Bush's Second Term: Now What?
Articles & Excerpts
- What Bush Needs to do to Save His Presidency By Kenneth Duberstein
- The Bush White House Is in Trouble Because of Its Disdain for Governing By Lewis Gould
- Second Terms Almost Never Successful By Bill Adair
- The 5 Year Itch By Michael Beschloss
- The Latest in Second-Term Scandals
- Bush's Challenges Not Unusual for a Second Term President
- Indictments Symptomatic Of Second-Term Missteps, Says Duke Historian
- Bush's Second Term Blues By Alfred J. Zacher
- 6 Presidents Have Had Successful 2nd Terms ... How About Bush? By Alfred J. Zacher
- Bush Might Surprise His Critics in His 2nd Term (Clinton and Reagan Did) by Edward Luttwak
- The Republican Steamroller May Lose Its Steam by Todd Purdum
- Bush Can Beat the Curse of the 2nd Term Blues by Fred Barnes
- Truman Beats Dewey Again by David Gelernter
- Will Bush Face the Second Term Jinx? by Lou Cannon
- Second Term Blues by Tom Raum
- Is President Bush Fated to Fail in the Second Term? by Rick Shenkman
- Why the Democrats Don't Have to Worry About the Voters Who Are Obsessed with Old-Fashioned Morality by Leonard Steinhorn
- Can History Save the Democrats? by Dean E. Murphy
- Bush Should Follow Reagan's 2nd Term Example and Govern from the Middle by Albert Hunt
- Why Second Term Presidents Usually Fail by Lewis Gould
- Why Blue Collar Populism Works for the Republicans by Arlie Hochschild
- In Defense of the Filibuster Against Judicial Nominations by Joanne Mariner
- The National Insecurity State by Ira Chernus
comments powered by Disqus
Aeisha Muhammad - 1/9/2005
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST KNOW THAT THE JEWS HAVE HIJACKED THEIR GOVERNMENT
By Safiyyah al-Khayr
Ariel Sharon as reported by the AP in Europe on 3 October 2001, during an Israeli radio program (in Hebrew), Ariel Sharon, responding to a warning by Shimon Peres that Israel's refusal to heed American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians "will turn them against us," shouted: "Every time we do something you tell me the Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear; don't worry about American pressure on Israel because we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
Did you know that Sharon made that statement? The answer in most cases will be a categorical NO because the media is controlled by the Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians and they do not want you to know that they are really running America from the shadows. So who was Sharon referring to as "Americans" in that statement? Did you ever imagine that the "israelis" could have such a choke hold on your nation?
I want you to take a look at what your Congress, Senate and Whitehouse are saying to Israel so I am including herein the quotes that were made at the AIPAC a/k/a 'the Israeli lobby' in America by your leadership. All of these comments can be viewed at http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html .
"AIPAC has a job to do. We need you to keep up the advocacy that is keeping Israel strong — and America safe. Keep speaking... educating... lobbying... and organizing. We need the clarity of your voices in these difficult times, and in the difficult debates we will face in the future."
-Senator Tom Daschle
"The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship."
-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
"Let me also thank every one of you for being here. Your dedication and work make a difference — for the U.S. Congress, for our nation, for the cause of peace. Your untiring efforts reinforce the United States - Israel relationship in ways that benefit and strengthen both nations. Participatory democracy depends upon the involvement of its citizens. Now more than ever, you are needed." -Representative Bob Menendez
"The work that AIPAC does is a vital part of our democratic process. You speak out boldly, and that's good for America, it's good for Israel and good for the cause of peace and justice in the world. You make sure that politicians hear what voters have to say not only on election day but on every day of the year."
-President George W. Bush
"AIPAC has a long and commendable record of promoting the unique relationship that exists between the United States and Israel. Both countries are better for your efforts, and so I thank and congratulate you for all you have done over the years."
-Secretary of State Colin Powell
"Without AIPAC's constant support of the (U.S.-Israel) relationship and all of your fighting on a daily basis to strengthen that relationship, it would not be."
-House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
"There is no substitute for peace, and no guarantee of peace without security. AIPAC has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role in assuring that security. Your cause has always been just."
-Senator John McCain
"AIPAC has done a magnificent job, better than anybody else lobbying in this town. …You have been stunningly effective."
-Former President Bill Clinton
"We need you, we need your leadership, we need your willingness to remain deeply involved in public affairs...Over the years, the relationship that we have all shared has deepened and grown."
-Former Vice President Al Gore
"…America has remained Israel's most steadfast friend and ally. In turn, Israel has become America's most steadfast friend and ally in the Middle East. And since its founding in 1954, AIPAC has embodied and strengthened that relationship."
-Senator Joseph Lieberman
"You are the most effective general interest group…across the entire planet. And if you did not exist, we would have to invent you."
-Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
As you can see the "Americans" that Sharon was referring to were the members of your Congress, Senate and Whitehouse. The relationship between the "Israeli" lobby and your government is unfortunately unshakeable. It benefits the Zionists in 'Israel' and America but what does it do for the American masses? Did you ever stop to think about the effects of the American-'Israeli' partnership on your everyday lives?
Israel's past and present government, is determined to annex the West Bank for those of you not familiar with the Bible's geography that means biblical Judea and Sumeria which is the modern day Arabian Peninsula. Once conquered those lands will be known as Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. While they are a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, influential, and because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining any statehood on any part of the West Bank.
In its inhumane assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged in advancing the territorial expansion cited above. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and businesses are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for hours. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes thereby leaving the way open for "Israel" to usurp their lands and homes.
Once loved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself hated in most countries because it provides unconditional support of 'Israeli' violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths. Nowhere is this hatred more noticeable than in the lands of the Arabian Peninsula. America through its unbalanced support of 'Israel' has alienated, harrassed and economically shattered the lives of the Arabs and Muslims and they in turn have responded by lashing out at America in violence. Violence is the only language that America understands as it refuses to reason with anyone, except by force. Not having equal weapons to the tyrannical Zionist-American Army the Arabs and Muslims have turned to guerilla warfare to safeguard their rights and sovereignties.
All of you remember that fateful day of Nine-Eleven but do you know what the roots of that event were? The stage was set for it 35 years ago when Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel. Because of the stifling influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict was silenced in our government for 35 years. As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as a subcontractor of the Israeli parliament. If 9/11 was carried out by the Arab Muslims -which may not have been the case as everyday more evidence comes to light that it was the Zionists themselves who plotted and carried out that attack to facilitate their attack and takeover of the Arabian Peninsula- then Americans cannot blame the Arabs and Muslims for retaliating against an avowed enemy. Just as Americans would not have stood still if any nation had occupied its land the Arabs and Muslims are justified in lashing out at America for having occupied their sovereign lands and having disrupted the economy, religion and the lives of their people.
When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-provided arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point. Foreigners, Arab and non-Arab, expressed their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, from the moment that Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq. The Jewish lobby's intimidation goes unchecked as it reaches every government center, and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many US citizens who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality.
President Bush has made the situation far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger in the Arab/Muslim world. He is oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. Americans suffered 9/11 and its unwinable war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington. Everyday the resistance in the Arabian Peninsula is gaining strength and hundreds of American men and women are suffering mutilation and horrific death for the sake of that ill begotten Zionist-American policy. In addition to the deaths and casualties is the effect that the inhumane war against the Arabs and Muslims is having on the American economy. Although the Zionist media does not like to tell you that the economy is in shambles the reality is that America is in the throes of economic death. America has become as place where the divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' has widened to unknown proportions. The few who control the wealth have everything and get away with everything and those who are living in poverty and barely making it through each day are left without any social programs or relief. It is no wonder we keep hearing about people who go nuts and start shooting at their co-workers or committing crimes of other sorts. That is what happens when poverty and lack of opportunities run rampant in society.
Instead of helping and praising Sharon for his genocidal crimes upon the Palestinians, he should be denouncing Sharon's intensification of Palestinian misery. He should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land usurped by Israel since in 1967. This would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House. Indeed that is what the Redneck ignoramus in the Oval Office should do, but since he is inclined to continue supporting 'Israel' at all costs - including the destruction of America itself- then there is little that anyone can do short of a full revolution taking place in the streets of America to liberate America from 'Israel' once and for all.
I urge the non-Zionist masses in America to open their eyes and reclaim their government. Look to how the People of Europe have recently marched into the Parliaments of their capitals and ejected those who were no longer running the affairs of their nation properly. I urge you to become filled with the spirit of revolution and to reclaim your government in any way you can. The government should be for the people - all of the people- and and not just for the Zionist capitalists at the top. If Americans want to live peaceful and undisturbed by terrorism then they must retake their Congress, Senate and the Whitehouse to ensure that all the policies which are destroying America are shred to pieces once and for all. That is the only way that America will survive so reflect, come to your senses and do what must be done. It is not unpatriotic to bring down your government if it is unjust and abusive to its own people and humanity. In fact bringing it down is the most patriotic thing any American can do.
Very truly yours,
Aeisha Muhammad - 1/9/2005
George Walker Bush's Willing Executioners
Les Blough, Editor, Axis of Logic
Jan 8, 2005, 21:00
"You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society."
- Vaclav Havel
It appears that the Iraqi people are winning the war. Who is the "Iraqi resistance"? What if they force the U.S. out of their country militarily? Are you supporting them or the U.S. military who appear to be losing this war, day by day? Where do you stand and what is the potential cost of your stand? Do you have a choice?
Yesterday (January 8, 2004), AFP reported with the following headline: "Deadliest day for US in new year in Iraq as emergency laws extended." Today, Reuters reports that a U.S. air strike flattened a villa in Northern Iraq, killing 14 civilians inside, adding to fury of the Iraqi people against the United States ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578
&e=2&u=/nm/20050108/ts_nm/iraq_dc ). Also today, Reuters reports that the U.S. Army Sargeant who forced an Iraqi off a bridge, drowning him was found innocent and that the Iraqi resistance abducted 3 senior Iraqi officials working for the U.S. military in Iraq, killed one of them and "at least four others.
On October 28, 2004 USA Today reported that Iraqi "Gunmen" assassinated Faris Abdul Razzaq al-Assam, one of the three Deputy Baghdad Mayors installed by the U.S. USA Today added,
"Anti-U.S. resistance forces have assassinated or attempted to assassinate several political or police figures holding posts under the occupation. The most prominent was Aquila al-Hashimi, a member of Iraq's interim Governing Council, who was fatally wounded by gunmen on Sept. 20."(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/a
For years many Americans have been wary of the corporate-funded U.S. network news services. They have turned instead to the news services of NPR and PBS which are also corporate-funded, but pretend independence. NPR radio continues to give an open pulpit to the U.S. government and the Pentagon to spin facts about Iraq without presenting a significant dissenting view. Again today, NPR's open-ended interviews with U.S. military leaders spun these facts, blaming Iraqi military operations on "Sunni insurgents" who are at war with their Shia brethren and opposed to the U.S.-controlled January elections. Last evening, PBS gave George Walker Bush voice to describe the Iraqi resistance as "killers who can't stand democracy". Anyone who reads all the news coming out of Iraq know the difference between "Sunni killers" and a genuine peoples' guerilla military in Iraq that is massive in number, well-organized, well-armed and hell-bent to kick the invaders out of their country.
Among the reports we shall examine here is yesterday's report of "The deadliest day" for U.S. in the New Year. We will leave out the descriptive terms meant to shape the readers thinking. Let's cut-to-the-chase of this carefully nuanced, desperately-worded, AFP report by listing the facts of the report:
cusoniraq/2005/January/focusoniraq_January43.xml§ion=foc ... )
The Success of Iraq's Military Defense vs. the U.S. Invaders
"...Iyad Allawi extended emergency laws in a bid to quell violence ahead of the January 30 elections.
"... Donald Rumsfeld is sending a retired general to Iraq to conduct an "open-ended" review of the US military's Iraq policy, including troop levels
"[yesterday] ... a bomb tore apart an armoured fighting vehicle in Baghdad on Thursday, killing seven US soldiers, while two marines died in the volatile western province of al-Anbar.
"[In] Samarra north of Baghdad, two Iraqi soldiers and a civilian were killed Friday ...
"... only a third of Sunni Muslims are 'very likely' to vote and 88 percent said fear of attacks would keep them away.
"[In] Mosul, bodies of 18 Iraqis apparently lured ...by promises of work at a US base were uncovered Thursday ...
"... in a separate development a French newspaper said one of its correspondents was missing.
"In the bloodiest attack against US troops in the new year, seven US soldiers in a Bradley fighting vehicle were killed when a bomb ripped a hole in the light armoured tank, valued for its maneuverability in Baghdad's dense streets.
"It was the largest number of US troops killed in a single attack since last month's suicide bombing in a military mess hall at a Mosul base that killed 22 people, including 14 US service members.
(Author's note: The initial reports indicated that this attack was a successful military operation by the Iraqi resistance that penetrated a U.S. military base with a "suspected" rocket or mortar attack inside the base on soldiers eating lunch. On the following day, the U.S. changed the story to report that it was a "suicide bomber" who attacked inside the mess hall. In the following 3-4 days, the complicit U.S. corporate media reinforced the government's second version in subsequent reports. What do you believe?)
AFP continuing ...
"In Al-Anbar province .... two US marines were killed in action, the military said, but released no further details on the separate incidents
"Curfews are already in place in Baghdad, Mosul, Baquba and other cities.
"We are worried but we have no certainties" about what happened to the two, Barnier told French television. Aubenas, 43, and Hussein Hanoun Al-Saadi left their Baghdad hotel early Wednesday and have not been seen since"
On January 6, AFP reported that Leutenant General James Helmly warned: "The US Army reserve is turning into a 'broken force'" and "may not be able to meet it's operational requirements in the future" ( http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35665 )
The report stated Lt. Gen. Helmly reported as "Congress prepared to consider another multi-billion-dollar request for financing the war on terror and was expected to raise new questions about the sustainability of the war in Iraq without reintroducing the draft."
On January 3, 2005, AFP reportedthat a U.S.-installed, Iraqi Intelligence chief stated that 200,000 Iraqi "insurgents" are battling the U.S. in Iraq. ( http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14878.shtm
On December 20, 2004, the media platoon of the Islamic Jihad Army issued an extremely well-produced, articulate, audio/video message to the U.S. government, saying they chose "principles over fear". They concluded ( http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14507.shtm
"And to George W. Bush, we say, "You have asked us to ‘Bring it on’, and so have we. Like never expected. Have you another challenge?"
Despite the massive U.S. bombing and razing of Fallujah in November, 2004, meant to "break the back of the insurgency", the U.S. failed to stop Iraq's military resistance ( http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14442.shtm
l ). Of Fallujah's pre-war population of about a half million, only a tiny fraction returned following the bombing of the city to inspect the damage to their homes and only about 7,000 remain. NPR reported today that most will refuse to vote in the January elections.
Who are the "Insurgents"?
As early as May, 2003, just after the U.S. invasion, 10,000 Shias marched against the U.S. occupation of their country ( http://www.theolympian.com/home/specialsections/War/20030519
The U.S. government/corporate media tells us over and over again, even today, that the "Iraqi insurgents" are residual members of the old Baathist Party, loyal to Saddam Hussein. They are Sunnis, we are told, who want to regain control over the Iraqi government, rejecting their Shia countrymen. On April 19, 2004, Martin Jaques, visiting fellow at the London School of Economics Asian Research Centre wrote for the Guardian (UK) ( http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_6661.shtml
"It is now clear to everyone - apart from Donald Rumsfeld and his cronies - that, far from being a rump of Saddamist malcontents, the resistance enjoys broad based support among the Sunnis and increasingly the Shias too. The old truths are alive and well. People do not want to be ruled by an alien power from thousands of miles away whose interests are self-serving. The resistance in Iraq bears all the hallmarks of a people's war for self-determination."
Today the corporate media tells us it is "foreign fighters" who are assisting the Iraqi resistance army - as though there is something wrong with such support by Iraqis using allies to defend their country. We reply that it is "foreign fighters" who invaded Iraq in 2003, including the U.S. military, the British military and a hodge-podge of other dwindling foreign military forces, patched together to enable the U.S. and Britain to spuriously call the invaders "coalition forces" or "allies". Who are the Iraqi Resistance? Martin Jaques is correct in calling them, "the people".
Who Can Argue?
Who can argue that the U.S. military in Iraq is not in disarray; that U.S. soldiers and the desperate, unemployed Iraqi citizens who cooperate with them are disorganized, undermanned and undergunned? Who can argue that the Iraqi resistance is only a rag-tag bunch of "Sunni Insurgents", trying to disrupt the elections, not wanting want democracy in their country? Who can argue that the Iraqi resistance has not mounted and maintained a well-organized, well prepared military defense of their country against the foreign invaders? The successful military operation by the real Iraqi army last month inside the U.S. military base at Mosul clearly shows their ability to penetrate the most heavily-guarded U.S. installments in Iraq.
Let us not forget who initiated this war on Iraq. Name the names.
We are reminded of the words of Kenneth Adelman. ( http://warincontext.org/editorials/cakewalk.htm ). Adelman is one of the members of the Defense Policy Board and supporters of Project for the New American Century (PNAC). He is personal friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and one of the principal architects of the war on Iraq, along with Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, James Woolsey, William Kristol et. al. In 2002 Adelman repeatedly declared that the war on Iraq would be a "cakewalk."
We are reminded of the words of Richard Perle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle ), another principal architect of the war on Iraq when he predicted that the war would last no longer than three weeks. He added, "And there is a good chance that it will be less than that." In the summer of 2002 Perle stated, "... support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder":
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
They were wrong. Dead wrong. But these are not stupid men. Was it a simple mistake? - that they miscalculated, or were they simply unconcerned? If the latter is true, we can deduce that they also were unconcerned about the hundreds of thousands Iraqis and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who have been killed and maimed in the year and half that followed.
When I think of the magnitude of death and destruction in Iraq today, I am reminded of Saddam Hussein's dream of having a ground war with the U.S. military prior to Bush-the-Elder's merciless bombing of Iraq. Saddam warned of the "Mother of all battles" ( http://www.halexandria.org/dward256.htm )and the unwitting laughed at him as Raytheon "smart bombs" fell on Iraq in 1991. We are also reminded of the famous words of Tarique Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, in December, 2002:
"Our cities will be our jungles and our buildings will be our swamps".
The successful military operations of the Iraqi army over the past year suggest to us that the U.S. has already lost this war. Now, it is only a question of how long and how many deaths and injuries. The U.S. has lost the war in terms of military strategy and in terms of their propaganda efforts both within and without Iraq. Most people of the world agree that it was wrong for the U.S. to commit the atrocious, unprovoked attack on the Iraqi people. Most agree that the time has long past for the U.S. to admit that their invasion, plunder and occupation of Iraq was morally wrong morally and militarily foolish. Most U.S. citizens, either covertly or openly disagree with this invasion in Iraq.
Where does all this leave us? As editors of Axis of Logic who report daily on the war on Iraq, let there be no confusion: We stand - openly - and "shoulder-to-shoulder" with the Iraqi resistance who are doing no less than we would do if we in the U.S. were invaded by a foreign nation. Our position is based on principle: The right to for any nation to defend their national boundries and sovereignty against invasion and occupation - on the principles of the right to independence and the right to national self-determination.
The arguments against immediate withdrawal of all U.S. Troops
Some readers, even those who oppose the war, write to us with the following arguments against an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq:
"But what will happen then? What if a civil war results in Iraq?" We reply that the U.S. and many other nations have had their civil wars and have resolved them within their own borders".
"What if a dictatorship takes over in Iraq?" We reply, "Do you refer to a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein who was installed and supported by the U.S.? The U.S. government does not have the authority, the right, the moral rectitude nor the ability to determine the form of governments in other sovereign nations.
"What if Iran gains a foothold in Iraq and establishes a theocracy led by Muslim clerics?" We reply that it is for the Iraqi people to decide with whom they will align themselves.
"We should continue the occupation in Iraq in our own national interest and for our own "national security". We reply that the WMD-less Iraqi government, weakened by 10 years of brutal sanctions posed no threat to the U.S. government - ever - despite the lies of the Bush regime who falsely claimed they could strike our eastern shores with nuclear weapons within 45 minutes.
If the U.S. pulls out now, the Iraqis will understandably be outraged at what our country has done. However, there is absolutely no evidence that they have the desire or the capability to commit "terrorist acts" in the U.S. There is absolutely no evidence there was ever a linkage between Al-Queda and the Saddam Hussein regime. If the U.S. pulls out now, the Iraqi people will have their hands full rebuilding what's left of their country. The safest way to leave Iraq is to leaving them as winners, not losers. When did Vietnam ever retaliate against the U.S. after it won the Vietnam war? When did they retaliate against France who occupied them before the U.S. and lost?
"We have the responsibility to install democracy in Iraq". We reply, Do you mean the type of democracy that revealed itself in the 2000 and 2004 national elections in the U.S.? Do you really believe a foreign country can "install democracy" in a foreign land and culture by putting a gun to their heads?
"We cannot afford to lose the war in Iraq. We are winners, not losers. We are #1 ... the superpower". We reply, We couldn't afford to lose the war in Vietnam either, but we did. If only we had admitted that the war was lost earlier, 58,000 U.S. soldiers would not have been killed in Vietnam and so many others collecting disability benefits paid by taxpayers for decades following. Millions of Vietnamese men, women and children would not have been maimed and killed. Billions of dollars would not have been wasted on a stupid, immoral and bloody war in Southeast Asia.
"It is 'unpatriotic' - even 'treasonous' to support America's enemies. We reply that the Iraqi people are not our enemies and that dissent, questioning and changing our government is patriotic. We support the Iraqi resistance not only in the interests of the Iraqi people but also in our own national interest. We support the U.S. troops in Iraq by calling for their withdrawal before more are killed and maimed. We support the U.S. withdrawal in our own economic interests. In October, 2004, The National Priorities Project reported ( http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Issues/Military/Iraq/CostO
So far, Congress appropriated approximately $56 billion in April 2003; another $72 billion in November 2003, and currently is in the process of appropriating an additional $25 billion, which was requested by the Bush Administration in May 2004. The total amounts to over $150 billion, but will be higher as the Bush Administration requests further spending later this year.
Please go to the NPP website to see what this war is costing your state and you personally in tax dollars.
Project Billboard and Center for American Progress placed a giant clock in NYC in August, 2004 showing the cost of the Iraq war to the U.S. taxpayer to be $177 million a day and $122,820 per minute ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/presid
The U.S. government knew about the cost of this war as early as September, 2002. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported to the congress ( http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/index.htm ):
"CBO estimates that the incremental costs of deploying a force to the Persian Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion. (See the explanation below of "incremental costs.") Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month--although how long such a war may last cannot be estimated.
In September, 2004, the Institute for Policy Studies reports on the long term costs of the war on Iraq predicated on "a failed transition": ( http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:
//www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm%3Findex=3822%26amp%3Bsequence=0 ... )
"Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: Economist Doug Henwood has estimated that the war bill will add up to an average of at least $3,415 for every U.S. household. Another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy initially, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation."
In addition to these direct economic costs, the IPS described the costs of the Iraq war in terms of the deaths of U.S. military, Non-Iraqi Contractors and deaths and injuries among the Iraqi people; the shrinkage of the U.S. "coalition"; "terrorist recruitments"; Low Troop Morale and Lack of Equipment; the Loss of U.S. Credibility; the Loss of First Responders (e.g. U.S. National Guard); U.S. Private Contractors; Oil Prices; Economic Impact on Military Families; U.S. Budget and Social Programs; Social Costs to the Military; Cost to Veteran Health Care; Mental Health Costs; Iraqi Deaths and Injuries; Effects of Depleted Uranium; Rise in Crime; Psychological Impact; Rise in Unemployment; Corporate War Profiteering; Iraq's Oil Economy; Health Infrastructure; Education; Environment; Human Rights; Sovereignty; Disabling International Law; Undermining the United Nations; Enforcing Coalitions; The Global Economy and Human Rights.
We say that as U.S. citizens we have the responsibility to protect the United States from the folly of it's government's wars, occupations and colonisations. We have the responsibility to protect our own U.S. military personnel from needless death and injury. We have the responsibility to protect our country from jettisoning our economy for the greed and gains of the profiteering corporations in this war; We have the responsibility to stop irresponsible leaders who have gained political power through corporate funding and corporate media propaganda. We have the responsibility to use our wealth and power as a nation for the good of the common man, woman and child whether in our own country or abroad. We have the responsibility to fight hunger and poverty at home and abroad. We love our country and want what's best for every American. We are patriots.
Our answer to these questions can be distilled to this: Every sovereign nation has the right to self-determination. Every nation has the right to find their own way to their choice of government. It is arrogant, unwise, illegal and immoral for the U.S. to impose it's will on another sovereign nation out of its own "self-interest".
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Costs of Speaking Out against U.S. Foreign Policy
We have seen what has happened to those who oppose the U.S. corporate-wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and U.S. proxy war on Palestine. Those who are vulnerable to deportation are jailed and/or deported - for doing no more than speaking out against U.S. foreign policy. We have seen the government violate the civil rights and free speech of activists when protesting the war on Iraq. As activists, we have been intimidated, harrassed, gassed, arrested, placed in razor-wire "Free Speech Zones" and imprisoned.
Earlier this month an angry reader wrote to tell me he was reporting me to "Homeland Security", accusing me of "aiding and abetting the enemy". The government replied that they would "investigate". The reader sent me copies of his letter and the government's reply. As we traveled by air over the holidays, I and my family (including our young child) and I were pulled out of the security lines at two airports and put through extensive searches. This was not the first time for me, but it was the first for my family. During a previous search at an airport last year, I asked three security personnel why I was being singled out. One of them replied, "Because your name came up on a computer list". This time - they searched my child. Is this only the beginning? These personal costs and threats are miniscule and not to be compared with the losses to the leaders of the international anti-war movement in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq.
The U.S. government has used fear, intimidation and harrassment to silence us. We will not be silenced. The time has long passed for the American people to stand up against their government's invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and against their proxy war in Palestine. Our consciences will allow us to do no other, regardless of the personal costs exacted upon us by a rogue U.S. government.
What is our View of the Iraqi Resistance?
As editors of Axis of Logic, we believe that it is our responsibility, morally and legally to support the real Iraqi army - the people - in defense of their country. We believe that the only solution - if it can be called that - to the bloody quagmire in which the U.S. now finds itself swamped today is two-fold:
(1) The U.S. must withdraw all troops from Iraq now, before the loss of life reaches the proportions of the foolhardy Vietnam war.
(2) The U.S. must live up to the responsibility for what it has done for decades to come - by paying for the damage in the form of reparations. Those reparations must be paid to the Iraqi people for their use at their own discretion, as they request it - not under the control of the U.S. government from its military bases already established in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.
In his September, 2001 speech to a joint-session of congress, George Walker Bush framed a question, "Either you are with us or with the terrorists". In regard to his invasion of Iraq, we categorically reject this not-so-clever challenge. In regard to Iraq, we reply, "Mr. President, we are not with you." To the reader we say, "You too have a choice". We have long recognized the futility of "writing your representative in Congress. However, today we offer this suggestion: If you are opposed to the U.S. invasion and occupation in Iraq, write an email message to the congress. Place your view in the subject line of your email where it is difficult to be missed: "Bring the Troops Home Now!". Join the massive Anti-Inaugural Demonstration in Washington D.C. on January 20 ( http://iacenter.org/ ) to tell the government, "Bring the Troops Home Now!" If we take any other position, perhaps a book will one day be written about us titled, "Bush's Willing Executioners".
Copyright 2003 by AxisofLogic.com
:: Article nr. 8740 sent on 09-jan-2005 03:22 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=8740
:: The original address of this article is :
- Why Pete Buttigieg may be reviving progressive ideals of the Social Gospel Movement
- Medal of Honor review sought for minority World War I heroes
- Russia isn’t the first country to protest Western control over global telecommunications
- Redactions: The Declassified File
- Abraham Lincoln, Joe Biden and the politics of touch