Comments on recent additions to the SenderBerl website.

When we heard that tens of thousands braved the cold to march in Washington, D.C. against a military attack on Iraq, we were so happy to see for the first time that others were troubled enough to do what they did that day.                                 t

When we heard that the police and media were doing their parts in limiting the perceived scope of the protests, and that in fact a half a million, hundreds of thousands, were there, protesting, before an attack was even launched, then we knew we were seeing something important. ww.senderberl.com/china/protest/collage.htm

When we next heard that China, Russia, France, Germany and Canada, all lined up publicly against Bush's obsession to attack Iraq, everyone in the world knowing they were seeing Bush pursuing a course inapposite to the American way, then we recognized that we were seeing a possible intervention.

We have added www.senderberl.com/issue.htm. This link boils it down to the dynamic whether Bush is willing to show clean hands by saying that if the US moves in to remove Saddam and thus WMD, it will forego any subsequent direct or indirect benefit from Iraqi oil and oil reserves. Is Bush willing to allow a leadership selected by China? by Russia? by France? by Germany? by the UN?

It is not enough to say that Americans gave their lives to remove Saddam and thus Bush, an oil cartel player, is entitled to the oil, because the salient argument is: they gave up their lives to seize the oil, we and the world well knowing that but for the oil, Bush would have as much interest in Saddam as he has in all the other leaderships in the world slaughtering thousands within their countries.

We have included links to our interviews in 2002 from the Jeff Rense Show www.senderberl.com/renser.htm. We have never emphasized before the meaning of the disappearance of our August 5th interview on that show.
                             
On August 4, 2002, we issued an analysis detailing that Bush may launch the first attack not on Iraq but Saudi Arabia and we explained why. Attacking Iraq would invoke a response of bioterrorism. Attacking Saudi Arabia would not. Furthermore, the true objectives of the attack on Iraq would be met: Bush would seize Saudi oil and oil reserves AND completely neutralize in one swoop Chinese accomplishments and influence in the oil producing region.                              t

In fact, we identified Saudi Arabia as the primary target on October 10, 2001, within thirty days of 9-11, in writing as we did the House and Senate Intelligence Committee members.

We have included on our site at www.senderberl.com/china/shift.htm the second possible facet of the retaliation against us. The first of course is the irrefutable evidence of advance knowledge by the Bush administration of 9-11 (www.senderberl.com/china/chinai3.htm)

The second is a point we raised in Recapturing America in 1997 concerning the deep covert agenda now well known as the new world order agenda (www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america).

This involved the concern that white people in the United States would become a minority. To put it as succinctly as possible, those behind the new world order agenda were petrified of turning over a powerful US to someone like Al Sharpton. While Al Sharpton doesn't have a prayer of moving forward, particularly with his history, his seeking to run for the presidency forges the issue that one day the presidency may fall into what the NWO leadership sees as questionable hands.                          t                            

Thus, we in 1997 identified the agenda to intentionally weaken and maim this country, once the objective of world domination and control was achieved, incredibly confirmed in September 2002 by Bush in his National Security Strategy.                            t

Therefore, we pointed out, when Lott made his statement, the link to the wink photo with LBJ getting sworn in on Air Force One with Jackie Kennedy at his side. Lott lost in the moment became totally forgetful or oblivious about a CSPAN camera being in the room. What he said had a meaningful far beyond the determined reckless statement made.
                              t
What he in fact did was identify that the NWO leadership grieved the day when this country took the course it did, compelling it to now undermine it. You will want to read the comments we made on this page because this may have been the primary facet for the retaliation.

We should note that we have been subject to (lesser) forms of retaliation since May 1996, when we took the ad we have posted for you at www.senderberl.com/ad2.htm on the back page of the Jerusalem Post.

Now, with all this pressure against Bush, if he moves forward, China well knows that ultimate military conflict between Bush and Zemin is not far behind. Since Zemin wants to upset the Bush time table as we first indicated on July 21, 2002, see www.senderberl.com/china/china17.htm we in our opinion knowing his mindset will have North Korea attack Japan. If he does as we proffered in www.senderberl.com/majora.htm then please remember where you heard it first. The reason we ask you to remember is because perhaps someone would like to defer to our recommended course for resolution before we face consequences from which there will be no escape.

We were the first or among the first to tell you on September 23, 2002 that the torching of the Iraqi oil fields was a real possibility, and why? We wrote:

SenderBerl (September 23, 2002)

What do we think will happen now? Just as Oslo united the Arab world, President Bush's NSS document, putting in writing the outrageous things he has been saying since June 24th, will unite the world against us. It is not Saddam Hussein who will blow up the Iraqi oil fields but a united Arab world which may include European and Asian interests as well. Those oil fields and the US presence in Iraq are the key to the new world order agenda. Without it they cannot finance the plan and the US financial system is not positioned to bear the weight of the campaign, especially with President Bush eschewing tax cuts and not wanting to make the same mistakes as Bush 41.                       
www.senderberl.com/china/china14.htm

We have offered the following reasons for Bush's obsession in attacking Iraq despite overwhelming pressure this past week against doing so:

a. Obtaining the oil allows him to help pay the bills for spendthrift US spending since 9-11.

b. Obtaining the oil allows him to finance the projected ten to twenty-year war against terrorism.

c. Obtaining the oil allows him to influence OPEC to reduce the high price of oil, essential to spurring forth an economic recovery.

d. Obtaining the oil allows him to feel secure in pushing forth a tax cut without facing the need to rescind it, to parallel the quagmire that caused the defeat of his father when he ran for a second term.

e. Obtaining the oil allows him to dilute China's recent successes in the Middle East, to help regain US influence in the region for the foreseeable future.

f. Obtaining the oil helps shift the dynamics from one where the US might be locked out from oil, to one where the US can manipulate events to lock out China from needed oil access to drive its own economy.

g. Obtaining the oil helps the US manipulate China back to supporting a unipolar world government.

Those opposed to Bush's imperalism and plunder have to offset the US military by opening the portal to bioterrorism. This is as we long interpreted. We also long interpreted that China would draw US military forces away from Iraq and Middle East. North Korea is now prepared to do so, and please remember who first told you or was among the very first to tell you that the target may be Japan.

Now, Bush faces truths but shows the world and ultimately Americans that he is willing to pursue a course to undermine this country even further than he already has. He has been already described as the worst President in all of American history. No doubt he may prove to be. However, it is time, for journalists and those in the media to prove themselves courageous and serve their country rather than cower in fear from their government.

Below are some powerful recent news stories and articles we received, finally, detailing the issues, now that we have had a miracle in seeing for the first time a half million Americans come out to march and protest before a war commences.

LINK HERE TO SENDERBERL'S ADVANCE ANALYSIS OF THE BUSH STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

New York Times discovers the opposition to war in Iraq

By Bill Vann
21 January 2003

In a January 20 editorial entitled “A Stirring in the Nation,” the New York Times issued a belated and hypocritical welcome to the mass movement that has emerged against the Bush administration’s drive to war against Iraq.

In this mealy-mouthed piece, the Times adopts the posture of a knowing and tolerant authority, dispensing its blessings on the January 18 demonstrations that mobilized hundreds of thousands in Washington, San Francisco and cities throughout the country. The newspaper declares the protests a legitimate part of a “nascent debate” that supposedly involves the Bush administration and the American people. It asserts that the legions of people who marched in sub-freezing temperatures in the US capital did so to raise “nuanced questions in the name of patriotism about the premises, cost and aftermath of the war the president is contemplating.”

This description grotesquely distorts the present state of political relations in the US, as well as the spirit animating those who are demonstrating against war. It also serves to cover up the role of the newspaper itself.

Anyone who paid the slightest attention to the protests in Washington, San Francisco and elsewhere knows full well that the predominant sentiment was not “nuanced” differences with the Bush administration, but rather passionate opposition to an unprovoked war that the demonstrators consider a criminal enterprise.

One of the most popular slogans in the rallies—“No War for Oil”—reflected the widespread and growing sense that behind the official talk of weapons of mass destruction and UN resolutions lies a drive to seize Iraq’s rich petroleum holdings, pointing to the imperialistic character of the coming war. But the Times editors discreetly omit any mention of oil in connection with either the war preparations of the Bush administration or the mass opposition they have provoked.

The editorial goes on to praise Bush and his aides for having “welcomed the demonstrations as a healthy manifestation of American democracy at work.” This is a bit rich, even for the sycophants of the Times editorial board, whose specialty is attributing moral considerations and democratic principles to the predatory policies of the Bush administration.

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest the policies of an administration that came to power by nullifying the popular vote and has used that power to prepare an illegal war, abrogate fundamental democratic rights and transfer vast amounts of wealth from the working people—the vast majority—to the financial elite. Far from a sign of “American democracy’s” health, the protests are an indication of the profound political and social polarization that has developed under the rule of a corrupt plutocracy.

The editorial manages to evade the most essential question: how to account for what is acknowledged as “the largest antiwar rally at the Capitol since the Vietnam era” under conditions of overwhelming support for war by the politicians of both major parties as well as the mass media, including the Times itself?

From the outset, the Times, the erstwhile mouthpiece of establishment liberalism, has accepted uncritically the pretexts for war advanced by the Bush administration. Its chief foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman has gone so far as to publish proposals for how best to provoke an invasion and apologias for the US seizure of Iraq’s oil wealth.

Until now the Times has done its best to conceal mass opposition to a new war in the Persian Gulf. When tens of thousands demonstrated in Washington and San Francisco last October, the newspaper failed to even publish a news report on the protests.

Mass public opinion in the US is forming independently of and in opposition to the entire structure of official politics and the establishment media. This phenomenon is a reflection of the social chasm that exists between the broad mass of working people and the ruling elite.

The effective disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the American people by the two-party system and the failure of the mass media to provide even a pale reflection of existing popular sentiment are symptoms of a profound crisis that is leading inevitably to political upheavals. These struggles can find a way forward only through the building of an independent political movement of the working class based on a socialist program and fighting for social equality.

This is what the publishers of the Times fear, and what lies behind their hypocritical “embrace” of the anti-war protests.

CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen01182003.html

How the Press Downplayed the Protests

Deceptions and Illusions

By WAYNE MADSEN January 18 / 19, 2003

A large banner hanging on the side of the East Building of the National Gallery of Art could not have been more appropriate for the January 18 anti-war protest on the Mall in Washington, DC. Promoting an art display inside the museum, the banner read: "Deceptions and Illusions." It could have easily applied to the deception foisted on the public by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department and the corporate news media.

The Park Police cleverly fenced off a large portion of the Mall closest to the Washington Monument, forcing large numbers of protestors on to Jefferson and Madison Drives. If one were to count the numbers solely on the grassy area of the Mall it would appear that 30,000 or, as the news media is now reporting, "tens of thousands," were present. However, if the count were to include those forced on to the periphery of the Mall, the number was well over 100,000.

The police, now armed with a phalanx of surveillance cameras on the Mall, claim the panning electronic eyes are used for crowd control. They are correct. When crowds begin to swell in a vast area like the Mall, the police can block streets, cordon off areas, and force people out of camera range. This is exactly what occurred on January 18.

The New York Times has become the chief perpetrator of low balling anti-Bush protestor numbers. A photo caption on its web site stated, "thousands of protestors" took part in the January 18 protest. A similar anti-war protest held in Washington last October 26 was estimated at between 100,000 and 200,000. It was the largest anti-war protest since the Vietnam War, but the Times reported the number of protestors as being in the "thousands." However, an April 15, 2002 pro-Israel rally at the US Capitol, was reported by the Times to be 100,000. In reality, the numbers were merely in the low thousands. The "Old Grey Lady" later admitted it had erroneously reported the inflated number due to a "coordination" problem with one of its desks. Five days later, a pro-Palestinian rally was held on the White House Ellipse. Organizers claim the crowd was 100,000 but Washington police chief Charles Ramsey put the numbers at between 35,000 and 50,000. Once again, the Times reported the numbers to be in the "tens of thousands."

This is not just shoddy journalism but willful disinformation being perpetrated by corporate newspapers that want to curry favor with the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon.

In fact, the January 18 protest was larger than those held in October and April last year. That would obviously put the January 18 numbers well over 100,000. But the failure to accurately report the numbers is not entirely the fault of the news media. In the past, the media was permitted to use their news and traffic helicopters to more accurately gauge crowd numbers. But in the wake of September 11, the only helicopters now permitted over Washington are those belonging to the police. They count the numbers, divide and subtract, and then feed the phony figures to a sycophantic media.

The media, police, and the Bush administration want to marginalize the protestors who came to Washington. In fact, a sign displayed by a GOP office along the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route said it all: "Hippies Go Home!" Even though the Republican Party is reintroducing the terms "segregation," "cross burning," and "abortion ban" to the American body politic, using "hippies" to describe the protestors goes far beyond the use of an antiquated term. The GOP wants to convince everyone that the January 18 protestors were cut from the same mold as the anti-globalization protestors and their myriad causes. That canard was echoed on the shameful Fox News Sunday program by Tony Snow, who labeled the protestors "socialists." The other corporate media broadcasters featured Bush administration senior officials pushing their war agenda. Protest leaders and featured speakers were ignored. Joseph Goebbels could not have asked for greater cooperation from his own media.

When crowds of people streaming from Union Station began to swell on to the grounds of the Capitol, the Capitol Hill police, showing their usual harassing behavior, sent speeding police cars into the crowd. They did not seem to care that the streets were icy. One police car began to dangerously fishtail near a group of protestors that included young children. Capitol Hill Police Chief Terence Gainer, whose history as Washington, DC deputy police chief, Illinois State Police director, Chicago cop, and Republican loyalist highlights a checkered career of police misconduct, arrived on the scene like a Brown Shirt block commander. One protestor was arrested for allegedly shoving a cop.

Gainer has his own history of shoving and head clubbing. He was rookie cop at the 1968 Democratic Convention, an event that earned the Chicago police the moniker of "thugs" by CBS News anchorman Walter Cronkite. In addition, a number of the forced confession cases that influenced Illinois Governor George Ryan's decision to commute to life imprisonment the sentences of his state's death row inmates, occurred on Gainer's watch.

The 1-18 protestors who came from all parts of the country represented a cross section of America. There were church, synagogue, mosque, and Buddhist temple groups. Grandmothers and grandfathers gathered with their sons, daughters, and grandchildren. There were veterans of World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I. College, high school, and grade school students participated. And although the protestors were white, African American, Hispanics, Asian American, and Arab American, the dirty little secret that the Bush administration, the Congress, and the media want to keep from the American people is that the vast majority of protestors were white middle class suburbanites. And in another close presidential election, 100,000 politically active voting Americans could make the difference.

But the vast numbers of protestors can have a more immediate effect on their shameful members of Congress, who, save for Representative John Conyers and former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, failed to show up at the protest in the very shadow of the Capitol dome. Even the progressive caucus was absent. The protestors, who drove in their cars, busses, and vans from Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, should remember that their members of Congress were AWOL on January 18. It is obvious that the limousine liberals preferred sitting by their warm and cozy fireplaces as their constituents stood and marched in 25-degree weather.

Hundreds of thousands protest US war drive vs. Iraq

Demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco and cities worldwide

By Kate Randall
20 January 2003

Hundreds of thousands of people turned out for demonstrations in Washington DC, San Francisco and other cities across the US and Canada on Saturday to protest the Bush administration’s impending war against Iraq.

The protests, which drew substantially more people than those held last October, were the largest anti-war demonstrations in North America since the Vietnam War era, with an estimated half-million protesters participating. More than 200,000 protested in the nation’s capital, traveling by bus and car from as far away as Florida and Iowa.

Simultaneous demonstrations took place in San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Honolulu, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Tampa, and many other US cities.

Protesters also took to the streets in New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Sweden, Egypt and Syria. In both their size and international reach, the demonstrations were indicative of rapidly growing anti-war sentiment in the US and around the world.

The protests in the US shattered the myth promoted by the media of political consensus and mass support for the Bush administration and its war policies. The large turnout occurred despite the fact that the media gave virtually no advance publicity to the protests, and has systematically suppressed reports of domestic opposition to the government’s war plans.

The disparity between the official portrayal of Bush’s “popularity” and the reality revealed in Saturday’s protests underscores the chasm that separates the entire media and political establishment and the broad mass of the American people.

In San Francisco, more than 100,000 rallied downtown and marched from the Justin Herman Plaza to a rally at the Civic Center, more than a mile away. Among the speakers were actors Martin Sheen and Ed Begley Jr., and Democratic congresswomen Barbara Lee of Oakland and Lynn Woolsey of Santa Rosa.

In Washington, more than 200,000 people rallied on the Mall. Demonstrators braved sub-freezing temperatures of 24 degrees Fahrenheit to express their opposition to the government’s war plans. Both young and old were represented, with contingents from high schools and universities making up a large proportion of the participants.

U.S. Dismisses Growing Opposition to Iraq War
Jan 23, 2003

By Steve Holland and Hassan Hafidh

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Washington shrugged off growing vocal opposition to a possible war on Iraq on Thursday as China and Russia joined key U.S. allies France, Germany and Canada in opposing any rush to war.

They urged the United States to allow U.N. inspectors more time, while France said there was "a real chance" that Iraq could be disarmed by peaceful means.

Washington dismissed the objections of its allies, with Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) saying Washington would find other supporters if it decided to go to war.

"I don't think we'll have to worry about going it alone," Powell said in Washington on Thursday after talks with Britain's supportive Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

He also said it was an "open question" whether Washington would seek a further U.N. resolution to authorize the use of force to disarm Baghdad.

Other U.S. officials make clear they see no need for the declaration-- and given the French, Russian and Chinese veto powers on the Security Council, they are unlikely to get one. The other two veto-wielding members, the United States and its strongest ally Britain, are now a minority on the Council.

Amid talk of a rift in the transatlantic alliance, Germany and France angrily rejected U.S. criticism that they are isolated in Europe in their effort to avoid the use of force against Baghdad.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer bluntly told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to "cool down" his rhetoric and took umbrage at Rumsfeld's dismissal of France and Germany's views as that of "old Europe."

Working from the other side to halt the momentum to war, five Middle East neighbors of Iraq and Egypt, urged Baghdad to take a "more active approach" to comply with the U.N. weapons inspections to avoid a potentially destabilizing conflict.

And, the prospect of war overshadowed discussion of economics at the prestigious Davos, Switzerland gathering of the global economic and political elite. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad jolted the opening session, telling the United States that "out terrorizing the terrorists will not work."

This Looming War Isn't About
Chemical Warheads or Human
Rights: It's About Oil
By Robert Fisk
The Independent - UK
1-18-3
This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads
or Human Rights: It's About Oil
 
Along with the concern for 'vital interests' in the Gulf, this war was concocted five years ago by oil men such as Dick Cheney.
 
I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan ö the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan ö sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said.
 
Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this ö and this alone ö explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
 
The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
 
Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production ö the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates ö compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
 
Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 ö just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents ö didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s.
 
Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents ö only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Center dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity.
 
A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon ö who had all along backed Saddam ö and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 ö concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad ö gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights?
 
Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men ö most involved in the oil business ö created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf ö and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power".
 
The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department ö who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense, currently chairman of the defense science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan ö where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory ö and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for ö you guessed it ö Iraq.
 
The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal. Abrams it was who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon ö held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre ö to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war ö the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (i.e. oil) in the Gulf ö was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips.
 
In fact, I'm getting heartily sick of hearing the Second World War being dug up yet again to justify another killing field. It's not long ago that Bush was happy to be portrayed as Churchill standing up to the appeasement of the no-war-in Iraq brigade. In fact, Bush's whole strategy with the odious and Stalinist-style Korea regime ö the "excellent" talks which US diplomats insist they are having with the Dear Leader's Korea which very definitely does have weapons of mass destruction ö reeks of the worst kind of Chamberlain-like appeasement. Even though Saddam and Bush deserve each other, Saddam is not Hitler. And Bush is certainly no Churchill. But now we are told that the UN inspectors have found what might be the vital evidence to go to war: 11 empty chemical warheads that just may be 20 years old.
 
The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that.

January 15, 2003

The United States of America has gone mad
John le Carré

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I’m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that “somebody” was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr’s cry: “That man tried to kill my Daddy.” But it’s still not personal, this war. It’s still necessary. It’s still God’s work. It’s still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the truth about why we’re going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, if he’s still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes’ notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America’s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us — to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair’s part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can’t. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can’t get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain’s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that’s Britain’s tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair’s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world’s greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant’s head to wave at the boys?

Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it’s a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

“But will we win, Daddy?”

“Of course, child. It will all be over while you’re still in bed.”

“Why?”

“Because otherwise Mr Bush’s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him.”

“But will people be killed, Daddy?”

“Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.”

“Can I watch it on television?”

“Only if Mr Bush says you can.”

“And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?”

“Hush child, and go to sleep.”

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also Patriotic”. It was gone by the time he’d finished shopping.

The author has also contributed to an openDemocracy debate on Iraq at www.openDemocracy.net

EYE ON THE GULF
U.S. expects Iraq
to hit Israel hard
Missiles aimed at Tel Aviv likely to carry deadly warheads, say intelligence sources
December 30, 2003

WASHINGTON – During the early stages of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, Israeli population centers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere are expected to be targeted by Iraq's missiles – some of which are likely to be armed with chemical, biological or even nuclear warheads, say WorldNetDaily's U.S. military and intelligence sources.

Unlike the first Persian Gulf War, however, the U.S. is not demanding that Israel sit back and take the blows. Instead, the U.S. is fully anticipating an Israeli response to any attack that results in massive civilian casualties.

The missile attacks on Israel are expected during the air-war phase of the Iraq attack – before U.S. troops can occupy much of the country and secure or destroy hidden missile bases.

Israel has perhaps the most advanced missile defense system in the world, but it is not expected to be 100 percent effective against a barrage assault.

A growing number of U.S. military intelligence analysts believe Hussein has at least limited nuclear capabilities.

"When he is certain his time has come," said one, "he will launch his doomsday weapon. He wants to go down in history as the man who destroyed Israel."

In addition to lashing out at Israel, Saddam Hussein is expected to blow up many of his oil wells. Already, sources say, he has begun mining them in ways that will make it most difficult to extinguish the fires and cap the wells.

The contingency plan of attack on Iraq calls for a four-phase campaign:

  • The first phase is under way – it involves mobilizing forces and deploying them in key locations.
  • The second phase, which will occur after the execute order is issued by President Bush, will be a four-day air war.
  • The third phase contemplates a 45-day ground invasion.
  • The final phase is an occupation, regime change and rebuilding effort similar to what is happening in Afghanistan today.

U.S. military planners believe Iraq will target Israel early – before U.S. forces have a chance to destroy the regime's missiles. Destroying the wells will be Hussein's second priority, and using any remaining missiles on U.S. forces will be his third priority.

The intelligence sources also say the Iraqi government is kidnapping and arresting its own top scientists – those involved in developing weapons of mass destruction – to keep them away from U.N. weapons inspectors. In addition, more than 1,000 high-level Iraqi officials have defected in recent months. Much of the information about plans and capabilities is coming from those officials.

The order to attack Iraq is not expected to come before the end of January to provide U.N. weapons inspectors the time they need to gather data and make a report, say WorldNetDaily's sources.

One of the major concerns of war planners is how they will destroy Hussein's massive underground facilities. Some of his bunkers are hundreds of feet below the surface and include railroad lines and expensive fortifications. His "super-gun" cannons have never been located and may be hidden within one of these underground facilities.

The Pentagon's burrowing bombs cannot penetrate deep bunkers of this kind. Some planners have even discussed the possibility of using low-yield nuclear bombs.

Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com.

Saudis rally neighbors against post-Saddam democracy

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COMWednesday, December 4, 2002

ABU DHABI — Saudi Arabia is working to form an Arab coalition to oppose any U.S. drive to impose democracy on the Middle East.

Arab diplomatic sources said the kingdom has been consulting with Egypt, Syria and the Gulf states regarding the ramifications of post-Saddam reforms in Iraq. The sources said Saudi Arabia is concerned that it will be the next target of the Bush administration.

"The Saudi efforts want to ensure that no major Arab country will plot against Riyad or any other regime targeted by the United States," a diplomatic source said. "While Washington opposed Iraq on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the Saudis are worried that Washington will use the banner of democracy."

The London-based Al Quds Al Arabi daily reported that Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal has been touring Arab capitals and urging them to sign an agreement that would pledge to resist any U.S. effort for regime change in the Arab world. The newspaper said Riyad wants Arab League members to sign such a pledge during their next summit.

"No one can change the Saudi regime but Allah," Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz said.

The proposed accord would also commit league members to oppose any U.S. attempt to freeze the assets of any Arab government. The Saudi aim is to prevent Washington from blocking Saudi assets in the United States or in allied nations that stem from the multi-trillion dollar suit by the families of victims of the Al Qaida attacks on New York and Washington more than a year ago.

Saudi leaders have relayed their concern to the Bush administration over the effects of the law suit against leading princes and institutions. Among those named in the suit are Prince Nayef and Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan.

At the same time, Saudi leaders have taken steps to address U.S. concerns regarding lack of democracy in the kingdom. Riyad has agreed to examine a proposal to provide authority for the 120-member Shura consultative council. The council is appointed by King Fahd and discusses civilian and military issues.

GOP senators on the warpath

January 13, 2003

Republican senators gathering last Wednesday for their session-opening ''retreat'' should have been happy, blessed with a regained majority and a popular president. They were not. Instead, they complained bitterly of arrogance by the Bush administration, especially the Pentagon, in treatment of Congress along the road to war.

Two years of growing discontent boiled over during the closed-door meeting at the Library of Congress. White House chief of staff Andrew Card was there to hear grievances from President Bush's Senate base that it is ignored and insulted by the administration, particularly by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in preparing for war against Iraq. Recital of complaints began with Sen. John Warner, a pillar of the Senate GOP establishment.

This is a disconnected time in Washington. Republican senators appreciate that they have returned to majority status thanks to George W. Bush's bold midterm election strategy and his popularity leading the war against terrorism. But their unease about a divided administration on the brink of attacking Iraq is deepened because they are neither consulted nor informed about war plans.

No senator more solidly supports Bush's national security policy than Warner, the 75-year-old chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who was re-elected last year to a fifth Senate term from Virginia. A veteran of the Navy (World War II) and Marine Corps (Korean War) and a former secretary of the Navy, he has devoted long public service to American's national defense.

Consequently, Warner had his colleagues' attention when he addressed Card. ''I will not tolerate,'' he boomed, ''a continuation of what's been going on the last two years.'' He cited cavalier treatment that denies information even to the venerable top Senate Republican on Armed Services. To specify whom he was talking about, Warner said he had breakfast scheduled the next morning with Rumsfeld and would tell the secretary of defense the same thing.

Next up was Sen. Pat Roberts, a former Marine officer who has spent the last 40 years on Capitol Hill. Roberts, a plain-spoken Midwesterner from Dodge City, Kan., is the new Senate Intelligence Committee chairman. He told Card to mark him down agreeing with everything Warner just said.

Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri next got up to tell Card that the administration had better put out more information justifying military action against Iraq as part of the war against terrorism. ''What is the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida?'' Bond asked. ''Don't worry,'' replied Card, indicating the information would come along.

Two days before the GOP retreat, another leading Republican senator--Ted Stevens of Alaska, incoming chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the new Senate president pro tem--sent a letter of protest to the Pentagon. The notoriously short-fused Stevens was furious that Rumsfeld had eliminated funding for two of the eight high-tech Army brigades mandated by Congress. The brigades are built around the new eight-wheeled Stryker combat vehicles.

Stevens, with Sen. Dan Inouye of Hawaii (top Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee), wrote that elimination of two Stryker brigades ''is yet another example of the disregard of the Congress, and existing law, by the senior leadership of the Defense Department.'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz responded Friday with a conciliatory letter that made no concessions.

Wolfowitz's chief is usually less conciliatory. An old Senate Republican hand explained to me why the senators are upset: ''Rumsfeld's behavior toward senators is dismissive, barely civil, bordering on rude. He has no interest in us other than to get the money, no interest in our opinions.'' Rumsfeld spent more than six years in the House, but that was 44 years ago.

Card responded to complaints by Warner and Roberts with a ''Thank you. I'll pass that along.''

According to administration sources, Bush is aware of the problem but has not yet addressed it. That constitutes one uncompleted war preparation.

Push to use oil money to pay for US occupation

January 11 2003
By Knut Royce,
Washington

Bush administration officials are considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay for a military occupation.

Such a move is likely to prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of US motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

But there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war," according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the talks.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be named. "We (the United States) take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government."

The source said the Justice Department had doubts about the legality of such a move.

Another source, who has worked closely with the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, said several officials there are also urging that Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.

A spokeswoman for Mr Cheney, Jennifer Millerwise, declined to talk about "internal policy discussions".

Using Iraqi oil to pay for an occupation would reinforce a belief in the Middle East that the conflict is about control of oil, not rooting out weapons, according to a recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University, Halim Barakat.

"It would mean that the real . . . objective of the war is not the democratisation of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism," he said.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of an occupation would range from $US12 billion ($A20.8 billion) to $US48 billion a year, and officials believe an occupation could last 18 months or more.

Iraq's proven oil reserves are second in the world only to Saudi Arabia's. But how much revenue could be generated is an open question. The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing nearly 2.8 million barrels a day, with 80 per cent of the revenue going for the United Nations Oil for Food Program or domestic consumption.

The remaining 20 per cent, worth about $US3 billion a year, is generated by oil smuggling - and much of it goes to support President Saddam Hussein's military. In theory that is the money that could be used for reconstruction or to help defer occupation costs. Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment, Iraq could produce much more. Some estimate it would take 10 years to restore Iraq's oil industry.

If President Saddam torches the fields, as he did in Kuwait in 1991, it would take a year or more to resume even a modest flow.

  •Russia has put three warships on standby to go to the Gulf within weeks to protect its "national interests" in the event of a US invasion of Iraq, a move that will heighten tension between Moscow and Washington, who have interests in Iraq's oilfields.

- Newsday, Guardian

Preemptive Impeachment
 
Law Professor Stands Ready To Draft
Articles For Any Member Of The House
By Kéllia Ramares
Online Journal Contributing Editor
1-14-2
While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country . . .
 
-The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
 
"We sentenced Nazi leaders to death for waging a war of aggression," says International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. By contrast, Prof. Boyle wants merely to impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft for their plans to invade Iraq and create a police state in America.
 
Boyle is offering his services as counsel, free of charge, to any member of the House of Representatives willing to sponsor articles of impeachment. He is experienced in this work, having undertaken it in 1991 for the late Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-TX), in an effort to stop the first Persian Gulf War. It takes only one member to introduce articles of impeachment. Of course, it will take many more than that to vote for impeachment, which will culminate in a trial in the Senate. Boyle is confident that, once the articles are introduced, others, including Republicans, will co-sponsor them. But we have to convince our Representatives that impeachment is necessary for the country and politically safe for them. This non-violent, constitutional process may be our best way of stopping World War III and saving our civil rights.
 
Grounds for Impeachment
 
Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Boyle says that waging a war of aggression is a crime under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles. "It's very clear," he adds, "if you read all the press reports, they are going to devastate Baghdad, a metropolitan area of 5 million people. The Nuremberg Charter clearly says the wanton devastation of a city is a Nuremberg war crime."
 
The United States is a party to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, and thus is constitutionally bound to obey them. "The Constitution, in Article 6, says that international treaties are the supreme law of the land here in the United States of America. So all we would be doing here, in this impeachment campaign," Boyle says, "is impeaching them for violating international treaties, as incorporated into the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution itself."
 
Bush Cabal Repudiates Nuremberg Principles
 
We don't have to wait for the devastation of Baghdad to impeach the Bush cabal because they have already repudiated the Nuremberg Charter via the so-called Bush Doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive attack. "This doctrine of pre-emptive warfare or pre-emptive attack was rejected soundly in the Nuremberg Judgment, " Boyle says. "The Nuremberg Judgment . . . rejected this Nazi doctrine of international law of alleged self-defense." The Bush Doctrine, embodied in the National Security Strategy document, published on the White House web site, is appalling, Boyle says. "It reads like a Nazi planning document prior to the Second World War."
 
The Fruit Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree
 
As Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez explained on the floor of the House in 1991, his articles charged the elder Bush with:
 
1) Violating the Equal Protection Clause by having minorities and poor whites, who were the majority of the soldiers in the Middle East, "fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy."
 
2) Violating "the Constitution, Federal law, and the UN Charter by bribing, intimidating, and threatening others, including the members of the UN Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq."
 
3) Violating the Nuremberg principles by conspiring to engage in a massive war against Iraq that would cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
 
4) Committing "the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the UN Charter and international law." (This refers to the lack of a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution).
 
5) Committing crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq, in violation of Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, other international instruments and treaties, and the Constitution of the United States.
 
Boyle believes that the articles he drafted for Gonzalez' effort to impeach George H. W. Bush, the father, could still serve as a basis for impeaching George W. Bush, the son.
 
Are the People Ready for Another Impeachment?
 
Impeachment has the advantage of bypassing the U.S. Supreme Court, which illegally installed Bush in the Oval Office. The same "Justices" would have the final word on legal challenges to constitutional abominations, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, both of which the White House rammed through a Congress frightened by the September 11th attacks and the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill.
 
But no matter how blatant the violations of constitutional, statutory and international law are, impeachment is still a political process. Republicans control the Congress and many Democrats, fearful of being labeled "soft on terrorism" might be unwilling to challenge the Bush cabal. It would take tremendous public pressure to get a reluctant Congress to impeach. Still, Boyle thinks he can garner public support by adding an article of impeachment against John Ashcroft.
 
"We know for a fact that there are Republicans and Democrats and Independents and Greens, even very conservative Republicans, such as Dick Armey and [Bob] Barr, who are very worried about a police state." Boyle says that an article against Ashcroft would make clear "that we don't want a police state in the name of an oil empire."
 
It's Up to Us
 
Unfortunately for the impeachment campaign, Armey has retired and Barr, who spoke out against some of the most draconian proposals for what eventually became the USA PATRIOT Act, was defeated in the Republican primary. Boyle is still waiting for the one member of Congress willing to introduce articles of impeachment when the 108th Congress convenes on January 7.
 
Since Bush has indicated that he is not likely to go to war before the end of January or early February, Boyle thinks we have a month to stop the war by impeaching the chain of command: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with police state enforcer Ashcroft. Time and the Internet are advantages Rep. Gonzalez did not have in 1991, when the Persian Gulf War was launched the day after he introduced his articles.
 
Boyle is asking the public to push for impeachment in two ways. First, contact your own member of Congress to urge him or her to introduce articles of impeachment, and tell the member that he or she may contact Prof. Boyle for assistance in drafting the articles. Second, demand impeachment by engaging in non-violent direct action, in exercise of your First Amendment rights to free speech, peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances. Boyle was pleased that 100,000 people marched around the White House last October 26 to protest the impending war on Iraq. But he says one million people need to peaceably take to the streets with signs, banners and voices shouting, "Impeach Bush!"
 
"The bottom line: it's really up to you and to me to enforce the law and the Constitution against our own government," he says. "We are citizens of the United States of America. We have to act to preserve the republic that we have, to preserve our Constitution, to preserve a rule of law. This is our responsibility as citizens. We simply can't pass the buck and say 'Oh, some judge is going to do it somewhere.' It's up to us to keep this republic."

Journalist Helen Thomas Condemns Bush Administration
By Sarah H.  Wright
News Office
Article Dated 11/12/2002



Veteran journalist Helen Thomas brought the grit and whir of a White House press conference to Bartos Theater on Monday evening, speaking with passion about the media's role in a democracy whose leaders seem eager for war. Actually, the 82-year-old former United Press International reporter didn't just speak: she surged into her topic, giving everyone present an immediate sense of the grumpy wit and fierce precision that gave her reporting on American presidents Kennedy through Bush II such a competitive and lasting edge. "I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas, who is now a columnist for Hearst News Service. "Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Her short list of answers seems not to vary from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens, pretty much in that order. Angered by what she views as the Bush administration's "bullying drumbeat," Thomas referred early and often to her own hatred of war, quoting from poets and politicians to bear down on President Bush and his colleagues. Winston Churchill, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Louis Brandeis, George Santayana, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. all made appearances in Thomas' sweeping portrayal of what she sees as the administration's betrayal of both the character and will of the American people and the principles of democracy. "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," she said to enthusiastic applause. Thomas ignored the clapping just as she once ignored the camera flashes and shouting matches of the Washington press corps. "Where is the outrage?" she demanded. "Where is Congress? They're supine! Bush has held only six press conferences, the only forum in our society where a president can be questioned. I'm on the phone to [press secretary] Ari Fleischer every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul." Like any star, Thomas, who resigned from UPI in 2000, appreciated her audience's thirst to get the insider's view of our national leaders, and she gave generously, in snapshots, though the Reagan and both Bush regimes were cast in darker hues. "Great presidents have great goals for mankind. During my years of covering the White House, Kennedy was the most inspired; Johnson rammed through voting rights and public housing; Nixon will be remembered for his trip to China and for his resignation; Ford for helping us recover from Nixon; and Carter for making human rights the centerpiece of foreign policy," Thomas said in an even, respectful tone. She just sighed over Clinton, who "tarnished the Oval Office." Thomas' mood became visibly more somber at the mention of Ronald Reagan's military buildup and at the name Bush. Again and again, Thomas warned the MIT audience, "It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way. Dissent is patriotic!" After her talk, Thomas participated in a panel discussion with MacVicar Faculty Fellows David Thorburn, professor of literature, and Charles Stewart III, professor of political science. Philip S. Khoury, dean of the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, introduced the speakers. "Helen Thomas offered a very powerful indictment of the current behavior of the Bush presidency in her comments on the incoherence and inconsistency of Bush's policies and the danger to civil liberties of Bush's rhetoric," said Thorburn. He compared the lack of public awareness of an antiwar movement in 1965 and 1966 with the wide public debate about Iraq going on today. "An aroused citizenry can instruct the government," he said. Stewart also focused on the current public debate about Iraq, declaring that it may be a "hopeful sign. The polls say Americans don't want to talk about Iraq - they want to talk about the economy, about education. But the press has continued to point out the important thing. Everyone knows there's been a dance between the President and Congress over Iraq." Thomas didn't let the press off the hook, though. "Everybody learned the lessons of Vietnam, including the Pentagon. In Vietnam, correspondents could go anywhere - just hop on a helicopter and report on the war. Now we don't have that access. It's total secrecy. The media overlords should be complaining about this. I do not absolve the press. We've rolled over and played dead, too," she said. Asked to advise young journalists, Thomas pounced. "Remind the politicians you interview that you pay them, that they are public servants. Remember every question is legitimate. And don't give up. There's always a leak. There's always someone who's trying to save the country," she said. The talk was sponsored by the MIT Communications Forum.

Closing Comment by SenderBerl

Israel failed to clean its house by discharging its obligations to its sovereignity by fully investigating the assassination of Rabin. For many years we told people including Barry Chamish who went on to become the leading authority in Israel regarding the truth behind the assassination that, by pursuit of the truth, Israel could recognize that it had an infiltrated infrastructure inapposite to the sovereignity and independence of the state. Today, we leave the message, that only if the US pursues the truth behind 9-11, can it clean house of a leadership less than loyal, to put it mildly, to the sovereign interests of the United States. No loyal President could undermine the tenets and precepts of this country, as Bush 43 has, institutionalizing police state laws and policies into the fabric of this country, based on a single day's events. Moreover, once it is shown, as we now contend it will be shown, one day, that the President allowed the attack to occur, it will become clear to people why there could be no intervention when Bush represents the unipolar world government agenda, an antithesis to G-d and the tenets upon which this Republic was founded.