Four More Years

February 9, 2008 at 7:08 am (9/11. War on Terror, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Peace, Politics, The Constitution, War Crimes)
Tags: , ,

The illegality, immorality, and blunderings of the Bush Administration has, for the past seven years, angered a nation, shocked the world, and trumped the rules of law and justice like no other presidency in US history.

 

One of many illegal actions, the detention of “enemy combatants” including US citizens without legal representation, the denial of Habeas Corpus, the use of evidence obtained through torture and the denial of transparency during Military Tribunals where the defendant is not allowed to see evidence against him and in some cases not made aware of the charges brought against him. These trials have become reminiscent of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692, where one more time a sentence of death can be handed down with little or no means to defend oneself. These practices violate international law and numerous treaties of which we are signatory to. Violation of these treaties denigrates the Constitution itself as it states in Article VI, Clause 2, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

 

Further violations of the constitution have come in the form of illegal wiretapping, the illegal monitoring of US citizen calls both within and out of the United States (all with no burden of proof for probable cause), and in the collection of personal data by private corporations, which is then used for domestic spying.

 

Remarkable to this administration is its continued references to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice, when these ideals are hardly promoted in US foreign policies. For instance, the claims of stability, freedom, and democracy for the Iraqi people while systematically displacing millions and killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands brings new depth to the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

 

Even more alarming during the next few months the Bush administration will continue to thumb its nose at the rule of law, the balance of power, and the Constitution, while the world watches in an almost helpless stupor. Included in this power grab will likely be another preemptive attack on a nation accused of coveting WMD’s, Iran. Which, if carried out with the intent of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and any facility that may have nuclear knowledge (including universities), will lead to a “collateral damage” figure of 2.8 million deaths. This is of course, if the administration chooses the course of restrain, as these figures are for the bombing of only half of the suspected sites.

 

If one were to examine the Bush Administration closely, one could easily make the connection that the fundamental problem lies with its continued abuse of The Constitution. In fact, every illegal, immoral, and thoughtless action this administration has perpetrated on its citizens and the world can be traced back to its contempt for this document.

 

As Americans look forward to 2009, hopes of a collective sigh of relief are everywhere. The Democratic Party and Progressive Politics are swooning Independent and Republican voters with a sweet songs filled with change. Hopes for the restoration of Constitutional Law, elevated status in world opinion, and a time when we can enjoy freedom from corporate control are driving Americans to the polls this year.

 

Yet in spite of this passion and renewed hope, a close primary race, and calls for a change to the status quo, Americans continue to follow corporate media, never giving themselves enough time to digest what is happening in political arenas. Recently, The Nation reported, “Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.

All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.”

One can only wonder, how with the experience of a tramped upon constitutional document, the one Democratic presidential hopeful who will not make a commitment to its restoration is even close to taking the White house. Perhaps, after four more years of the shredding of this document Americans will finally wake up to the powers at be, and realize our country’s two party system is preparing, one more time, to sell us, the world, and our freedom to the highest bidder.

1 Comment

We Must Remain Vigilant

February 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm (9/11. War on Terror, Chile, Democrats, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Peace, Politics, Republicans, War Crimes)
Tags: , , , , ,

I, like so many other Americans, was sadly lulled into a state of complacency during the eighties and early nineties. All seemed well in America, the economy was “strong”, the civil rights movement was fizzling out, the women’s rights movement appeared to have been appeased, and the deaths of millions around the globe due to our foreign policy was shielded from out eyes by a complicit media, eager to place it’s corporate agenda before its responsibilities to journalism and democracy. Yes, those were the good old days, when Americans had no clue how little our government actually represented us and how much it represented the desires of big corporations. The Cold War was over, and now the world was safe from Communism and tyranny.

 

I remember being at an event called Sol-Fest about six months before the 2004 election. I was deeply concerned that Kerry might loose because I was certain he would change the direction of this country. At such a progressive event, I assumed many Kerry supporters would be there. This was perhaps the beginning of my awakening, looking back now, I see how truly complacent I was.

 

I overheard a woman speaking to some workers at a Democratic booth. “Quite frankly, I am not sure who I am voting for, John Kerry is just as bad as Bush. I am not happy about the prospects of either one.” My ear perked up and I wondered what she meant. Before I could discover more, she had moved on to the next booth, but I kept her statement filed away in my brain.

The 2004 election came and went, and despite serious voting discrepancies, John Kerry and the Democratic Party rolled over like a beaten dog. Considering the mess that Iraq was and the photos coming out of Abu Ghraib, I was astonished that the election was stolen and subsequently given away one more time. However, more troubling to me was the very real fact that after the release of these photos, the re-election of George Bush would let the Iraqi people themselves know that we, as Americans, cared little for democracy, the rights of humans, and least of all, them.

 

The more involved in politics I became, the more I was able to research and uncover the very real fact that the invasion of Iraq, the rise of the Taliban, and the funding and support of bin Laden did not occur in a vacuum, but rather with the assistance of my very own government. Even more alarming was the knowledge that this was not the first, nor would it be the last time, that members of my government would sell people around the globe and me down the river in order to pursue an agenda that usually led to the deaths, torture, imprisonment, and suffering of millions. From Iran to Chile US foreign policies have been the bane of modern man’s existence. In fact, after September 11, 2001 many historians and scholars surmised that the terrorists might have been from South America rather than the Middle East. The date September 11, 1973 the date the US backed coup put Pinochet in power was the main factor turning eyes to the south.

 

With the primary elections underway, my ability to write and participate has diminished greatly. What is it that we, as Americans, do not understand about our government? For all the voices, expressing discontent with the status quo support does not waive for those who will simply continue our horrid policies. Furthering anti-American sentiment around the globe, continuing to oppress and exploit those too poor to fight, we continually sell our democratic ideals and ourselves down the river by settling for a candidate rather than picking someone who actually represents the democratic ideals we claim to love and care for so much. We condemn the likes of Ralph Nader for “splitting the democratic vote” or support Hillary Clinton “because she is a woman.” While we never really acknowledge the fact that our past is catching up with us in the form of 9/11, the mortgage crisis, the loss of independent media, the huge influx of immigrants (Mexican economic refugees due to NAFTA), sky rocketing health care, and the stagnant wages of the Middle Class.

 

Sadly and the main reason for my silence, is that for all the facts presented, Americans will lazily continue to assume this is a partisan problem. When in reality it is the fact that our democracy has been lost to us and in its place, we are now seeing a fascist corporate agenda shaping our foreign and domestic policies, and due to our lack of vigilance, it will simply get worse.

 

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if this is exactly what we need in America, a taste of reality and some humility. Perhaps if we learn what it feels like to be them, we will learn what it is like to fight for democracy. As evidenced by the support I have been witness to for candidates the media continues to tell us to vote for, we have a long way to go.

 

For more blogs on the state of politics, please visit

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

and HERE…

 

Leave a Comment

The Integrity of Hillary Clinton

January 10, 2008 at 7:39 am (Democrats, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Military Industrial Complex, Peace, Torture)
Tags: , ,

Inּtegּri|ty n. 3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

 

The meaning and definition of the word integrity seems simple and straightforward, but in the world of American Politics, it is perhaps the most misused, abused, and elusive word spoken. However, the majority of Americans believe, that among desirable personality characteristics in those running for and holding political office, it is by far the most desired.

If there is one particular trait missing from the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is indeed, integrity. On both national and international issues, Clinton is simply one more piece to the Bush/Clinton political sandwich that has destroyed the majority of American ideals. Clearly calculating and career driven, Clinton is obviously not the candidate who will restore America’s reputation in the world as the beacon of freedom, humanity, and all that is right but will rather lead this nation down its continued path to Imperialism through Corporatism.

For any American genuinely concerned about these issues to hear support for the Clinton campaign based on Clinton’s sex is truly concerning. In spite of her voting record, continued elusive language in terms of the occupation of Iraq, the shrinking middle class, the value of the dollar, increasing power for corporations, illegal detention and torture of detainees, repeated violations of the Constitution, and her position on energy independence, she continues to enjoy broad support among some in the Progressive Movement. One only need look closely at Clinton’s choice of language to determine that she continues to address these issues in a rather superficial way, lacking the integrity that America so badly needs.

Immediately before the primaries in New Hampshire, American media outlets focused the world’s attention on the fact that Clinton showed some emotion during a question and answer period.

Reminiscent of the absurd question asked during the Democratic debate in Nevada, where a young college student inquired as to whether Hillary preferred pearls or diamonds, a woman in New Hampshire asked, “As a woman, I know it’s hard to get out of the house and to get ready… and my question is very personal: how do you do it? How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?” To this, Clinton answered, “It’s not easy, and I could not do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do…I have had so many opportunities from this country – I just don’t want us to fall back. This is very personal for me … it is not just political… I see what’s happening… we have to reverse it.”

Sadly missing from any emotion Clinton has ever shown are tears for fallen soldiers or their families, the destruction of the entire society and nation of Iraq, which has killed thousands, and made millions homeless and impoverished,  and the continued assault on American civil liberties.

In fact, it is on these very important issues that Clinton continues to lead the American people towards the Bush doctrine. This is evidenced by her support of Imperialistic Bush policies to date, including the Iraq War, a possible attack on Iran and The Patriot Act. Even those who approve of Clinton’s stance on these issues or those finding themselves forgiving of her apparent Bushesque blunderings, an alarm should sound at the clear contradiction between her words and actions.

In her victory speech, Clinton showed a real lack of integrity when she spoke of all that ails America, “The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you. I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first, your lives, your families, your children, your futures.”

Nowhere, does Clinton acknowledge that the very corporations she criticizes here are funding her campaign. A short list includes; 18.36 million (representing the largest contributions) from the financial sector, 14.3 million from lawyers and lobbyists representing oil, insurance, pharmaceutical, and lending companies, over 8 hundred thousand from the energy industry, and close to 2.2 million from the military industrial complex and construction companies combined, many of whom are currently operating in Iraq.  

If the staggering numbers alone are not sounding the alarm bells enough for Americans to realize Clinton plans on using her power to enrich the elite in this country further, perhaps a look at Clintons funding in comparison to other presidential hopefuls will. Clinton willingly accepts funds from the defense industry where only John McCain outranks her. In the Oil and Gas industry, Clinton enjoys another cool second place, from lobbyists however; she takes first place leaving all other candidates behind with second in line taking close to half of the funds she has received to date.

Clearly, Clinton’s actions and words do not match, leaving this writer to wonder how any one who wishes the direction of this country to change does not recognize these obvious warning signs. Perhaps the last seven years have left Americans so desperate and dumbfounded; they have decided lies from the mouth of a woman are perhaps easier to swallow, especially if they are followed by a shot of tears.

Leave a Comment

Invisible People of the Middle East

September 26, 2007 at 1:15 am (9/11. War on Terror, Blogroll, George Bush, Iran, John Bolton, Nuclear Weapons, Peace)

“We’re talking about a clear message to Iran — Israel has the right to self-defense — and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks.”

~John Bolton

de∙fense 1 the act or power of defending, or guarding against attack, harm, or danger 2 the fact or state of being defended 3 a) something that defends: means of or resources for protection b) a plan or system of defending 4 justification or support speech or writing; vindication 5 self-protection as by boxing 6 the side that is defending in any contest 7 a)the arguments in behalf of the defendant in a law case b) the defendant and his or her lawyer or lawyers, collectively

of∙fen∙sive 1 attacking; aggressive 2 of or for attack 3 designating or of the side that is seeking to score in any contest 4 unpleasant, as to the senses; disgusting; repugnant 5 causing resentment, anger, etc.; insulting

It appears Mr. John Bolton has either mastered the art of doubletalk or has confused the simple definitions of these words. Perhaps the words themselves have taken on new meaning. One can only wonder how the argument of “self-defense,” when no attack ever took place, would hold up in a court of law. Only the savviest of jurists could ever defend the argument successfully, yet we hear no questioning of the Israeli/US policy when these terms distort the discussion of an attack on Iran.

Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher recently released a discussion paper exploring the realities of an attack on Iran. The document discusses the prospect of the possible attempted destruction of the Iranian regime and state by the United States and its allies. The report definitively concludes the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus, and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George Bush giving the order.

Remarkably, the Democratic Congress who was given a directive to end the Iraq Occupation by the American voters in the 2006 election recently refused to insist on being consulted before any attacks on Iran. As Senator and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has rightfully argued, “Congress is the only US entity that can declare war.” Despite this obvious constitutional authority and the abuse of power that President George Bush has exercised with the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are prepared to attack Iran if necessary.

Notable in the paper is a quote from Philip Giraldi in the American Conservative who notes, The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked…STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan in response to another 9/11 type terrorist attack on the United States…As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Much like US policy in Iraq, the post-war planning in Iran does not exist. As John Pike of the indispensable global policy forum puts it, “They think they can just bow up want they want to blow up and let the ant heap sort itself our afterwards.”

The discussion explores the possibilities of varied military strikes, ranging from limited strikes to target suspected nuclear facilities to the escalation of targeting all areas needed for the Iranian government and civilian populace to function listed above. The Administration as well as the Israeli government both understand the importance of preventing any possible retaliation from Iran. The paper states, There would be provisions for assaults to prevent Iran striking back in any significant manner. These would involve US forces in Iraq and Iran, protection for the Straights of Hormuz and oil facilities in the Gulf States, disruption of Revolutionary Guard, and other elite forces loyal to the current government.

The discussion of possible Iranian retaliation in the case of a pre-emptive strike concludes that the only way to avoid escalation is to completely destroy Iran’s capacity to retaliate. This includes the bombing of all suspected WMD sites, civilian and military infrastructure, military bases, economic infrastructure and state apparatus.

The plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran have been in the making since March of 2003. British Military sources stated on condition of anonymity that “the US military switched its whole focus to Iran” from March 2003…and continues…this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. As one anonymous Iraq veteran wrote while serving in Iraq, I sat in a meeting in Baghdad when I was last there over a week ago to discuss this very matter before Ambassador Bremer left for Washington and the U.N., and it was apparent that everyone is really grasping at straws when it comes to understanding Sistani. More importantly, none of the real differences of opinion about what kind of influence and control a fetwah in his name condemning the process would mean in terms of popular reaction is based on more than conjecture.

In any case, what don’t seem to register right now are the real reasons why we don’t want to have direct elections in the near future. Yes, certainly we’re concerned about the mechanics (though the Green Zone notion that ration cards won’t work appears to have been based on completely flawed information provided by so-called “experts”), and our fear that imperfect elections might yield catastrophic results is genuine. But the catastrophic result we’re worried about isn’t women being disenfranchised or election results being contested — it’s that, in the short term, the best organized party and thus the most likely winner is the Iranian-backed SCIRI. We’ve got big fears about the Iranians projecting power all the way through the southern region of Iraq to the border with Saudi Arabia, and so we should, because that’s exactly what they’re aggressively seeking to do. People who speculate about whether we’ll take on Iran in the next round don’t realize that the battle is already more or less underway here in Iraq.

The paper discusses at great length not only potential targets in Iran but the varied weapons of choice, which includes the use of nuclear weapons. The paper points out, It is not responsible to argue that they will never be used and that there is not need for public debate. The weapons exist. The military personnel trained in their use exist. The political policy describing their possible use exists. What is lacking is a public discussion amongst those who support present policies of the realities of putting these policies into practice.

Perhaps the most alarming analysis of the paper is the discussion of civilian casualties. Using Department of Defense methodology for attacks of 3×10kt ground burst weapons per location, the paper concludes that approximately 2,816,000 civilian casualties will occur. However, this number is only inclusive of attacks of less than half of the suspected WMD sites. This number of casualties also does not include the effects of the inevitable fallout from the use of nuclear weapons, of which it is certain, radiation from these explosions would reach the upper atmosphere and be carried across much of the earth. In the early 1960’s public concern over detected concentrations of radioactivity in cow’s milk produced the public pressure that led to a US, UK, Russian ban on testing in the atmosphere.

After reading this blog and the contents of this discussion paper, I have only one small favor to ask of you. Please, for the love of humanity, your country, and God, call your representatives today and demand and end to this madness.

Tell them to vote NO on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (No. 3017), a provocative measure that will only undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy. Talking points: No more blank checks for this administration. Rather than escalating tensions, the U.S. should pursue smart, tough-minded dialogue and diplomacy, which are far more likely than force to produce a satisfactory resolution in the case of Iran. Iran’s gains in Iraq are largely due to the Bush invasion and subsequent mishandling of Iraq. By rushing to war without a strategy for winning the peace, we opened the door for Iran to connect with the Iraqi Shiites in power to engender discord. Let’s stop a war with Iran
before it begins. Call your senators at the Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121, and please call them today.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment