Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Teacher and war mom fired for mentioning peace in her class
While George W. Bush suggests that "intelligence design" should be taught in school together with science, it seems that peace cannot be taught nor mentioned in class. A teacher got fired for discussing the issue of peace in class (read here)
Had she mentioned war, slaughter, trucidation, disfiguration, mutilation, torture, that would have probably been ok.
What's next in the USA? Shall the "dangerous" people who believe in peace - from now on - be obliged to wear a rainbow-coloured star on their jacket, so that the pious pro-war people can spot them right away? Should they all lose their jobs? I mean cases have emerged in which peaceful protesters are investigated as potential terrorists (read here).
Fascism can start in a slow, creeping way.
While George W. Bush suggests that "intelligence design" should be taught in school together with science, it seems that peace cannot be taught nor mentioned in class. A teacher got fired for discussing the issue of peace in class (read here)
Had she mentioned war, slaughter, trucidation, disfiguration, mutilation, torture, that would have probably been ok.
What's next in the USA? Shall the "dangerous" people who believe in peace - from now on - be obliged to wear a rainbow-coloured star on their jacket, so that the pious pro-war people can spot them right away? Should they all lose their jobs? I mean cases have emerged in which peaceful protesters are investigated as potential terrorists (read here).
Fascism can start in a slow, creeping way.
A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak
January 28, 2004
Updated January 29, 2004
Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored. The following is year-by-year timeline of those warnings.
Click here to read it.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
German Environment Minister: "U.S. partly to blame for Katrina Hurricane"
According to German Environment Minister Jurgen Trittin, the increased frequency of hurricanes such as Katrina is also due to the effects of global warming.
As it is known, the White House has refused to sign the Kyoto agreement on greehouse gas reductions. While Germany has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 18.5% since 1990, the United States has kept increasing its production.
"An American citizen causes about two and a half times as much greenhouse gas as the average European," said Trittin.
[source here]
According to German Environment Minister Jurgen Trittin, the increased frequency of hurricanes such as Katrina is also due to the effects of global warming.
As it is known, the White House has refused to sign the Kyoto agreement on greehouse gas reductions. While Germany has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 18.5% since 1990, the United States has kept increasing its production.
"An American citizen causes about two and a half times as much greenhouse gas as the average European," said Trittin.
[source here]
The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals – Edward Abbey
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. – George McGovern
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. – George McGovern
John Bolton's proposal of 750 amendments to the UN reform document due next month
Read what George Kennan was writing in 1948:
“U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:
Our real task... is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military- economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” - George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning. U.S. State Department. 1948
Read what George Kennan was writing in 1948:
“U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:
Our real task... is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military- economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” - George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning. U.S. State Department. 1948
-----
Considering US' myopic policies in the Middle East, their tendency to step over international laws, to disrepect the sovereignity of countries, to interpret in a very 'personal' way the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and to not care about the problems tackled by the Kyoto Protocol, I think it appears clear that what George Kennan wrote in 1948 has become the de facto underlying philosophy of American policies.
John Bolton's (Washington's new ambassador to the United Nations) proposal of 750 amendments to the UN reform document due next month (elaborated over the past year to reshape the world body and to tackle global poverty and environmental problems) go in the direction of privileging American interests over the common interests of all the countries in the world.
John Bolton was the same person who stated 'There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.'
Monday, August 29, 2005
The last album by the Rolling Stones
The last album by the Rolling Stones, A Bigger Bang, sounds like a really good one. You can listen to four songs in their Web site here.
The last album by the Rolling Stones, A Bigger Bang, sounds like a really good one. You can listen to four songs in their Web site here.
Mr. Russert: Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?
Gen. Clark: Well, I think it was a strategic blunder. First it wasn't connected to the war on terror, at least not to the people that struck us. Secondly, it has proved a huge recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. It's a feed lot for terrorists who want to learn how to fight Americans. We put our American soldiers at risk there. And we're producing terrorists out there. It's a training ground. And seeing American soldiers engaged there just raises the temperature and the blood pressure throughout the Islamic world. So I wish we hadn't done it. But having said that, I still believe there's an opportunity to make the best of a bad situation in Iraq. I don't want to see us come out of there if we can put a strategy together that will leave that region more peaceful and protect our interests and the interests of the other nations.
Mr. Russert: Would Iraq have been more stable with Saddam Hussein?
Gen. Clark: I think we could have worked against Saddam Hussein in a different way. We hadn't exhausted the diplomatic process. We hadn't finished squeezing him. There were lots of different moves we could have put on Saddam Hussein and maintained the focus on Afghanistan, where we've still got significant problems. We really haven't addressed the issues of Pakistan yet. We really haven't worked the whole arrangement of militant Wahabism coming out of Saudi Arabia, the funding, the ideology. If we're going to succeed in the war on terror, we have to succeed first on an ideological basis. It's about persuading people that they don't want to feel this way and that they shouldn't feel this way. It's about changing minds before it's about killing people.
-----
Read NBC News' Meet the Press transcript here. Zalmay Khalilzad, Wesley Clark, Wayne Downing , Barry McCaffrey & Montgomery Meigs talk discuss over Iraq.
A new concept of patriotism
People have to pursue a new concept of patriotism, encompassing the interests of all the peoples on earth, and not just those of a single nation as seen by its industrial-military-political apparatus.
A patriotism for humanity, a patriotism for peace.
People have to pursue a new concept of patriotism, encompassing the interests of all the peoples on earth, and not just those of a single nation as seen by its industrial-military-political apparatus.
A patriotism for humanity, a patriotism for peace.
A beautiful photoreportage from Crawford
Via Raw Story I found a beautiful blog, Alaska Gyrl in Crawford, a commented photoreportage on Camp Casey in Crawford, the camp that has grown spontaneously around Cindy Sheehan, to ask for truth about the war on Iraq.
The photos are really beautiful and moving, and convey the passion, the ideals, the hopes and the beauty of the people fighting for truth and peace in Crawford.
Alaska Gyrl's comment to this picture taken at Camp Casey and appearing in her blog: "It's never too early to teach your children about the importance of your civil rights. ...Protesting 101."
Via Raw Story I found a beautiful blog, Alaska Gyrl in Crawford, a commented photoreportage on Camp Casey in Crawford, the camp that has grown spontaneously around Cindy Sheehan, to ask for truth about the war on Iraq.
The photos are really beautiful and moving, and convey the passion, the ideals, the hopes and the beauty of the people fighting for truth and peace in Crawford.
Alaska Gyrl's comment to this picture taken at Camp Casey and appearing in her blog: "It's never too early to teach your children about the importance of your civil rights. ...Protesting 101."
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Is George W. Bush losing it?
An article on Capitol Hill Blue raises alarming doubts that it may be so.
Excerpt:
An article on Capitol Hill Blue raises alarming doubts that it may be so.
Excerpt:
While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him. “I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”
[...] “Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he [Bush] screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”
Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go fuck yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.
Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.
To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says. [...]
Read the whole article here. It reveals disconcerting details.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
The IQ obsession
BBC News has published a story on a study to be published in the British Journal of Psychology which says that men's IQ score is on average five points higher than women.
Even admitting that certain mental features can be measured (and in this respect 5 points in my opinion are nothing), there remains the fact that a person is not defined by measurable intelligence only.
There are many other aspects certainly more important than intelligence. Creativity and emotional balance for instance. A person with a high-IQ can be a fool if his/her intelligence is not in harmony with the numerous other features of which the whole of a human being consists.
People should keep in mind that individual features do not matter, it is the harmony of the whole that matters.
Unfortunately in the immense machine which reality seems to turn into, we fall in the obsession to measure everything, to make sure we fit, with efficiency, in the perceived expectations of the system.
But life is not a machine. What does it matter, for instance, to score 5 points more or less in an IQ test if we are foreign to ourselves, if we don't feel, if we are mere gears of a machine, if we are thousands miles away from a crumb of happiness?
Even admitting that certain mental features can be measured (and in this respect 5 points in my opinion are nothing), there remains the fact that a person is not defined by measurable intelligence only.
There are many other aspects certainly more important than intelligence. Creativity and emotional balance for instance. A person with a high-IQ can be a fool if his/her intelligence is not in harmony with the numerous other features of which the whole of a human being consists.
People should keep in mind that individual features do not matter, it is the harmony of the whole that matters.
Unfortunately in the immense machine which reality seems to turn into, we fall in the obsession to measure everything, to make sure we fit, with efficiency, in the perceived expectations of the system.
But life is not a machine. What does it matter, for instance, to score 5 points more or less in an IQ test if we are foreign to ourselves, if we don't feel, if we are mere gears of a machine, if we are thousands miles away from a crumb of happiness?
2/3/2005 - What I Heard about Iraq, a text written by Eliot Weinberger, gives the magnitude of the bullshitting prior and after the invasion of Iraq, as well as a picture of the cynicism of the Bush administration.
One of the quotes in the text is a sentence by Donald Rumsfeld: ‘Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war’
A revealing thought of what war is about to Rumsfeld: obviously a game of power whose fun is unfortunately disturbed by death which tends to encourage a depressing view. How idiotic does that sound? Talking about being out of touch with reality.
A revealing thought of what war is about to Rumsfeld: obviously a game of power whose fun is unfortunately disturbed by death which tends to encourage a depressing view. How idiotic does that sound? Talking about being out of touch with reality.
From In These Times
Radioactive Wounds of War
Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq
By Dave Lindorff
Gerard Matthew thought he was lucky. He returned from his Iraq tour a year and a half ago alive and in one piece. But after the New York State National Guardsman got home, he learned that a bunkmate, Sgt. Ray Ramos, and a group of N.Y. Guard members from another unit had accepted an offer by the New York Daily News and reporter Juan Gonzalez to be tested for depleted uranium (DU) contamination, and had tested positive.
Matthew, 31, decided that since he’d spent much of his time in Iraq lugging around DU-damaged equipment, he’d better get tested too. It turned out he was the most contaminated of them all.
Read the whole article here.
Matthew, 31, decided that since he’d spent much of his time in Iraq lugging around DU-damaged equipment, he’d better get tested too. It turned out he was the most contaminated of them all.
Read the whole article here.
At 40% it is the lowest to date
Bush Approval Rating Continues to Drop
Read the data here.
Friday, August 26, 2005
The smearing of Cindy Sheehan
Mark Williams reaches a new low of vulgarity
When on FoxNews (why that does not surprise me?) Mark Williams smears Cindy Sheehan by claiming that: "Cindy Sheehan is on a mission to figuratively urinate on her son's grave and make his death stand for nothing", we can but consider this yet a new low in the seemingly bottomless pit of appalling vulgarity amongst those who oppose the battle of Cindy Sheehan.
In his words there is nothing that resembles a balanced criticism of Cindy Sheehan's arguments, but only a personal attack filled with assumptions regarding the supposed concealed reasons that drive Cindy Sheehan's battle. As if Mr. Williams could read in the conscience of others, as if he could know what's in Cindy Sheehan's heart. Obviously not.
There's only malevolence and hatred in his words, truly amongst the most vulgar and disgusting ones I have happened to read in recent times.
Shameful that they should be broadcasted. But then again, perhaps useful. Maybe people will understand that if someone can attack Cindy Sheehan in such a brutal and venomous way, then maybe that's because Cindy Sheehan has touched a nerve: the lies of this administration are emerging to light, and their strenuous, maddened defensors are just too afraid that their world filled with official rhetoric get shattered.
It has been said that Cindy Sheehan does not honour her son.
Well, I believe that not only for Cindy Sheehan, but for all Americans there's no better way to honour those who died than revealing the lies and the deception that have led to the war on Iraq, and have ultimately caused their death.
Also, when a soldier serves his country, he serves first and before all an ideal of truth and justice. Exactly that ideal that this administration has betrayed.
And it is for this ideal that Cindy Sheehan's battle is the best way to honour her son and his fellow soldiers.
When on FoxNews (why that does not surprise me?) Mark Williams smears Cindy Sheehan by claiming that: "Cindy Sheehan is on a mission to figuratively urinate on her son's grave and make his death stand for nothing", we can but consider this yet a new low in the seemingly bottomless pit of appalling vulgarity amongst those who oppose the battle of Cindy Sheehan.
In his words there is nothing that resembles a balanced criticism of Cindy Sheehan's arguments, but only a personal attack filled with assumptions regarding the supposed concealed reasons that drive Cindy Sheehan's battle. As if Mr. Williams could read in the conscience of others, as if he could know what's in Cindy Sheehan's heart. Obviously not.
There's only malevolence and hatred in his words, truly amongst the most vulgar and disgusting ones I have happened to read in recent times.
Shameful that they should be broadcasted. But then again, perhaps useful. Maybe people will understand that if someone can attack Cindy Sheehan in such a brutal and venomous way, then maybe that's because Cindy Sheehan has touched a nerve: the lies of this administration are emerging to light, and their strenuous, maddened defensors are just too afraid that their world filled with official rhetoric get shattered.
It has been said that Cindy Sheehan does not honour her son.
Well, I believe that not only for Cindy Sheehan, but for all Americans there's no better way to honour those who died than revealing the lies and the deception that have led to the war on Iraq, and have ultimately caused their death.
Also, when a soldier serves his country, he serves first and before all an ideal of truth and justice. Exactly that ideal that this administration has betrayed.
And it is for this ideal that Cindy Sheehan's battle is the best way to honour her son and his fellow soldiers.
85 years ago today,
the battle for the vote
for women was won in America
On August 26, 1920 the nineteenth amendement of the American constitution, allowing women to vote, was ratified (here you can read information on the events leading to this).
Below two pictures from the days in which women fought for the right to vote:
Below two pictures from the days in which women fought for the right to vote:
A leader of the suffragettes, giving a speech
A group of suffragettes discuss on initiatives for their battle.
The above pictures are from the Library of Congress - American Memory (though they are linked from La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper dedicating a story to this).
Why Cindy Sheehan is demonised
by Joe London
I came across an interesting post in Dance of the Mind blog:
Blogger Minddance writes about Cindy Sheehan:
[...] She's being demonized by the right and used to further a political agenda by some on the left. But she's not a demon and she's not a political agenda. She's a woman who recently lost a son and would like to discuss it with the person she believes to be the cause of his death. That is not an unreasonable request for someone who is experiencing the anguish and the intensity of a grievous loss. Even if you personally believe Bush is not at fault, certainly you can understand her desire to speak with him? The need to get some answers so she can make sense of the pain she is experiencing? [...]
Her whole post and the quote therein are quite interesting and show a quite fundamental aspect regarding the battle of Cindy Sheehan: it is not she who exploits her own grief. It is her opposers who cannot, or are not prepared to, relate to that grief in absolute human terms, and thus reduce that grief to merely ideological terms, more easily controlled and fitted in a preexisting vision. It is almost as if they wanted to escape from something nagging their own conscience: the absurdity of war and, moreover, the fact that this war was indeed wrong, based on deceit and lies.
Sometimes human beings are so attached to a given vision that organizes all their reality, that they would do anything to deny any evidence that proves them wrong. Moreover, it is hard to admit that your loved ones have died for a lie. Many plausibly turn their eyes blind in front of this upsetting possibility.
The curiously obstinate opposition to Cindy Sheehan appears to be an attempt to elude the dark and revealing depths of human pain, in order to maintain the public discourse attached to the rhetoric of power, that is to something that is constructed, and somewhat labile and arbitrary, if not deceiving like in the policies regarding Iraq, compared to human pain.
The Bush administration does not really recognise human pain for cynicism and calculation. From the start, they deceived people by talking about WMD and of a Saddam-9/11 connection, in order to justify the sacrifice of lives in a war, while their real agenda was kept secret and had to do with the desire of a regime change - illegal for international laws - driven by a swaggering and arrogant imperialistic vision. Being so callous and cold-blooded, expecting that they can really understand the grief of a mother is absurd.
The others, those amongst ordinary people who unconditionally support president Bush, appear to do so for two reasons. On one hand because, in some cases, possibly affected by a creeping "culture of the empire" which knows no laws but its own, condimented by pretensions of ethicality and arrogance of being the actual leaders of the whole planet. On the other hand to defend themselves against the disturbing possibility that everything they have believed in is wrong, result of a loathsome swindle.
Deep inside, the opposers of Cindy Sheehan, some quite harsh and direspectful indeed, don't like her not because of her opinions on U.S. foreign policies and so on (isn't free speech what democracy is about?) but because she simply asks questions that are too disturbing for them.
But it is the courage to pursue truth that ultimately represents progress for a country and even a possibility of personal, if painful, growth.
In all the turmoil around the protest of Cindy Sheehan, the sure truth is that many are scared of a simple question: "Why?". A simple question which, as such, entails humility, openness to possible answers that can be given and have not yet been given, an attempt to connect with others rather than to disrupt.
Not only Americans, but many people in the world would like to know "Why". And would like to live in a world in which a superpower which claims to be an example for all does not cheat and deceive to start illegal wars, then claiming to export freedom and democracy, in sovereign countries, at the cost of death and destruction.
*
Note: regarding the particular aspect of the grief of women, a very interesting link (from the Myth and Culture blog) is opportunely suggested by Minddance. Here the same excerpt presented by Minddance:
[...] The rage has taken a specific turn, so much so that I am breaking any veneer of impartiality in what is happening in this country. The rage is, of course, about the War in Iraq. It started when I began to see images of Cindy Sheehan standing in the dust outside Mr. Bush’s ranch. Here in one image, I saw the rage and grief of mothers for eons who are expected to produce citizen soldiers for the polis and are not allowed to publicly mourn. In Athens, where public mourning was under the jurisdiction of the state, women were not allowed to display their grief. Personal grief did not belong in the political system because women, with their fluctuating emotions and their connection to a fluid body where not hard. So here we are 2000 + years later, and once more, a woman’s grief is dismissed because what she has to say is irrelevant to the political concerns. She is dismissed as a looney, an instrument of propaganda for the left, a betrayer of her son’s death and all the soldiers left in Iraq for daring to make public her grief and rage.
Athena Parthenos reconstruction in NashvilleBut the truth is, women and their abject bodies, are at the heart of any political system because those bodies produce the citizens for the state, the soldiers who are fodder for a system’s political rhetoric. My understanding of that lays in a revelation I am having about the statue of the Athene Parthenos that stood in the Parthenon. At the base of this goddess of war is a relief of the myth of Pandora – the kalon kakon , beautiful evil whose ambiguous role in political life was required and yet who needed to be controlled because she is the ultimate “leaky vessel”. We as women, never escape the untrustworthy leakiness of Pandora.[...]
Blogger Minddance writes about Cindy Sheehan:
[...] She's being demonized by the right and used to further a political agenda by some on the left. But she's not a demon and she's not a political agenda. She's a woman who recently lost a son and would like to discuss it with the person she believes to be the cause of his death. That is not an unreasonable request for someone who is experiencing the anguish and the intensity of a grievous loss. Even if you personally believe Bush is not at fault, certainly you can understand her desire to speak with him? The need to get some answers so she can make sense of the pain she is experiencing? [...]
Her whole post and the quote therein are quite interesting and show a quite fundamental aspect regarding the battle of Cindy Sheehan: it is not she who exploits her own grief. It is her opposers who cannot, or are not prepared to, relate to that grief in absolute human terms, and thus reduce that grief to merely ideological terms, more easily controlled and fitted in a preexisting vision. It is almost as if they wanted to escape from something nagging their own conscience: the absurdity of war and, moreover, the fact that this war was indeed wrong, based on deceit and lies.
Sometimes human beings are so attached to a given vision that organizes all their reality, that they would do anything to deny any evidence that proves them wrong. Moreover, it is hard to admit that your loved ones have died for a lie. Many plausibly turn their eyes blind in front of this upsetting possibility.
The curiously obstinate opposition to Cindy Sheehan appears to be an attempt to elude the dark and revealing depths of human pain, in order to maintain the public discourse attached to the rhetoric of power, that is to something that is constructed, and somewhat labile and arbitrary, if not deceiving like in the policies regarding Iraq, compared to human pain.
The Bush administration does not really recognise human pain for cynicism and calculation. From the start, they deceived people by talking about WMD and of a Saddam-9/11 connection, in order to justify the sacrifice of lives in a war, while their real agenda was kept secret and had to do with the desire of a regime change - illegal for international laws - driven by a swaggering and arrogant imperialistic vision. Being so callous and cold-blooded, expecting that they can really understand the grief of a mother is absurd.
The others, those amongst ordinary people who unconditionally support president Bush, appear to do so for two reasons. On one hand because, in some cases, possibly affected by a creeping "culture of the empire" which knows no laws but its own, condimented by pretensions of ethicality and arrogance of being the actual leaders of the whole planet. On the other hand to defend themselves against the disturbing possibility that everything they have believed in is wrong, result of a loathsome swindle.
Deep inside, the opposers of Cindy Sheehan, some quite harsh and direspectful indeed, don't like her not because of her opinions on U.S. foreign policies and so on (isn't free speech what democracy is about?) but because she simply asks questions that are too disturbing for them.
But it is the courage to pursue truth that ultimately represents progress for a country and even a possibility of personal, if painful, growth.
In all the turmoil around the protest of Cindy Sheehan, the sure truth is that many are scared of a simple question: "Why?". A simple question which, as such, entails humility, openness to possible answers that can be given and have not yet been given, an attempt to connect with others rather than to disrupt.
Not only Americans, but many people in the world would like to know "Why". And would like to live in a world in which a superpower which claims to be an example for all does not cheat and deceive to start illegal wars, then claiming to export freedom and democracy, in sovereign countries, at the cost of death and destruction.
*
Note: regarding the particular aspect of the grief of women, a very interesting link (from the Myth and Culture blog) is opportunely suggested by Minddance. Here the same excerpt presented by Minddance:
[...] The rage has taken a specific turn, so much so that I am breaking any veneer of impartiality in what is happening in this country. The rage is, of course, about the War in Iraq. It started when I began to see images of Cindy Sheehan standing in the dust outside Mr. Bush’s ranch. Here in one image, I saw the rage and grief of mothers for eons who are expected to produce citizen soldiers for the polis and are not allowed to publicly mourn. In Athens, where public mourning was under the jurisdiction of the state, women were not allowed to display their grief. Personal grief did not belong in the political system because women, with their fluctuating emotions and their connection to a fluid body where not hard. So here we are 2000 + years later, and once more, a woman’s grief is dismissed because what she has to say is irrelevant to the political concerns. She is dismissed as a looney, an instrument of propaganda for the left, a betrayer of her son’s death and all the soldiers left in Iraq for daring to make public her grief and rage.
Athena Parthenos reconstruction in NashvilleBut the truth is, women and their abject bodies, are at the heart of any political system because those bodies produce the citizens for the state, the soldiers who are fodder for a system’s political rhetoric. My understanding of that lays in a revelation I am having about the statue of the Athene Parthenos that stood in the Parthenon. At the base of this goddess of war is a relief of the myth of Pandora – the kalon kakon , beautiful evil whose ambiguous role in political life was required and yet who needed to be controlled because she is the ultimate “leaky vessel”. We as women, never escape the untrustworthy leakiness of Pandora.[...]
posted by JoeLondon at 08/26/05 08:52 | link |
impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, cindy sheehan
impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, cindy sheehan
Thursday, August 25, 2005
A speech of Cindy Sheehan
In this post in BRAD BLOG, after a song of Joan Baez, you can hear a speech of Cindy Sheehan.
A chance to know her. A chance to approach what is real.
In this post in BRAD BLOG, after a song of Joan Baez, you can hear a speech of Cindy Sheehan.
A chance to know her. A chance to approach what is real.
posted by JoeLondon at 08/25/05 11:22 | link |
impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, cindy sheehan
impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, cindy sheehan
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
The either-or
of American politics
by Joe Londonof American politics
"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite / You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of shit"
"Oh, sweet Neo Con, What path have you led them on? Oh, sweet Neo Con, Is it time for the atom bomb?"
From Sweet Neo Con, by the Rolling Stones
EITHER we state clearly, with no hesitation, that the laws of a country, and the international laws subscribed, must be respected, and not in a deceiving manner, and that this applies even more to the leaders of a nation because they must set an example, and because it is loathsome that they should enforce law while they are the first to disregard it;
OR we may as well say it clearly - without cowardly hiding behind a facade of righteousness and morality - that the words written in constitutions and codes count less than nothing; that only power matters and power responds to none but to itself; that those in power can use any means at their own discretion, including lies, deception, assassination, war, the sacrifice of uncountable lives, to pursue their own ends which may remain secret to the public; that those in power are always right, and intrinsically good; that the only law that applies is that of the jungle, that is the law of the strongest.
But if we decide to accept all this, that only power matters, we must also admit that this has nothing to do with democracy nor justice nor ethicality. That any claim of representing a lighthouse of democracy for the whole world is a gross, obscene, disgusting joke. That all is there is the swaggering arrogance of the leaders, and the passivity of many people led, at best condimented with fundamentalistic messianism in the former and blind belief in the latter. That the people who are governed can be treated like gullible fools.
What has this to do with American politics? It has to do with the Bush administration's deception and lies revealed by the Downing Street Memo. It has to do with the clear disrespect of human rights in Guantanamo Bay, in the prison of Abu Ghraib and in the practices of exceptional rendition. It has to do with waging an illegal wars based on false pretenses, swindling not only the people, but the Congress and all the bodies that are meant to balance the power of the executive and check its actions. I don't see a democracy, I see an oligarchy with PR skills and capacity to exploit scientifically-induced fear.
posted by JoeLondon at 08/24/05 15:33 | link |
impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, cindy sheehan, pnac
impeach bush, bush bullshit, downing street memo, cindy sheehan, pnac
A truly free press, not shy and cowering in war coverage, is the best antidote against the 'chicken hawk syndrome' at home
Salon.com publishes pictures of the unseen war
by Joe London
Salon.com has published an article on the sanitization of photographic reportages on the Iraqi war. The article (see here) also includes a gallery [warning: some picture are very graphic].
Rarely do newspapers show the atrocious scenes of what is going on in Iraq. Gary Kamiya, the author of the article, explains that this is the result of policies meant to not erode popular support of war:
"Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality -- the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem -- is to risk eroding popular support for it. This is particularly true with wars that have less than overwhelming popular support to begin with. In the case of Vietnam, battlefield images played an important role in turning the tide of public opinion. And in Iraq, a war whose official justification has turned out to be false, and which a majority of the American people now believe to have been a mistake, the administration would prefer that these grim images never be seen."
This type of policy is, of course, easier when the majority of journalists are embedded in the troops, like in the case of the Iraqi war. Freelance reporters and photographers are only a few and cannot always be where a particular event takes place, the article explains. Other reasons for not publishing war photographs, the article adds, are self-censorship by news broadcasters themselves. All this contributes to a type of information which is functional to war policies.
I believe people have the right, as well as the obligation, to share the horror of the war their country is fighting. To see the atrocities and understand what is actually happening. If this is prevented, the press fails to perform one of his main tasks, that of providing information on facts against which one can measure the credibility and validity of Government's official statements, which are, not unfrequently, disingenuous at best.
A press that is not shy and cowering, and openly informs on the atrocities of war, is also the best antidote against the 'chicken hawk syndrome' of those that are too hasty to invoke blood and destruction. The champions of swaggering muscularity and arrogance as a way to solve international controversies. They, perhaps, would be more prudent and would use the brain more before using force not as a last resort.
But maybe I am overlooking the power of the "ideals" behind a war: the ideals that fill the wallet of a few, while others die.
Salon.com publishes pictures of the unseen war
by Joe London
Salon.com has published an article on the sanitization of photographic reportages on the Iraqi war. The article (see here) also includes a gallery [warning: some picture are very graphic].
Rarely do newspapers show the atrocious scenes of what is going on in Iraq. Gary Kamiya, the author of the article, explains that this is the result of policies meant to not erode popular support of war:
"Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality -- the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem -- is to risk eroding popular support for it. This is particularly true with wars that have less than overwhelming popular support to begin with. In the case of Vietnam, battlefield images played an important role in turning the tide of public opinion. And in Iraq, a war whose official justification has turned out to be false, and which a majority of the American people now believe to have been a mistake, the administration would prefer that these grim images never be seen."
This type of policy is, of course, easier when the majority of journalists are embedded in the troops, like in the case of the Iraqi war. Freelance reporters and photographers are only a few and cannot always be where a particular event takes place, the article explains. Other reasons for not publishing war photographs, the article adds, are self-censorship by news broadcasters themselves. All this contributes to a type of information which is functional to war policies.
I believe people have the right, as well as the obligation, to share the horror of the war their country is fighting. To see the atrocities and understand what is actually happening. If this is prevented, the press fails to perform one of his main tasks, that of providing information on facts against which one can measure the credibility and validity of Government's official statements, which are, not unfrequently, disingenuous at best.
A press that is not shy and cowering, and openly informs on the atrocities of war, is also the best antidote against the 'chicken hawk syndrome' of those that are too hasty to invoke blood and destruction. The champions of swaggering muscularity and arrogance as a way to solve international controversies. They, perhaps, would be more prudent and would use the brain more before using force not as a last resort.
But maybe I am overlooking the power of the "ideals" behind a war: the ideals that fill the wallet of a few, while others die.
Raw Story was able to acquire the (seemingly nearly complete) lyrics of "Sweet Neo Con" by the Rolling Stones. Check them here.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Quotes
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."
-- Martin Luther King III
"Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a pirate. You do it with a whole fleet and you are called an emperor."
-- A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
-- Theodore Roosevelt
"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."
-- Martin Luther King III
"Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a pirate. You do it with a whole fleet and you are called an emperor."
-- A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
Monday, August 22, 2005
Joan Baez at Camp Casey
Joan Baez paid a visit to Camp Casey to express her solidarity to the people supporting the battle of Cindy Sheehan and manifesting against the war on Iraq (picture from Corriere della Sera online).
I wonder if looking at Joan Baez some people remembered the hopes and the ideals of the 60s. It really seems that history repeats itself. It was Vietnam then, and Iraq now.
I wonder if looking at Joan Baez some people remembered the hopes and the ideals of the 60s. It really seems that history repeats itself. It was Vietnam then, and Iraq now.
Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton seem to have set an example also for Catholic bishops
Roman Catholic Bishop
resigns over sex scandal
by Joe London
resigns over sex scandal
by Joe London
When last week, Roman Catholic Monsignor Juan Carlos Maccarone, bishop of Santiago del Estero (Argentina), resigned at a much younger age, 64, than the normal age of retirement for Catholic Bishops, which is 75, the fact caused perplexity in the community of Santiago del Estero.
The official press release of the local diocesan administration mentioned an 'illness'.
"His illness is a sign of the illness of ever man and woman, whom Jesus came to save with the cross" ("Su debilidad es un signo de la debilidad de todo hombre y mujer a quien Jesús vino a salvar desde la cruz", as can be read here), it was stated.
It turned out in these last few hours, that Bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone did not resign for an illness, but for a video portraying him and a 23 year old man during some inequivocable moments of intimacy, made public by anonymous sources.
A Catholic same-sex rendition of video scandals made famous by Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton, if you like.
It reallys seems to me that scandals leading to the resignation of Catholic clerics really are the tip of the iceberg, represented by those who have the bad luck of being caught. Considering that surveys indicate a percentage of at least 50% sexually active priests, the iceberg should be quite massive.
Only a few days ago a scandal emerged regarding a high-profile American cleric, Monsignor Eugene Clark, a well known chastiser of - in his own words - the "sex-saturated American society", caught in a video while exiting from a motel with his leggy secretary.
In the case of Bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone we are back to the seemingly more common homoerotic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
Remember this, next time, if you happen to hear a priest solemnly preaching against the evils of premarital sex, on purity and the joys of celibacy and so on. I hope you will have a plastic bag with you, to puke into for their disgusting hypocrisy.
Of course the current Pope is not likely to reform anything as regards the Catholic doctrine on sex and on the celibacy of priests.
But then again, from their point of view, why should they? First, in general, if they reformed their doctrine on sex, the Roman Catholic Church could not capitalize on the sense of guilt artificially induced in people. Secondly, by not allowing marriage for priests, the priests leave money to the "Mother Church" instead of leaving it to a wife. Also, the heterosexual priests have a good excuse to copulate without having to bear marital responsibilities, while the homosexual clergy, apparently a vast number, can enjoy same-sex brotherhood, the absence of women to deal with ("women ewwwww, God forbit! noooo"!!) and the pleasure of gaily praying with all the other brothers, exchanging glances of shared mystical ecstasy.
The official press release of the local diocesan administration mentioned an 'illness'.
"His illness is a sign of the illness of ever man and woman, whom Jesus came to save with the cross" ("Su debilidad es un signo de la debilidad de todo hombre y mujer a quien Jesús vino a salvar desde la cruz", as can be read here), it was stated.
It turned out in these last few hours, that Bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone did not resign for an illness, but for a video portraying him and a 23 year old man during some inequivocable moments of intimacy, made public by anonymous sources.
A Catholic same-sex rendition of video scandals made famous by Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton, if you like.
It reallys seems to me that scandals leading to the resignation of Catholic clerics really are the tip of the iceberg, represented by those who have the bad luck of being caught. Considering that surveys indicate a percentage of at least 50% sexually active priests, the iceberg should be quite massive.
Only a few days ago a scandal emerged regarding a high-profile American cleric, Monsignor Eugene Clark, a well known chastiser of - in his own words - the "sex-saturated American society", caught in a video while exiting from a motel with his leggy secretary.
In the case of Bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone we are back to the seemingly more common homoerotic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
Remember this, next time, if you happen to hear a priest solemnly preaching against the evils of premarital sex, on purity and the joys of celibacy and so on. I hope you will have a plastic bag with you, to puke into for their disgusting hypocrisy.
Of course the current Pope is not likely to reform anything as regards the Catholic doctrine on sex and on the celibacy of priests.
But then again, from their point of view, why should they? First, in general, if they reformed their doctrine on sex, the Roman Catholic Church could not capitalize on the sense of guilt artificially induced in people. Secondly, by not allowing marriage for priests, the priests leave money to the "Mother Church" instead of leaving it to a wife. Also, the heterosexual priests have a good excuse to copulate without having to bear marital responsibilities, while the homosexual clergy, apparently a vast number, can enjoy same-sex brotherhood, the absence of women to deal with ("women ewwwww, God forbit! noooo"!!) and the pleasure of gaily praying with all the other brothers, exchanging glances of shared mystical ecstasy.
posted by JoeLondon at 08/22/05 08:10 | link |
priest scandal, religion & mental illness, catholic hypocrisy
priest scandal, religion & mental illness, catholic hypocrisy
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
By Frank Rich - The New York Times
Sunday, August 21, 2005
By Frank Rich - The New York Times
Sunday, August 21, 2005
NEW YORK Cindy Sheehan couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 vacation day in Crawford, Texas, when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing.
On this Aug. 6, the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 Marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.
When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.
On this Aug. 6, the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 Marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.
When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Cindy Sheehan rulez big time!
by Joe London
You have to read this article Cindy Sheehan wrote yesterday.
The more I read what she writes and listen to her in videos or interviews, the more I realize that something important is happening in Crawford.
And I am not talking about the cycling performances of W. at his ranch, which have become a metaphor of a presidency that has turned into playground of hapless, and aimless, people who live in an imaginary world.
I am talking of the restoring, through Cindy Sheehan, of sense, human decency, empathy, true vision of what really matters in politics and in life.
All this appeared to be lost, immersed in the mire of the neocons' rhetoric, in their policies based on secret agendas and public lies, in their alienated vision of the world as a territory to conquer or to control in order to affirm an "American global leadership" arrogantly deemed "good for America and for the world", as PNAC stated.
Cindy Sheenan has been able to give voice to the feelings of the people, who the current administration is completely out of touch with.
She see this clearly. In yesterday's article (read it all, it is worth it) she writes:
This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.
With energy and sincerity, Cindy speaks words of truth and the Bush administration knows she is right. That is why the president does not meet with her: George W. would not be able to stand in front of Cindy Sheehan without his face showing the grimaces of the lier whose lies have been unveiled, without starting to stammer and turn in circle with words, repeating the same phrases that have been unconvincing in the past and that now also sound pathetic, grotesque, even raise anger for their stubborn attempt to perpetuate the swindle.
Cindy Sheehan says exactly what the Bush administration has always tried to hide: that they act in secret, with hidden agendas, while talking about "noble causes" in public. That they have lied and deceived, bent facts and evidence, thus treated people like gullible fools, exploiting scientifically-induced fears in order to pursue their own ends, which are the ends of PNAC, and have to do with the growth of political and military power. That since day 1 the geo-political experiments of the Bush neocon administration have counted more than the life of those who have died in a war that had no reason to be waged.
by Joe London
You have to read this article Cindy Sheehan wrote yesterday.
The more I read what she writes and listen to her in videos or interviews, the more I realize that something important is happening in Crawford.
And I am not talking about the cycling performances of W. at his ranch, which have become a metaphor of a presidency that has turned into playground of hapless, and aimless, people who live in an imaginary world.
I am talking of the restoring, through Cindy Sheehan, of sense, human decency, empathy, true vision of what really matters in politics and in life.
All this appeared to be lost, immersed in the mire of the neocons' rhetoric, in their policies based on secret agendas and public lies, in their alienated vision of the world as a territory to conquer or to control in order to affirm an "American global leadership" arrogantly deemed "good for America and for the world", as PNAC stated.
Cindy Sheenan has been able to give voice to the feelings of the people, who the current administration is completely out of touch with.
She see this clearly. In yesterday's article (read it all, it is worth it) she writes:
This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.
One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that 'Freedom isn't Free' but I don't see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don't think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game. [Read the whole article here].
With energy and sincerity, Cindy speaks words of truth and the Bush administration knows she is right. That is why the president does not meet with her: George W. would not be able to stand in front of Cindy Sheehan without his face showing the grimaces of the lier whose lies have been unveiled, without starting to stammer and turn in circle with words, repeating the same phrases that have been unconvincing in the past and that now also sound pathetic, grotesque, even raise anger for their stubborn attempt to perpetuate the swindle.
Cindy Sheehan says exactly what the Bush administration has always tried to hide: that they act in secret, with hidden agendas, while talking about "noble causes" in public. That they have lied and deceived, bent facts and evidence, thus treated people like gullible fools, exploiting scientifically-induced fears in order to pursue their own ends, which are the ends of PNAC, and have to do with the growth of political and military power. That since day 1 the geo-political experiments of the Bush neocon administration have counted more than the life of those who have died in a war that had no reason to be waged.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
From Cnn.com:
Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'
(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.
Read the whole article here.
The epitome of deception
by Joe London
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was only the epitome of a strategy of deception that started right after 9/11, when the Bush administration decided to exploit the "opportunity" offered by the Twin Towers's tragedy to wage a unilateral war against a country that posed no threat and thus to pursue its hidden neocon agenda.
Exactly an opportunity. Nay, and enormous opportunity as Condollezza Rice said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University, Kenney Auditorium, in 2002 (stress is mine):
Exactly an opportunity. Nay, and enormous opportunity as Condollezza Rice said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University, Kenney Auditorium, in 2002 (stress is mine):
[...] this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities. This is, then, a period akin to 1945 to 1947, when American leadership expanded the number of free and democratic states -- Japan and Germany among the great powers -- to create a new balance of power that favored freedom.
The opportunity, in the power-delirating vision of the Bush administration, was that of a regime change in Iraq. Of course, this could not be said in these exact terms to the American people and to the world, because no support would have been given for an action meant to allow the "American leadership" to unilaterally force democracy onto a sovereign country. (Compare this to one of the "fundamental propositions" of PNAC: "American leadership is good both for America and for the world").
Thus, the Bush administration engaged in what we could call a "personalized war etiquette": starting a unilateral war but kindly providing a facade of legitimacy thanks to forged documents, fabrications, cherry-picked lies of unreliable informers and so on. In short they enacted a policy of deception.
I guess they thought that everybody would be happy in this way: the chickenhawks could do a real-life war game to expand "American leadership", American people artfully scared by deceiving messages would give support, and the conservatives who did not buy the story could still be pleased for the PR savvy, or shall we say Machiavellic skills, of the Bush administration.
And those would did not want the war? Labelled as anti-patriotic, at home, and as anti-americans, abroad.
Colin Powell, was surely somewhat a protagonist in this huge machination, if only as an actor. On February 5, 2003, he was the one who showed the world the supposedly terrible and inconfutable evidence of the Iraqi threat. Those who had been filled by lies and deception, exploited in the vulnerability of fear, perhaps believed him.
But many others, those who maintained the objectivity that should be maintained in times of danger, saw that speech for what it was: a swindle based on special effects and poor acting, which immediately diminished the stature that until that moment Colin Powell had had.
We know what happened afterwards. Bush's and neocons' belligerent idée fixe found its way in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed, and nearly two thousands Americans. Besides the many, many others terribly wounded.
After over two years from its onset, and even from the moment in which Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" people still die in Iraq. The Iraqi nation is devastated and its future is uncertain. As predicted by serious analysts before the war, or as others have stated afterwards, the war on Iraq provided a boost to terrorism. A terrible failure in any possible way you look at it.
But now we know with absolute evidence (and not only thanks to the Downing Street Memo) that the war on Iraq was waged on false pretenses and deception. That the war on Iraq was not a war against a threat but rather an action perpetrated cold-bloodedly to exploit an "enormous opportunity" and pursue a vision of geopolitical power concealed to the people.
George Bush has used lies and deception, to invade a country, and force "democracy" onto it, with no real clues of strategy or credible political vision, and not even listening to the opinion of experts regarding the absolute non-sense of it, but rather, supposedly, to a "higher father" who happened to have exactly the same vision of PNAC!
But those who have lost some loved ones, or those who have been tricked into giving support to this inane, power-driven atrocity condimented with lies, deserve explanations. While president George Bush, representative of the people who elected him, must be held accountable for his lies.
From Truth Out:
The president says he feels compassion for me, but the best way to show that compassion is by meeting with me and the other mothers and families who are here. Our sons made the ultimate sacrifice and we want answers. All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq.
-- Cindy Sheehan,
Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas
