are prepared to sacrifice for a just and therefore lasting peace, but not to simply
formalize our dispossession and exile or our institutionalized subordination in Israel.
Isn't it time to explore a way for Jews to co-inhabit Israel/Palestine without excluding, dominating
and oppressing Palestinians? The past cannot be undone - but the future can be. We, Israelis and
Palestinians together, should be seeking to form a society founded on tolerance and mutual respect for
each other's humanity, a country that would truly be the "light unto nations" that Israel always
aspired to be. When title to our home is restored - and the rights of its current occupants have been
fully respected - I hope one day to stand in front of it with my family and welcome neighbors and
visitors of all faiths and backgrounds, as my grandparents did before 1948. [MORE
27JAN2004
There is no Terrorist Threat!
Big Dick Cheney Pope John Paul II Play Down Differences
WARNING
VIRUS ALERT:
From Carl Worden - "I've just received a whole bunch of attempts to infect my PC with a message that
looks like this: 'The message cannot be represented in 7-bit ASCII encoding and has been sent as a binary
attachment.' It comes with an attachment. Norton isn't catching it, but it's just too obvious. I didn't
open the attachment. [MORE INFO]
Ed. note: Up till now I always thought punishment for hate crimes should not exceed that of
ordinary crimes; i.e., if the punishment was not severe enough to meet the crime, hate or not, it should
be increased across the board. I have changed my mind. Punishment for crimes against racial or religious
minorities for being racial or religious minorities, and peaceniks for being peacniks should be
quadrupled. Hereafter, these kinds of crimes should invoke the Elvis Act, so named after the King's
birthplace. Quadrupelo or Two-below, Mississippi. Cool! This change of heart and mind is due directly
to attacks brought to our attention by Michael Lerner, a peacenik Rabbi, who publishes Tikkun. End of rant.
From
MotherJones: In dark days, idealists need inspiration. So where might today's progressives find
such encouragement? Maybe in 1787. As Adam
Hochschild writes in the January/February issue,
that is when a small group of sat down an launched
one of the most important and far-reaching human
rights campaigns in human history: the movement
to end human slavery. Hochschild explains how
that movement, based on ideals totally at odds with
the mores of the time, defied all odds to succeed.
And he notes that its success offers an important
lesson: "Look at the problems that confront the
world today: global warming; the vast gap between
rich and poor nations; the relentless spread of
nuclear weapons; the poisoning of the earth's soil,
air, and water; the habit of war. To solve almost
any one of these, a realist might say, is surely
the work of centuries; to think otherwise is naive.
But many a hardheaded realist could - and did - say exactly the same thing to those who first
proposed to end slavery." [MORE]
In addition to the virus warning (above), our friend Carl Worden brings us an article on fake terrorism (
There is no Terrorist Threat!), practiced as though there is by the Bush White House. We also
received a heads up on a global warming matter that could
effect some minor details on agriculture and civilization. See
Global warming will plunge Britain into new ice age 'within decades' by Geoffrey Lean.
In the overnight two nights ago we received a stunning report from our friend Tom Engelhardt - more like
a letter from a friend.
Fly me to the Moon is a timely article, in that Tom shares his thoughts and some
stats on the current political doings, and he timelessly reminisces about the olde days and growing up in
an America we once knew, in the immediate aftermath of Sputnik - and what it finally all led to under
the stewardship of the Military Industrial Complex dominated Bush White House.
Fly me to the moon
By TOM ENGELHARDT
I was one of those space kids of the 1950s. An only child, bored with my life, I spent an inordinate amount of time off in space in every sense. I still wonder where those little platforms with steering mechanisms powered by jetpacks are -- the ones that pop magazines of the era swore would take us individually zipping amongst the spired towers of our cities, creating traffic jams 30 stories up. Nothing better proves to me how pathetic our ability to predict the future is -- take my previous assessment of Kerry's presidential chances for an example -- than the fact that at 59 I still find myself subway, bus, or car-bound in the big city.
Much of my night-time life back then was spent under the covers, at hours when I was supposed to be asleep, reading H. G. Wells' First Men in the Moon or The War of the Worlds by flashlight -- talk about terror wars, don't get me started on how terrified I was -- or checking out Isaac Asimov's fabulous Foundation space operas in which empires in the stars rose and fell like clockwork. In the dark at least, Asimov prepared me well enough for the present Bush administration dreams of imperial adventure in space (though they do look so shabby by comparison).
Unfortunately, when we finally reached the moon in 1969, the Vietnam War was growing ever hotter, the first pictures back looked like they were taken from inside a washing machine, and the guys bouncing around up there were about as heavily scripted for banality as the automatons in Kubrick's already released 2001: A Space Odyssey. So I put my space dreams away and focused on what was happening back on hidebound old planet Earth. But sometime in the 1970s, I found myself at the Exploratorium, San Francisco's science museum, just as the first photos from our initial probe of Jupiter were coming in. Well, I have to tell you, my heart gave a suitable little, awed pitter-pat.
All of this is to say that some boyish part of me is still primed for the idea of space exploration. But space exploitation? Or worse, the further exploitation of our own planet via space -- well, that's another story, isn't it?
The President, of course, was enthused. Like his father -- some said in "tribute" to his father, who offered a similar plan during his presidency, but in this Oedipus Wrecks of an administration that seems doubtful -- he called on us to establish a "base" on the moon by 2020 and then head for Mars. The good news is that there's even a potential "race" into space to go with his plan. Will the Chinese, our supposed future imperial competitors, get someone to the moon first? Of course, George only plans to scrape together a billion dollars for the project over numerous years by shutting down other NASA projects, starting evidently with repairs for the Hubbell telescope, and then he naturally expects someone else to pay the gargantuan bill for this "vision" somewhere off in 2010 or after, while he's sipping non-alcoholic Mai Tais in Crawford, TX. Still, something about that payment plan has a distinctly familiar ring to it. Where have I heard the idea before that we should mortgage the future to exploit the present?
So here was the President's "vision thing" on space exploration (a vision that admittedly seemed to go
over nationally with all the rocket thrust of a lead bagel), and it turns out to be subject to a little
known natural law -- I'd call it Cheney's Law. It goes: Where the vision thing advances, can Halliburton
be far behind? In fact, as it turns out, Halliburton was far ahead; so far, in fact, that Petroleum News
reported it in February 2001. [MORE]
There is no Terrorist Threat
By CARL WORDEN
Following the coordinated attacks orchestrated on 9/11/2001, in which passenger aircraft were hijacked by a small group of Muslim extremists to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, and to damage the Pentagon, there have been no significant terrorist attacks that have occurred in the entire United States since that time.
There have been no bombings of American nightclubs, movie theaters, grocery stores or shopping malls. There have been no assaults by gunmen on those attending NFL football games or any other sports events. There have been no significant attacks on any American citizens in any public or private sector since 9/11/2001.
In the meantime, both the northern and southern borders of the United States have remained largely undermanned and unguarded by the United States Government, allowing anyone to enter, smuggling anything from drugs to Russian-made SA-7 portable anti-aircraft missiles, to any other munitions domestic terrorists might want to obtain and use.
In point of fact, no terrorist threat exists, nor has it ever existed, in the mainland of the United States. If that were untrue, terrorists would have committed violent acts since 9/11/2001. They havenŒt happened. Not one.
I want to disabuse my readers from believing the incessant cacophony of internal terrorist threats issued by this amoral government: It is all a big, fat lie. If terrorists could inflict their harm upon us, they would have by now.
The pundits and the government tell America that the terrorists want to inflict another catastrophic attack similar to 9/11/2001, somehow dispensing with the obvious and massive opportunities terrorists have to inflict suffering all over America in surgical strikes.
Have you ever toured America like I have? I have lived in every niche of this massive nation. I know it by heart. We are a nation of soft targets for terrorists. Unlike Israel, we have no armed guards at checkpoints. We have no suicide bombers. There are no metal detectors at movie theaters or nightclubs. Unlike Israel, we have no heavily armed guards with machine guns on the street looking for suspected bombers or gunmen.
Why? There is no internal American terrorist threat. There never has been. If such a threat existed, it would be played out upon our city streets.
In truth, we had a small, coordinated band of Muslim misfits who hijacked passenger aircraft and did some damage to both buildings and killed citizens, with no back-up plan. There was no back-up plan to invade the United States, and incredibly, there was no back-up plan to continue further terrorist attacks. It was all over in one shot.
Think about that, and consider what has transpired in the aftermath to the basic liberties of every American. The terrorists won, and only because our own government led by George W. Bush, let them wag us.
We citizens are fools.
Carl F. Worden
Ultra-Right Jewish Haters Still Attacking Rabbi Lerner
The haters continue their disgusting assault on anyone who criticizes Ariel Sharon's policies. As usual,
Rabbi Michael Lerner is central to their assault. Ever wonder why they don't go after people on the Left
who genuinely hate Israel, but instead focus on those who actually love Israel but hate its current
policies toward Palestinians? It's easy to understand: for them, the real danger comes from those who
are actually fighting for Israel's interests but who see the Right-wing policies as destructive to the
survival of the Jewish people. These are the voices that must be discredited, and hence the pack of lies
that you can read (everything from doctored photos to total distortions) at the website below.
And they are cowards. One of the central contentions is that Rabbi Lerner is not really a rabbi‹a
libelous charge to which Tikkun has always responded with one request: please give us the address of
anyone circulating that charge, and we will sue them, and let the courts decide. The reality: Rabbi
Lerner received his rabbinic ordination the same way most orthodox, Hasidic and Renewal rabbis have
always received them: supervision by, and then testing by, a Jewish court (Beyt Din) of 3 rabbis. It is
only Reform and Conservative rabbis who invented the idea of a Seminary, but that is a new idea and not
the path that most rabbis in the world have followed. In Rabbi Lerner's case, the Beyt Din was composed
of three rabbis who themselves received orthodox ordination (Rabbi Zalman Schachter Shalomi, David Wolfe
Blank and Phil Leibowitz). Rabbi Lerner is a member of the national association of Renewal Rabbis
(called Ohala) and a member of the Northern California Board of Rabbis.
Almost daily Rabbi Lerner receives hate mail or phone calls from people who repeat (or who assume the
truth of) some of the lies and distortions printed at this hate site. Check it out-because now they are
expanding their list to some 7,000 other pro-peace activists in the U.S. [MORE]
Global warming will plunge Britain into new ice age 'within decades'
By GEOFFREY LEAN
Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming, new research
suggests.
A study, which is being taken seriously by top government scientists, has uncovered a change "of
remarkable amplitude" in the circulation of the waters of the North Atlantic.
Similar events in pre-history are known to have caused sudden "flips" of the climate, bringing
ice ages to northern Europe within a few decades. The development - described as "the largest and most
dramatic oceanic change ever measured in the era of modern instruments", by the US Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, which led the research - threatens to turn off the Gulf Stream, which keeps
Europe's weather mild.
If that happens, Britain and northern Europe are expected to switch abruptly to the climate of
Labrador - which is on the same latitude - bringing a nightmare scenario where farmland turns to tundra
and winter temperatures drop below -20C. [MORE]
Against All Odds
By ADAM HOCHSCHILD - MotherJones
The first great human-rights campaign -- the movement to end slavery in the British Empire -- had no
business succeeding. But the legacy of its extraordinary achievement lives on today. [MORE]
26JAN2004
The Wal-Martization of America Figures
in the Black Economic Game Plan
The Crimes of Big Dick Cheney - in Triplicate!
WARNING
VIRUS ALERT:
Keep your eyes open for a
new virus: The "Bagle" or "Beagle" worm, arriving in an e-mail with the subject "hi" and the
word "test" in the message body. If the accompanying attachment is executed, the worm is unleashed and
tries to send itself to all e-mails listed in the user's address book. The virus only affects machines
running Microsoft Windows operating systems. [MORE INFO]
Ed. note: The Wal-Mart/Black economic "game plan" story from The Black Commentator is terribly
important to what we're doing around here. Not just for the Black economy, but the merchant class and
the small business economy generally - something that before "globalization" and NAFTA and GATT, and
even President Johnson's "Great Society" was alive and well, and since the 1960s fit well into the
assassinations mode that too was alive and well for all except those killed.
Before the 2000 Election, there was a lot out there about Bush the W being Bush the AWOL. Thanks to the
archiving of Bush's Military Record Reveals Grounding and Absence for Two Full Years at infoclearinghouse, today we have some what
one reader introduced this way: If the results of this investigation prove true, then George W. Bush is
a craven coward, a spineless little man with a strong yellow streak, who is more than willing to send
others to their deaths in battle, but unwilling to serve his country in battle himself.
 
Bush's Military Record Reveals Grounding and Absence for Two Full Years
By EOBERT A. ROGERS (USAF - Ret) - Progressive Trail
"I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say that each of us needs to be responsible for what we do." George W. Bush in the first Presidential debate, October 3, 2000.
"I did the duty necessary ... That's why I was honorably discharged" George W. Bush, May 23, 2000
From the beginning of his Presidential campaign, George W. Bush has forcefully and repeatedly insisted that he faithfully fulfilled all his military obligations by serving his time as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
But the first independent investigation of Bush's military record by a former Air National Guard pilot has revealed the following:
1. Pilot George W. Bush did not simply "give up flying" with two years left to fly, as has been reported. Instead, Bush was suspended and grounded, very possibly as a direct or indirect result of substance abuse.
2. The crucial evidence a Flight Inquiry Board that would reveal the true reasons for Bush's suspension, as well as the punishment that was recommended, is missing from the records released so far. If no such Board was convened, this raises further questions of extraordinary favoritism.
3. Contrary to Bush's emphatic statements and several published reports, Bush never actually reported in person for the last two years of his service in direct violation of two separate written orders. Moreover, the lack of punishment for this misconduct represents the crowning achievement of a military career distinguished only by favoritism.
This in-depth investigation and analysis of Bush's apparent misconduct over the last two years of his six year obligation suggests that Bush did not fulfill all of his military obligations to the Texas Air National Guard and to his country, contrary to his repeated assertions.
Moreover, Bush's misconduct could have resulted in significant disciplinary action by his Commanding Officer, ranging in severity from temporary or permanent grounding, a career-damaging letter of reprimand, to forced reenlistment in the US Army (including active duty in Vietnam), to a less-than honorable discharge.
These issues are not trivial, nor are they ancient history. This cloud of questions goes to the heart of George W. Bush's promises to restore honor and integrity to the White House, to strengthen the military, and to speak the plain truth on the campaign trail.
If Bush had received a less-than honorable discharge, it is safe to say that he would not be the Republican candidate for President today. But the absence of any sign of severe disciplinary action in the records we obtained raises serious questions that can only be answered if Bush himself requests the release of his full military service record.
Avoiding Vietnam through Preferential Treatment
George W. Bush graduated from Yale in May of 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War when half a million young American men were fighting for their country and dying at the rate of 350 per week. Bush, who mostly distinguished himself at Yale through his social activities, vocally supported the war. But he was not prepared to put his own life on the line. He had no desire "to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam," he said.
Instead, Bush wanted to become a fighter pilot like his father, who flew heroic combat missions in the Pacific during World War II. "I wanted to fly, and that was the adventure I was seeking," he told the New York Times in July. Bush denies that he was trying to avoid combat. "One could argue that [I] was trying to avoid being the infantryman but my attitude was I'm taking the first opportunity to become a pilot and jumped on that and did my time," he said.
But Bush did not join the full time active duty military. Instead, he chose to enlist for "weekend warrior" duty in the Air National Guard, where he could fulfill his military obligation far away from the risk of combat and pursue his civilian career, including working in several Republican Senate campaigns. "Had my unit been called I would have gone ... to Vietnam," he said. But like everyone else at the time, he knew the chances of that happening were slim. And when his application form asked about an overseas assignment, he checked "do not volunteer."
Competition for the few openings in the National Guard was intense, and there was a waiting list of 100,000 nationally at the time. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on January 17, 1968. He scored 25%, the lowest possible passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion. On his application form, he listed his "background qualifications" as "none." But despite the waiting list, his low score and his lack of qualifications, Bush was given a highly-coveted spot and was sworn in on May 27 for a six-year commitment, taking a solemn oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America.
Bush and his father have adamantly denied that he received preferential treatment, despite the fact that his father was then a U.S. Representative from Texas and his grandfather Prescott had been a prominent U.S. Senator from Connecticut. But the Speaker of the House in Texas at the time, Ben Barnes, admitted under oath last year that he had received a request from a longtime Bush family friend, Sidney Adger of Houston, to help Bush get into the Air National Guard. Barnes further testified that he contacted the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, to pass along Adger's request.
When asked about this sworn testimony, Bush was evasive: "I have no idea and I don't believe so," he said. But according to the Boston Globe, Bush "vaulted to the top of a waiting list of 500."
This preferential treatment in gaining entry to the Air National Guard set the pattern for Bush's treatment throughout his six-year obligation, including his rapid promotion to pilot and 1st Lieutenant, his sudden disappearance from the skies with two years left to fly, and his failure to report for a single day of duty in his final two years contrary to two specific orders.
After he completed only six weeks of basic airman training, Bush received a commission as a second lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard. This was by means of a 'special appointment' by the commanding officer of his squadron, with the approval of a panel of three senior officers. This 2nd Lt. commission was extraordinary, since it normally required eight full semesters of college ROTC courses or eighteen months of military service or completion of Air Force officer training school. It was so unusual that Tom Hail, the Texas National Guard historian, told the Los Angeles Times that he "never heard of that" except for flight surgeons.
Despite a score of only 25% on his pilot entrance aptitude test, Bush was then assigned to flight school, a posting that was normally reserved to pilots graduating from ROTC training or Air Force officer training. That was immediately followed by further favoritism in being 'fast tracked' over those on the existing pilot applicant waiting list into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, a standby runway alert component of the 143rd Group, one of several tactical Guard units responsible for defending the Southern coast of the Continental U.S. against attack.
Along with the rest of his squadron, Bush was trained to fly the missile-equipped supersonic F-102 Delta Dart jet interceptor fighter. By July of 1970, Bush had earned his wings and racked up approximately 300 hours of training flight time in the F-102. This qualified him to fly the F-102 without an instructor, but was far short of the 500 hours of experience required for volunteer active duty combat operations in Vietnam.
At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small amount of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three month Vietnam tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once again to overcome his lack of readiness, or perhaps safe in the knowledge that his request would certainly be rejected.
When Bush was summarily turned down for this volunteer active duty option, he was left to fly as a "weekend warrior" in the Texas Air National Guard out of Ellington AFB near Houston Texas. On November 3, 1970, while Bush's father was being re-elected to Congress from Houston, Bush was promoted to 1st Lieutenant by Brig. General Rose, the same man who got Bush into the Texas National Guard at the request of the Bush family friend.
The Clouds Set In
The newly-released records reveal that 1st Lt. Bush was credited with 46 days of flight duty from June 1970 to May 1971, expected Guard weekend duty and 'extra' runway standby alert time for that year. However, that would be the last time that Bush fully met his qualified jet fighter pilot obligation to serve four complete years as a fully trained and qualified fighter pilot.
Beginning sometime after May of 1971, Bush stopped living up to his sworn obligation to the Texas Air National Guard and thereby his country. By May of 1972, he was credited with only 22 flight duty days, 14 days short of the minimum 36 days he owed the Guard for that year. And then things went from bad to worse.
Astonishingly, Bush suddenly disappeared from the skies altogether near the start of his fourth year. Bush flew for the last time in the cockpit of an F-102 in April of 1972. From that point on, Bush never flew again, in spite of the fact that he still had two full years remaining of his six-year pilot service commitment. And on May 15, 1972, Bush simply "cleared this base" according to a written report by one of his two Squadron supervising officers, Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr.
On May 24, Bush requested in writing a six-month transfer to an inactive postal Reserve unit in Alabama, for the stated purpose of working on the campaign of a Republican Senate candidate. If Bush had been temporarily transferred there, he would not have continued flying until he returned to Texas, because the Alabama unit had no airplanes.
In fact, Bush's transfer request was denied by National Guard Bureau headquarters on May 31 1972, and Bush should have returned to his base in Houston and continued with his flying duties. Instead, he remained in Alabama until late in the fall. And something critical happened on August 1, 1972 George W. Bush was summarily suspended from flying duties.
1. Was pilot George W. Bush suspended and grounded with two years left to fly as a direct or indirect result of substance abuse?
"George Walker Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot or hashish or speed ... As far as kicks are concerned, Lt. Bush gets his from the roaring afterburner of the F-102." Texas Air National Guard press release, March 1970.
There is no dispute that George W. Bush stopped flying with two years left in his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard and to his country at the height of the Vietnam War. The big question that has never been satisfactorily answered is: Why?
According to the Boston Globe - the only major publication that has examined the last two years of Bush's military service in depth - Bush simply "gave up flying" to spend six months on a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama.
But this explanation is highly suspect, because fully trained and currently qualified pilots with two remaining years of flying obligation are rarely permitted to simply "give up" without some form of disciplinary action beyond just suspension.
A pilot's completion of his six-year obligation is especially important because of the heavy investment the Government makes to provide jet fighter pilots with two full years of active duty training. In today's money, the US Government paid close to a million dollars to train 1st Lt. Bush in a highly complex supersonic aircraft.
One of Bush's newly-released service documents provides a significant clue to his sudden disappearance from the skies. In a confirmation memo to the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force dated September 29, 1972, Major General Francis Greenleaf, then Chief of the National Guard Bureau in Washington DC, confirmed the suspension of 1st Lt. George W. Bush from flying status. This written confirmation cites an earlier August 1, 1972 verbal order of the TX 147th Group's Commanding Officer that suspended and grounded Bush from flying duty for "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
There are two ways to interpret this crucial memo: either 1st Lt. Bush took his mandatory annual flight physical for pilots and failed it for some as-yet undisclosed reason, or he refused to present himself in the first place to an Air Force Flight Surgeon, who were readily available in almost every state.
Campaign officials originally brushed off this crucial event by suggesting that Bush was simply unable to travel to Houston to visit his family physician. But the Boston Globe reported that Air Force Flight Surgeons were assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery Alabama, where he was then living.
More recently, campaign officials claimed that Bush did not technically need to take his flight physical. "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam," campaign spokesman Don Bartlett told the London Times in June. But this assertion is false, because Bush was technically still qualified to fly until after his "failure to accomplish annual medical examination," which led to his suspension and grounding. Moreover, Bush should have been flying from his home base in Texas at the time of his scheduled annual physical in August, because his request for a transfer to Alabama had been rejected on May 31.
Bush's spokesman admitted that Bush "knew the suspension would take place" if he failed to complete his mandatory annual flight physical. But he writes it off to mere red tape, saying "it was just a question of following the bureaucratic procedure of the time."
But this suspension meant, at least momentarily, the end of his dream to be a pilot. This was something he worked hard to achieve, something he was proud of and bragged about, something important to his family, and something that senior Texas Air National Guard officials had gone to great lengths to make possible. Therefore, Bush's "failure to accomplish annual medical examination," could not have been either casual or accidental.
Moreover, Bush had to have known that this suspension could subject him to a punishment beyond just temporary suspension. In fact, Bush could have been permanently suspended or even reprimanded for his actions.
Why would a physical exam present a problem for 1st Lt. Bush? A little-know fact reported in the London Times and the New York Post on June 18, 2000 gives a powerful clue. In April 1972 the same month that Bush "gave up" flying all the overseas and stateside military services began subjecting a small random sample in their ranks to substance abuse testing for alcohol and drugs. The Pentagon had announced its intention to do so initially back on December 31, 1969. If Bush reported for his scheduled physical in August 1972, he could have been subject to selection for a random substance abuse test.
Bush's spokesman told the London Times that Bush "was not aware of any changes that required a drug test." But this does not hold up under scrutiny. In 1969 the year following Bush's enlistment the Pentagon notified every unit in the military that it would implement random drug testing at some point in the near future. When that moment arrived April 1972 every enlisted person and officer throughout the military, both overseas and stateside, would have been aware of this dramatic change. After all, the whole purpose of the random drug testing was to make it absolutely clear to everyone in the Armed Forces that the Pentagon would not tolerate substance abuse of any kind by anyone.
There is circumstantial evidence pointing to substance abuse by Bush during this period. On the campaign trail, Bush has stated that he has not used drugs or alcohol in excess since 1974. But this chronology makes it possible that he was in fact abusing one or more of these substances in the summer of 1972.
Moreover, interviews with friends during this period reveal that Bush partied and drank regularly, and Bush admits he was a hard drinker at the time. And over the Christmas holidays, Bush got into a widely-reported emotional showdown with his father after taking his 16-year-old brother Marvin drinking, hitting garbage cans while driving home.
Thus, the September 29 memo is a "smoking jet" which points to a potentially devastating interpretation: that Bush stopped flying two years short of his obligation because of substance abuse either directly, because he failed his physical exam, or indirectly, because he refused to take it out of fear that he would fail it.
Is it unreasonable to raise the possibility that 1st Lt. Bush was suspended from flying as a direct or indirect consequence of substance abuse? It might be if there was no way for Bush to prove his innocence. But George W. Bush can readily defend himself, if he so chooses, simply by voluntarily releasing his complete military record.
A voluntary disclosure of this kind is not without precedent. During the South Carolina Republican primary this campaign year, rumors were spread by fellow Senators about Senator John McCain's mental health as a result of his imprisonment as a POW. McCain immediately quashed those rumors by voluntarily releasing his entire military record, which confirmed no indications of adverse physical or mental conditions.
Thus, Bush could easily put to rest the questions surrounding "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination" and his subsequent suspension if he would simply release his complete military service record, which cannot be released by the Air Force without Bush's explicit consent.
2. Was a Flight Inquiry Board of senior Air Force officers convened to determine the appropriate punishment for Bush's misconduct?
Regardless of the explanation for Bush's suspension, there is another crucial question: Was this suspension sufficient disciplinary action for such a flagrant dereliction of duty at a time when the Air Force was reeling from a serious pilot shortage at the peak of the Vietnam War?
In the Air National Guard, expensively trained pilots are not casually suspended. There is normally a Flight Inquiry Board, which exercises the military chain of command's obligation to insure due process. If one had been convened, its three senior officer members would have documented why such a severe action was justified in relation to the country's military objectives at the time, as opposed to the simple desire of a trained pilot to just "give up flying".
In the event of serious misconduct, such as substance abuse, a Flight Inquiry Board would have determined the appropriate punishment. The punishments could have included temporary or permanent 'grounding,' a career-damaging letter of reprimand, forced reenlistment in the US Army with active duty in Vietnam, or a less-than honorable discharge.
In fact, there is no evidence now in the public domain that a Flight Inquiry Board was convened to deal with Bush's official reclassification to a non-flying, grounded status. However, the records of such a Board would not be subject to an ordinary FOIA request because of privacy protections under FOIA.
This absence of a Flight Inquiry Board is of particular interest to veteran pilots who are intimately familiar with normal disciplinary procedures. In the absence of Bush's releasing his complete service record, the implication is that Bush's misconduct in regards to "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination" was handled like everything else in his military service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections with total disregard for the needs of the military as well as Bush's solemn oath.
Once again, the only way to get to the truth would be for George W. Bush to personally request the release of his full military records.
3. Did Bush altogether dodge his subsequent scheduled Guard duty obligations for two years after his grounding, and should he have received additional punishment for this misconduct?
"I spent my time and I went to the Guard. It's just not true. I did the duty necessary...any allegations other than that are simply not true." (George W. Bush, May 23, 2000, CNN)
The questions about Bush's unfulfilled service record do not end with his suspension and effective grounding on August 1, 1972. The central question for the remaining two years is whether he fully and legitimately completed his original six-year attendance obligation to the Texas Air Guard and his country, as sworn under oath upon his enlistment, or if he simply dodged his remaining non-flying duties.
Bush has said repeatedly that he completed his service obligations. But a careful review of his record tells a very different story.
On September 5, 1972, more than three months after his transfer request to an inactive Alabama unit was refused, Bush was finally ordered to start serving three months in an active but non-flying administrative Guard unit, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Alabama, for four certain duty days in October and November.
Despite this direct written order, there is no official notation in his service record that Bush ever showed up for any of this duty. General William Turnipseed and Lt. Col. Kenneth Lott, who commanded the base at the time, told the Boston Globe that Bush never appeared. "To my knowledge, he never showed up," Turnipseed said in May.
Bush insists he did, according to the Dallas Morning News. "I was there on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time. I made up some missed weekends. I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations," he said while campaigning in Alabama on June 23.
But the Bush campaign conducted its own search of Bush's military records, and could not find evidence that Bush performed any duty in Alabama, the Dallas Morning News reported. The only published reports were from personal friends who say they remember Bush telling him that he planned to report for duty, but no reports of anyone in the Guard who actually saw him. Moreover, Interceptor Magazine, a monthly official National Guard publication distributed nationwide, ran advertisements asking for anyone to step forward who remembered seeing Bush on duty. This inquiry came up empty-handed.
This raises the next question of whether 1st Lt. Bush was intentionally absent from assigned duty contrary to a specific written order, which is the civilian/Guard Airman equivalent of AWOL. This absence could normally result in disciplinary action beyond a slap on the wrist by his parent Squadron's Commanding Officer.
When the three-month term of his apparently unfulfilled temporary order in Alabama ended in November 1972, Bush returned home to Houston Texas until the fall of 1973. However, he again did not report in person for non-flying duty to his parent Texas 111th Squadron during this whole time.
Bush offers a different excuse for this period: that the 111th Squadron was switching to a newer jet, so he could not fly. But the unit's commander told the Boston Globe that Bush could have continued to fly the F-102, which remained in service in his unit past the end of Bush's six-year commitment. "If [Bush] had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out," he said. "But I don't recall him coming back at all." Given that this Commanding Officer used Bush extensively for publicity and recruiting purposes during his flying days, it is unlikely that he would have simply forgotten Bush from the day he wrote that Bush "cleared the base" in May 1972.
Still, Bush reappeared on the Texas Air Guard's radar screen in May 1973. Bush was ordered to attend nine certain duty days in person during Summer Camp at Ellington AFB between May 22 and June 7. But 1st Lt. Bush did not do so making him apparently absent contrary to a specific written order for a second time in less than a year.
According to the Boston Globe, Bush "spent 36 days on duty" from May until July of 1973, but this is a clear misunderstanding of the record. Our more recent FOIA request produced an unsigned and undated one page listing of 35 inactive Reserve temporary duty credit days starting May 25 through July 30, 1973. This document is a paper confirmation that Bush did not actually report for duty in person at the Texas Air National Guard on any of these days. In addition, no one in the Texas Air Guard at the time, from the top command down, has stepped forward to say they saw Bush in person on a single day between May 22 and July 30, 1973 just as no one saw Bush during his three month assignment in Alabama.
Instead, Bush in fact was credited with 35 "gratuitous" inactive Air Force Reserve points in other words, non-attendance inactive Reserve credit time. The proof that this time was "gratuitous" is the absence of any Bush duty time of any kind on his official Texas Air National Guard record all the way from the May 26 1972 entry of 22 pilot duty days for the prior year. This is because "gratuitous" time does not count as scheduled Texas Air Guard duty. This leaves Bush without a single legitimate Texas Air National Guard service day for his fifth and sixth years of service to his Texas Air National Guard discharge on October 1, 1973 a critical fact that has been misunderstood in several previous reports of this period of Bush's service.
On October 1, 1973 fully eight months short of his full six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge on May 26, 1974 Bush was prematurely discharged with honors from the Texas Air Guard, in spite of his failure to report in person for any for duty over the prior 18 months. This is the very last entry on his official half-page Texas Air Guard service record. Another Reserve archive record released under our FOIA request goes on to indicate eventual final inactive Reserve discharge with honors in November 1974, but civilian Bush was attending Harvard Business School as a full-time student by that time.
There was no record received under our FOIA request that indicate any more Reserve credit beyond July 30, 1973. This is also puzzling, but does not add any further insight into the fractured Texas Air National Guard attendance pattern after April 1972.
Conclusion
Anyone seeking to be President of the United States and its Commander in Chief, and who has campaigned specifically on a promise to restore honor and integrity to the office, strengthen the military, and tell the plain truth, should be prepared to discuss his past record of service to his country. Candidate Bush has a duty to the American people, as well as his fellow military comrades-in-arms, to fully and accurately answer all of these grave questions about his exceedingly convenient and prematurely short military service.
Bush's available service records raise very serious questions that reflect heavily on his
qualifications for President. By disclosing the full contents of his official service record, Bush
could clear up the cloud of questions that still linger 32 years after his first oath to the United
States. [MORE]
McNamara on Iraq
By DANNY SCHECHTER - mediachannel.org
Interesting (and still unreported in the US) is his take on Iraq. A column in Toronto's Globe and Mail
by Doug Saunders reports that McNamara is more outspoken about that war than about his own.
He decided to break his silence on Iraq when I called him up the other day at his Washington office. I
told him that his carefully enumerated lists of historic lessons from Vietnam were in danger of being
ignored. He agreed, and told me that he was deeply frustrated to see history repeating itself.
"We're misusing our influence," he said in a staccato voice that had lost none of its rapid-fire
engagement. "It's just wrong what we're doing. It's morally wrong, it's politically wrong, it's
economically wrong."
"While he did not want to talk on the record about specific military decisions made Mr. Rumsfeld, he
said the United States is fighting a war that he believes is totally unnecessary and has managed to
destroy important relationships with potential allies. "There have been times in the last year when I
was just utterly disgusted by our position, the United States' position vis-à-vis the other nations of
the world." [MORE]
"It's just wrong what we're doing"
By DOUG SAUNDERS - Globe and Mail
[FULL TEXT]
We have been complaining about racial profiling and Ashcroft's Patriot Act since 9/11. In the Passion of
Christ piece (below), we re-address these issues.
While the Bush White House (Rove as Bush-in-Drag) is a convenient catch-all for the ills of the United
States and Iraq and Afghanistan, the real power of plunder is Big Dick Cheney, who right along with
George W Bush should but won't be impeached - only because the Congress and Senate are dominated by the
Bush White House rubber-stamp Republicans. Today, we present a Trilogy of Big Dick Cheney accusations
that in a better day might be converted into indictments that lead Big Dick "The Monopolist" Cheney right
straight to jail - without passing "Go!" Thanks to Michael Ruppert for some of the Cheney materials.
As an extra Halliburton story, we like the one about the advance warning they got so they quick went
public, fired some employees involved in a kickback scheme, and will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for $6.3 million in overcharges by a subcontractor, y'dig. It really wasn't their fault. [MORE]
Also see the
60 Minutes Halliburton bit on their website.
From Common Cause we
also have some news on
Halliburton dealings in Iran, and finally before getting to the meat,
see Cheney Cites Leaked Intelligence on Iraq-Al Qaeda at Daily Mis-Lead.
Under Bush-era bad news and Populist poppycock pop, pop, pop, according to Sara Brady, the Senate vote
makes it easier for dangerous criminals, the mentally ill and terrorists to get guns, and now the most
reckless gun dealers in the nation are protected. - Thanks to Matt Bivens Daily Outrage.
For the latest weather news check with
The Weather Channel; for he latest news on Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson and Laci Peterson, check
with Geraldo Rivera and
Faux News, which unlike ABC-News, does have a connection to Mickey Mouse.
There was always something wierd about Dean. Now at least, maybe even for the wrong
reasons, the support for Dean will go elsewhere. Dennis Kucinich (who has a new vegetarian cook book on
his www.kucinich.us website), best reflects our views
on the Bush White House war in Afghanistan and Iraq, NAFTA, education, taxes, the environment, the
Patriot Act, and most other things. We welcome Kerry as the new front-runner, even though we're still
looking at Wes Clark and Hillary to capture the nomination.
Overnight, we received some poll results from Al Giordano, who on the night before the
2000 Election presented us with stats showing Gore the winner. Of course, Alberto's stats were
correct, and as is also explained in
The Wal-Martization of America Figures in the Black Economic Game Plan, none of the stat gatherers
had anticipated the theft of the election and the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court "selection" of George W
Bush over Gore - no matter he didn't invent the Internet.
Two (nearly identical) stories on White House Fears Free Elections in Iraq and White House Fears
Free Elections in the U.S., are separated only by a nice Demo Candidates see Dirty Tricks article.
Passion of the Christ: "It is as it was"
AL-JAZEERA
The film The Passion of the Christ is a month away from release but the controversy surrounding it is already producer Mel Gibson's cross to bear
"I anticipate the worst is yet to come," Gibson said at the Global Pastors Network conference in Orlando, Florida.
The film, which depicts Jesus Christ's last 12 earthly hours, has been lauded for its historical accuracy - and accused of being anti-Jewish.
Gibson urged the pastors to take youth groups to see the film, despite the R rating it earned for the graphic depiction of the crucifixion, Gibson's publicist, Paul Lauer told the BBC.
"I hope I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong," Gibson, a conservative Catholic, told the 3500 evangelical pastors.
Gibson will find out on 25 February, when the film is released on Ash Wednesday, the holiday that marks two days before Christians believe Christ was crucified.
The film "represents a disturbing setback to the remarkable achievements in Christian-Jewish relations over the past 40 years," the American Jewish Committee said on Thursday in a statement.
"Foremost among problems with the Gibson film is the inclusion of verses 27:15-25 from the Book of
Matthew...
[15] Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a [condemned] prisoner, whom they would.
[16] And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
[17] Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
[18] For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
[19] When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
[20] But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
[21] The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
[22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
[25] Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
...the verses that blames Jews for Jesus' death and was repudiated by Vatican II in 1965," said
the committee, some of whose members have seen the film.
Gibson belongs to an ultra-conservative Catholic group that does not recognise the reforms of
Vatican II [which absolved Jews as "Christ killers"] and celebrates mass in Latin.
The star of Lethal Weapon and Oscar winner for his role in Braveheart took more than $25 million out of
his own pocket for the filming in Rome. He wrote the script, produced and directed the film and hired
Jim Caveziel to play Christ and Italian actress Monica Belluci as Mary Magdalene.
Anti-Jewish
Even Pope John Paul II is said to have weighed in on the debate. Some US media reported that the pope
praised the film with his "It is as it was" quote. Vatican sources denied those reports on Thursday and
confirmed only that the pontiff had attended a private screening of the film in December.
"We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, could fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate," Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman said.
"The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus."
The film attempts to portray life 2000 years ago, with characters who speak Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles, earning the approval of conservative Christian groups.
"The film is going to be a classic," said Dean Hudson, editor of
the Catholic magazine Crisis.
"It is going to be the 'go-to' film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the passion of Christ."
More liberal institutions disagree. "We are really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations," Mary Boys, of the non-denominational New York Theological Seminary, told the Guardian.
The last film to kick up such a controversy was Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ in
1988. [MORE]
Ed. note: In the bracquets (above and below), are my notes. The Bible quote above is from the King James Version, and as most people know, it was
commissioned in 1610 to be written by Willie Shakespeare, a typical anti-Semite of his (1564-1616) day; i.e., Jews
were expelled from England in 1290 on All Saints' Day by Edward I.
In the 46th Psalm, you may see where Willie signed his name and age (46) to his
lower-case creation - count forty-six words down from the top to "shake", and then in forty-six
up from the bottom to "spear". Selah.
[1] God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
[2] Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into
the midst of the sea;
[3] Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling
thereof. Selah.
[4] There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the
tabernacles of the most High.
[5] God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.
[6] The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
[7] The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
[8] Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
[9] He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth
the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
[10] Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the
earth.
[11] The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
Although both are controversial, Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, merely portray's Jesus as
a whoremonger, for which Scorsese took the heat, whereas Gibson's socially irresponsible movie
perpetuates the KJV's anti-Semitic tale about the Jews leaving no way around the demise
of Jesus, in asking that the life of the fictional Barabbas be spared.
The Jews have stood silent over the centuries as the KJV Christians conveniently referred to Isaac
as Father Abramham's "only" son, thereby denying the legitimacy of Ishmael, which has created havoc
for Muslims even since the Crusades.
According to a poll taken in England, Scotland and Wales by Britain's
Jewish Chronicle newspaper, nearly one in five Britons says a Jew would not make an acceptable prime
minister, and almost one in seven believes the scale of the Holocaust is exaggerated.
Combining this latest poll information, the Mel Gibson movie, and the perception that Jews world
wide condone how the Aparthied-like Zionists treat Palestinians in Israel, these are not the best of
times for Jews or Palestinians, nor in this post 9/11 era, Muslims living in Iraq, Afghanistan
and the West. - Thanks to Haaretz
Spalding Gray * Latest News
Of course the White House fears free elections in Iraq
By NAOMI KLINE - The Guardian
Only an appointocracy can be trusted to accept US troops and corporations
"The people of Iraq are free," declared President Bush in his state of the union address on Tuesday. The previous day, 100,000 Iraqis begged to differ. They took to Baghdad's streets, shouting: "Yes, yes to elections. No, no to selection."
According to Iraq occupation chief Paul Bremer, there really is no difference between the White House's version of freedom and the one being demanded on the street. Asked whether his plan to form an Iraqi government through appointed caucuses was heading towards a clash with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's call for direct elections, Bremer said he had no "fundamental disagreement with him".
It was, he said, a mere quibble over details. "I don't want to go into the technical details of refinements. There are - if you talk to experts in these matters - all kinds of ways to organise partial elections and caucuses. And I'm not an election expert, so I don't want to go into the details. But we've always said we're willing to consider refinements."
I'm not an election expert either, but I'm pretty sure there are differences here that cannot be refined. Al-Sistani's supporters want all |
