January 31, 2007

We Are All Victims of the Occupation

 
Let Our Children Live
 
By NURIT PELED-ELHANAN


Bassam Aramin spent nine years in an Israeli prison. He belonged to Yasser Arafat's Al Fatah in the Hebron area and attempted to throw a grenade at an Israeli army Jeep in occupied Hebron. Last Wednesday morning, an Israeli soldier in a jeep in his village of Anata, on the West Bank, shot his nine year old daughter, Abir, in the head. The soldier will not spend an hour in jail. In Israel, soldiers are not imprisoned for killing Arabs. Never. It does not matter whether the Arabs are young or old, real or potential terrorists, peaceful demonstrators or stone throwers. The army has not conducted an inquiry in Abir Aramin's death. Neither the police nor the courts have questioned anyone. There will be no investigation. As far as the Israeli Defense Forces are concerned, the shooting did not happen. The army's official account of her death is that she was hit by a stone that one of her classmates was throwing "at our forces."

We who live in Israel know that stones thrown by 10 year olds do not blow brains out. Just as we see every day the Israeli jeeps circling Palestinian children on their way to and from school and greet them with stun-bombs, "rubber" bullets and riot control gas.

A bullet penetrated Abir Aramin's skull, while she was walking to school with her sister. I saw her just afterwards at Hadassah Hospital, where she slept quietly in a huge hospital bed. Abir's face was white. Her huge eyes were closed. By then, she was already brain dead, and the doctors decided to allow the rest of her to die. I saw clearly that her head had been shot from behind, and I will testify under oath to that fact. A young student who witnessed her shooting told journalists that the Israeli border police, who are part of the IDF, drove up to the girls as they came out of their school examinations. "The girls were afraid and started running away. The border police followed them in the direction in which they were retreating. Abir was afraid and stool against one of the shops at the side of the road. I was standing near her. The border policeman shot through a special hole in the window of his jeep that was standing very close to us. Abir fell to the ground I saw that she was bleeding from the head."

Abir Aramin is dead. The doctors at Hadassah will not disclose the cause of her death to her parents or her friends. Her family has requested an autopsy. Her father, Bassam Aramin, is one of the founders of Combatants for Peace. My son, who served as an Israeli soldier in the occupied territories, is also a member. They are friends. Bassam told us that he cannot rest until his daughter's killer convinces him that nine year old Abir threatened his life or the life of the other soldiers in his jeep. I fear he will never have the chance to rest.

Abir Aramin has joined the thousands of other children killed in this country and the territories it occupies. She will be welcomed by my own little girl, Smedar. Smedar was killed in 1997 by a suicide bomber. If her killer had survived, I know he would have been sent to prison for his crime.

In the meantime, I sit with her mother Salwa and try to say, "We are all victims of occupation." As I say it, I know that her hell is more terrible than mine. My daughter's murderer had the decency to kill himself when he murdered Smadar. The soldier who killed Abir is probably drinking beer, playing backgammon with his mates and going to discotheques at night. Abir is in a grave.

Abir's father was a warrior, who fought the occupation --officially a "terrorist," although it is a strange logic that calls those who resist the occupation and dispossession of their people as terrorists. Bassam Aramin is still a fighter --but as a peace activist. He knows, as I know, that his little dead girl takes all the reasons for this war to her grave. Her small bones could not bear the burden of life, death, vengeance and oppression that every Arab child here grows up with.

Bassam, as a Muslim, believes he must pass a test --as a man of honour not to seek revenge, not to give up, not to neglect the struggle for dignity and peace on his own land When he asked me where we find strength to go on, I said the only thing I could think of: from the children who are left to us. His other children, my three living sons. >From the other Palestinian and Israeli children who have a right to live without their elders forcing them into being occupiers or occupied. The so-called enlightened, western world does not get what is happening here. The whole enlightened world stands aside and does nothing to save little girls from murderous soldiers. The enlightened world blames Islam, as it once blamed Arab nationalism, for all the atrocities the non-Islamic world is inflicting upon Muslims. The enlightened west fears little girls with scarves on their heads. It is terrified of boys in keffiehs. And in Israel, children are educated to fear, most of all, the fruits of the Muslim womb. When they become soldiers, they see nothing wrong in killing Palestinian children "before they grow." But Basam and Salwa and all of us--Jewish and Arab victims of the Israeli occupation - want to live together rather than die together. We see our children sacrificed on the altar of an occupation that has no basis in law or justice. And, outside, the enlightened world justifies it all and sends more money to the occupiers.

If the world does not come to its senses, there will be nothing more to say or write or listen to in this land except for the silent cry of mourning and the muted voices of dead children.


Nurit Peled-Elhanan can be reached: nuritpeled@gmail.com

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

Posted by Choice America Network at 07:29:09 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

January 29, 2007

IRAN: A Beautiful Country with Beautiful People,..Just like America

 

 

IRAN: 

A BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY

WITH BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE

LOOK IN THE MIRROR AMERICA

AND,...

STOP BUSH-CHENEY AND ISRAEL NOW

FROM DESTROYING OUR WORLD

CLICK TO VIEW

2 MINUTE VIDEO

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

 

Posted by Choice America Network at 22:01:11 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

January 27, 2007

Republican Senators against America's Work Force,...


 

Who Wanted To Eliminate The Federal Minimum Wage?



Here are the Republican Senators who voted for the measure killed in the Senate yesterday that would have eliminated the Federal Minimum Wage entirely:

 
  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Allard (R-CO)
  • Bennett (R-UT)
  • Bond (R-MO)
  • Brownback (R-KS)
  • Bunning (R-KY)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Craig (R-ID)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • DeMint (R-SC)
  • Ensign (R-NV)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Gregg (R-NH)
  • Hagel (R-NE)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Kyl (R-AZ)
  • Lott (R-MS)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Sununu (R-NH)
  • Thomas (R-WY)

 

For the record, those running for reelection in 2008 are Alexander, Bennett, Chambliss, Cochran, Cornyn, Craig, Enzi, Graham, Hagel, Inhofe, McConnell and Sununu.

Oh, and that guy McCain is probably running for president and Brownback definitely is.
 
 
VOTE THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 18:00:37 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

January 25, 2007

Bush's War on the Middle Class,...

  
 
Middle Class
Needs to Fight Back Now
 
By Lou Dobbs


NEW YORK (CNN) -- I don't know about you, but I can't take seriously anyone who takes either the Republican Party or Democratic Party seriously -- in part because neither party takes you and me seriously; in part because both are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests. And neither party gives a damn about the middle class.

Our country's middle class is not just collateral damage in what has become all-out class warfare. Political, business and academic elites are waging an outright war on working men and women and their families, and there is no chance the American middle class will survive this assault if the dominant forces unleashed over the past five years continue unchecked.

They've accomplished this through large campaign contributions, armies of lobbyists that have swamped Washington, and control of political and economic think tanks and media. Lobbyists, in fact, are the arms dealers in the war on the middle class, brokering money, influence and information between their clients our elected officials.

Yet in my entire career, I've literally never heard anyone in Congress argue that lobbyists are bad for America. In 1968 there were only 63 lobbyists in Washington. Today, there are more than 34,000, and lobbyists now outnumber our elected representatives and their staffs by a 2-to-1 margin.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, from 1998 through 2004, lobbyists spent nearly $12 billion to not only influence legislation, but in many cases to write the language of the laws and regulations.

Individual firms, corporations and national organizations spent a record $2.14 billion on lobbying members of Congress and 220 other federal agencies in 2004, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. That's nearly $6 million a day spent to influence our leaders. We really do have the best government money can buy.

But as I discuss in my new book, "War on the Middle Class," what if we all resolved that we would not permit either the Republicans or Democrats to waste their time and ours with wedge issues? Both parties love to excite their bases by focusing on wedge issues like gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, judicial appointments, gun control, stem cell research and welfare reform.

Each of these wedge issues is important in varying degrees to large numbers of us, but none of them rises to the level of urgency or the requirement of immediate change in public policy.

These issues are raised by both political parties to distract and divert public attention from the profound issues -- like educating our youth, economic inequality and the war against radical Islamic terrorists -- that affect our daily lives and the American way of life. Imagine the consternation in Washington if both parties had to contend with a national electorate whose political affiliation had dramatically changed within a matter of weeks or months.

In both Republican and Democratic administrations, Congress has passed and sustained billions of dollars in royalty payments and subsidies to big oil companies; pushed through a corporate-written, consumer-crippling bankruptcy law; embraced the death of the estate tax; approved every free trade deal brought to a vote; and supported illegal immigration for the sake of cheap labor.

The party strategists and savants are telling us that fewer Americans will turn out to the polls than ever before, disgusted by a disgraced former congressman. But we don't have to wait for the midterm elections to begin to engage in our new political life.

There's something all of us could do that would have an immediate impact and send a powerful message to both corporation-dominated political parties and to our elected officials in Washington. Our so-called representatives in both parties have been working against the interests of the middle class for so long that they take our votes for granted, or they take advantage of the fact that a sizable number of us don't vote at all.

So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.

Our middle class has suffered in silence for far too long, and it cannot afford to suffer or be silent much longer. Hardworking Americans have not spoken out about their increasingly marginalized role in this society, and as a consequence they've all but lost their voice.

Without that strong, clear and vibrant voice, all the major decisions about America and our future will be made by the elites of government, big business and the dominant special interests. Those elites treasure your silence, as it enables them to claim America's future for their own.

I sincerely hope that we will find the resolve to face these challenges to our way of life, and we do so soon. George Bernard Shaw said, "It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."

I'm stupid enough to be absolutely sincere in the hope that middle-class America will awake soon and take action.

10/18/06

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

Posted by Choice America Network at 08:20:16 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

A Sample of America's Economy and Bush's War on the Middle Class,...


More Californians at risk of losing homes

By David Streitfeld



The number of Californians defaulting on their mortgage loans is rising rapidly, according to figures released Tuesday, providing striking evidence that more people are at risk of losing their homes.

Default notices jumped 145% in the last three months of 2006, accelerating a trend that began in late 2005 as home sales started to cool.

It was the largest number of default notices in any three-month period since 1998.

Analysts said the increase was not worrisome — yet. But if the number continues to escalate, it could drag down home values in certain communities, they warned.

"So far, this isn't alarming," said John Karevoll, chief analyst at DataQuick Information Systems, which compiled the data. But if default notices "keep going up at this rate, it could get nasty fast," he added.

Home markets that are most vulnerable include the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, both of which drew throngs of first-time buyers even as the housing boom was ending.

Such homeowners are the most at risk of losing their homes because they have relatively little equity in their properties, making it harder to refinance their mortgages.

Default notices are the initial step in the foreclosure process. In the fourth quarter of last year, lenders issued such notices to 37,273 borrowers across the state, warning them that they were at risk of foreclosure, compared with 15,196 during the same period a year earlier, DataQuick said.

Not every notice of default leads to a foreclosure, when a property is seized and sold to pay the mortgage. But foreclosures also are on the rise. There were 6,078 in the last quarter of 2006, up from 874 a year earlier.

Defaults and foreclosures fell steadily starting in the late 1990s as housing prices took off. In those heady days, practically anyone needing money to pay bills could refinance, cashing out equity from what seemed to be an endlessly refilling piggy bank.

In a stagnant or falling market, that option isn't available to recent buyers or those who have visited the pig once too often. Instead, many of those who are unable to make their payments must either sell the property or let the bank take it over.

During the mid-1990s, this process reached its peak as quarterly default statistics routinely exceeded 50,000 and foreclosures topped 15,000. (The housing stock has grown since then, making the 1990s numbers even worse by comparison.)

That era was one of the grimmest in modern California history, marred by the Los Angeles riots, the Northridge earthquake and an economic recession — all of which contributed to the collapse in home values.

Today, the economy is healthy and unemployment has rarely been lower.

"I really don't see any distress out there," said Chris Comer, a mortgage broker at Pacific Capital in San Marcos, Calif. "Most people getting notices of default are figuring out ways to get those mortgages current by any means possible so they're not kicked out in the street."

Most people, but not everyone.

James Brown, a 66-year-old retired insurance agent in Salinas, Calif., has a history of heart trouble. When he had an operation in 2005, he said, "the doctor gave me a 50-50 chance I'd die on the table. So I did a stupid thing: I refinanced the house."

Brown's goal in tapping his equity was to give his wife, Monica, a $100,000 cushion after his death. But he didn't read the paperwork carefully, and didn't realize that his monthly loan payment would skyrocket.

There was also a problem with the operation: It worked.

A year or two earlier, that would have been nothing but good news. In the early part of the decade, Brown recalled, "property values went crazy."

"People pulled up in Silicon Valley and went to Salinas, and paid here what they had been paying there," he said.

But Brown awoke to a different world. With the new loan, his payments went to $4,500 a month from $2,900. The $100,000 in equity he pulled out of the house went to his medical expenses and other bills.

The property has dropped in value to $750,000 from $899,000, leaving him without enough equity to refinance. He arranged to sell the place, but the prospective buyers couldn't qualify for a mortgage.

In September he gave up and stopped paying the mortgage. He's now in default, speeding toward foreclosure.

"Three times a week, they call and say, 'Where's my money?' " he said. "If I hadn't survived, everything would have been fine."

Brown's situation illustrates a potential wild card in the housing market that barely existed a decade ago. Lenders have invented all sorts of newfangled loans, many of which are reset to higher interest rates after a fixed period. The ability of borrowers to repay such loans, particularly in a weak market, is untested.

"People are living on the edge, and they can't help it with the price of houses," said Barbara Swist, a Costa Mesa mortgage broker who is helping Brown sort through his options. "They have good jobs but they bought over their heads, buying into the American dream."

That's also the opinion of the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Durham, N.C.

Last month, the center issued a lengthy analysis explaining how millions of so-called sub-prime loans would soon turn bad. Sub-prime loans are made at higher rates — and include more onerous terms — to borrowers who don't qualify for lower-cost "prime" mortgages.

Sub-prime foreclosures would increase the most, the authors concluded, in states that had seen strong price appreciation during the boom. That would include New York, Virginia, Maryland and particularly California.

The borrowers most at risk are naturally those who bought most recently. The center estimates that a quarter of the sub-prime loans made in the Central Valley city of Merced last year will result in foreclosure. That would be the highest rate in the country, based on the center's calculations.

Eight other California cities, including Vallejo, Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton, were among the top 15 projected foreclosure rates.

That geographic focus is consistent with Tuesday's DataQuick numbers. The Central Valley, with about 6.5 million people, had 8,531 defaults and 1,646 foreclosures in the last three months of 2006. Los Angeles County, with 10 million people, had fewer of each.

For the state as a whole, the Center for Responsible Lending projects a failure rate of 21.4% for 2006 sub-prime loans, a level exceeded only by Nevada and Washington, D.C.

Foreclosed homes are typically sold at a discount, which can hurt property values of nearby houses.

Yet even a jump in foreclosures, said Ellen Schloemer, one of the report's authors, isn't by itself going to bring back the dark days of the early and mid-1990s.

"It won't crash the housing market," she said. "There's still a lot of people who will buy homes and keep them. As long as no life event comes along that pushes them over the edge, they'll probably be OK."

But, she added, they shouldn't get too confident.


 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 07:07:32 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

January 23, 2007

Addicted to War,...

 
Analyzing a war addict
Bush's recent moves against Iran only make
sense if you understand the mind of an addict.


By Jason Stahl

Normally, I'm not one for pop-psychoanalyzing major public figures and their motives. It's slightly juvenile and normally is used to deem someone's views "crazy" - thus seeking to marginalize ideas from the realm of "respectable opinion."

So, it is with some reservation that I continually find myself returning to a "clinical analysis" of sorts when trying to make sense of the Bush administration's recent posturing toward the Iranian government.

In essence, the only explanation which makes sense is to think of President George W. Bush as an addicted gambler - one who, having lost everything, wants to find a way to go back to the table one more time to recoup his losses. In a recent article on the Bush administration's Iranian policy, a Pentagon consultant put it this way: "They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq - like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model state." Doubling down as a foreign policy - this is the Bush administration in action.

Maybe readers are rolling their eyes at this point, but hear me out, as I am only arriving at this thesis because nothing else seems to make much sense. For if one examines what is known about the current situation on the ground in Iran, the Bush administration's blustering only makes sense through the addiction lens.

So what do we know about Iran? According to a recent report, "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency." This means that, if they are trying to build a nuclear weapons program, they are years away from doing so.

What else do we know? We know that the person publicizing Iran's nuclear intentions, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is losing power in his country. In recent nationwide elections, his party was soundly rebuked and just this past Friday he was admonished through a newspaper published by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (who has the real power in Iranian politics) to end his involvement in the country's nuclear program. Moreover, Iran has a military budget 50 times less than the United States and even less than neighbors Saudi Arabia and Israel. Finally, as recently as 2003, Iran was trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the United States - only to be spurned by the Bush administration because it was more interested in making war with the country.

So maybe now, given these facts, it is clear why I fall back on my "diagnosis" of President Bush's motives. Simply put, nothing else makes sense given that Iran is not a significant threat to the United States. Why else would Bush be ratcheting up his rhetoric and actions against Iran if not to "double down" on his mistakes in Iraq?

In his recent Iraq speech, Bush kept mentioning Iran as a regional problem and declared that he was sending an additional carrier strike group and Patriot air defense systems to the region. Moreover, an admiral was just put in charge of overall military operations in the region. None of these moves have anything to do with fighting insurgents in Iraq. Rather, they all indicate some sort of sea/air strike on Iran, with Patriot missiles to defend neighboring countries from Iranian counterattack.

All of these moves by the Bush administration against Iran should greatly worry every American. And as with any addict, an intervention is required. To his credit, Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is starting that intervention by drafting a law making it clear that the president does not have the authority under the Iraq War resolution to go to war with Iran.

This is good, but as with any addict, the question is whether Bush will listen. A recent article addressed just this question and argued that the view inside the administration was that "whatever a Democratic Congress might do ... to limit the President's authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it."

If such a situation arises, and the President attacks Iran in the face of Congressional opposition, impeachment will be the only reliable form of intervention left. Let us hope - for the country and the world - that we do not get to this point.



Jason Stahl welcomes comments at jstahl@mndaily.com
.

  © Copyright 2007 The Minnesota Daily

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 00:08:34 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

January 17, 2007

The Destruction of Humanity is now upon us,...

 
 
Iran: Pieces in Place for Escalation
"The fuel for a fire is in place"

By Colonel Sam Gardiner


Global Research Editorial Note:

The following text by Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Retired) confirms our worst fears. The US is in an advanced state of readiness to wage war on Iran.

To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear:  It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.  Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.   

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.  

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US  has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.  It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.



Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 16 January 2006





I do not accept the notion that the first casualty of war is truth.
 
(Col. Sam Gardiner)



     The pieces are moving.  They’ll be in place by the end of February.  The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.

     The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on Tuesday.  It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK.  Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.

     Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.

     This has to be called escalation.  We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran.  Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has special operations troops operating inside Iran.

     Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United States is supporting arms for Abbas.  Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we’re now learning the White House has approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon.  Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we’ve learned recently that the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.

     We learned this week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil.

     The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran.  Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise.  Equally as clear, the Iranians will read what the Administrations is doing not what it is saying.

     It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything.  On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.

     First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran.  Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran.  Watch for the outrage stuff.

     The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets.  I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.

     I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.

     I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran.  Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.

     As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria.  These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran.  When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.

     The White House could be telling the truth.  Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however.  All we need is a spark.  The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.




Sam Gardiner is a Retired Air Force Colonel. He is an expert in military strategy. He has taught at the National War College. He has also taught at the Air War College, the Naval War College and as  visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College. His  Truth In These Podia (pdf) explains the propaganda methods used by the Pentagon to "sell the war".

See also the following 2005 Global Research review article on Sam Gardiner's analysis of the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence: 
America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed, Downing Street Memo is but the Tip of the Iceberg, by Gar Smith



CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 06:30:30 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

January 15, 2007

Our imperial leader,...

 
George W. Bush:
A Symptom of Disease

 
By Charles Sullivan

Sometimes you look around and wonder how things could have gone so wrong so quickly. America has become the antithesis of everything she purports to be. We are the greatest purveyors of violence the world has ever known; the largest weapons dealers on earth; and death and misery are our principal exports. Everything is for sale here, even men’s tormented souls—at least, those who still possess them.

Our imperial leader, an impish little man with clear sociopathic symptoms, is incapable of empathy for the struggles of the common people, as those born into wealth and privilege often are. The man with his finger on the nuclear detonator is mentally ill, incapable of remorse—a fact that should terrify every world citizen. I do not say this out of malice or to demean the president; it is simply a statement of fact based upon quantifiable evidence that any student of psychology would easily recognize.

The fact that such a misfit could ascend to the presidency is testimony to the effectiveness of the capital system. Under capitalism, political power is not derived from the people, as would be the case in a democracy; nor does it not flow from the bottom up—it matriculates from the top down. It is really quite simple: The men and women who are in office were put there by people with immense wealth to represent the interests of the wealthy, to make money for them. And that is exactly what they are doing.

In many ways, George W. Bush is the perfect man for the job, if one understands what his real work entails as an emissary of the ruling class. He possesses all of the qualifications the vocation requires: callousness and indifference to the needs of others, the absence of conscience, truncated mental capacity; the inability to reason and to analyze; the incapacity to admit wrong doing; a penchant for cruelty that includes the enjoyment of inflicting pain and torture on others, as well as a powerful sense of nobility and entitlement that stems from being born into wealth and privilege. He is also a pathological liar.

From the president’s sickly perspective, the admission of failure is equivalent to a declaration of weakness and indecision, which explains his inability to change course, even if it means the destruction of America. Thus he has no guilt about sending thousands more men and women to kill and die in Iraq. You see, the president’s mind is defective. It does not work like the minds of normal human beings.

Corporate America placed George W. Bush in the White House to wage endless war; to bankrupt the federal treasury to the extent that few social programs will survive, and virtually all of our tax dollars will go into supporting the military industrial complex. The people who put him in office intend to end public ownership of the commons, as well as all government programs that do not directly benefit the wealthy.

Let me clarify what this entails. If Bush and his handlers prevail in the class struggle, all social programs of value to the middle class and the poor, including Social Security, will be privatized and run for profit. The National Parks, National Forests, and all public lands will be privatized, and divvied up to private vendors such as the Disney Corporation. The public school system, like the public airwaves, will become for profit entities to serve corporate interests. Educating our children will be of secondary importance to the profitability of the corporations managing the schools. Every public service will be transferred to the private sector in order provide more wealth to corporate America at public expense.

We see the foundations of privatization being laid in Iraq by the war profiteers. Billions of dollars in stolen wealth are being hauled out of Iraq by the very same corporations that lobbied for war. War is money and in America money is power to control the political process. It is a vicious cycle that will not end until the people recognize it for what it is and rise up against it.

Certainly no man of conscience or integrity could so easily betray the people of America he is sworn to serve. That is why George W. Bush is the right man for the job and he is abetted by a compliant Congress acting under the influence of corporate lobbyists. But the president and his accomplices in Congress are only symptoms of a more pervasive disease that deeply afflicts our political system—capitalism. Class war is being waged simultaneously on many fronts and the dough keeps rolling in.


Sources:

Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, Justin Frank, Harper Collins, 2004


Charles Sullivan is a photographer, free-lance writer and social justice activist residing in the Ridge and Valley Province of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at csullivan@phreego.com.
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 09:49:55 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

January 12, 2007

Army "regrets any confusion"

 
Army asks Dead
to sign up for another hitch

•Letters inadvertently sent out to officers killed in action
•200 wounded soldiers also receive letters
•Invitations intended for soldiers who had recently left service
•Army sending out personnel to personally apologize to families



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.

"But an earlier list was used inadvertently for the December mailings," the Army statement said, adding that the Army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion."


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 18:49:17 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

January 05, 2007

More troops now disapprove of Bush's war

 
Down on the war 
 
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq

By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editor

The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland, was not surprised by the changing attitude within the military.

“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.

He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the intelligence that led to the war was wrong.”

Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the replacement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.

The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval rat ings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s.

While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the population as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

Similarly, when asked to describe their political views on a scale from very conservative to very liberal, there was a slight shift from the conservative end of the spectrum to the middle or moderate range. Liberals within the military are still a rare breed, with less than 10 percent of respondents describing themselves that way.

Seeing media bias

Segal was not surprised that the military support for the war and the president’s handling of it had slumped. He said he believes that military opinion often mir rors that of the civilian population, even though it might lag in time. He added, “[The military] will always be more pro-military and pro-war than the civilians. That’s why they are in this line of work.”

The poll asked, “How do you think each of these groups view the military?” Respondents over whelmingly said civilians have a favorable impression of the military (86 percent). They even thought politicians look favorably on the military (57 percent). But they are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of military respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

The poll also asked if the senior military leadership, President Bush, civilian military leadership and Congress have their best interests at heart.

Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military leadership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best interests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.

Despite concerns early in the war about equipment shortages, 58 percent said they believe they are supplied with the best possi ble weapons and equipment.

While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced. The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion.

On many questions in the poll, some respondents said they didn’t have an opinion or declined to an swer. That number was typically in the 10 percent range.

But on questions about the president and on war strategy, that number reached 20 percent and higher. Segal said he was surprised the percentage refusing to offer an opinion wasn’t larger.

“There is a strong strain in military culture not to criticize the commander in chief,” he said.

One contentious area of military life in the past year has been the role religion should play. Some troops have complained that they feel pressure to attend religious services. Others have complained that chaplains and superior officers have tried to convert them. Half of the poll respondents said that at least once a month, they attend official military gatherings, other than meals and chapel services, that began with a prayer. But 80 percent said they feel free to practice and express their religion within the military.


 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by Choice America Network at 08:46:32 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |
1 2