Archive for July, 2008

Friends of Israel blind to the truth

July 19, 2008

By Stuart Littlewood | Redress, 19 July 2008

Stuart Littlewood considers the blatant disregard for justice, human rights and basic norms of civilized behaviour shown by Israel’s stooges in the British Parliament, some of whom recently visited Israel and showed far more concern for Israeli terrorists than the Christian and Muslim civilians they terrorize.

The real Zionist vision does not recognise any maps. It is a vision of a state without borders – a state that expands at all times according to its demographic, military and political power.

This warning by the respected Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery should be impressed on every friend of Israel in the West.

They are so gullible. The Jewish Chronicle last week reported how a group of intrepid Conservative MPs on a “Friends of Israel” junket experienced a “gunfire exchange” in Sderot. One of them said:

”We couldn’t see the gunfire, but could hear that it was close by.” The exchange illustrated the “effects on quality of life that people in the south of Israel suffer on a daily basis. It shows that it is not a sustainable position for these areas to be constantly subject to rocket attacks and that Israel has the right to take appropriate actions to defend its citizens.” Urging Britons to visit Israel, he argued: “It’s very important to show their support for the only democracy in the area. I feel we have a duty and obligation to support Israel.”

Israel’s stooges in the UK Parliament choose to sympathize with Israeli terrorists rather than the Christian and Muslim civilians they terrorize

Another commented: “The gunfire was pretty close and it very much brought home how the violence in the area is ongoing and what people go through every day. Until I was there, I didn’t appreciate how serious the problem was and how much normal civilians, including children, are on the front-line.”

These brave souls from the British Parliament didn’t trouble to visit the Gaza side and experience the Palestinians’ quality of life under the far more lethal barrage from Israel or partake of starvation rations under the cruel siege. If they hadn’t the good manners to go talk with Hamas they could at least have met the Christian community and listened to their story.

Instead they were happy to be brainwashed by Tel Aviv propagandists, who no doubt told them how many home-made rockets had fallen on southern Israel but not, of course, the number of high-tech munitions fired by Israel’s F16s, helicopter gunships, tanks, drones and naval gunboats into the densely-packed population of the Gaza Strip, or the limb-shattering high-velocity rounds used by the Israeli occupation forces. I’ll bet they can quote the Israeli casualties but have no idea of the massive Palestinian death toll.

It is very strange indeed how these Friends of Israel – mostly Christians, it seems – show far more concern for Israeli terrorists than the Christian and Muslim civilians they terrorize.

Maybe basic facts haven’t quite sunk in…

  • like Israel has been ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people for 60 years
  • like Israel continues to occupy, rob, humiliate and murder its neighbours
  • like Israel is no Western-style democracy but an apartheid-loving ethnocracy
  • like Israel has ignored nearly 40 UN resolutions, flouts international law and is oblivious to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • like eight Palestinians are killed for every Israeli, and the lives of Palestinian children are so cheap they are slaughtered at the rate of 11 to 1
  • like Israel lies when it claims to have “withdrawn completely” from Gaza
  • like Israel has nuclear weapons numbering hundreds and is the only state in the region not to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

With a record like this, how does the Israel lobby manage to browbeat supposedly intelligent MPs, MEPs and ministers into supporting the regime’s crimes and the ruthless Zionist expansion?

Continued . . .

Report: U.S. Africa Aid Is Increasingly Military

July 19, 2008

Advocacy Group Cites Development Needs

By Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, July 18, 2008; A10

NAIROBI, July 17 — U.S. aid to Africa is becoming increasingly militarized, resulting in skewed priorities and less attention to longer-term development projects that could lead to greater stability across the continent, according to a report released Thursday by the advocacy group Refugees International.

The report warns that the planned U.S. Africa Command, designed to boost America’s image and prevent terrorism, is allowing the Defense Department to usurp funds traditionally directed by the State Department and U.S. aid agencies.

A Pentagon spokesman did not return a call requesting comment. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned this week against the risk of a “creeping militarization” of U.S. foreign policy and said the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries.

The Pentagon, which controlled about 3 percent of official aid money a decade ago, now controls 22 percent, while the U.S. Agency for International Development‘s share has declined from 65 percent to 40 percent, according to the 56-page report.

“The danger is this strategy will not achieve the security objectives of addressing the root causes of terrorism,” said Mark Malan, author of the report. “And it certainly won’t address the developmental objectives of U.S. foreign policy.”

Refugees International, based in Washington, provides aid to refugees and advocates for solutions to end conditions that create displacement.

Malan said the militarization has been driven by the U.S. focus on counterterrorism, though the trend dates to the Cold War era. The more fundamental problem, he said, is a lack of consistent, coherent U.S. foreign policy attention to Africa.

For example, the United States has dedicated nearly $50 million to hire contractors to train 2,000 soldiers in post-civil war Liberia, a West African country of 4 million people. Meanwhile, $5.5 million has been dedicated to boosting a weak and unprofessional army of 164,000 soldiers in Congo, a country of 65 million where a decade-long conflict and humanitarian crisis have left an estimated 5 million people dead.

The headquarters of the new African command post, known as Africom, has not been determined, and many African leaders have rejected hosting it. A temporary headquarters is being set up in Stuttgart, Germany, and is expected to begin consolidating responsibility for the continent in October.

Africom in part aims to better integrate U.S. efforts in Africa by coordinating military activities with the State Department and other agencies, but “the State Department is being overwhelmed by the Pentagon,” Malan said.

Continued . . .

Ashcroft Defends Waterboarding In Front of House Judiciary Committee

July 19, 2008

by Lara Jakes Jordan

WASHINGTON – Former Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday “it was not a hard decision” to withdraw Justice Department legal opinions that approved the use of harsh interrogation methods which critics say amount to torture.

Ashcroft, testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee, said he did not necessarily disagree with the conclusions of the two memos that were written in 2002 and 2003 but later rescinded. But he said the legal reasoning behind both memos was flawed and needed to be corrected.

At the heart of both opinions was a controversial definition of torture. It said “only extreme acts” that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure should be prohibited in the interrogations of terrorist suspects. Ashcroft, who served as attorney general from 2001 to 2005, had initially approved both memos. They were written in part at least by former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.

“It became apparent in the further examination of those opinions, when made in another timeframe, that there were matters of concerns that were brought to my opinion,” Ashcroft told lawmakers. “It was not a hard decision for me.”

He added that he relied on his staff attorneys – and Yoo in particular – to give him sound legal advice.

Though the memos were later replaced with a new, narrower policy about what methods would be allowed, that did not “call into question any of the actual interrogation practices that the OLC had previously approved as legal,” Ashcroft said. OLC stands for the Office of Legal Counsel, which writes the Justice Department’s legal opinions for the president.

“When I was informed about concerns regarding overly broad advice, the limits of which were never tested, I directed the OLC to correct it,” Ashcroft said.

Democrats peppered Ashcroft with questions about how often waterboarding was used by interrogators who were following the now-defunct legal opinions.

Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world. Critics call it a form of torture.

Ashcroft said he was aware of three times that interrogators waterboarded terror suspects. He said he does not believe waterboarding, as it was then described by the CIA, amounted to torture.

The Bush administration maintains waterboarding was legal when it was used by CIA interrogators in 2002 and 2003 on top al-Qaida detainees Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. CIA Director Michael Hayden has said waterboarding was used, in part, because of widespread belief among U.S. intelligence officials that more catastrophic attacks were imminent.

Hayden banned waterboarding in CIA interrogations in 2006. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to publicly discuss whether waterboarding is currently legal since it is no longer used by CIA interrogators.

© 2008 The Associated Press

More Evidence Madrid Bombing was a False Flag Op

July 19, 2008

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars, July 17, 2008

Madrid train bombing
It now appears obvious the Madrid bombing was a Gladio-like operation designed to frighten and stampede the Spanish public into supporting the bogus war against terror.

Agence-France Presse reports:

Spain’s supreme court Thursday overturned the guilty verdicts on four of the 21 people convicted over the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

It also upheld a lower court’s decision to acquit one of the alleged masterminds of the Al Qaeda-inspired attacks, Rabei Ousmane Sayed Ahmed, known as “Mohammed the Egyptian”.

And it handed down a four-year prison term to a Spaniard, Antonio Toro, who had been acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.

Note: the attack is no longer considered the direct handiwork of al-Qaeda but is rather an “al-Qaeda inspired attack.” Back in March, 2004, the corporate media resoundingly declared al-Qaeda to be responsible.

The supreme court Thursday overturned the convictions of Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Almallah Dabas, both condemned to 12 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist group.

It also cleared Abdelilah El Fadual El Akil, condemned to nine years for collaborating with a terrorist group, as well as Raul Gonzalez Pena, who had received five years for supplying explosives.

In other words, according to Spain’s Supreme Court, these people did not belong to a terrorist group, at least not an Islamic terrorist group. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to stay the conviction of “Mohammed the Egyptian,” said to be the ringleader, and his conviction was thrown out as well.

The court in October had handed down the heaviest sentences to two Moroccans — Jamal Zougam and Othman el-Gnaoui — and a Spaniard, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras.

As it turns out, Trashorras and a compatriot, Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Toro was recently handed a four-year prison for transporting explosives.

Continued . . .

U.S.-led forces confirm killing Afghan civilians

July 18, 2008

REUTERS

Reuters North American News Service

Jul 17, 2008 08:13 EST

KABUL, July 17 (Reuters) – U.S.-led coalition troops killed eight Afghan civilians in an air strike in the western province of Farah during a Tuesday raid against suspected militants, the U.S. military said.

The acknowledgement came as reports of more civilian deaths caused by a fresh air raid by foreign forces emerged on Thursday from the neighbouring province of Herat.

Tuesday’s air strike was summoned after a coalition convoy came under sustained attack from machine gun and indirect fire from a number of houses adjacent to a road in the Bakwa district of Farah, the U.S. military said.

“The coalition convoy returned fire and called for close air support on the enemy positions. A house was hit; eight civilians were killed, two others injured,” it said in a statement late on Wednesday.

“Coalition forces never intentionally target non-combatants, and deeply regret any occurrence such as this where civilians are killed and injured as a result of insurgent activity and actions,” it said.

Afghan officials said nine people, all members of the same family were killed in Tuesday’s bombing.

In Thursday’s raid, at least four men were killed, a spokesman for the regional police command said. Witnesses said 17 people were also wounded and taken to hospital.

The U.S. military said the raid was against “high priority Taliban targets” in Herat, adding two “Taliban leaders” and “significant number of other insurgents were also killed”.

In a statement, it said, there was no evidence of civilian casualties.

The issue of civilian casualties is highly sensitive one for the Western-backed government and undermines Afghan support for the presence of foreign forces who are fighting the Taliban-led insurgents in Afghanistan.

There has been a sharp rise in violence in Afghanistan this year, the bloodiest since U.S.-led and Afghan forces overthrew the hard-line Taliban in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The U.S. military says it is investigating reports by Afghan officials that around 60 civilians were killed in two separate air strikes by U.S.-led coalition forces this month in eastern Afghanistan.

More than 800 civilians have been killed since the start of 2007 in Afghanistan by foreign and Afghan forces, according to Afghan officials and the U.N. (Writing by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Valerie Lee)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

Opposing war in “the belly of the beast”

July 18, 2008

The latest in a series of articles elaborating on the ISO’s “Where We Stand” statement.

We oppose U.S. intervention in Cuba, the Middle East and elsewhere. We are for self-determination for Puerto Rico.
–From the ISO “Where We Stand”

Series: Where We Stand

You can read previous installments of Paul D’Amato’s articles on the ISO’s “Where We Stand” statement.

“‘FREEDOM’ IS a grand word,” Lenin once wrote, “but under the banner of freedom for industry, the most predatory wars were waged.”

Nowhere is this statement truer than the United States. Washington has always cloaked its predatory ambitions in the language of the American Revolution–freedom, liberty, democracy and freedom of trade. It has always been the “reluctant empire,” invading other countries for their own good, and always with kind and benevolent intentions.

Parallel to this has come the idea that the United States is destined to dominate the world. “The history of territorial expansion,” exclaimed O.H. Platt, a Connecticut senator in the late 1890s, “is the history of our nation’s progress and glory…We should rejoice that Providence has given us the opportunity to extend our influence, our institutions and our civilization into regions hitherto closed to us.”

The United States, from its inception, has been a society built upon violent conquest, beginning with the dispossession of Native Americans. “America the benevolent,” writes historian Sidney Lens, “does not exist and never has existed.”

From its war with Mexico in 1846–which resulted in the annexing of half of that country to the United States–to the occupation of Iraq, the United States has never been shy about using its military might to conquer territory, annex colonies or intimidate rivals and weaker nations. Its interventions in the Philippines, Korea and Vietnam alone are responsible for the deaths of more than 6 million people.

Columnist: Paul D’Amato

Paul D'Amato Paul D’Amato is managing editor of the International Socialist Review and author of The Meaning of Marxism, a lively and accessible introduction to the ideas of Karl Marx and the tradition he founded.

Between 1870 and 1922, the U.S. emerged as the world’s biggest industrial power, and its total wealth increased tenfold, from $30 billion to $320 billion. By the end of this period, the U.S. became Europe’s and the world’s creditor; after the Second World War, it added to its economic power its military supremacy–a position it has fought to maintain by any means necessary ever since.

Continued . . .

Israeli Claims over Journalist Challenged

July 18, 2008

By Sanjay Suri and Mel Frykberg


LONDON, Jul 17 (IPS) – Medical reports seen by IPS appear to confirm the testimony of IPS Gaza correspondent Mohammed Omer of physical abuse at the hands of Israelis last month.

Omer said he was physically and mentally abused at the Allenby crossing into Gaza while on his way back from a European tour. In London, he was awarded the Martha Gellhorn prize for investigative reporting.

Omer left for Europe through an agreement secured by Dutch diplomats to escort him in and out of Gaza. The abuse was reported Jun. 26 as Omer was searched at the crossing in Israeli custody while a Dutch diplomat waited outside.

According to Omer’s testimony, he was forced to strip by an Israeli officer wearing a police uniform. He was pinned down on the floor with a boot on the neck. He says he collapsed during interrogation, and when he came round his eyelids were being forcibly opened. He was then dragged along the floor by his feet by officials of the Israeli security agency Shin Bet.

Omer was taken by ambulance from the Allenby crossing to the Jericho hospital in Palestinian territory in the West Bank. From there he was transferred to Gaza after a few hours.

A note from the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) denies Omer’s account of physical abuse in Israeli custody. “In contradiction to his claims, at no time was the complainant subjected to either physical or mental violence.”

But an ambulance report of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society says: “We note finger signs on the neck and chest.” A report from the European Gaza Hospital of the Palestinian National Authority’s Ministry of Health includes the following notation after examination of Omer: “Ecchymosis (discolouration caused by bleeding underneath, typically caused by bruising) at upper part of chest wall was found.”

Continued . . .

Johann Hari: We have everything to fear from McCain

July 18, 2008

The Independent, July 17, 2008

Change font size: A | A | A

When the almost six billion of us outside the US watch the contest for The Most Powerful Man in the World, we tend to focus on the candidates’ foreign policies. If I was Iranian, say, I’d be anxious that John McCain keeps joking in public about killing me. As a bravo-bow after singing “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys melody Barbra Ann, he responded to being told exports of cigarettes to Iran are high by guffawing: “That’s a way of killing them!”

But there’s a way in which the next US president will affect you even more directly than foreign policy. By his economic decisions, the next president will help swing the price of the food you eat and the wages you earn – wherever you live on earth.

So it’s a little worrying that John McCain – who still has a reasonable chance of winning – says: “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should… To be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

This is a man who can’t tell his Sunni from his Shia, and who opposed the Northern Ireland peace process as a capitulation to terrorism. And he admits he knows even less about the economy than that. On one occasion, he let his irritation with the subject slip by referring to it as “the credit cunt”.

Continued . . .

Middle East Democracy: Blowback Through the Looking Glass

July 17, 2008

Robert Weitzel, July 17, 2008

“If I had a world of my own . . . nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would.” -Alice in Wonderland-

Alice: “You want democracy in the Middle East?”

Uncle Sam: “I do.”

Alice: “And Iran was a democracy?”

Uncle Sam: “It was.”

Alice: “With a constitution?”

Uncle Sam: “Of course!”

Alice: “But you replaced that democracy with a dictatorship?”

Uncle Sam: “ I certainly did!”

Alice: “I don’t understand you?”

Uncle Sam: “My dear, how else will democracy flourish in the Middle East?”

Alice: “It’s all so dreadfully confusing.”

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” the White Queen assured Alice that “it’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.” A contemporary reader stepping into the “looking glass” world of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East may well understand the Queen’s contrariness as “blowback”—an event that appears to be without cause but is the unintended consequence of a past action. Blowback is a “sort of memory” that always works forward.

In 1953, Uncle Sam, at the behest of his British ally, stepped through the looking glass to attack Iran. The CIA’s month-long covert war deposed the popularly elected Mohammad Mossadegh and ended the Middle East’s oldest constitutional democracy.

To secure a foothold for democracy in the region—and keep oil flowing at an Anglo-American price—Uncle Sam placed Mohammad Reza Shah back on the Peacock Throne. The twenty-five years of oppressive dictatorship that followed was the “sort of memory” that came blowing back through the looking glass with the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which resulted in a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy in Iran and the transmogrification of Uncle Sam into “Shaytan Bozorg”—the Great Satan.

The Islamic Revolution brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who have inspired a generation of new recruits in the war against the imperialist aggression of the West; a war that blew back through the looking glass—and the Twin Towers—as the “War on Terror.”

This June, both presumptive presidential candidates made their obligatory supplication at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention in Washington D.C. In the “looking glass” world of American politics, candidates for national office—from federal dogcatcher to the White House—cannot get elected without first being “voted in” by Israel’s representatives in the United States.

John McCain told the AIPAC audience, “The State of Israel stands . . . as the great democracy of the Middle East. [It has] thrived and . . . built a nation that’s an inspiration to free nations everywhere.”

Barack Obama told the same audience, “In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.”

The White Queen told Alice, “Sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

In 1948, Uncle Sam was the first in line to recognize the birth of the State of Israel in the Land of Palestine. The birth pain of this “great [Jewish-only] democracy of the Middle East” is known to the entirety of the Arab world as the “Nakhba” (catastrophe)—the murder of 800 Palestinian Arabs in twenty-four separate Israeli terror attacks that were calculated to initiate the “ethic cleansing” of 700,000 Palestinians and the destruction of 500 villages.

After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and began to illegally settle the whole of the Land of Palestine. It has since created an apartheid state whose “resilient commitment to the rule of law” has forced over four million Palestinians behind walls and beyond the reach of human rights.

In its sixty-years as an “inspiration to free nations everywhere,” Israel has yet to draft a constitution, much less a bill of rights. To do so would mean the self-destruction of the Jewish State as envisioned by the Zionist ideology that created and sustains it. If Israel is to self-destruct, it will be in an apocalyptic battle to save itself from itself.

Uncle Sam’s implicit support for Israel’s repressive policies against the Palestinian people and his overt support of Israel’s aggression against neighboring states has blown back through the looking glass with Iran’s determination to acquire the nuclear technology with which to both power and protect itself.

As AIPAC-vetted politicians vow to “totally obliterate” Iran if it continues along a nuclear path, the other side of the looking glass reveals Uncle Sam offering to help the Shah develop an Iranian nuclear weapons program in the 1970s, just as he had earlier given a wink and a nod—and no doubt assistance— as Israel began developing its now 200-strong nuclear arsenal.

Uncle Sam’s foreign policy in the Middle East has created Alice’s contrary world where “what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would.” It is a world filled with the “sort of memory” that always works forward to become the stuff of nightmares and the roost for returning chickens.

Alice: “So, you ended a democracy that was and support a “democracy” that isn’t or ever will be until it ceases being a “democracy” so that democracy will flourish in a land whose only experience of democracy has been what democracy isn’t?”

Uncle Sam: “Well said!”

Alice: “It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.”

Biography: Robert Weitzel is a contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com

Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don’t

July 17, 2008

By Paul Craig Roberts | “ICH”, July 16, 2008

National Public Radio has been spending much news time on Darfur in Western Sudan where a great deal of human suffering and death are occurring. The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial as well. The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets.

Now an International Criminal Court prosecutor wants to bring charges against Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court’s pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?

Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn’t the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?

Bush and Blair’s crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush’s war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The leaders of every member of the “coalition of the willing to commit war crimes” are candidates for the dock.

But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes. War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Milosovic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.

Every week the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as “terrorists,” and “terrorists” can be treated inhumanely without complaint.

Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist US occupation of their country are “terrorists.” Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed–even those attending wedding parties–is claimed to be Taliban by the US military. Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.

The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for holding all governments accountable for their criminal actions. It is the hypocrisy to which I object. The West gives itself and Israel a pass while damning everyone else. Even human rights groups fall into the trap. Rights activists don’t see the buffoonery in their complaint that President Bush, who has violated more human rights than any person alive, is letting China off the hook for human rights abuses by attending the Olympics hosted by China.

President Bush claims that the enormous destruction and death he has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary in order for Americans to be safe. If we are accepting excuses this feeble, Milosovic passed muster with his excuse that as the head of state he was obliged to try to preserve the state’s territorial integrity. Is al-Bashir supposed to accept secession in the Sudan, something that Lincoln would not accept from the Confederacy? How long would al-Bashir last if he partitioned Sudan?

Last October the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a photo on its front page above the fold of an elderly man with mikes shoved in his face. Paul Henss, 85 years old, is being deported from the US, where he has lived for 53 years, because Eli Rosenbaum, director the the US State Department’s Nazi-hunting bureaucracy, declared him a war criminal for training guard dogs used at German concentration camps. Henss was 22 years old when World War II ended.

A kid who trained guard dogs is being deported as a war criminal, but the head of state who launched two wars of naked aggression, resulting in the deaths of more than 1.2 million people, and who has the entire world on edge awaiting his third war of aggression, this time against Iran, is received respectfully by foreign governments. Corporations and trade associations will pay him $100,000 per speech when he leaves office. He will make millions of dollars more from memoirs written by a ghostwriter.

Does no one see the paradox of deporting Henss while leaving the war criminal in the White House?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan Administration, is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.