Fourteen Months of Danger

November 10, 2007

TomPaine.com, November 08, 2007

Marcus Raskin and Robert Spero, TomPaine.com

Marcus Raskin and Robert Spero are co-authors of The Four Freedoms Under Siege: The Clear and Present Danger of Our National Security State.After the 2006 congressional elections, pundits declared that President Bush was a lame duck. Each day his power and capacity to pursue his neoconservative agenda was supposed to drain away until he went back to Crawford Texas, a beaten man.

But like so much in politics, those who tie themselves to conventional wisdom are often very wrong. George W. Bush is as strong now as he was when he gained office for his second term. He is determined—ferociously, like a bulldog with a bone—to pursue his agenda even if it becomes a millstone around the country¹s neck for years and decades.

Why is Mr. Bush, in the remaining 14 months of his presidency, defying the wishes of the people, when 75 percent believe the country is heading down the wrong track? For all the obsessive secrecy of the Bush administration, the president has been remarkably open about his guide in matters of state and as a personal cleanser to his previous alcohol addiction: Jesus.

Keep reading . . .

The Battle for Pakistan

November 10, 2007

by Imran Khan

The imposition of martial law under the garb of emergency should make it abundantly clear to everyone that dictators cannot afford even a semblance of either an independent judicial system or a free media. And neither can the assortment of criminals camouflaged as politicians who collaborate with dictators.

No one is fooled by Gen. Musharaf’s latest deception to hang on to power. The war on terror has served him well so far and so why change a successful strategy; spread fear in the western capitals by invoking images of bearded men with guns and in the meanwhile brutally crush all dissent within the country, as was recently done by the Burmese Military. Having inducted pliant and amoral judges through the PCO, the next step would be to massively rig the elections while keeping the media muzzled. What he hopes is that he will again have a rubber stamp Assembly, a controlled majority and a friendly opposition, while real power will rest with him for another 5 years.

Keep reading . . .

Iraqi Government to UN: ‘Don’t Extend Mandate for Bush’s Occupation’

November 10, 2007

AlterNet

By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar. Posted November 9, 2007.

 

 

Bush needs the U.N.’s cover to justify the occupation, but the only way he can renew the expiring U.N. mandate is to cut Iraq’s frail democracy out of the process.

The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It’s an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it’s in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq’s nascent democracy (which needs all the legitimacy it can get).While the Bush administration frequently invokes sunny visions of spreading democracy and “freedom” around the world, the fact remains that democracy is incompatible with its goals in Iraq. The biggest headache supporters of the occupation of Iraq have to deal with is the occupation itself. As far back as the middle of 2004, more than nine out of 10 Iraqis said the U.S.-led forces were “occupiers,” and only 2 percent called them “liberators.” Things have only gone downhill since then, and any government that represents the will of the Iraqi people would have no choice but to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. This fact poses an enormous problem, as the great triumph of the Bush administration and its supporters has been in their ability to convince Americans that Iraqi interests and Washington’s interests are in harmony, even when they’re diametrically opposed.

Keep reading . . .

How Cheney took control of Bush’s foreign policy

November 9, 2007

Source: Salon.com

The new veep installed crony Don Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, and would’ve won Paul Wolfowitz the top post at CIA — if not for Wolfowitz’s zipper problem.

Editor’s note: This is Part 3 of an excerpt from “The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America’s Future.” Part 1 ran on Nov. 7; Part 2 ran on Nov. 8. For more information on the book, visit craigunger.com

By Craig Unger

Pages 1 2

Photos: AP/LM Otero

George W Bush, center, stands with Dick Cheney, right and Colin Powell after the Bush’s introduction of Powell as his secretary of state nominee in Crawford, Texas, Saturday, Dec 16, 2000.

Nov. 9, 2007 | Much as he loathed Colin Powell, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney realized that the immensely popular general — the most trusted man in America — was essential to the political perception of the incoming Bush administration’s foreign policy decisions. As former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich put it, “If you’re George Bush, and the biggest weakness you have is foreign policy, and you can have Cheney on one flank and Powell on the other, it virtually eliminated the competence issue.”

As a result, on December 16, 2000, three days after Al Gore conceded defeat, Colin Powell was flown to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where the president-elect announced his first cabinet appointment: Colin Powell as secretary of state. “He is a tower of strength and common sense,” said Bush. “You find somebody like that, you have to hang on to them. I have found such a man.”

Tears filled Bush’s eyes. “I so admire Colin Powell,” he later explained. “I love his story.”

Unlike other designated cabinet appointees, Powell had not been vetted by Cheney or other campaign officials. Nor, according to “Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell,” Karen DeYoung’s comprehensive biography of him, was Powell even asked any serious foreign policy questions. Such discussions were not necessary. According to a former Pentagon official who had worked with Cheney during the first Gulf War, “Cheney’s distrust and dislike for Mr. Powell were unbounded.” In other words, Powell was only there for show. Cheney immediately took measures to undermine him. The chess game began.

Keep reading . . .

Reading Lincoln in Pakistan

November 9, 2007

The nation, November 8, 2007

By Eric Foner 

Every generation and every political movement, it seems, reinvents Abraham Lincoln in its own image. But rarely has he been invoked so cynically as on November 4, when President-General Pervez Musharraf quoted extensively from Lincoln to justify the suspension of the Pakistani Constitution and the imposition of martial law. Musharraf declared that during the Civil War, Lincoln “broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties.” He quoted from an 1864 letter to Albert Hodges, in which Lincoln declared that “measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation.” Musharraf failed to note that in this letter, Lincoln was not defending the abrogation of democracy or the suppression of civil liberties but his decision to emancipate the slaves.

Keep reading . . . 

Pakistan’s Bhutto being placed under house arrest: officials

November 9, 2007

Friday, November 9

ISLAMABAD (AFP) – – Pakistan’s former premier Benazir Bhutto was to be put under house arrest Friday, hours before she was due to lead a rally against a state of emergency, government officials said.

“She is being placed under house arrest,” a senior government offcial told AFP on condition of anonymity.An AFP correspondent saw a magistrate entering her house in Islamabad, apparently with the arrest order, while dozens of police cordoned off the street outside.

To stop the rally the government deployed 6,000 police officers in Rawalpindi, near Islamabad, completely sealing off the planned venue in the garrison city with barbed wire and concrete blocks.

The stand-off comes a day after Musharraf said that he would hold elections by February 15, a month later than scheduled, in a bid to fend off criticism from Western allies and domestic opponents.

“Under no circumstances will the rally be allowed. The law will take its course against anyone who defies it,” Rawalpindi police chief Saud Aziz told AFP.

Traitors?

November 9, 2007

Dissident Voice, November 8, 2007

“America is a nation without a distinct criminal class; with the possible exception of Congress.”
Samuel “Mark Twain” Clemens

On November 6th, Dennis Kucinich exercised a Congressional privilege and introduced his bill, H Res 333 on the House floor to impeach Vice-Criminal Richard V. Cheney. Some people question the timing of introducing the resolution on that day. Was it just motivated by the proximity to the Iowa Caucuses? Is Dennis actually concerned with our Constitution and preventing a seeming impending attack on Iran? Either way, a resolution to impeach any, or all, of BushCo has been long overdue and was supported by many of the progressive base which is clamoring for peace and accountability.

Keep reading . . .

Howard Zinn renews call to end ‘sham’ war

November 8, 2007

The Daily Free Press, November 7, 2007

by Vivian Ho

Former Boston University professor and political activist Howard Zinn last night said Americans need to “withdraw our obedience from our government” in response to what he called government deception surrounding modern wars.

1107 08“The war on terrorism is a sham,” Zinn said at Morse Auditorium. “Terrorism is an idea that exists all over. You can’t make war on it. If terrorism is the killing of innocent people for some presumed important purpose, then making a war on people is terrorism. War is terrorism. The terrorism of our war in Iraq has killed far, far more people than were killed in the twin towers.”

Zinn said a revolution is the only option Americans have to bring about change and charged his audience of more than 200 to form a “people’s” movement toward a “different world.”

The longtime professor also said government hype must be combated with a discussion of history.

“If you know some history that is outside the establishing view of history, you will not be fooled by the things you hear from the White House, or from members of Congress, or from leaders of political parties,” he said in his lecture, organized by BU Students for a Democratic Society, Boston Youth and Student Anti-War Movement.

The study of the history of government deception in wartime needs a closer look, Zinn said.

“What’s being told is that we are fighting in Iraq for democracy. We are occupying in order to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people,” he said. “If you look at the history of American occupations, look at the history of U.S. interventions in other parts of the world – where have we brought democracy? There’s no evidence of America bringing democracy to the countries that we occupy.”

Zinn said the turnout was encouraging. Attendees said they reserved spots beforehand, and many filled in balcony seating.

“It was a lot of things people need to hear,” said College of Arts and Sciences junior Haley Ott. “There’s a stigma against activism, [so] for someone like him [to speak], it’s useful to have people inside like that.”

Zinn stressed the necessity of citizen involvement, a sentiment BU Anti-War Coalition member Alek Drobnjak said he strongly supports.

“He made a point on people getting involved, which was very important,” the College of Engineering sophomore said. “We need more people to join our clubs and participate in our government.”

Zinn will be speaking again this weekend with BU professor Elie Wiesel in a nonpartisan regional conference called “Race to 2008,” a discussion meant to revive political involvement among campuses in the Northeast.

“If you want something done, it happens when people come together,” said SDS President Farah Mohammadzadeh, a CAS junior. “It’s a revolution. It’s possible.”

© 2007 The Daily Free Press

Tony Blair ‘knew Iraq had no WMD’

November 8, 2007

The Sunday Times, October 5, 2007

TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today.

John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also “assented” that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.

His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented “a real and present danger” to Britain.

Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary, when it first discussed military action against Iraq.

The prime minister ignored the “large number of ministers who spoke up against the war”, according to Cook. He also “deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing” to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.

Keep reading . . .

Super-patriotism’s intercourse with the secret sect of power

November 8, 2007

Online Journal, November 7, 2007

By Gaither Stewart
Online Journal Contributing Writer

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” Oscar Wilde

The menace posed to society by distorted paranoid patriotism manifests itself in mysterious ways.

One of the most insidious characteristics of the super-patriot is the support he lends to the sect of Power. In our times, he melds intimately with Power, and is its vanguard. He joins in with its secret societies circulating invisibly in the community, and secretly influencing ordinary people who don’t suspect that the sects of Power and its enlisted agents are forever observing them and stalking them and evaluating them in order to determine if they measure up to the requirements of acceptable patriotism. But for Power the super-patriot is no more than a pawn.

Ordinary things, on ordinary days. Your exultant “patriotic” neighbor hangs out bigger and bigger Stars and Stripes. Your 4-year old son practices the Pledge of Allegiance for his kindergarten debut. On your way to work, every second car sports a “good ole USA” bumper sticker. Oh well, you think at first, just a few eccentrics. Then you meet the hecklers and the ugly faces surrounding the peace marchers and their shouts of “traitors” and “terrorists” and “al Qaeda lovers” and their patriotic “support our troops in Iraq.” And you see they are everywhere.

Keep reading . . .