New Page 1


   
 Thursday, June 30, 2005

Bush Speech on Iraq War: A Reality Check on What He Said

  by

Anthony Wade

Read here original article by Anthony Wade, "The Nation Weeps as the President Lies."
June 28, 2005

George W. Bush knows no shame.

Having presided over the deaths of 1,700-7,000 American kids, for lies he propagated, President Bush used tonight’s message to extend his lies, and launch new, brazen mistruths.

George Bush proved one thing tonight. He cares not what the American people think, and he further thinks they are too stupid to realize when they are being repeatedly lied to.

The President’s lies are in bold, followed by the truth.

It is an honor to speak before you tonight. My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people, and that is your calling as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful – and so is your Commander-in-Chief.

Really? Let’s take a closer look at how much this President expresses his gratitude. This past week it was announced that the Bush administration is short by ONE BILLION DOLLARS for covering the needs at the Department of Veteran Affairs. The democrats have tried mightily to add monies to the budget that would cover our veterans, only to be shot down by this administration. This is after the Veterans lobby had to beat back two egregious attempts to burden vets by doubling the medical co-payment and trying to impose a $250 enrollment fee. Bush can talk a good game, but in the end, you have to look behind the rhetoric and see that he expresses his gratitude in one breath while his actions, paint quite a different picture.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us – and the terrorists we face – murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression – by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror.

Shameless, absolutely shameless. Bush recognized that he must continue to flog this dead horse connecting terrorism to 911. He is playing upon our fears. Reminiscing about images of death from 2001, and deftly connecting them to a country that HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 911. By doing so, he dishonors the dead from 911, as well as the dead from the military, being sacrificed daily on the battlefield of lies.

To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill – in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom.

Once again, Bush is correlating 911 to Iraq, even though this has been clearly proven to be untrue. The terrorist activities in the countries he listed, has nothing to do with Iraq and the internal struggles there.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of Coalition operations in Iraq – who is also senior commander at this base – General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: “We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.”

Iraq is the latest battlefield because of the actions of this illegitimate war. It was not a harbor for terrorism before Bush crystallized the region by attacking a country in violation of international law.

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability – and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The mission is clear??? If it was, he would not have had to give this speech. Note however, what he says here. His criteria for accomplishing the mission, is so vague, it can never be truly materialized. Hunting down the terrorists? That must be reassuring to the families of soldiers. Removing instability and replacing it with instability, is not a victory for stability.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying – and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.

Difficult? Sounds like someone is disagreeing with Dick Cheney who recently described the insurgency as in its “last throes”. When an administration lies so casually, it often will find itself caught in them. I said last time, not one life was worth the removal of a tinpot dictator who had no WMD, connections to al Qaeda, or 911.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom.

The attempt here is to make it seem that the people fighting our troops are not Iraqis, when they most certainly are.

Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.

Hundreds. There are reports of upwards of 100,000 dead and they have caught hundreds of foreign fighters. If you examine closely enough, the truth is there.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

No George, we know that Iraq is the central front. We also know that it is YOUR fault that is so.

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

And how many innocents are you willing to kill George? What are your limits?

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad – including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.

Once again, defeating immorality with immorality is not a moral victory. Killing people to stop murder is still murder.

These are savage acts of violence – but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives.

Recently, it has been postulated by Republican Senators, that we are LOSING this war.

The terrorists – both foreign and Iraqi – failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty.

The transfer has meant nothing and amounted to a PR stunt.

They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies.

This is a lie. The coalition has been fragmented, countries have withdrawn, left and right, and besides England, there is no coalition.

They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.

This is also a lie. Iraq is essentially in a civil war or on the verge of it.

They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq’s diverse population.

As he admits later, the Sunni’s did not participate in the elections and are on the outside looking in. Essentially, we have changed the minority and majority in the country politically.

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent – but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 …

Ugghh, stop it George, people are turning over in their graves. Bush knows no limits to his depravity.

If we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi … and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our Nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.

Clever strategy starts to be revealed. Bush is pretending that the people, who want the kids home, want to leave Iraq to its own devices. This is completely untrue. We need to have the UN and other countries come in and take control of our mess. Bush brings up the specter of his second favorite boogeyman, in the hopes that the American people cannot see through the façade. Wanting our kids home and not dying does not mean we want to abandon the Iraqi people. Bush knows this, but lies anyway.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the Nation and described our Coalition’s goal in Iraq. I said that America’s mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend – a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government …

Yes, and now they want us to leave, but we are not.

We would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005

Which alienated one third of the population.

… we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy

Iraq’s economy is in shambles. It actually makes ours look good, and that is no small task. We lost BILLIONS of Iraq’s dollars when we were in control and no one is saying anything about it. The infrastructure is worse now than it was when Saddam was in control. There is no water, nor electricity, during the blistering summer. We have assured the oil is flowing, but not the water.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard – and rebuilding while at war is even harder.

What he omitted is the crippling effect of the US imposed sanctions which assured the infrastructure would not recover. Those sanctions were summarily ignored when Bush wanted to justify the war.

Our progress has been uneven – but progress is being made. We are improving roads, and schools, and health clinics … and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

Vague, vague, vague. Where are the specifics George? Saying you are improving something without proving it, is probably a lie.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some thirty nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance.

This is the old “coalition of the willing” lie. There is no coalition. There is us, and England.

Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction.

What Bush is lying about here, is that only 13 billion of the 34 billion is pledged from countries other than us. Bush tries to make it sound as if 34 billion has been pledged outside of the US, when it is only 13 billion, and only 3 billion of that has actually been realized. Distortions, plain and simple.

Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, “There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe.”

Yes, now that it has been screwed up, it does need to be corrected.

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi Security Forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely – helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning – which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen – and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.

The 160,000 number is an old lie. The real number is like 13,000. The rest of them are untrained. Bush got caught in this lie once before so he qualifies it this time; by saying they are equipped for a “variety of missions”.

The progress in the past year has been significant – and we have a clear path forward.

Look, cut through the rhetoric. If the progress has been significant and there was a clear path, then he would not have had to give this speech.

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents.

Starting to hit home the theme of an unfinished job, Bush fails to realize that this line flies right in the face of his infamous “mission accomplished” speech. Once again, if you lie reflexively, you eventually trip over yourself.

To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban – a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.

Raising the specter of our worst fears again, Bush never fails to come back to scaring the American people. What he omits is the Taliban is still playing an active role in Afghanistan, within the government, and through terrorism. The puppet leader installed by Bush, cannot leave Kabul without fearing for his life. Also, al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, as has been proven already.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists – and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi Security Forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Long on rhetoric, short on details, just the way Bush likes it. HOW LONG GEORGE??? His people are saying as much as 12 -20 years. That is a long time to get someone to stand up.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I.

No George, you clearly do not. You are lying and the American people will not back down from the mounting pressure about YOUR war.

Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces.

The nerve of the American people to not want their kids to die for a lie

.Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis – who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

Once again, a lie. We are not saying leave them alone, but get the international community involved.

It would send the wrong message to our troops

The absolute unmitigated gall of this President to use the troops as a reason to not bring them home. Keeping the troops in Iraq after it has now been exposed that the entire war was illegitimate and based on lies, THAT sends the wrong message.

And it would send the wrong message to the enemy – who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

Absolute nonsense. Again, we would not be leaving altogether, but rather bringing the rest of the world in to help clean up this mess.

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed – and not a day longer.

WHEN GEORGE, WHEN? How much more blood do you want on your hands, for a war you did not need to wage?

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job.

It is a shame that every person interviewed on the ground disagrees with this assessment. There are not enough troops, and if that was not the case, Bush would not have made the pitch for more enlisting.

And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever – when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.

No George, the fact that you are building 14 military bases in Iraq gives us that impression:
Click here: 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed – and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them, and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all its people.

Except the Sunnis are now not intricately involved.

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society – a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law.

Hmm, no free press? It is our form of government!

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

You cannot write jokes like these. Protects minority rights?????????? Bush will not do that in this country, but we think he will in Iraq?

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq’s borders. Before our Coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

This is a recycled lie. Libya gave up its weapons programs because of mounting political pressure on Gaddafi due to the years of sanctions. This proves that punitive measures outside of war do work, as it did in Iraq before we blew it up.

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America’s resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred – and armed with lethal weapons – who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq – just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001.

One last time Bush connecting Iraq to 911, despite the fact this is patently false.

They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat – and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

The patriotic testosterone card. Bush is playing to our collective machismo, making it sound as if not wanting our kids to die, is somehow unmanly.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens – because we know what is at stake.

What it apparently does not demand, is the truth.

And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens – and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world – and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

Yes, but they chose Iraq to make their stand because that is where Bush has chosen to take his war, no other reason.

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th Century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again.

If anyone knows about audacity, it is Bush. To compare such monumental historical wars, with this removal of a tinpot dictator based on lies, is unconscionable.

We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom is entrusted to us in a special way – and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

Irrelevant point since this war has nothing to do with liberty. Furthermore, bringing the troops home because this war was based on lies and turning it over to an international effort, is not retreat.

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you.

Yes, we want them to come home alive.

Next week, our Nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, coast guardsman, and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom – by flying the flag … sending letters to our troops in the field … or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website – AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

Positively unabashed attempt to play to everyone’s patriotism, as I indicated yesterday he would do. Wearing a yellow ribbon does not protect anyone. It does not stop anyone’s death. Wearing a yellow ribbon, but willing to allow more kids die for a lie, is NOT patriotic, it is disgusting.

To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our Nation. I thank our military families – the burden of war falls especially hard on you.

Especially with a 1 billion budget shortfall for veterans. This is another example of Bush saying something his policies do not back up.

In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom – and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.

My dear Lord, no. The way you honor the dead who died for a lie, is to make sure that no more die for that same lie.

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces.

Hmm, sounds like someone was not being honest about not needing more troops on the ground.

We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves.

Unfortunately, every generation has also produced people who wrap themselves up in the flag but do not honor anything it truly stands for.

Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation’s uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

Afghanistan has NOT been liberated. Iraq is looking like a decade long quagmire.

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult – and that we would prevail.

Why not wrap up with one more unashamed 911 reference, even though 911 had nothing to do with Iraq? Besides that, this is also, another lie. Yes, after 911, it was said the road would be tough, but here is what was said before the Iraq War:

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

“What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/27/03]

“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

“The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]

“Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” – White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, [2/18/03]

Iraq will be “an affordable endeavor” that “will not require sustained aid” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion.” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

“Costs of any such intervention would be very small.” - Top White House Economist Glen Hubbard [CNBC, 10/4/02]

Paul Wolfowitz “dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year.” [NY Times, 2/28/03]

“In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03.

Tonight was only a surprise in the scope of the repulsive levels Bush will stoop to in continually pimping his war. What he did not address however, was the recently released Downing Street Memos which prove undeniably that George W. Bush lied to start his war. He lied to Congress and to the people, wholly impeachable crimes. Tonight’s smoke and mirrors did not change that in the slightest. His own words and those of his staff convict him.

“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

“[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush, 9/26/02

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –President Bush, 1/28/03

“His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” – Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

“We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03

“I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

“Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02

“[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02

“We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03

“We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

“Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, 1/28/03

“We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush, 5/29/03

"We know where the WMDs are.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” – President Bush, 3/19/03

There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

“Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02

“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

Thanks to Americanprogress.org for the quotes.

You need to never forget these words uttered by our President and his team. The nation weeps, bathed in the blood of our children, sacrificed for these lies. The troops tonight in the crowd were silent all night long except for on moment when applause broke out.

The Fox News Channel gushed about this “spontaneous” explosion, until it was revealed that the applause was started by and coordinated by members of the White House Advance Team.

Stay the course. We cannot cut and run. We must finish the mission. Patriotism, mom, and apple pie.

You will hear all of this over the next few days in an attempt to stave the damage done already to Bush, as a result of the Downing Street Memo. You cannot allow that to happen.

In two weeks or two months, we will be right back here again if we do not continue to demand of the media and the elected officials that the Downing Street Memos be prosecuted against this President.

The Republican Party told us Bill Clinton had to be impeached for his lies about a personal sexual indiscretion. It was about the sacred rule of law.

Now it is time to apply the same standard to a man who has been exposed to lying to Congress to wage war, and actually start a war six months prior to asking Congress for permission.

Patriotism is not wearing a yellow ribbon.

It is honoring our dead.

It is demanding that our children are not sent off to die in the sands of a desert based on lies. Mom and apple pie mean little if there is no truth in this country.

George Bush LIED to us when he demanded his war.

He has now been exposed for what he is and his poll numbers are plummeting.

In response, Karl Rove trotted out Bush to the American people again to restate the lies that got us all into this mess to begin with. With that, he expects that everyone will walk away and stop talking about the impeachable crimes he has committed.

He is wrong.

It is time to honor our dead, and keep the drumbeats going.

Nothing short of the truth people, nothing short of the truth.


  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 10


 
 

Bush's Speech on Iraq War Lacked Credibility on ALL Counts

  by

Christopher Layne
(Christopher Layne is author of The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present)

Read here original article by Christopher Layne

30 June 2005

President George W. Bush's address on Iraq on 29 June 2005 comes amid growing US doubts about the war, and the administration's competence and credibility.

In recent weeks, there has been a palpable sense that events have been spinning out of control - both in Iraq, where the insurgency continues unabated, and at home, where the administration faces mounting opposition to the war.

Since the insurgency began, the Bush administration tirelessly has reiterated:

  • that progress is being made in Iraq;

  • the insurgency is being defeated; and

  • Iraq is on its way to becoming a viable democratic state.

Events in Iraq have told a different story, however, and their cumulative impact can be seen in the major public opinion polls that have been released in recent days.

For the first time since March 2003, a majority of Americans believe the Iraq invasion was a mistake, and disbelieve both the administration's assurances that things are going well in Iraq and its claims that the war there is part of the war on terrorism.

One poll even shows that a majority want the administration to set a firm timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.

Against this backdrop, Bush's task yesterday was to regain public and Congressional confidence. To make his case, he needed to explain why the Iraq war is in the US national interest and outline a clear strategy for victory. He failed to accomplish either task.

The President offered nothing new, and instead fell back on old - and discredited - arguments.

To make the case that the war is important to US security, Bush trotted out the old canard that there is a connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war.

US troops, he said:

"are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001 ...

After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

This is a stale argument.

From the moment the run-up to the Iraq invasion began, the administration sought to rally public support for its policy by suggesting that Saddam Hussein's regime somehow had a hand in the 9/11attacks.

Factually, however, there NEVER has been a shred of credible evidence of Iraqi involvement in al-Qa'ida's strikes on New York and Washington. Indeed, this was the finding of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

Still, it is perhaps not surprising that Bush continues to link the war in Iraq to the war on terror.

After all, as one senior official put it recently, this is an administration that believes the US "is an empire now, and we make our own facts".

Bush's speech was another such exercise in postmodern grand strategy: he not only made up his own facts, but also was disingenuous.

Before the invasion in March 2003, Iraq was not a haven for terrorists and had no connection whatsoever to al-Qa'ida.

Jihadist fighters entered Iraq only AFTER the US invasion. If Iraq is now a "front" in the war on terrorism, it is because the administration's own policies made it such.

The point cannot be made strongly enough: far from making America more secure against terrorism, Bush's reckless decision to invade Iraq has made the US less secure.

Indeed, just last week a CIA report concluded that Iraq has now become perhaps the most important training ground for Islamic extremists.

It would never have become such had the US not invaded.

Bush not only failed to advance a fresh argument that the war is in the US interest, but -- perhaps even more important -- he conspicuously failed to outline a convincing road to victory.

Here, again, the administration's strategy is more of the same: US forces will be reduced as more Iraqi forces are trained to fight the insurgency. There is, however, little reason to believe that the administration's "Iraqisation" strategy will work.

Recent reports have made clear that it will be a long time - if ever - before Iraqi forces are able to quell the insurgency without substantial support from US troops. Most of the Iraqi forces are poorly motivated, undisciplined, badly led and under-equipped.

If the readiness of Iraqi forces is the metric that determines when US forces can begin to come home, substantial numbers of US troops will need to remain in Iraq for a long time to come. (Whether the US Army can sustain anywhere near its current force levels in Iraq for much longer is very much an open question, especially given recruitment shortfalls and loss of junior officers.)

As a piece of political theatre, Bush's speech may temporarily stem the haemorrhage of public and congressional support for his administration's policy. But it cannot change the facts.

Iraq is a country in chaos and the Sunni insurgency reflects the fact that a communal/sectarian civil war already is under way there. There are no good outcomes in Iraq. No matter what the US does, Iraq is not going to become a stable democracy, and the Middle East is going to remain an endemically turbulent region.

The painful truth is that there is no realistic strategy for victory in Iraq.

Put simply, Bush has led the US into a strategic quagmire in Iraq. Indeed, to paraphrase the early 19th-century French statesman Talleyrand, it was worse than a blunder, it was a crime.

The Downing Street memos show that the Bush administration deliberately - and deceitfully - plunged the US into an unnecessary war against a regime that posed no real threat to US security, and that Saddam Hussein's ballyhooed weapons of mass destruction were never anything more than a pretext for an invasion that already had been decided upon for other reasons.

The memos also confirm what already has become apparent: the administration compounded its decision to go to war by utterly failing to prepare for occupying and reconstructing Iraq.

Now the chickens have come home to roost.

Instead of making up the facts, it is time to face them - no matter how painful. Spending more blood and treasure is not going to change the outcome in Iraq.

The only viable exit strategy is to leave Iraq.

The time has come to set a firm timetable for an early withdrawal.


  Go to Latest Posting


Comments 0


   
 Monday, June 27, 2005

International Survey: China's International Stature Rated BETTER than the US

  Read here original article from AP Wire

24 June 2005

Excerpts:

China is viewed MORE favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.

The polls were taken in various countries from late April to the end of May 2005 with samples of about 1,000 in most countries, with more interviewees in India and China and slightly less than 1,000 in the European countries. The margin of sampling error ranged from 2 percentage points to 4 percentage points, depending on the sample size. The polls were taken by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

The poor image (of US) persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months -- which many viewed favorably -- and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating December 26 tsunami.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States, said:

"It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China."

  • In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.

  • In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands.

  • The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations which are also U.S. allies -- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan -- where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light.

  • Only India and Poland were more upbeat about the United States,

  • Canadians were just as likely to see China favorably as they were the U.S.

  • The U.S. image has bounced back (from 2003 survey) in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country which benefited from U.S. aid to tsunami victims, as well as in India and Russia.

    The poll found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism.

    Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said:
    "The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult."
    The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain.

    Support for the U.S.-led war on terror has dipped in Western countries like Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Spain, while it remains low in the Muslim countries surveyed like Pakistan, Turkey and Jordan.

    Other findings:
  • The survey found that a majority of people in most countries say the United States does NOT take the interests of other countries into account when making international policy decisions.

  • It also found most would like to see another country get as much military power as the United States, though few want China to play that role.
  • People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a MORE dangerous place.

  • Non-U.S. residents who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.

  •   Go to Latest Posting


    Comments 0


       
     Sunday, June 26, 2005

    American Students in Queensland Quitting School Due to Anti-US Slurs by Australian Students

      Read here original article by Ainsley Pavey in Sunday Times

    26 June 2005

    AMERICAN students are quitting Queensland universities in the face of hate attacks by Australians angry at US President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.

    One university has launched an investigation into claims an American student returned to the US after suffering six months of abuse at a residential college in Brisbane.

    American students have told The Sunday Mail the verbal attacks are unbearable and threatening to escalate into physical violence.

    Griffith University student Ian Wanner, 19, from Oregon, said abusive Australian students had repeatedly called him a "sepo" – short for septic tank. "It is so disrespectful. It's not exactly the most welcoming atmosphere here," he said.

    The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission has described the abuse as "horrible" and says it could be classed as racial vilification.

    The abuse problem is so prevalent that US students are being given formal briefings before leaving home on how to cope with abusive Australians.

    Mr Wanner said even female Australian students were verbally abusive. He warned the problem could "escalate into a very large brawl".

    "There has already been confrontations between people," he said.

    A female American student from Griffith, who wished to remain unnamed, said she had met some "exceptional" people in Australia – but was leaving this month in shock over her treatment. She said she was desperate to go home after the slurs, which also spilled over at pubs in central Brisbane. She said:

    "They basically picked on me. At first, I thought it was a joke. Then I just had it out with them and told them I came here to be treated respectfully.

    I have had a few incidents in bars. I had a guy and he heard my accent and he said: 'I hate your president. I hate your country.' "
    Another Griffith student has already returned to the US after enduring six months of abuse at the university's residential college in Brisbane.

    All the students received counselling before arriving and were warned of the backlash against the US.

    They said they were advised not to carry any items that would identify their nationality.

    A postgraduate American student at the University of Queensland's St Lucia campus, in Brisbane's west, has also complained to the Australian-American Association of being "persecuted" and subjected to "name-calling" by Australian students.

    Another American studying at UQ said attitudes towards him were "scary". He said:

    "It's unbelievable. It's been war. People are scared. It is hard to be an American in Australia at the moment, it is really hard.

    It varies with different people, but you have to be quiet and try not to draw attention to yourself."

    Australian-American Association state president Marylou Badeaux said anti-American sentiment had reached a climax over the war in Iraq.

    She said attacks from the general public were mostly sedate – but had grown into open hostility at several Queensland universities.

    In some cases, US students and academics were being "persecuted" for merely having an American accent.

    "They are taking it out on people who may or may not agree but just because they have an American accent, they are being persecuted," she said.

    Ms Badeaux said long-time US residents in Australia noticed attitudes towards them fluctuated with US Government policy. "It all depends on what the policies of the US government are at the time," she said.

    Queensland Anti-Discrimination deputy commissioner Neroli Holmes said the alleged labelling of students as "sepos" could be classed as racial vilification under anti-discrimination laws.

    Racial vilification included public comment which incited hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or group based on race or nationality. "It sounds quite horrible," Ms Holmes said.

    Griffith University spokeswoman Nicola Collier-Jackson said an investigation had been launched into the American abuse claims.

    She said the university had a zero-tolerance policy to harassment.

    "We don't accept it at all. We will investigate it. We need to get to the bottom of it," she said.

    The Colorado-based Australearn organisation – which teaches "cultural adjustment" to US students before they come to Australia – started warning in January of attitudes towards Americans over Iraq.

    Australearn's Australian director, Shelia Houston, said the briefings aimed to give American students "coping strategies" in the face of an attack.

    She said some (American) students suffered culture shock because of the belief that everyone loved Americans.

    "We are giving them the heads up that it is a bit more heated because of the war in Iraq," Ms Houston said.

      Go to Latest Posting


    Comments 0


       
     Thursday, June 23, 2005

    Downing Street Memos: An Executive Brief

      by

    Tim Dickinson

    Click here to original article

    The Downing Street Seven

    Leaked by one or more high-ranking Brits, the memos consist of seven official documents that together paint a damning portrait of the U.S. march to war in Iraq.

    Here, quickly, is a rundown of the seven memos in chronological order. (The excerpts that follow, grouped by subject, attempt to retain this order.)

    Read HERE the actual Downing Street Memos

    1. The earliest memo is known as the Options Paper and was prepared by Tony Blair's top national-security aides. It dates from March 8, 2002, when we were still cleaning up in Afghanistan -- a full three months before the Loya Jirga installed Hamid Karzai as that country's president, more than a year before the invasion of Iraq.

    2. Next comes a memo from British foreign policy adviser David Manning to Tony Blair, dated March 14, which details a Manning's meeting with Condi Rice.

    3. A March 18 memo, written by Christopher Meyer, then UK ambassador to Washington, is his report to Manning of a subsequent meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

    4. From March 22 comes a memo written by Peter Rickets -- think: the British Karl Rove -- that weighs the political implications of marching to war with the Americans.

    5. In advance of Blair's trip to Texas, State Secretary Jack Straw wrote an explosive March 25 memo that begins: "The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few."

      There's then a four-month gap.

    6. The next memo, dated July 21, is known as the Cabinet Office Paper and details "conditions for military action." It was written in advance of the meeting whose minutes have become infamous as . . .

    7. . . . the original Downing Street Memo.

    Read here related article "What The Downing Street Memo Really Means"

    The original "Downing Street Memo" -- in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's intelligence service MI6, reported that "war was now seen as inevitable" and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" -- has been held up as a smoking gun, proof that the Bush administration lied about seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict with Iraq, and cherry picked intel to overhype the threat of Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD.

    The six supporting memos provide ample context as to how -- and to what extent -- that might actually have been done.

    For those eager to paint the entire war rationale as a sham, the six earlier memos are a bit inconvenient.

    They reveal that our British allies shared a genuine alarm over Iraq's WMD capabilities. British officials found Saddam's unconventional weapons programs "extremely worrisome." However, they also admitted that recent intelligence was "poor."

    Across the board, the memos show British decision makers struggling to justify Iraq as a unique threat -- above and beyond the other worrisome, WMD-armed states in Axis of Evil.

    But that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, and might even be reckless enough to use them against Israel during an invasion, was not substantially in doubt.

    In contrast, British officials were highly dubious of any link between Iraq and terrorism; one memo describes the Bush administration as "scrambling" to produce evidence of such a connection, an effort the author calls "frankly unconvincing."

    Such doubts, however, didn't stop anyone on either the American or British side from holding up the confluence of terrorism and WMD as the primary justification for war.

    The impression that emerges most sharply from these documents is that decision-makers in the Bush administration were deeply committed to removing Saddam Hussein through military action well over a year before the invasion.

    It's also clear that hawks in the administration would have been content to go to war even without British help -- without the song and dance at the U.N., without the game of chicken with Saddam over the weapons inspectors.

    "Regime change" was the policy, whatever the justification.

    That the path to war ultimately passed through the U.N. seems a direct result of British influence.

    Tony Blair & Co. convinced the Bush administration to give the war a veneer of legitimacy under international law by orchestrating an elaborate PR scheme hooked to a security council resolution.

    As UK ambassador to Washington Chris Meyer wrote, "We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever." That's because, as another memo notes, "regime change has no basis under international law."

    Judging from the memos, no one in either camp put any faith in the U.N. process achieving a peaceful end. The intention was never to leave a weakened, disarmed Hussein in power.

    The clear intent, as Meyer also wrote, was to "wrongfoot Saddam" into a material breach of U.N. requirements and thereby justify military action.

    Why were the British so eager to sign onto this unpopular war?

    Again, the concern over WMD seems to play an honest role.

    But there was also a desire to make sure that the march to war and the invasion itself were carried out in the least-worst manner.

    The authors of a document called the Options Paper described this objective as: "sustaining UK/US co-operation, including, if necessary, by moderating US policy."

    The memos are, by turns, darkly humorous (Meyer writes that Paul Wolfowitz told him, "It was true that Chalabi was not the easiest person to work with. But he had a good record in bringing high-grade defectors out of Iraq. The CIA stubbornly refused to recognise this,") and infuriating -- one memo cites "unfinished business from 1991" as a motivating factor for the Bush administration.

    But in their troubleshooting of the postwar period, the memos are achingly prescient. The British shared -- over and over again -- a deep concern that the U.S. had no clear plan for "the morning after." Their concerns were, all too clearly, never heeded.

    The Downing Street Reader

    On Weapons Worries

    Iraq continues to develop WMD, although intelligence is poor. (Options)

    With his regime in danger, Saddam could use WMD, either before or during an invasion. Saddam could also target Israel . . . restraining Israel will be difficult. ( Options)

    Iraq continues with its B[iological]W[eapons] and C[hemical]W[eapons] programmes and, if it has not already done so could produce significant quantities of BW agents within days and CW agent within weeks of a decision to do so. (Options)

    On the True Nature of the Threat

    There is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD. ( Options)
    Sanctions have effectively frozen Iraq's nuclear programme. (Options)

    The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them . . . attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case . . . even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or C[hemical]W[eapons]/B[iological]W[eapons] fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up. (Rickets)

    In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action. ( Straw)

    Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. ( Straw)

    The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran. ( DSM -- minutes from Straw's presentation)

    On Saddam's Links to Terror

    There is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism. There is therefore no justification for action against Iraq based on action in self-defense to combat imminent threat of terrorism as in Afghanistan. ( Options)

    U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [sic] is so far frankly unconvincing. (Rickets)

    There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with U[sama]B[in]L[aden] and Al Qaida. Straw
    On the Push for Regime Change

    The U.S. has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom, distrust of U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors. U.S. may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than we think desirable. (Options)

    Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. (Manning)

    U.S. military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if [sic] Iraqi WMD. ( Cabinet)

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington . . . Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ( DSM -- minutes reflecting the report of Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of the MI6 Secret Intelligence)

    On the Legalities

    We have dismissed assassination of Saddam Hussein as an option because it would be illegal. (Options)

    Regime change has no basis in international law. ( Options)

    Regime change per se is no justification for military action. ( Straw)

    On the Aftermath

    Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: . . . -- what happens the morning after? ( Manning)

    We also have to answer the big question -- what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than in anything. No one has satisfactorily answered . . . how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better. (Straw)

    In particular little though has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it. ( Cabinet)

    A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. (Cabinet)

    There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. ( DSM MI6 director's report)

    On the PR Campaign

    Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions . . . This gives you real influence: on the public relations strategy; on the U.N. and weapons inspections. ( Manning)

    The U.S. could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN S[ecurity] C[ouncil] R[esolution]s and the critical importance of the M[iddle] E[ast] P[eace] P[rocess] as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. ( Meyer, referring to his meeting with Wolfowitz.)

    For Iraq, "regime change" does not stand up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam. Much better as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat . . . from Saddam's WMD. (Rickets)


      Go to Latest Posting


    Comments 0


       
     Wednesday, June 22, 2005

    MUST READ !! The Hijacking of American Body Politics

      by

    Wendy Campbell

    Image hosted by Photobucket.com Wendy Campbell is a documentary filmmaker and author specializing in Palestine, Israel, and US foreign policy in the Middle East.

    She produced the documentary "Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid"







    June 8, 2005

    Read here original article "It's OK to Be 'Anti - Jewish Politics' -- Really! by Wendy Campbell

    Quote:

    "The omnipresent Jewish-Israeli Lobby in the US, along with the US Jewish community, is now at the peak of its power in the US.

    In fact, the Jews have probably never had more power in the World than they wield right now, with their immense monetary, media,cultural and political power in the US.

    To a degree, the Jewish-Israeli Lobby now controls the Legislative and Executive Branches of the US government, mostly in terms of foreign policy, especially Mideast foreign policy
    ."
    -
    Robert Lindsay
    In the year preceding 911, seeds were planted in my mind which profoundly changed my thinking about our nation's unique involvement in the Middle East.

    One seminal event for me was a conversation between an American, an Israeli and a Palestinian on KPFA, an alternative radio station in Berkeley, California. The candid conversation which grappled with ideas commonly denied listeners of mainstream news—caused me to actually start to think on my own about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    Until then I had not really even thought about it much at all, which I believe has been part of the overall plan of mainstream media:

    To prevent Americans from thinking deeply, if at all, about the reality of the conflict between the Jewish state of Israel, the Palestinians and US foreign policy in the Middle East.

    I began a journey of political discovery.

    After much on-going reflection and analytical research, I've come to realize that the American agenda in the Middle East is at profoundly at odds with true American ideals (contrary to what top politicians say) and laws.

    It is dominated by a foreign, race-based ideology called Zionism which, a century ago, declared an Arab-inhabited area (Palestine) to be the future official homeland to all persons in any country of the world born to a Jewish mother.

    This declaration, which was capsulized in the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917, remains the essential core of contemporary Jewish politics and it is the source of a half century of war in the Middle East.

    Here's the REALLY bad news:

    The military power as well as the economic and political clout of the world's only remaining superpower has been harnessed to further this Zionist plan.

    From this ideology directly has come America's ongoing strife in the Middle East. At stake now is nothing less than American sovereignty, our nation's moral stature and global ecurity.

    Following 911, initially stunned like everyone else, I wondered:

    • What could have caused such a hateful act towards the people of the US.

    • Was it really just “ our way of life...and our freedoms” as President Bush
      claimed?

    • Why our information media spends so much time broadcasting the Israeli perspective over all others.

    Since 911, America's reputation has been diminished even more.

    Polling data reveals that both Israel and America are now considered to be among the most feared and disliked countries in the world.

    Is everybody wrong?

    What has became obvious to me is the overwhelming bias favoring Israel among our political establishment, and that even many people I have spoken to, have parroted the by now familiar saying that “if the US doesn’t help Israel, the Arabs will push the Jews into the sea”.

    When I took it upon myself to do some research on Israel’s history, I found that in actuality, it was the Zionist Jews who pushed Palestinians into the sea and into neighboring countries when the Jewish state of Israel was created in 1948.

    Many Palestinians were murdered in massacres of entire Palestinian villages by Zionist gangs. For more information on this, please read “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict” written by Jews for Justice in the Middle East. It’s a real eye-opener.

    There are many other reliable books, websites and documentaries as well about this.

    And when you think about it, it all makes sense.

    Perhaps that is why Americans are NEVER encouraged to think “too much” with regards to Israel, Palestine and Zionism.

    Rather, our attention is directed to the latest sensationalistic scandal such as the Michael Jackson, the Scott Peterson or the Terry Shaivo episodes.

    It also started to become obvious that all 'things Jewish' have assumed a preferred status throughout American culture and media.

    Also, with the imposition of Homeland Security dictates, and beneath the banner of “fighting terror” and pledging “security for Israel” as a number one priority, our country's two major political parties have virtually merged in their commitment to Israel as a Jewish state and to war in the Middle East.

    Through indoctrination and systematic omission of alternative political options such as the 'One State' solution Israel-Palestine (a truly secular, democratic state, NOT a racist bi-national state, NOT two states aka official apartheid), mainstream media has aided and abetted this insidious evolution.

    At the same time, we are NOT supposed to express criticism of this pre-ordained, forced, arranged marriage between our country and Israel.

    Before 911, I had NOT been consciously aware that there was any such thing as Jewish politics.

    This is no accident, as I have since found out that one is NOT supposed to put the word “Jewish ” before the words politics, influence or power.

    Until 911, I had not understood the full meaning of Zionism. Again, this is no accident either, because I have since found that Zionism has been a very controversial ideology and for good reason. It does NOT jive with American ideals of democracy.

    In fact, it is opposite to them. Therefore, American media has shied away from mentioning Zionism.

    Unfortunately, the racist ideology of Zionism far overshadows religious Judaism these days.

    Not all Jews are Zionists, as one of my documentaries reveals (“Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism”), but the bulk of collective Jewish action is overwhelmingly political and in favor of military force with regards to the Palestinians and using American military force to fight Israel’s self-made enemies, as well as preserving Israel as a Jewish supremacist state.

    Exclusivist Jewish colonization in Palestine has put international Jewry and Zionized America at war with the Arab world.

    Incredibly, our secular, integrated, multi-cultural country, the United States of America, has become, to quote President Bush, “an indispensable partner with Israel in her war on terror” as if it is unconnected to Zionist Israel’s past, pre-emptive wars against her neighbors.

    American-Israelis and Israelis have appeared to succeed brilliantly in making Israel’s enemies somehow ours as well.

    As if that is something to be proud about! As if that is something we really want or even have a choice about.

    Significantly, the so-called “terrorists” are overwhelmingly native born, non-Jewish inhabitants of an area which was traditionally known as Palestine, and still is to many.

    Today only the Jewish State is officially there in Palestine, with sometimes a mention of The Palestinian Territories or the Gaza strip and the West Bank, which have been covertly and continuously eaten away at by hundreds of illegal Jewish settlements, Jews-only by-pass roads, buffer zones, the Israeli Apartheid Wall and Israeli army outposts.

    What remains is a patchwork of disconnected open-air prisons, completely controlled by the menacing Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers, some of whom also hold American citizenship.

    Zionist Israel’s ethnic cleansing and slow motion genocide of the non-Jewish Palestinians has launched an on-going civil war in Israel-Palestine that is now 57 years old!

    It has polarized the world.

    Has America taken the wrong side?

    Incredibly, the Zionist conquest of Palestine has failed to find a political (or military) solution in over half a century.

    Despite the unmatched power, wealth and influence in Zionist Jewish hands, the non-Jewish Palestinians have managed to hold on through sheer emotional faith and indomitable will-power.

    But now, under the guise of “democracy”, surely a ‘false god’ and a terribly misused, manipulative word, the US-Israeli War Machine is raining misery down upon millions of non-Jews throughout the Middle East.

    In light of all this, it is fair to surmise that our latest war in Iraq is the start of a prolonged Israeli-American campaign to subdue Arab aspirations for any self determination, since “Israel’s security” supersedes all other political objectives for both political parties.

    And let’s not forget about the great wealth of natural resources in the Arab countries that resource-poor Israel would especially love to easily exploit.

    Do a google search(clickHERE) on the key words “Israel Iraq pipeline Haifa”. See what you come up with.

    What lies ahead might be years of unnecessary bloodshed, persecution and dislocation of native Arab peoples unless a miracle occurs.

    So for me, the tragedy of 9-11 was a dramatic and terrible wake-up call. Shortly following it, and acting on my voluntary research into the Mid East conflict, I decided to become a full-time activist committed to revealing what I learned:

    That the primary “raison d'etre” for domestic Jewish politics is sustaining unconditional U.S. support for the expansionist apartheid Jewish State, no matter what the cost, financially or in terms of human lives or diplomatic alliances with the rest of the world.

    The major turning point for me came when I saw a slide-show entitled “Face of the Occupation”, presented by Jewish human rights activist Penny Rosenwasser of the Middle East Children’s Alliance, which inspired me to produce my first documentary “Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid”.

    It is my hope that in addressing the truth about Israel's national commitment to racial segregation, and illegal expansionist activities, that the necessary changes in U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and the rest of the Middle East will eventually follow.

    For many, American law is a beacon to the world, with 'Equal protection under the law' a central principle of American justice. But in our Middle East policies THIS value is NOT being applied.

    Our government has adopted the Israeli position: Jews first, foremost and last.

    They are apparently the only significant ones that we should be concerned about. This is an outrage and a disgrace!

    When American politicians and journalists talk about “security” for Israel, they inevitably ignore comparable needs for the Palestinians’ security as well as equal human rights.

    This is apparent in our government’s aid allocations, diplomatic relations, and concern about 'weapons of mass destruction' which allow Israel to be the region's only colonizer and nuclear power.

    If Palestinians must stop the “terror” against the Israelis, it is not morally correct to press Israel to stop the “terror” against the Palestinians? Despite the headlines, the causality count between Israeli and Palestinians favors Israelis by some four to one.

    Yet a casual consumer of American news might conclude the very opposite. This is no accident, as the website "If Americans Knew" very accurately and indisputably reveals.

    Mainstream media is a HUGE part of the problem.

    Hence, now we have www.marwenmedia.com (http://www.marwenmedia.com) and many other websites stepping up to the plate to fill in the gap between propaganda and reality.

    Israel's capture of our political system is so complete that some politicians have now totally dropped all pretense of even aspiring for “political balance”, leaving the fate of the Palestinians completely at the capricious whims of the Israelis, who have shown by their actions, that their words of peace are insincere and meant for public consumption only, to appease their detractors and buy time to finish their business of expanding Israel as a Jewish supremacist state.

    In a recent speech, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gave before the most powerful Jewish lobbying group (AIPAC, which is the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) typifies what other American politicians repeat in front of all Jewish organizations and reveals the magnitude of this creepy allegiance.

    In the most fawning, slavish terms, the California Congresswoman affirmed:

    “I am honored to be here to speak about something that can never be said enough: America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering”.

    Yes, and this is repeated over and over by countless bought off politicians who only care about getting re-elected and keeping the contributions flowing.

    These words were recently uttered before an enormous Wash. DC conference of political luminaries, hosted by AIPAC, despite the fact that it is presently under investigation for espionage against the U.S.!

    Apparently Israel can do NO wrong.

    It's an undeniable example of political power unmatched by any other lobby, ethnic, religious, or otherwise.

    This is why Jewish lobbies are typically referred to simply as “The Lobby”, besides the taboo about using the word “Jewish ” to describe anything.

    Meanwhile, mainstream media have barely covered AIPAC’s unfolding spy scandal.

    America's enforced commitment to the separation of church and state simply does not apply our government's “unshakable” (Al Gore's line) commitment to the Jewish state of Israel.

    Even though most of Israel’s leaders are secular Jews, meaning non-religious Jews, the religious Jews of Israel do play a central role in Israel’s laws. Never-the-less, religious or secular, organized Jewry’s commitment is first and foremost committed to maintaining Israel officially as a Jewish state.

    Israel is really a theocracy with racist laws built into its government, and by the way, Israel has no constitution.

    Yet Israeli and American-Israelis commission huge billboards around the US proclaiming to Americans that Israel shares American values!

    Pure deception. Pure propaganda.

    The welfare of the Palestinians, who have been victims for decades of American-funded Israeli ethnic cleansing and slow motion genocide, is apparently of little concern to our governing class and elitists.

    Occasionally, there are some weak words about hope for some kind of a Palestinian state, but Israel’s security trumps all other political considerations. On this matter, the US media walks in lockstep with US policy.

    Please note that while many “progressive” American Jews make noises about a possible two-state, they almost never talk about creating a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular, democratic country similar to our own.

    However the 'One State' solution stands alone as being consistent with modern American democracy. Please visit www.one-democratic-state.org for more information on this deliberately suppressed solution.

    This truly democratic alternative is simply very rarely mentioned in the media even though this is exactly the kind of resolution that was loudly and forcibly advocated (with critical Jewish help) in South Africa, where the apartheid government was finally dismantled and replaced with a truly democratic government, that has been in operation for a little over ten years now. I had dinner the other night with a couple friends from South Africa, who are white by the way, and they claim that South Africa is better than ever now.

    Yet somehow, the rules against racial segregation are NOTapplied to Israel. In the modern mind, Israel's privileged, unique status is fortified through continuous Holocaust imagery and reference.

    It certainly seems fair to say that the ever-increasing tsunami of Holocaust coverage in all media is cynically aimed at drowning out the cries of the Palestinians.

    Through ceremonial repetition, political commemoration and endless media coverage, the Jewish experience in Europe during WWII has become the most famous example of human suffering and political injustice in world history.

    Ironically, without it, Israel might not exist today. It continues to be used as a tool to try to justify the existence of a racist Jewish state in Palestine.

    And so, I've come to oppose what is now considered 'mainstream' Jewish politics, which is also known as Zionism.

    For this, The Jerusalem Post has branded me and my websites as “neo-nazi”.

    How NOT surprising. I invite you to visit them for yourselves and see what you think. They are Mar Wen Media www.marwenmedia.com and "Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid"

    I have also endured the familiar and over-used murky hate epithet “anti-Semite” that's hurled regularly by defenders of a Jewish supremacist Israel and Jewish politics at their critics.

    Free speech, not to mention informed political discourse, is now under siege.

    Why can't we agree to disagree? Just as some people are definitely “anti-Republican” or “anti-corporate” or “anti-Christian fundamentalist” or even “anti-God”, I am definitely “anti-Jewish politics”.

    That doesn’t mean that I advocate anything sinister at all. I simply advocate the apparently “radical” idea that the U.S. should not in any way be unconditionally supporting a racist, apartheid state such as Israel is.

    However only Jews and their recruited, often unwittingly brainwashed allies demand that those who are “anti-Jewish politics” must be silenced.

    Apparently this crowd thinks it’s open-minded, liberal and progressive until you disagree with them, in which case they then become downright fascistic censors, with many tools at their disposal to intimidate you, such as name-calling, boycotts, and using their ample access to the media and politicians to back up their malicious highly organized campaigns to silence their political foes.

    They DON'T, however, have truthfulness on their side.

    Does anyone care about the truth anymore?

    Obviously not the US media. Note how there was such a big deal made about how Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but the lies of huge magnitude and importance, ones that the Bush administration put forth to try to justify his driving this country into an unjust war have all been under-reported by the US media.

    Therefore many Americans seem rather apathetic about it all. I’m talking about the lies about Iraq’s WMD and Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to bin Laden, to name just a couple of the glaring lies.

    Fortunately, many Americans are anything but apathetic about this, and hopefully, many more will demand truth and justice, rather than going along blindly in unconditionally supporting Israel as a Jewish supremacist state.

    However this is why Holocaust lore is so revered by organized political Jewry. It is apparently essential to maintaining supreme Jewish privilege.

    It has been enshrined as a strange form of worship in and of itself. While nothing else in this world seems to be sacred and above analyzing or questioning, only The Holocaust remains untouchable and taboo.

    Americans have learned their lesson, perhaps too well.

    We've sub-consciously assumed a sense of shame--of 'Nazi guilt'--even though many Americans died on the battlefield defeating Hitler.

    Nevertheless, there's been created a current climate of subliminal fear that manipulatively links legitimate criticism of Jewish politics to committing genocide against Jews. Criticism of Jewish politics gets labeled as “neo-Nazism”. This is amounts to an illegitimate form of intimidation.

    Yet fear of being called names does seem manage to somehow keep the lid on much anti-Zionist dissent amongst many.

    Honorable voices must boldly test this taboo. To achieve our goal of justice for all, violence is not necessary.

    At this desperate moment, the war and destruction of Iraq and Palestine are Zionist tools of the Zionist mission.

    However, remember, the ARAB world has sought NO war with us.

    We, as supporters of Israel, have been the initial aggressors, not them.

    It obviously preceeds 911, which, by the way, many believe was an “inside job” engineered to achieve political and financial goals for the elite that are in the process of being realized today.

    There are many calling for more investigation into 911, including those whose website is "Reopen 911"

    Only a clear, unyielding and steady collective voice of the American people is needed to spread this message:

    Zionist conquest, Zionist dominance and Zionist violence is anti-American and we reject it.

    “Zionist violence?” you ask. Yes.

    Unless America changes course of unconditional support for Israel, be prepared for more 'pre-emptive' aggression against Israel’s self-made, self-perpetuating enemies, including Syria and Iran, and it won’t stop there.

    It is time for Americans to reject mainstream U.S. media sources and find uncensored avenues for political information.

    We recommend:

    There are countless others, including the British papers The Guardian and The Independent, as well as the Israeli paper the Ha’aretz, which are more honest than the mainstream US media.

    We also urge you to restrict personal exposure to the NY--Hollywood--Washington Axis of processed news, as these outlets produce zombie-like patterns of conformity.

    It’s also time for new leadership amongst Jewish people to break away from the now firmly established Jewish politics, otherwise known as Zionism.

    Jewish writer and human rights activist Paul Eisen is one of the new leaders.

    He actively “opposes organized Jewry's support of Zionism, with their emphasis on Jewish victimhood and "chosen-ness.

    His article “Jewish Power” is featured on www.marwenmedia.com. He is the London director of the worldwide organization Deir Yessin Remembered.

    Spread the word. Be a leader.

    It’s OK to strongly oppose Jewish politics.

    You have the right.

    Even the duty: To oppose endless, exploitive, unnecessary wars.

    ****
    P.S. Note the complete hypocrisy of Zionized NY Senator Hillary Clinton who began her tribute to AIPAC by stating,

    “I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bond between the United States and Israel. Now, these are bonds that are more than shared interests.

    These are bonds forged in a common struggle for human rights, for democracy, for freedom; they are rooted in fundamental beliefs and values about the dignity and rights of men and women to live in freedom, free from fear, free from oppression”.

    Sure, sure. Tell that to the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the whole Arab world for that matter. Better yet, tell it to Israel— “the only democracy in the Middle East”!

    Ha! Talk about a crock of you-know-what! Or as the enlightened French say, “Merde!”

    COMMENTARY ARTICLE by Robert Lindsay. Read here for more.

    The US Jewish community is not monolithic. There are all sorts of Jewish factions, often at odds with each other.

    Instead, if we look closer, we can see that there is a faction of US Jews (along with some Gentile allies) that is variously called neoconservatives of one degree or another.

    This Jewish-led and Jewish-dominated movement has craftily infiltrated the US government and media over a period of decades.

    This careful, patient, slow, insidious conspiratorial infiltration process was done in order to grab as much power as the neoconservatives could in the US in order to push their agenda. The Jewish group with government power now is largely the Jewish Right, mainly Jewish Republicans. This small group only makes up about ~20% of US Jews, since Jews have been voting overwhelmingly democratic in the US since the early 1920's.

    In this takeover, this small Jewish minority faction was supported by almost the entire US Organized Jewish community, many of the country's wealthiest Jews, the vast majority of Jewish media moguls, publishers, editors, columnists, and very powerful US rightwing think-tanks like as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, which have become Jewish-dominated in recent years.

    In accordance with what we know about Jewish tribal politics, the neoconservatives can be seen as prototypical Jewish messianic extremists who arise during tough times for the Jewish community. At first they are rejected by the Jewish masses, but then as the crisis continues, the Jewish Center tends to move more and more towards the radical position, until finally, the radical position becomes the default Jewish position.

    The radicals enforce their paradigm-shift through a traditional Jewish method of portraying themselves as saviors of the Jews and their Jewish critics as traitors of the Jews.

    They try to take over Jewish institutions by any Machiavellian means possible. As they assume power, they "cast out" more and more Jews as "traitors". The traitors can be let back in if they conform, because Jewish culture is forgiving towards wayward tribesmen.

    Since Jews are the most ethnocentric people on Earth, they are especially susceptible to accusations of treason and being traitors to the Jews.

    The largely totalitarian and collectivist nature of Jewish culture further enforces groupthink on key tribal issue.

    ---------------------------------------------

    Related articles

    MarWen Media: Where we're coming from...FULL DISCLOSURE by Wendy Campbell

    JEWISH POWER by Paul Eisen

    The Shadow of Zog by Israel Shamir

    The J word, the J people and the J spot by Gilad Atzmon

    Terrorism, Anti-Semitism and The Sacred Cow by Mark Green

    The Holocaust, Palestine and Israel:Revision, Denial and Myth by Frank Scott

    Wendy Campbell Answers Interview Questions for Belgium and the Rest of the World

    "Anti-Semitism" as a Political Weapon by Lasse Wilhelmson

    A Zionist War by Kristoffer Larsson

    The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides by Wendy Campbell

    Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Jeffrey Blankfort

    Hollywood Advances Soft Assault On Christian Imagery by Mark Green and Wendy Campbell

    Exit NeoConservatives, Enter NeoLiberals by Mark Green with Wendy Campbell

    Zionization of Miami by Wendy Campbell

    Book Review by Wendy Campbell: Victor Ostrovsky's "By Way of Deception"

    The Cost of Israel to the American People by Richard Curtiss

    Liberating America From Israel by Paul Findley

    Why I Am a Pro-Palestinian Activist by Wendy Campbell

    As the Arabs see the Jewsby His Majesty King Abdullah, The American Magazine November, 1947

    Will the Real Racist Please Stand Up? by Wendy Campbell

    My Position on "White Pride" by Wendy Campbell


      Go to Latest Posting


    Comments 1