Sunday, January 29, 2006

President Jonah

George W. Bush
http://www.truthdig.com

Posted on Jan. 24, 2006

Talking to Palestine

The triumph of Hamas in democratic elections can be attributed to several factors including the failures of Fatah, the unilateral and oppressive polices of Israel, and the lack of success in the history of U.S. and European intercessions. If Israel is sensible, says Patrick Seale, it will talk with the newly-aligned Palestinian leadership.

Copyright © 2006 Patrick Seale, distributed by Agence Global



Israel Must Talk to Hamas
Patrick Seale

Agence Global
January 29, 2006


Although last week's Palestinian elections were widely recognised as a model of democracy -- even though conducted in the difficult circumstances of an Israeli military occupation -- the immediate Western and Israeli reaction to the spectacular victory of Hamas has been one of rejection.

The United States and several European countries have said they would stop all aid to the already-bankrupt Palestinian Authority if it were to be controlled or dominated by Hamas, unless Hamas renounced violence and recognised Israel's right to exist.

Is this a sensible reaction to the rise of the militant Islamic movement? Or is it yet another example of Western -- and Israeli -- blindness to the political evolution of the Middle East?

In seeking to explain the emergence of Hamas as the leading force in Palestinian politics, some analysts have pointed to the exhaustion, corruption and incompetence of Fatah, the national movement which has dominated Palestinian politics since the mid-1960s. This is certainly part of the answer. In contrast to Fatah, Hamas has shown itself to be disciplined, dynamic and honest, and has built a network of social services which has gone some way to alleviate the hardship of a population under harsh Israeli occupation.

Other observers have noted that the so-called 'peace process', conducted under American auspices since the Madrid peace conference of 1991, has yielded nothing of substance to the Palestinians. On the contrary, Israel's expansion into the occupied West Bank has continued relentlessly. In 1991, there were fewer than 100,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank. Today, there are 260,000, and a further 200,000 in and around Arab East Jerusalem.

Fatah has been powerless to stop Israel's massive encroachments or to protect the Palestinian people, which also goes some way to explain the rise of an armed resistance movement such as Hamas.

But there is another important factor which the West has been reluctant to recognise. Notorious for its suicide bombings of Israeli targets, Hamas is in fact a reaction to Israel's policy of continued state violence against the Palestinians and their leaders.

It is a truism that violence breeds violence; that state terror and the terrorism of armed groups are mirror-images of each other.

U.S. President George W. Bush has called on Hamas to renounce violence and recognise Israel's right to exist, but he failed to call on Israel to renounce state terror and to recognise a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. One appeal is useless without the other.

The Israelis maintain that there is no moral equivalence between their own state violence and the violence of their opponents. But the truth is that murder is murder, whether it is perpetrated by the Israeli state, by an Israeli settler, or by a resistance movement such as Hamas.

What the violence and counter-violence illustrate is that, in the asymmetric warfare between Israel and the Palestinians, non-state actors like Hamas -- and Hizballah in Lebanon -- are seeking to establish a system of mutual deterrence with Israel. Their message is: If you kill us, we will kill you!

Israel's policy has been to eliminate Hamas by killing its leaders, but the election results have proved this policy to be counter-productive.

Sheikh Yassin, a paraplegic in a wheel-chair, was killed by an Israeli missile. Dr Rantisi, Yassin's successor as leader, was also assassinated. Other Hamas leaders fared somewhat better. Khaled Mashaal survived an assassination attempt by Israeli agents in Jordan in 1997. The Israelis bombed the home of Mahmud Zahar in Gaza City in 2003, killing his son and crippling his wife. Muhammmad Deif, head of the Hamas military wing, is said to have been partially blinded and crippled by an Israeli assassination attempt in 2003.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Scores of lesser figures have been assassinated or rounded up. Yet the movement today dominates Palestinian politics. Israel and its Western allies will have to deal with it, whether they like it or not.

As Khaled Mashaal explained at a press conference in Damascus on Saturday, Hamas policy is to protect the Resistance, to free prisoners from Israeli jails, to reform Palestinian institutions, to express and fight for Palestinian aspirations, and to cooperate with Arab, Islamic and international partners. Resistance, he declared, was a national right, so long as Palestinians were under occupation.

To those who called for Hamas to disarm, Mashaal said that the movement was prepared to form a Palestinian national army, in which all Palestinian forces would be merged.

The point is that the triumph of Hamas marks a Palestinian wakening -- a closing of Palestinian ranks around a responsible but militant programme. If Israel is sensible, it will deal with this revitalised Palestinian movement by dialogue, negotiation and concession, rather than by brute force, because force alone will not give Israel security.




Patrick Seale
is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

Copyright © 2006 Patrick Seale, distributed by Agence Global
----------------
Released: 29 January 2006
Word Count: 792
-------------------
For rights and permissions, contact:


rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606


Agence Global
www.agenceglobal.com
1.212.731.0757 (main)
1.336.286.6606 (billing)
1.336.686.9002 (rights & permissions)



-------------------
Advisory Release: 29 January 2006
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, 1.336.686.9002, rights@agenceglobal.com
-------------------


Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation and The American Prospect, as well as expert commentary by William Beeman, Richard Bulliet, Juan Cole, Mark Hertsgaard, Rami G. Khouri, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Canadian Police State: Will Canada Follow U.S. "Patriot" Lead?

CAP - Connie Fogal - Anti Terrorism law in the USA has become more Totalitarian. Canada is reviewing our anti-terrorism legislation. Right wing power under the Conservative minority government puts Canadians at risk of similar totalitarianism.

www.canadianactionparty.ca



Canadian Police State:
Will Canada Follow U.S. "Patriot" Lead?

Connie Fogal

Canadian Action Party
January 25, 2006

The USA PAtriot Act had been renewed with a terrifying new term. A new permanent federal police force has been created to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.'" It has Gestapo like powers. Sec. 605 of USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 empowers these police to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS). "A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it
require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and arrest people at their discretion.

This is very bad stuff. It impacts Canadians because under agreements entered under the Liberal regime post 9/11 including the Smart Border Plan and the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement Canada has agreed to restructure our police and legal systems to copy that of the USA. We have just been through an election in Canada in which the four
mainstream parties being the only ones with M.P.s in Parliament said nothing, nothing, nothing about any of this fundamental regime change process; nothing, nothing, nothing about the anti terrorism legislation under review in Canada. The Canadian Action Party has been unable to obtain copies of the proposed changes to the Canadian law which were under review before the writ was dropped and now will be back on resumption of Parliament in a few weeks.

No Canadian NGO's have been profiling this legislation. Indeed, the strongest NGO, the Council of Canadians, gave this issue no profile in their Election Report . Worse yet, they gave no profile to and continued their discrimination against the seven alternative parties some of whom, eg CAP (Canadian Action Party), take a strong active support position on all
the issues the COC does highlight,and more.

Voters were failed on all fronts.

Prime Minister -elect Harper is lauded by the USA who see him as more Bush friendly even than was Martin, and Martin already sold Canada out with his signature on the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement signed by Martin Bush and Fox in March of 2004. Harper has said he would reconsider a U.S. missile defense scheme rejected by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. He also said he wanted to move beyond the Kyoto debate by establishing different environmental controls, spend more on the Canadian military, expand its peacekeeping missions and tighten security along the U.S. border to prevent terrorists and guns from crossing.

All this means is that Harper will be more open than Martin in his acts of anti-Canadianism and regime change. His language of double speak copies Bush. He even ends his speeches with "God Bless Canada"

If I am right that no concerned thinking Canadian will support the Gestapo legislation now intact in the USA, all of us, but especially those Canadians who voted for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloq Quebecois have no time to lose. We must all immediately contact our new MPs and demand cancellation of the anti-terrorist legislation in
Canada. Even the NDP need strong prodding . Some of their candidates were talking more law and order, more punishment. Like the NAFTA, the anti-terrorist legislation is so fundamentally flawed , is so liberty stripping that it must be revoked , not re-jigged. Similarly the Smart Border declaration and the Security and Prosperity Partnership
Agreement must be revoked. All the administrative changes in process by the bureaucracy arising out of those agreements must be halted.We are either sovereign or we are not. MPs need to prove they have not been neutered.

Please read the following article respecting the U.S.A law. It is definitely not safe to travel to the USA any more, or even to fly over their airspace. Arbitrary power is unleashed there. Americans are prisoners now in their own land. Canadians await the same fate unless we compel this minority government to stop it here.

Connie Fogal, Leader, Canadian Action Party


Unfathomed Dangers In Patriot Act Renewal
By Paul Craig Roberts
1-24-6

A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.

Go to House Report 109-333 -USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:

"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’."

This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."

The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).

"A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion.

The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?

You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.

The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/ Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.

Many naive Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law’s good intentions.

Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naive will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on.

In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?

By Stalin’s time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.

It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Paul Craig Roberts is the author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.


Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

Adieu Mon Canada: 1867-2006

PEJ News - C. L. Cook - It seems I'm forever writing obituaries. So, in the interests of economy and greater efficiencies, today I can cover the thirty-odd million residents of the Country Formerly Known as Canada (CFKAC) in a fell swoop. With the election yesterday of the unabashedly un-Canadian "reformer" Stephen Harper to the Prime Minister's office, Canadians turned their collective backs (if in a minority manner) on Confederation.


Adieu Mon Canada: 1867-2006
C. L. Cook

PEJ News
January 26, 2006

Harper has made no secret of his disdain for confederation. His confreres in Alberta's Calgary School have urged Quebec leave the country post-haste for years. He favours stronger "integration" with the United States, and the completion of a North-South political and economic union with the States, begun in earnest by previous Tory PM, Brian Mulroney, with the Free Trade Agreement (since morphed into the trilateral, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), precursor to the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement (FTAA) at the expense of the traditional Canadian East-West alignment. That East-West arrangement guaranteed the continuity of the nation.

No More.

It really shouldn't come as a heavy blow to those Canadians pining for the flag; the Dear Old Girl has been sick for years. The ministrations of outgoing Liberal PM, Paul Martin did little to rehabilitate the country's decline. Martin shares Harper's diagnosis of Canada as a failed state, one better wrapped in the bosom of the U.S. for safekeeping. Only, Harper is more adamant than Martin. He's a man on a mission.

Harper's masters can be traced to the University of Calgary, chief among them, the Czar of the economics department, Tom Flanagan. Flanagan's ties go straight to the heart of Texas, so to speak, and his prescription for Canada is indistinguishable from the bitter pills prescribed by Reagan, Thatcher, Bush's I and II, and every tin pot cantor of the "marketplace" mantra found ruining the lives of citizens across the world.

Next: Culture War Comes to Canada

It's a pity Jack Layton and the NDP used their minority wad to bring down the Liberals when they did. One wonders will they be willing to stand against more odious legislation - assuming the NDP still believe what they purport to politically - or if they will even get the chance, given the increasing cosiness between Harper and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois? Afterall, they share a vision of no Canada at all.

Will Jack and his party threaten to bring down the government, again over same-sex marriage, marijuana policy, immigration rights, or any of the plethora of carbon copy policies Harper plans to import from the United States?

And, what about the wars?


Chris Cook is a contributing editor to PEJ News, and hosts Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program, broad/webcast from the University of Victoria, CFKAC. You can check out the GR Blog here.


Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

What Are You Voting for Canada?

PEJ News - C. L. Cook - Tuesday, January 24th, 2006 is the date marking the end of the confederation formally known as 'Canada.' Regardless of Monday's election results, Canada is, in 2006, heading for profound change. The four century dream, for some, of continental integration is near fruition, and neither of the front-running parties opposes that. So, what are You voting for, Canadian?



http://paulmartintime.ca/img/mixon2.jpg


What Are You Voting for Canada?
C. L. Cook

PEJ News
January 22, 2006

It's all formality. Assuming the machines are not rigged, a tall order in what passes for "democracy" today, Tuesday will see a Canadian government sworn in dedicated not to serving the best interests of the country and its citizens, but to fulfilling a two thirds finalization of the centuries old effort to consolidate the continent under Washington's control.

Yes, the United States has held de facto power over both Mexico and Canada for most of those nation's respective histories, but political sovereignty has, until Tuesday, been an arm's length arrangement affording an element of vexing unpredictability to America. But, this is now done. Whether PM Paul Martin, or Stephen Harpy, we are to be delivered into the "Washington Consensus."

Today, the news is of thousands of Canadian soldiers heading off to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the once tag line of a joke, roughly translated as: "What do the voters care for Afghanistan?" Well, voter, what do you care about Afghanistan?

Or Haiti, for that matter?

Yes, the vyers will tell you We the people of Canada should be very concerned about democracy and freedom in the far-flung regions. We should be happy to send our children into the maw of war and insurrection for the good of all. But, what good is there to come of the enforcement of Amerika's burgeoning empire?

Democracy is a thing of the past.

It was a great idea, pity no-one tried it.

So, you're left to march down to the booths tomorrow, to mark your X and choose which Viceroy you'd serve. This is the first election, and I assiduously vote at all levels, where I've seriously thought of spoiling my ballot. When the major players all agree: "Canada is done," who does a Canadian elect?

The Canadian Action Party (CAP) voices all the things we should be concerned about, yet their presence is relatively miniscule. Certainly, a vote for them equals despoiling; but, what's left to do?

Today, the news reports: One of the Canadians damaged in the suicide bombing in Afghanistan the other day will not be returning as scheduled to Canada. They've sawed off the remnants of his leg, but there are further complications.

"Suicide Bombing"

Can anyone here really understand what it means for a person to throw their life into the death-fire and destruction of a suicide attack? Do you realize what it means to support a candidate willing to pitch our children into an environment where their presence is so despised someone else's child is willing to commit this kind of act?

Stephen Harpy and Paul think it worthwhile. Jack Lay-down doesn't want to talk ahout it.

According to a friend, when interviewing Mr. L., and asking about the New Democrat position on Canada's miring in Afghanistan, the estimable gladiator for justice simply referred him, an accredited journalist, to speak to someone else.

Great.

Transit Tubes

Transit tubes are the neoprene cases the remains of blown apart soldiers are shipped home in. "Body Bag" is considered a little passe in military-speak these days; too many connotations of past disasters, I expect. There are sure to be more of these dreadful harbingers shoring up in Canada. And, if the reports of the Conservative's desire to more ably serve U.S. designs is true, those tubes will be departing theatres of war in Iran and Syria soon too.

Are You O.K. With That?

Remember please, my fellow Canadian, we are allowing ourselves subsumed by a distinctly Fascist ideology. Austria-like, we are choosing tomorrow, for the greater part, which enabler of this dastardly program We will enable.

So, get out and have your voice heard.



Chris Cook is a contributing editor to PEJ News, and hosts Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program, broad/webcast from the University of Victoria, "Canada." You can check out the GR Blog here.

Gorilla Radio for Monday, January 23, 2006

It would be funny, if it weren’t so tragic. Around the globe, we see evidence of an ignorance, an ideological, systemic stupidity currently threatening the very survival of the planet. But, despite the obvious red alert messages, we largely continue along the road to our collective ruination. For those discouraged by news from Central Asia, I’m sad to add word of troubling developments emanating from another elsewhere.




www.pej.org


Gorilla Radio for
Monday, January 23rd, 2006
C. L. Cook


As Dave Lindorff asks, “What are you supposed to do when the world's most over-armed, belligerent and dangerous nation, which outspends all the rest of the world combined on arms, and which is the major arms supplier to the rest of the world, tells a little country like Venezuela that it is guilty of spending "too much" on its military?”

Author and journalist, Dave Lindorff in the first half on shoring up the empire’s southern flank.

And; something of an as yet undetermined nature in the second half… Mehdi Najari and a post mortem of the 2005-6 federal election campaign.

And, Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with all that’s good to do in and around Victoria in the coming week; but first, Dave Lindorff and a laughable oblivion.



Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

Warrior Princess: Hillary Clinton on the Ramparts


by Justin Raimondo




http://www.peoples.ru/
family/wife/clinton/clinton_1.jpg



She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran


AntiWar.com
January 23, 2006

As the war in Iraq metastasizes into what General William E. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and the cost in lives and treasure continues to escalate, we are already being set up for Act II of the neocons' Middle East war scenario – with the Democrats taking up where the Republicans left off.

The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate:

"Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.

"The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said."

This administration's increasingly hysterical statements on the alleged "crisis," supposedly sparked by Iran's resumption of its nuclear energy program, are – as in the case of Iraq – at variance with the judgment of the mainstream intelligence community. Once again, the Bamboozle Brigade – a bunch of freelancing "experts," shadowy exile groups, foreign lobbyists, and a bipartisan collection of pandering politicians – is mobilizing to gin up a war. These war propagandists, including Clinton, make only the most tenuous connection between American interests and the Iranians' alleged forced march to acquire nukes. Instead, they make the argument in favor of ratcheting up the conflict with Iran in terms of the necessity of protecting Israel. Clinton's speech is infused with this militant Israeli patriotism:

"The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not – dare not – waver from this commitment."

While Israel is an American ally, so are Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And don't forget the newly installed "democratic" and supposedly pro-American government of Iraq. Israel "at the core" of U.S. policy in the Middle East? I don't think so. Such an Israelicentric viewpoint, while not out of place in an Israeli politician, seems just a mite strange coming from an American – even if she is a senator from New York. It ought to go without saying that the foundations of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East – or anywhere else – have to be predicated on purely American interests, and that the "core" of that policy has to be our own economic well-being, which is inextricably linked to the stability of the region.

Do we really want to see the price of oil skyrocket to over $100 a barrel? Is it really in our interests – or the interests of the Europeans, for that matter – for Iranian oil assets to be tied to the Euro and other currencies, rather than the dollar? The economic consequences of either eventuality are potentially disastrous for the United States, and yet that is what the reckless Clintonian policy of confrontation with Iran would entail. Unfortunately, however, the grip of the Israeli lobby in the U.S. is so firmly locked around the necks of certain politicians that any rational discussion of what serves our interests – not Israel's – is next to impossible.

It is the task of Israel's amen corner in the U.S. to convince the American public, and especially to prevail upon their elected representatives, that Israel's interests and our own always coincide. The propaganda campaign launched to convince us that Iran's president is the next Saddam and Tehran is deserving of a little regime-change assumes this, and the Clinton speech is a prime example: "A nuclear Iran," she avers, "is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond" – an interesting order of priorities, to say the least. She doesn't bother making any explicit connection between the pursuit of American interests and this relentless campaign to demonize the Iranians: it is enough that Tehran poses a potential threat to Israel. For Clinton, that alone is reason enough to go to war.

There is a disturbing quality to Clinton's several reiterations of fealty to Israel: it isn't only the numbing repetition and the brazen pandering, it's also the matter-of-fact yet still hectoring tone, the assumption that only one position is possible:

"One cannot look at the Middle East today and not believe that there has been progress against great odds. Former sworn enemies of Israel are recognizing its existence, are even talking about ways of increasing trade, commerce, and diplomatic relations."

Surely there are more meaningful measures of progress in the Middle East than diplomatic and economic benefits accrued to Israel – such as, for example, the growing movement in favor of democracy in the Arab world. But oh no, that wouldn't do – unless, of course, any such development is explained in terms of how Israel will gain. A narrower, more sectarian view of the Middle East would be hard to imagine.

Another of the War Party's talking points on the Iran question is the argument that a conflict with Tehran is inevitable, a tack taken by the Clinton-Lieberman wing of the party in seeking to outflank the Republicans on the Right while placing the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders: "Part of the problem," says Clinton, is Iran's "involvement in and influence over Iraq." Yet she has never voiced regret for her vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion that brought the pro-Iranian Shi'ite coalition government to power – far from it. For her to decry Iranian influence in "liberated" Iraq, on the one hand, and to continue voicing opposition to the John Murtha out-pretty-soon-if-not-now position, on the other, is typical of her mealy-mouthed, passive-aggressive style of warmongering. Yet her position is nonetheless clear. Instead of getting out, she wants to use Iraq as a base from which to threaten Iran:

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have."

A "quick strike" – against whom? And what could these "safe areas" be other than permanent military bases? Clinton is the first American politician to come out squarely in favor of building what amounts to launching pads for further aggression in the region. This is something even the Bush administration has been canny about, never acknowledging their clear plans to lay the groundwork for such bases. Not Hillary, however: she isn't the least bit shy about her vision of consolidating and projecting American power all the way to Tehran – and beyond.

She's intent on out-neoconning the neocons – a risky proposition, given the proclivities of her Democratic base, but one that she embraces, it seems, as a matter of high principle. If she's running for the Democratic presidential nomination, she should logically – in the name of opportunism – tilt left, i.e., toward the antiwar camp. Yet she is tilting rightward, or, at least, in a distinctly neoconnish direction: an indication that, in her own mind, she's already the nominee.


http://www.nickvautier.com/
new-zealand/images/movies/xena.jpg


Surely such arrogance deserves punishment.

Right now, the main political obstacle to the peace movement isn't George W. Bush and the Republicans: they are plummeting in the polls, in part due to voter dissatisfaction with the way the Iraq war is going, and will be lucky if they can retain control of both houses of Congress in the next election. The main danger isn't the GOP, it's the DLC – the Democratic Leadership Council, one of the main engines of the War Party's influence over the Democratic elite. It is the DLC that has so far prevented the anti-interventionist wing of the Democratic Party from asserting itself at the national level. As the Clintonites, the Kerryites, the Kos-folk, and the growing antiwar caucus draw battle lines in the struggle for the soul of the party, the scene is being set for a new manufactured "crisis" over yet another "rogue nation" supposedly building "weapons of mass destruction."

One of the first signs of this internecine fight is an effort by antiwar Democrats to challenge and oust Sen. Joseph Lieberman – the most visible and vocal Democratic supporter of the Iraq war, and a longtime advocate of going after Iran – in the upcoming party primary. One wonders, however, how these "Kossacks" will react to the increasing likelihood of Hillary as our commander in chief: although I would love to be proven wrong, my big fear is that, despite her Amazonian aggressiveness when it comes to foreign policy, these supposedly "antiwar" Democrats will find her Xena-like persona irresistible.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

How the Enemies of Free Speech Operate

How the Enemies of Free Speech Operate
Kurt Nimmo


As pointed out by a member of this list, the hate campaign directed against me -- or the "Joe Job" aspect of this scurrilous and hateful campaign (posting nasty articles, primarily on IndyMedia's open and unmoderated forums, using my name and that of my wife) -- can likely, in part, be traced back to an article I wrote early last year about one Dr. David Bukay, who teaches at the School of Political Science at the University of Haifa, Israel. It was posted on an IndyMedia site in the Netherlands:

Zionistische professor zaait haat
Kurt Nimmo - 03.02.2005 17:29

Volgens een Israelische professor moeten arabieren per definitie in het hoofd worden geschoten, wordt beweerd door zijn studenten.

"I received an interesting email this afternoon from an American Jewish woman. She claims that David Bukay of the Political Science department at Haifa University in Israel is using his post to advocate “racist expressions” directed against Arabs and Muslims. According to a student in the Philosophy Department at the university, Bukay supports “the killing Arabs only for being Arabs, claiming that they are criminals by their nature and recommending to humiliate Palestinians in front of cameras, spreading those pictures—and all this in a seminar, which is being classified by the University as a duty [compulsory] in their studies toward fulfillment of bachelor’s degree in the Department of Political Science.”

Bukay is not only a university professor, but also an author, editor, public speaker, and “his fields of specialization are,” according to the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR), “the Arab-Israeli conflict; inter-Arab relations and the Palestinian question; international terrorism and fundamental Islam; theoretical issues and political applications in the Middle-East; Asad’s foreign policy towards Israel and Lebanon; the culture approach to understanding the Middle-East.” It should be noted that the ACPR counts as “Israel's Friends” several Congress critters, including Jim Saxon, Bill McCollum, and Tom DeLay. “Contributing Experts” include the Strausscons Frank J. Gaffney and Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser, who is Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs in the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Burkay, who teaches his students that Arabs must be “shot in their heads by a gun,” according to student mentioned above, hosted a round table discussion at the latest Jerusalem Summit, where Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-CO) and the Islamophobe Daniel Pipes also gave speeches. “Over 150 leading thinkers and statesmen from the US, Europe, Asia and Israel have convened at the 3-day Jerusalem Summit, (Nov 27-30th, 2004), at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel,” notes the Michael Cherney Foundation, a “humanitarian” organization founded after “the night of the heinous terrorist bombing outside the Dolphinarium Disco in Tel Aviv,” on June 1, 2001 (no mention here of the “heinous” terrorist bombings of Gaza by the IDF, killing far more than died outside of the Dolphinarium Disco).

Ironically—and appropriately, considering the agenda and philosophy of the people attending the Jerusalem Summit—the King David Hotel was the site of another terrorist bombing. On July 22, 1946, Irgun Tsvai-Leumi, a Zionist terrorist group, bombed the hotel, killing 92 Britons, Arabs, and Jews.

Irgun adopted the revisionist views of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the philosophical godfather of the Likud Party. Sort of a Zionist version of Hamas, Irgun bombed the British embassy in Rome, bombed a police station in Haifa, tossed grenades into a cafe in Jerusalem, killing dozens of people. Apparently unsatisfied with random terror attacks, Irgun joined up with another Zionist terror organization, the Stern gang, and attacked the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin, killing at least 107 civilians. “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle,” was the operating motto of the Stern gang—an assertion Osama bin Laden would likely agree with, if he were alive."

I was careful to attribute the accusation to an unnamed "American Jewish woman" and a "student in the Philosophy Department at the university" and then, as was my habit on the ADE blog, added commentary. The article also appeared on the Israeli IndyMedia site with the following prefatory comment I did not write: "If you listen to Zionists repeatedly putting their feet in their mouths, you gain a truly horrifying view of just how hateful the racist ideology called ZIONISM truly is."

Obviously, the accusation (and the incendiary prefatory comment) upset Mr. Bukay (or Bukai) and he accused me of libel. In his "The Image of Evil: On the Hideous Slander of Arab Students, Anti-Zionist Jews and the Scoop-Chasing Media," posted on the NATIV Online site, Bukay wrote the following:

[Bukay believes the "attack" against him] began with an article on the “Nana” website whose headline was: “Lecturer in Haifa University: Shoot All of the Arabs in the Head”, and continued with the same quotes, more or less, from the article in KolBo, continued a week later in a similar article on the Netvision website, which was translated into English several times on various websites, under the same headline, including two “investigative reports” by a known left-wing person, residing in the United States, named Kurt Nimmo, who characterizes Israel, “the outlaw state of Israel”. He is the cooperative friend of David Merhav, the same student who passed on the information and perhaps translated it into English. In addition, he published articles on various Internet sites: For example, , in which he analyzes phenomena of visions of colonialism and publicized a special investigative report about: Arabs “Must Be Shot in their Heads”, and recycles the slander again.

In fact, this is an issue Bukay should take up with Mr. Merhav, who wrote in a message following my article (an article I did not post) on the Dutch IndyMedia site:

"According to students, Bukay told, "The Arabs must be caught and shot in their heads by a gun. A building in which there are Arabs and Palestinians, must be exterminated".

Bukay wrote a research of the "threats" of the radical Islam and recommended to the Israeli Army soldiers to "humiliate the wanted [Arabs], to photo and humiliate them and afterwards to show the photos to their families who`ll see that their sons are cowards".

A student who tried to discuss this racist incitement during his classes by claiming that history knew Arab mathematics and intellectuals, was answered, "You don't know what are you talking about. The Arabs did not invent anything! They are stupid and did not contribute anything to the humanity. The calculations you claimed that were invented by them, were copied [from others]. The Arabs are big liars and you should not believe to their history!""

en

"The University was asked to deal with this shameful affair. Dr. Asad Ganem, a senior lecturer in the Department, asked Bukay to respond the accusations of the students. "Bukay broke the University`s regulations and the Education Law, and committed a criminal act. If he will not respond properly, we will take severe steps against him", he told Nana News. An appeal was also made to the Head of the Department, Dr. Gabriel Ben Dor.

The University`s spokesperson reported that the University's authorities are handling the case and a clear response will be delivered within two weeks. Dr. Bukay refused to respond.

Many academics sent letters of protest to the University`s officials, and Roman Bronfman MK, from the liberal Democratic Choice party, asked the University`s rector to investigate the case and judge severely the racist lecturer."

In fact, making an "appeal" to Dr. Gabriel Ben Dor would have been less than useless. "Dr. David Bukay is a person of some standing at the University of Haifa. He teaches in the Department of Political Science in the Social Sciences Faculty and is considered close to the department head, Prof. Gabriel Ben Dor. My meeting with Bukay was held in Prof. Ben Dor's office; Ben Dor and Bukay share the same secretary," Ha'aretz reported in April, 2005.

In response to my story -- taken from my blog and posted on the IndyMedia site without my knowledge -- it appears Bukay elicited (or inspired) the vicious behavior of one Dr. Steven Plaut, a former American, now Israeli settler and also an academic at the University of Haifa. "My own home university, the University of Haifa, has been the scene in recent days of a saga of leftist campus McCarthyism. It all began when a professor of Middle East political science, David Bukay, was accused by an Arab student activist, who was not even formally registered in Bukay's class, a student active in a student communist organization, of making derogatory comments in class about Arabs," Plaut wrote, and then made a reference me, making sure to include a lethal dose of slander that is typical of his modus operandi:

The allegations were then planted in a local newspaper, and reported in the Arab press. Then one of the Cockburn Cockroaches, a regular columnist on Counterpunch with views about Jews resembling those of neonazis, started spreading the allegations about the internet. Kurt Nimmo is an unemployed New Mexico photographer-wannabe who writes crackpot articles for Counterpunch and also for the neonazi web site Rense.com. Nimmo routinely refers to all Jews as "Zionists", such as the new director of the World Bank, and Nimmo makes it clear all "Zionists" need to be shipped
off in cattle cars to nice camps.

I wrote the good professor and asked him to document where I have claimed "all 'Zionists' need to be shipped off in cattle cars to nice camps," but naturally he did not respond. I consider this libel -- but as we know, the laws are sketchy at best when it comes to the internet.

Juan Cole commented on this sort of libelous smear campaign last March: "Recently Steven Plaut, an Israeli defender, at the University of Haifa, of the terrorist groups around the late extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane, was commissioned by [David] Horowitz (and probably others of that circle) to do yet another hatchet job on me, the second in just a few months.... Plaut cited the earlier smears and rightwing bloggers as authorities. (One smear now becomes a "citation" for the next one!).... The GoogleSmear references a body of falsehoods. It creates a nexus of links that increase the chance that the smear will come to the top of a google search."

Plaut also posted a "false allegation to a bulletin board under an assumed name" about Cole, behavior he has engaged in previously. "Writing under assumed names," notes an entry in the UCC Palestine Solidarity Campaign database, "Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel. One anonymous article appeared under the name of Socrates in the Middle East Review of 2001."

Moreover, Plaut was accused in 2004 of "spoofing and spamming activities" in order to slander his enemies:

Messages posted on 13 April 2004 to the ALEF electronic discussion forum (which is based at the University of Haifa) seem to indicate something about Plaut's mentality. These messages, which were posted to ALEF by somebody else and which seem to report on an email conversation that Plaut had with someone who was banned from the ALEF forum for excessive spamming, seem to indicate that Plaut boasted about stealing the ALEF membership list so that messages could be sent to ALEF members without being passed through the ALEF system. Specifically, Plaut seems to have written the following. The typographical errors appeared in the original:

I stoll their membership list. If you want to sen dthings to the whole list,
use any email and send to: (via BCC so they do not know what you are doing):
...

Put the alef address in the header and write (alef) before
subject and they will think it is coming thru their list!

He also seemed to be connected with somebody called Rocky who, pretending to be a pro-Zionism Palestinian living in the West Bank, used the pseudonym "Yusuf" to plague the ALEF list with racist emails until he was excluded from the forum.

Paul de Rooij comments on the Counterpunch site:

"Rocky" proceeded to send hateful emails to the forum posing as someone called Yusuf, a "Zionist Palestinian", who also was "your token Arab who adores Israel". "Rocky" then made the mistake of using CC instead of BCC to forward one of his diatribes. The ensuing email exchange between "Rocky" and Plaut discussing the faux pas was revealed when "Rocky" repeated the mistake by sending it to the entire distribution list! It would make amusing reading were it not for such a sordid attempt at deception, the smearing of others, and interfering in a discussion of Israeli academics on how to obtain a modicum of justice for the Palestinians.

Here is a sampling of Mr. Plaut's libelous tirades. In addition, he posted numerous slanders on the Moonbat Central weblog, however the neocon David Horowitz took the site down about a month ago and the posts are unavailable.

Cockburns's Cockroaches
Walmart Cockroach
The Neonazi Ties of the Leftist Lunabrits
Another Scholarly Associate of Prof. Cole

However, the real culprit in this ceaseless campaign seems to be 1st Lt. Kevin Mumaw, 33, of the 101st Airborne Division, "camped at one of Saddam's lesser palaces in Mosul," as of 2003, according to Stars and Stripes. Mumaw "is the online troll harassing Kurt Nimmo," reports several IndyMedia sites. Although I have no direct evidence of this, I believe Mumaw is Plaut's latest "Rocky." I also believe he is responsible for hijacking my wife's name and using it to post slanderous posts and also responsible for posting my address and telephone numbers. Here is Mumaw's blog, charmingly entitled "Mumaw Quadaffi.".

Finally, Plaut has posted a gloating piece on Rocco DiPippo's blog (a former Moonbat blog regular):

http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2006/01/neonazi-poet-of-posterior-kurt-nimmo.html

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Gorilla Radio for Monday, January 16th, 2006



PEJ News - C. L. Cook - This Week on Gorilla Radio: Author, Mike Palecek and Looking for Bigfoot.

Jack Etkin on Canadian media in the run-up to the federal election.

And; Janine Bandcroft bringing us up to speed with all that's good to do in and around Victoria this week.


Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca He also serves as a contributing editor at the progressive web news site: http://www.pej.org.

You can check out the GR blog at: http://GorillaRadioBlog.blogspot.com

www.pej.org




As the bombs burst over village markets, as bodies writhe on dusty, chemical strewn streets, burning, melting from the inside out, as tortured screams echo down the chambers of hidden prisons, America goes about its daily business. The good citizens shop for automobiles and groceries, chatting in line about the exploits of movie stars and more minor celebrities. While forests fall and a million fires scorch the planet, the good citizens of America make dental appointments, and try to decide what colour to paint the kitchen.

This is the waking nightmare of Jack Robert King’s America. Broadcasting his internet radio program, ‘Bigfoot Radio’ from the heart of America, not a dark heart, but the open country of Iowa, where big skies throw few shadows.

Mike Palecek is an America novelist whose seventh book, ‘Looking for Bigfoot’ examines the maddening banality of evil that is his creation, Jack Robert King’s America. Mike Palecek and hunting for the mythical in America in the first half.

And; The mainstream, corporate news has had a free ride for far too long in this country. Canada is already home to one of the world’s most highly concentrated media, and the trend is quickening. But how to break the strangle-hold?

Victoria-based media critic and activist, Jack Etkin on a people’s media in the second half.

And; Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with all the good things to do in and around Victoria this week.

But first, Mike Palecek and getting to Yeti.



G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the mainstream media.

Some past guests include: M. Junaid Alam, Joel Bakan, Maude Barlow, David Barsamian, William Blum, Luciana Bohne, Vincent Bugliosi, Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, Diane Christian, Juan Cole, David Cromwell, Murray Dobbin, Jon Elmer, Reese Erlich, Anthony Fenton, Jim Fetzer, Laura Flanders, Chris Floyd, Susan George, Stan Goff, Robert Greenwald, Denis Halliday, Chris Hedges, Sander Hicks, Julia Butterfly Hill, Robert Jensen, Dahr Jamail, Diana Johnstone, Kathy Kelly, Naomi Klein, Anthony Lappe, Frances Moore Lappe, Dave Lindorff, Jim Lobe, Jennifer Loewenstein, Wayne Madsen, Stephen Marshall, Linda McQuaig, George Monbiot, Loretta Napoleoni, John Nichols, Kurt Nimmo, Greg Palast, Michael Parenti, William Rivers Pitt, Sheldon Rampton, Paul Craig Roberts, Paul de Rooij, John Ross, Danny Schechter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Starhawk, Grant Wakefield, Paul Watson, Bernard Weiner, Mickey Z., Dave Zirin, and many others.




Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Disappearing Jack Abramoff: Why This Scandal Will Fizzle


http://skimble.blogspot.com/
uploaded_images/abramoff-794779.gif

Disappearing Jack Abramoff:
Why This Scandal Will Fizzle




PEJ News
- C. L. Cook - Having missed my chance to play New Year's prognosticator, I'll throw my hat in here: My animal entrails tell me, Jack Abramoff, the man at the centre of the Scandale du Jour swirling in Washington will neither spell the end of George W. Bush's corruption plagued administration, nor signal a political sea-change in the way lobbyists ply their trade.

www.PEJ.org


Disappearing Jack Abramoff:
Why This Scandal Will Fizzle
C. L. Cook

PEJ News
January 7, 2006


Further gruesome readings of the guts reveal: This time next week,
a Google of Abramoff's name will return few new entries.




The blogs have been abuzz over Jack Abramoff's plea bargain last week. The erstwhile Washington high-flyer's promise to "co-operate" with investigations into what some have described as the biggest Congressional scandal in more than a century is, for those wishing to see the Republican political apparatus collapse, a beacon pointing the way to George W. Bush's impeachment. As much as I'd like to agree, Abramoff is not the silver bullet so many have hoped for.

Though the Affair d'Abramoff may deserve the epithet of "Congressional Scandal of the Century," the very scope of the case of the man who is to the D.C. lobby industry what Wayne Gretzky was to hockey ensures it will be consigned to the media memory pit; there are simply too many, on both sides of the aisle, implicated.

Besides, when considered in the context of recent scandal: the 2000 election fix; the 9/11 fiasco; Afghanistan; Iraq; Valerie Plame; Guantanamo; Abu Ghraib; and of course the ongoing Katrina; it will take more than a bit of bribery gone too far to scuttle the Bush ship of State.

Expect next week to read of the Justice Department's decision to slow the prosecution of Abramoff, just as has been done in the case of disgraced former media mogul, Conrad Black. The media, adept as it is in celebrating courtroom cases, doesn't well handle the cumbersome complexities of jurisprudence and its often glacial pace. Abramoff will sink from the public's view and consciousness, disappeared in a legal labyrinth too tedious to merit media attention.

And a collective sigh in Washington will go up. None are eager to muddy the waters more; none willing to be the one to kill the goose whose eggs succor all.

The mutual venality and corruption in Washington is the crux of the matter; it's the answer to the continued momentum of the Bush administration, an administration that thunders along, pressing its radical agenda despite myriad transgressions of both law and decency. Moving on, despite being the least supported government in living memory, the woes of Abramoff, and fellow transgressor, Representative Tom DeLay, will do little to slow Team Bush. Today, George Bush would happily take his hero, Richard Nixon's approval ratings at his pre-impeachment nadir, but unlike the benighted Nixon, Bush still has the levers of power firmly in hand.

But the beat goes on...

Matthew Continetti, writing for Murdoch News Corp. British organ, The Weekly Standard, illustrates the rabid scurrying of Democrats, eager to distance themselves from the largesse many of their campaigns enjoyed, courtesy of Mr. Abramoff. In his article, 'The Friends of Jack Abramoff' Continetti quotes Democrat Senate leader, Harry Reid in an interview with News Corp. colleague, Chris Matthews of Fox News, saying; "Abramoff gave me no money. So don't lump me in with Jack Abramoff." Of course, Reid's campaign had received money from Abramoff, though through an arm's length conduit. That's how these things are done.

Jack Abramoff will, in all likelihood come to inhabit a cell somewhere. Facing mail fraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, and the ubiquitous, "conspiracy" charges, he's already looking at a possible 11 years, on condition his "co-operation" is deemed sufficient by Justice. And doubtless, he will not go down alone. But, by the time this case winds its weary way through the judicial system, George W. Bush will be well past his "mandate."

And the democrats will dutiful let this story fall through the cracks. In an election year, the last thing apparatchiks of either party wants is a spotlight shone on the craven criminality endemic to their profession, highlighting the situation in Washington the editors of The New Republic flatly observed, saying; "rule-bending and corruption under this Congress has become pedestrian."

So, the bloody mess of intestines tell me: Business as usual for 2006. Next week: The Disappearing of Tom DeLay.



C. L. Cook
serves as a contributing editor to PEJ News. He also hosts Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program, broad/webcast from the University of Victoria, Canada. You can check out the GR Blog here.


Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Shut Up, Joe! Killing the Soldier's Voice

U.S. military 'shuts down' soldiers' blogs
Troops are detailing their experiences in online journals, but military says some are revealing too much

BY JOSEPH MALLIA
STAFF WRITER
Newsday

January 2, 2006

Letters home filled with tales of death and danger, bravery and boredom are a wartime certainty.

And now, as hundreds of soldiers overseas have started keeping Internet journals about the heat, the homesickness, the bloodshed, word speeds from the battlefront faster than ever.

More and more, though, U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan are clamping down on these military Web logs, known as milblogs.

After all, digital photos of blown-up tanks and gritty comments on urban warfare don't just interest mom and dad.

The enemy, too, has a laptop and satellite link.

Nowadays, milbloggers "get shut down almost as fast as they're set up," said New York Army National Guard Spc. Jason Christopher Hartley, 31, of upstate New Paltz, who believes something is lost as the grunt's-eye take on Tikrit or Kabul is silenced or sanitized.

Hartley last January was among the first active-duty combat troops demoted and fined for security violations on his blog, justanothersoldier.com.

Throughout last year, the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy tightened control on bloggers by requiring them to register through the chain of command and by creating special security squads to monitor milblogs.

"The ones that stay up are completely patriotic and innocuous, and they're fine if you want to read the flag-waving and how everything's peachy keen in Iraq," said Hartley, who is back in New Paltz after two years stationed in Iraq.

The new emphasis on security, however, is welcome to some.

"When you put your blog out there, you cannot forget that not only the good guys, but the bad guys are accessing it, especially for TTPs," said Marine Capt. Don Caetano, of Mineola, referring to techniques, tactics and procedures. Now a recruiter in Garden City, Caetano was stationed in Fallujah, where he ran the embedded journalist program.

"The limitations on blogging basically mean, 'Don't make it easy for them. Don't readily give up information,' " that would endanger U.S. troops, Caetano said.

Revealing a minor aspect of strategy or tactics may seem insignificant, Caetano said, but, "If the bad guys take a piece from me, and a piece from you, and a piece from another guy, pretty soon they can gather some pretty good intel."

The military, at first unaware of the milblogging trend, last year began targeting bloggers with warnings, punctuated by high-profile disciplinary action.

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, in August sent a videotaped admonition to overseas troops warning them of the dangers of carelessness on blogs.

And, echoing the World War II censorship slogan, "Loose lips sink ships," the Pentagon in November sent out an advisory titled "Loose blogs may blow up BCTs." A BCT is a brigade combat team.

Hartley was fined $1,000 and demoted from sergeant. Others also have been disciplined, including Pfc. Leonard Clark, an Arizona national guardsman serving in Iraq who was demoted from specialist and fined $1,640 in August for putting classified information on his blog.

'That's sorta the point'

Among security breaches in postings on soldiers' Web sites, the Army pointed to photos of an Abrams tank pierced by a rocket-propelled grenade, which could show Iraqi insurgents where to aim.

In Hartley's case, the Army said he should not have described his unit's flight route into Iraq because that could help the enemy shoot down U.S. aircraft. And, the Army said, Hartley should not have disclosed that the last three bullets he loaded into his weapon's magazine were always tracers, because that could tip an enemy to time an attack just as an American soldier is reloading.

Despite those charges, Hartley asserts he did not put any American troops at risk. He believes the Army's real concern was his satiric tone.

"Photos of the week of cute Iraqi kids who I want to shoot," he captioned one set of snapshots on his blog in 2004.

"Something I cannot reiterate often enough is how monumentally misbehaved Iraqi street kids are," Hartley's blog continued. "But some of them are just so darn cute, you can't help but want to squeeze their little faces - until they suffocate."

The Army took him literally, even though Hartley said he was aiming his satire at those who believe Iraqi civilians' lives have little value.

Some of Hartley's readers got the point. Others did not.

One of Hartley's Web entries on April 24, 2004, carried a photograph of an Iraqi man's partially burned corpse clothed in a bloodied white tunic. Hartley's photo caption was a take on the "I [heart] New York City" slogan. His version: "I [heart] Dead Civilians."

In response, a visitor wrote: "Is this a joke or what? This whole blogg gives a bad taste in the mouth."

Hartley replied, "It leaves a bad taste in your mouth? That's sorta the point."

Another blog reader, with the moniker Alberto, defended the shock-blog: "The point of being so graphic it's to see what a war really is. Good blog, keep it up!"

In general, observers say, soldiers' online musings are less and less compelling.

There's less of the informal, often coarse language - one soldier speaking to another - that gave a feeling of authenticity and attracted thousands of readers both in and out of the military, said Jon Peede, director of Operation Homecoming, a National Endowment for the Arts program that gives writing instruction to U.S. troops and is creating a collection of their blogs, letters and essays.

Yet one drawback to vivid, uncensored descriptions of combat on blogs was that the family of a wounded or killed soldier might get the news impersonally, or worry unnecessarily, Peede said.

"A blogger might say, 'We were in a firefight in a particular city, and a fellow Marine was wounded,' " Peede said, "and then 50 families might read that and think it's their son or brother."

Content concerns

Besides, wayward milblogs give the world a skewed view of U.S. troops, said Capt. Dan Rice, of Manhattan, who served in Tikrit for 18 months with the U.S. Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division. A West Point graduate, Rice served as a finance officer and is now back working as a vice president at the U.S. Trust Co. of New York.

Most bloggers are atypical soldiers, said Rice, who wrote a pro-military blog favored by his superior officers. "It will mostly be the risk-takers, the mavericks, and the one percent that's bitter, who will blog."

Readers also have taken up the debate.

"my only concern is the posting of troopers pics and info ... the jihadist moniter [sic] these blogs too," a visitor to adayiniraq.com wrote.

"these troops may have been compromised by these blogs," the visitor wrote. "i for one would rather have no blogs about our troopers if it needlessly endanger's 1 of thier [sic] lives."

Marine Cpl. Al Maldonado, 28, of West Hempstead, who saw combat in Iraq, said milblogs help maintain a connection between the troops and their friends, family and community back home. During weeks of supplying tons of ammunition to Marines in Fallujah in November, his family was cheered to find a humorous photo of him on a blog, Maldonado said.

Blogs also allow soldiers to simply describe their combat experiences, without feeling they are bragging, Maldonado said.

"Sometimes they want to tell everyone what they went through because they're afraid that when they go back, they won't be appreciated for what they've done," he said.

Maldonado, an ammo chief, criticized Hartley for blogging about the reloading technique. "To describe your method for loading tracers in a blog, that's pretty stupid. Now I know when three tracers go by me that's when he's reloading," he said.

A waste of time?

Seymour Hersh, the reporter who broke stories on the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War and torture at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, said military commanders can't control the flow of information by shutting down soldiers' blogs.

"There's a tremendous communication underground. [Soldiers] talk, they send e-mails, photos," Hersh said from his Washington, D.C., office. "The Army is wasting its time."

Milblogs remain popular. mudvillegazette.com claimed more than 700,000 page views in 2005, with blackfive.net not far behind. And michaelyon.blogspot is ranked in the top 100 (No. 81) of the 8 million blogs tracked by Technorati.com.

But with stricter controls now in place, the milblogosphere's freewheeling days likely are limited.

Some critics of the censorship say it could be harder for American soldiers to publicly raise questions about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the success or failure of the war effort, and the "stop-loss" policy that forces soldiers to remain after enlistment contracts expire.

But a complete milblog blackout may never succeed.

"Is it over? No way, as long as there are soldiers and the Internet. People will always be starting blogs and get shut down, and then someone else starts one," Hartley said. "In my generation, or younger, everyone's all about spilling their guts on the Internet."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Gorilla Radio for Monday January 2, 2006

PEJ News - C. L. Cook - On today's program: NYT-based author, activist, Kung Fu poet and Cool Observor, Mickey Z. and life in an age of lost astonishment.

And; Janine Bandcroft with all the good things you can get up to in and around Victoria in the coming New Year.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca He also serves as a contributing editor at the progressive web news site: http://www.pej.org.

You can check out the GR blog at: http://GorillaRadioBlog.blogspot.com



Gorilla Radio for Monday,
January 2, 2006
C. L. Cook


PEJ News
January 2, 2006


Welcome to the first GR of this new beginning, The Year of the Dog.
The ancient Chinese curse says, “May you live in interesting times.”

To look at the times, and the curse we’ve endured these past several years in the form of George W. Bush and his co-defendants to be, one might think there's something lost in the translation. “Interesting” doesn’t begin to describe the brutishness and venality at the acme of American power today.

It is truly astonishing.

Daily, we bear collective witness to crimes of the most heinous sort which, though committed in broad daylight, are allowed to go unpunished. What’s worse it seems, with each new depravity exposed, the shock and outrage accompanying its revelation diminishes: what rightly should be received with red-faced indignation and fists shaking, expressed in numbers and in the streets, is instead greeted with gape-mouthed astonishment and cynical mutterings around the water-cooler of, “What did you expect?”

But, fear not good listener, for just beneath the surface smoulders the ember of America’s conscience; burning still beneath the layers of outrage and perfidy heaped upon it, ready to ignite a fire under the feet of those that would destroy the promise of freedom and liberty for all; a fire ready to immolate the pretenders and usurpers of the nation.

Mickey Z. is a New York City-based activist and author whose books include: The Seven Deadly Spins, A Giant Mistake: Articles and Essays for Your Intellectual Self-Defence, and The Murdering of My Years. His latest, 50 American Revolutions You’re Not Supposed to Know: Reclaiming American Patriotism is now at a bookstore near you. Mickey Z. and tending the fragile flame of the American Revolution in the first half.

And; Janine Bandcroft will join us at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with all that’s good to do in and around Victoria in this year made new, and music and a chance to tell your Christmas and New Year’s tales in the second half.

But first, Mickey Z. and reclaiming America.


G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the mainstream media.

Some past guests include: M. Junaid Alam, Joel Bakan, Maude Barlow, David Barsamian, William Blum, Luciana Bohne, Vincent Bugliosi, Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, Diane Christian, Juan Cole, David Cromwell, Jon Elmer, Reese Erlich, Anthony Fenton, Jim Fetzer, Laura Flanders, Chris Floyd, Susan George, Stan Goff, Robert Greenwald, Denis Halliday, Chris Hedges, Sander Hicks, Julia Butterfly Hill, Robert Jensen, Dahr Jamail, Diana Johnstone, Kathy Kelly, Naomi Klein, Anthony Lappe, Frances Moore Lappe, Dave Lindorff, Jim Lobe, Jennifer Loewenstein, Wayne Madsen, Stephen Marshall, Linda McQuaig, George Monbiot, Loretta Napoleoni, John Nichols, Kurt Nimmo, Greg Palast, Michael Parenti, William Rivers Pitt, Sheldon Rampton, Paul Craig Roberts, Paul de Rooij, John Ross, Danny Schechter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Starhawk, Grant Wakefield, Paul Watson, Bernard Weiner, Mickey Z., Dave Zirin, and many others.


Stay informed. Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Will Canada Bomb Iran?

Will Canada Bomb Iran?
C. L. Cook


PEJ News
January 1, 2006

With the holidays past, perhaps it's time to address the future of Canada. In the midst of a mid-winter federal election, what questions are being posed to the Prime Minister? Canadians largely don't care about gay marriages, and what to call Christmas. They do, however, harbour concerns about the fate of the nation, and what it means for us when both of the country's contenders for the Number 1 post are happy to march in lock-step with America into what promises to be a century of military adventurism.

Who is asking the BIG question?

While the Canadian media monolithe contents itself to echo its U.S. counterparts, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are free to banter on about issues guaranteed to lull the population into complacent inattention; left unattended is Canada's new role, as elucidated by "Defence" Minister, Bill Graham, in an ever-expanding American military campaign across the planet. A campaign now, according to Der Spiegel, plans to include NATO in plans to bomb Iran's nascent nuclear infrastructure. That the justifications proferred by the U.S. are as flimsy as those flown prior to the Iraq disaster, and in some instances are eerily similar, is too left uncommented on by mainstream information sources.

Is it truth of fiction?

True to Donald Rumsfeld's intent, it is impossible to know if the United States is serious about the rumoured bombings, or if this is another example of American disinformation. Both the U.S. and Israel have rattled sabres against Iran and its nuclear program for years, an approach that ensured the election of hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a leader now conveniently demonized for his recent statements on Israel's right to existence and what he claims to be the "myth" of the Nazi holocaust against the Jewish people.

Adding fuel to speculation, Bush loyalist and CIA director, Porter Goss during a recent visit to Turkey reportedly informed Ankara to be prepared for an air-strike against Iran. In return for Turkish assistance, Der Spiegel suggests the U.S. sanctioned an attack against the Kurdish Workers Party (KPP), the leaders of Kurdish independence and long-time Turkish bane, who have enjoyed American protection since the first Gulf War. How this factum, should it prove true, will fly with the Kurds and their Israeli allies in Iraq is an intriguing curiosity.

Apparently informed too of America's intent were regional players, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan. The Berlin daily, Der Tagesspiegal also reports, Western allies have also been alerted. Though both the German and Turkish governments are playing down the possibility of an attack, a steady procession of U.S. leaders, most lately Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice and NATO's defence minister has many wondering what the sudden interest in Turkey means.

So, will NATO partner Canada join a bombing campaign in Iran as it did in Yugoslavia? It’s a question that may need answering before the country’s January 23rd election.



C. L. Cook
is a contributing editor to PEJ News and host of Gorilla Radio, a weekly public affairs program, broad/webcast from the University of Victoria, Canada. You can check out the GR Blog here.