posted 10-07-2002 07:30 AM            

Not a chance buddy. Nothing worse than a phony.

This war has nothing to do with what you call freedom.

Mech

posted 10-07-2002 08:22 AM            

WASHINGTON (AP) - A solid majority of Americans believe President Bush should give U.N. weapons inspectors time to act and should wait for support from allies before invading Iraq, a new poll says.

The CBS-New York Times poll out Sunday also found a large and growing number of people want Bush to get congressional approval before going to war, with many saying Congress has not asked enough questions about Bush's policy toward Iraq.

The poll comes as Bush prepares to address questions about potential war in a prime time speech Monday evening. Congress is preparing to vote on authorizing force in Iraq later this week, and Bush hopes to persuade Americans — as well as skeptical world leaders — that now is the time to confront Saddam Hussein.

The poll suggests Americans want him to move slowly.

By a 2-to-1 margin, they said they would prefer to see U.N. weapons inspectors have more time to do their work before military action is taken.

A majority, 56 percent, said that one country should not be able to attack another country unless it is attacked first. When people were asked the same question specifically about the United States, they were evenly split.

Two-thirds said they approve of military action to remove Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq, but a large majority — 70 percent — want the Bush administration to get approval from Congress. Sixty-five percent think it would be better to wait for allies before acting against Iraq.

And 51 percent think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy, while one in five said it is asking too many. Last month, 44 percent said Congress was not asking enough questions.

The poll of 668 adults was taken Thursday through Saturday and has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Among the poll's other findings:

_Despite concerns about the possible war, seven in 10 would prefer to hear political candidates talk about the economy over war with Iraq.

_More than one-third think the economy will get worse if the United States attacks Iraq, and half think military action against Iraq would increase the risk of terrorist attacks.

_Six in 10 said a war with Iraq is likely to lead to a wider war involving other countries in the Middle East.

_More than half, 57 percent, said they would base their vote for a candidate on economic policy before foreign policy.

_Four in 10, 41 percent, said they approve of President Bush's handling of the economy, while 46 percent disapproved. His overall job approval was at 63 percent.

_More than half said they consider the economy fairly bad, 42 percent, or very bad, 14 percent. Almost two-thirds said Bush should be spending more time on the economy.

posted 10-07-2002 08:29 AM            

Detroit march to protest war on Iraq

October 4, 2002

BY DAVID CRUMM
FREE PRESS RELIGION WRITER

Opponents of a war with Iraq said Thursday they plan to take to the streets Monday for a peaceful march. Afterward, a handful of demonstrators may risk arrest at the McNamara Federal Building in downtown Detroit, they said.

Detroit City Council President Maryann Mahaffey said she is against a war because the expense could cripple federal programs to help the elderly and poor.

"The only answer for people, for life and for our future is for us to get out there," Mahaffey told a gathering of about 60 antiwar activists in Detroit on Thursday as they discussed plans for the Monday march. "I beg you from the bottom of my heart to organize people and to spread the word."

Detroit Catholic Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, an internationally known pacifist, said, "We need to make it clear to the Congress and to the president that the people of the United States are not ready to go to war."

Echoing recent Vatican statements warning against a U.S. attack on Iraq, Gumbleton said, "If our relationship to God tells us that war with Iraq is wrong, then we have to stand up and say: No."

Leaders of the coalition said they were unsure how many people will show up for the 3 p.m. march Monday from St. Peter Episcopal Church on Trumbull, across from Tiger Stadium, along Michigan Avenue to the federal building.

They also expressed concern about the legal repercussions if a few protesters commit peaceful acts of civil disobedience at the federal site and are arrested.

Tom Stephens, a Detroit attorney, said he fears that antiwar protesters who peacefully break the law during demonstrations could face tougher charges in light of post-Sept. 11 legislation, such as the Patriot Act. The federal law approved last year also gives law enforcement greater latitude for a broad range of surveillance of anyone deemed to be aiding terrorism.

But Stephens, drawing sustained applause Thursday, told the crowd that social protest is "the birthright and the lifeblood of democracy."

The march is timed to coincide with protests planned in other major U.S. cities.

Stephens reminded the crowd of famous protests -- from the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery Bus Boycott -- and said, "Next week will begin another very historic time in America."

Some of the rhetoric was more strident.

Al Fishman, a longtime Detroit peace activist who helped organize local opposition to the Persian Gulf War, compared the Bush administration's campaign for a war with Iraq to the work of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in the 1930s.

"I don't think Goebbels' campaign in Germany was much better at traumatizing and inciting people to go to war,just attack and demonize those who oppose the state". Fishman said.

Mainly, organizers said they regard Monday as a test of strength for an antiwar movement that has not been fully mobilized in years.

posted 10-07-2002 08:36 AM            

ANTI-SPIN EMPHASISED

Monday, October 07, 2002:

DUBYAH SPEECH GUIDE: As a service to our readers, Counterspin Central is providing this handy-dandy guide to evaluating tonight's Presidential address on Iraq. While listening to Bush read his teleprompted remarks, keep these questions in mind, and determine whether he answers them to your satisfaction:

1) How many U.S. soldiers, if any, will likely die or be wounded in an invasion? It doesn't have to be a precise amount, just what you and the Joint Chiefs estimate to be the casualty levels.

2) How many innocent Iraqis do you expect to become "collateral damage?"

3) How much will the actual invasion cost the American taxpayers? And if it will cause a defecit, explain why this is justified, or how you are going to make up the difference. [Which programs you are willing to cut, or taxes you are willing to raise, etc.]

4) What, specifically, will we do with Iraq once the invasion is successfully completed? This entails a number of sub-questions:
A) How many troops will we have to station in Iraq?

B) How long will the United States have a significant military presence in Iraq?

C) What kind of government will we establish once we have effected "regime change?"

D) How many ex-Baathists, or Saddam followers/cronies will we rely upon to govern Iraq?

E) How many billions of dollars per year will our post-invasion "rebuilding efforts" cost the American taxpayers?

F) How will we pay for this operation? With defecits? Tax increases, or large spending cuts?

G) What programs will we have to cut in order to finance our occupation of Iraq? And by what amount?
5) What country will we next decide is a mortal threat to the United States?

6) When will we invade/change the regime of that country?

7) If we do not intend to go after any other countries in the "Axis of Evil," why not?

8) What if one of Saddam's ruthless henchmen executes a coup just before the invasion, and offers up Saddam Hussein for trial to the United States, or the Internatiinal Criminal Court? Will we still invade?

9) What happens to Iraq's oil reserves, which are currently the second largest proven reserves in the world?

10) How many big campaign contributors to the President will be getting sweetheart oil contracts in regime-changed Iraq?

11) Without revealing specific operational details, what are your contingency plans should Saddam attack our troops with Chemical or Biological weapons?

12) What if he attacks Israel with such weapons?

13) What happanes if Israel enters the conflict?

14) What happens if Iraq agrees to a tougher UN Security Council resolutin calling for unfettered weapons inspections and disarmament?

15) What credible, non-secret evidence do you have that Saddam Hussein cannot be deterred and contained?

posted 10-07-2002 08:46 AM            

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. (Reuters) — A war against Iraq could spell trouble for a fragile U.S. economy trying to regain momentum from its first major recession in a decade, top U.S. corporate executives said this week.

The overall impact would be negative with energy prices spiking up and consumers curtailing travel, but that could help communications companies because calling traffic spikes in times of crisis, executives said during the annual gathering of the U.S. Business Council.

The Bush administration has been pushing for renewed, unconditional inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and is contemplating military action if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refuses.

"This is just another negative ... with respect to the capital markets and the equity markets," said Bill Harrison, CEO at J.P. Morgan Chase and vice chairman of the Business Council.

A short war against Iraq might mitigate the downside impact on the U.S. economy, but should the conflict become complicated the economy would almost certainly suffer more, Harrison said, adding that the prospect of war was a "net negative."

CEOs from a wide swath of companies, from technology to pharmaceutical firms, have been discussing national security and the economy at the luxurious Greenbrier resort in the mountains of West Virginia.

As part of their talks, they received briefings from CIA chief George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The CEOs released a survey in which almost all of them expect economic growth to slow in the second half of 2002 from the 3.2% tallied in the first half of the year.

The U.S. economy started recovering late last year but the recovery has been bumpy, with annualized growth of 5% in the first quarter that fell to 1.3% in the second quarter.

"I don't think a $100 billion tax on U.S. citizens is a good thing," Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun Microsystems, said referring to the potential cost of a war in Iraq.

One top chief executive, Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, said he believed that a war with Iraq was inevitable.

"War would have a depressive impact on the economy ... I think it would delay the start of business investment," he told Reuters. "It would be offset somewhat by lower Treasury rates as there's a flight to quality by investors, but it would probably be a net negative."

Delta Air Lines chief Leo Mullin said there undoubtedly would be a dropoff in travel, noting that during the 1991 Gulf War, there was a 10% decline in traffic across the Atlantic and 5% drop within the United States.

"If the war is of short duration, it may have very limited consequences. But if it's longer, we'll just have to handle it as the time comes," Mullin told Reuters. "

And a big factor that would affect the airlines and numerous other sectors of the U.S. economy is oil prices. "Obviously energy costs will be a factor, there will be a spike," said Charles Holliday, CEO at DuPont. "We're already seeing oil up $5 a barrel."

But not all companies expect their businesses to decline if war breaks out in the Middle East.

Bill Esrey, CEO at Sprint, the No. 2 U.S. long-distance telephone carrier and No. 4 U.S. mobile telephone carrier, said whenever there is a major event, Americans pick up the phone or dash off e-mails to friends and family.

"Any time you have an event, whether it's a war or a national news event, an earthquake, hurricane or whatever, it stimulates traffic," he told Reuters. "It's a boost in activity, it's not a huge change, but an incremental change."

posted 10-07-2002 10:00 AM               

The Associated Press
Published: Oct 7, 2002

Television live coverage plans for President Bush's scheduled 8 p.m. EDT speech Monday in Cincinnati. The speech, which is expected to address the threat Iraq poses to the United States and the possibility of war, comes as Congress prepares to vote on resolutions authorizing military action.

- ABC: Not planning live coverage.
- NBC: Not planning live coverage.
- MSNBC: Planning live coverage.
- CBS: Not planning live coverage.
- FOX News: Undecided.
- FOX: Undecided.
- CNN: Planning live coverage.

AP-ES-10-07-02 0908EDT

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA0IKLE07D.html
__________________________________________________________________

Today: October 07, 2002 at 5:45:28 PDT

Poll: Bush Should Wait on Iraq

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON- A solid majority of Americans believe President Bush should give U.N. weapons inspectors time to act and should wait for support from allies before invading Iraq, a new poll says.

The CBS-New York Times poll out Sunday also found a large and growing number of people want Bush to get congressional approval before going to war, with many saying Congress has not asked enough questions about Bush's policy toward Iraq.

The poll comes as Bush prepares to address questions about potential war in a prime time speech Monday evening.

Congress is preparing to vote on authorizing force in Iraq later this week, and Bush hopes to persuade Americans - as well as skeptical world leaders - that now is the time to confront Saddam Hussein.

The poll suggests Americans want him to move slowly. By a 2-to-1 margin, they said they would prefer to see U.N. weapons inspectors have more time to do their work before military action is taken.

A majority, 56 percent, said that one country should not be able to attack another country unless it is attacked first. When people were asked the same question specifically about the United States, they were evenly split.

Two-thirds said they approve of military action to remove Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq, but a large majority - 70 percent - want the Bush administration to get approval from Congress.

Sixty-five percent think it would be better to wait for allies before acting against Iraq. And 51 percent think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy, while one in five said it is asking too many.

Last month, 44 percent said Congress was not asking enough questions.

The poll of 668 adults was taken Thursday through Saturday and has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Among the poll's other findings:

-Despite concerns about the possible war, seven in 10 would prefer to hear political candidates talk about the economy over war with Iraq.

-More than one-third think the economy will get worse if the United States attacks Iraq, and half think military action against Iraq would increase the risk of terrorist attacks.

-Six in 10 said a war with Iraq is likely to lead to a wider war involving other countries in the Middle East.

-More than half, 57 percent, said they would base their vote for a candidate on economic policy before foreign policy.

-Four in 10, 41 percent, said they approve of President Bush's handling of the economy, while 46 percent disapproved. His overall job approval was at 63 percent.

-More than half said they consider the economy fairly bad, 42 percent, or very bad, 14 percent.

Almost two-thirds said Bush should be spending more time on the economy, while a third said he's spending as much time as he can.

posted 10-07-2002 10:10 AM            

Yesterday in New York City, 15,000 determined demonstrates said no to war with Iraq.
Stewart Nusbaumer

It was a bright, warm autumn day, and approximately 15,000 protestors yesterday gathered in New York City’s Central Park to demonstrate against a possible U.S. war against Iraq. The mood remained relaxed, even pleasant, but also determined.

“This can’t be,” insisted Bob Borden from Brooklyn. “This clown [Bush]has no idea what is in store for him if he insists on pursuing this war. We’re not going to let this happen!”

The large crowd was mostly young, in their 20s -- numerous university contingents were present -- and 30s, with a sizable number, approximately a third, middle age. There was certainly the feel of an anti-Vietnam War demonstration. The number of protestors in New York yesterday, however, dwarfed any anti-war protest in the early 1960s; that is, before large numbers of U.S. ground troops were deployed to and died in Vietnam.

More than the feel of a Vietnam anti-war protest, the history of that movement was present in Central Park. The American protest during that earlier war in Southeast Asia is now being drawn upon by leaders and participants to stop a war in southwest Asia before it begins in earnest.

The New York City “Not In My Name” rally was only one (although the largest) of thirty that occurred over the weekend throughout the nation, including in Alaska and Washington state and Colorado and Massachusetts, in small towns and in cities. In Portland, Oregon, an estimated 10,000 people rallied in the city’s downtown, chanting “No more war, no more war.” In Texas, nearly 500 at the state capital in Austin preferred the chant “No more blood for oil.” In San Francisco, several thousand demonstrators jammed into Union Square and beat drums for peace. In Manchester, New Hampshire, almost a hundred protestors screamed antiwar slogans outside as President Bush gave a speech in support of Senate candidate John Sununu.

Although the setting at East Meadow in the northeast corner of Central Park is only minutes from Harlem, there were few Blacks at the New York rally, and fewer Asians. Still, the overall turnout was huge, beyond people's expectations, overflowing the natural bowl of the East Meadow and forcing protestors back into the park and even onto Fifth Avenue, which slowed vehicular traffic to a crawl.

"I was afraid only a few hundred other people would show up," said Tom Levi who lives near the park. "This is fantastic!"

Beyond the number of protestors, their mood was also impressive: throughout the event, people appeared friendly yet serious, concerned with a spirit of defiance. No one was arrested, not a single disturbance was observed. People simply enjoyed the warm weather while focused on ending a major war before it has even begun.

At the bottom of the slight slope forming a grassy bowl in East Meadow was the speakers' stage with a large banner: Not In Our Name, the name of the group that organized the rally. (www.notinourname.net)

For four hours in the unseasonably warm afternoon weather, a succession of speakers (most limited to less than 3 minutes, actually, less than 2 minutes) spoke of a litany of offences. The wife of a World Trade Center victim expressed outrage that the U.S. might invade Iraq; an Iraqi man screamed at the U.S. government for seeking war with Iraq; an Afghan-American woman criticized the U.S. bombing of Afghan civilians; the wife of a Jordanian man deported to Jordan cried for the return of her husband; an Irishman gave an articulate attack on America, his swipe at the media producing the loudest applause; a student from Kent State implored her generation to resist; a Christian minister talked about personal morality; a Black Muslim -- representing a long list of Muslim groups -- quoted a segment of the Koran for peace and against war.

With the computer and printer now ubiquitous, it's not surprising there was a ton of leaflets advocating every cause from free Mumia Abu-Jamal to free Palestine and save the trees and revolution now! The thousands of protestors, however, brought their own self-made handheld cardboard signs: Dissent Is Patriotic, and everywhere, Not In My Name, the theme of the rally. In fact, I had never seen so many signs at a demonstration, or so many made by individual hands expressing their slant on events.

“I’m a Vietnam vet,” a slightly gray haired, thin Jim Davidson, wearing a camouflaged fatigue shirt told me. “This feels like 30 years ago. It’s the same -- immoral war. They have learned nothing, not surprising since Bush evaded the Nam and just snorted and drank his lazy butt through life. We have to speak up, now, not later, right now! Later is too late.”

Being New York City, there were several celebrities. When Susan Sarandon was announced as the next speaker, the crowd made a gentle surge toward the stage, but gently. Sarandon pleaded with everyone to call the Congressional representatives still holding out against supporting a war with Iraq. She was quickly replaced by actor Tim Robins, who distinguished between Afghanistan and Iraq, one of the few speakers to do so, strongly opposing any war with Iraq. Neither spoke longer than the less famous speakers, a refreshing display of egalitarianism in this era of elite benefits and dominance.

Spaced between the speakers was live music, also kept on a short time lease, just a few songs and then out. Before the event, however, an Indian-Pakistani group entertained the swelling crowd, caressing the anxious edge of any demonstrator. Later there would be an outraged Black rap group, then Saul Williams with his antiwar songs producing an enthusiastic response from the crowd. Finally a woman singer. I didn’t get her name, but heard her sweet sound echoing through the trees of Central Park, jolting me back to August 1969, to the Woodstock Music Festival, when walking in the upstate woods the glorious voice of Janis Joplin bounced off the trees.

“I’m issuing a pink alert!” screamed a speaker that advocated women being more aggressive in stopping war. In quick secession, three women whose sons were killed by the New York Policemen said they were against the war. Then a Puerto Rican, “I’m a Puerto Rican and I’m against the war ….” A Filipina expressed outrage with America oppression and American military men; a fiery woman from National Public Radio slammed the mainstream media; a lawyer opposed illegal detentions; a New York State Senator tore into all timid politicians; a British artist …. And all, of course, were opposed to war.

A sign weaved through the crowd: Wake Up! Democracy Is Over. Rome Needs Oil.

“And here is Martin Sheen,” an Indian accent announced. ”It’s great to see a public debate on such a critical issue,” Sheen said.

“What kind of public debate is this?” asked a man either to himself or to the child on his shoulders as he walked past.

It’s true, this was not a forum for debate, but the coming together of a point of view. A sign, held by a middle age woman: You Can’t Kill An Ideology With Bombs! A couple, standing close, arms and thighs toughing, her sign said Preempt War while his read Preempt Bush. This was not a gathering to explore the issue but a rally to motivate for action.

Two hours into the rally, the central event occurred, the public recitation of a “Pledge of Resistance.” The entire crowd of 25,000 stood and eagerly read from thousands of green colored brochures: We believe that as people living in the United States it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government, in our names. Not in our name will you wage ‘endless war’ ….(www.notinourname.net)

“I’m outraged,” said Melissa, who came to the city from New Jersey with her friends just to attend the rally. “Bush does not speak for my generation. Almost everyone in my high school thinks he only speaks for the oil people, for business. I hope we stop this war.”

As the fast pace of speakers settled into a rhythm and the warming sun soaked up the demonstrators' energy, people started looking at each other as much as at the speakers. And at that sea of endless signs. There were the predicable ones: No War Against Iraq; No War For Oil; Not In My Name; Not With My Money. All very explicit. There were the more unique signs: Kill SUVs, Not People; There Is A Terrorist Behind Every Bush!; The Emperor Has No Brains. And probably my favorite, Take The War Toys Away From Junior. Appropriately, this sign was held by a sweet looking grandmother.

“When you have war abroad,” Melissa repeated what she just heard a speaker say, “you have oppression at home. That’s right, they go together!”

As the final hour wound down, people began to filter away, walking east across Fifth Avenue and west into the Park. “Racial, ethnic profiling is a serious problem,” a woman in her early 30s said while heading into the park. “But I’m against the laundry list of grievances,” responded her partner who wore a No War On Iraq T-shirt. “Especially when they don’t show the connection to the war.” The chill of the New York autumn had returned, he slipped on a jacket, across the back it read: Organize Yes We Can, The AFL-CIO Organizing Institute.

The rally did include a long list of complaints against the U.S., some related to the War on Terror, others to only Iraq, some not related to either, such as police brutality. But this was a rally not to organize, but to inspire. To inspire 15,000 Americans, empower 15,000 Americans. The message that war with Iraq would be wrong and is stoppable came through clearly and strongly. A crucial message today.

posted 10-07-2002 09:21 PM               

quote:

---

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. (posted in full by T/S on page 7 of this thread)

---

There are soldiers who have money as their motivation to fight (mercenaries). There are soldiers who fight for personal gain. There are soldiers who fight because of personal conviction. There are soldiers who fight because it is their duty. And finally, there are soldiers who fight because of an idea - a vision. I stongly doubt, though, that it is the soldier who is the one who first generates the idea that becomes shared and agreed upon by the masses that's worth enough to die for. No, I think that's the job of the artist. It is the artist that envisions and communicates new realities such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to demonstrate, freedom to a fair trail. It is also the artist whose words carried on the right emotional wave length that can stir the almost dead into a fervor to fight for - just about anything.

We all have an idea of what we want freedom from but it is the artists who envison the new freedoms for us to move into and we are shown these new realities via the broad diversity of forms that the artists use.

Imagine a time when there will be enough men/women on this planet in possession of the powers and abilities of reason and communication that differences (even differences of the most severe nature) can actually be resolved by the rational exchange of concepts rather than the exchange of more solid communication particles such as bullets and bombs.

I feel that this country above all others should be the one leading the way in a display of rationality not imperialism. Personally, I think that it is our patriotic duty to insist upon the use of reason by our "leaders" and refuse to participate in becoming the global police force. Assuming, of course, that we have the ability to recognize reason or the lack of it.

posted 10-08-2002 01:33 AM            

I've let mech ramble far too much...and now boys and girls it's time to use our frontal lobes...

question:

how do yo deal with a terrorist ?

how can you reason with people who think suicide bombing is a divine gift from God ?

how do you deal with people who think attacking civilians is a holy cause ?

how do you deal with people who think that if your not muslim you should be dead ?

how do you deal with people who according to their q'uran that it's ok to lie to further the cause of islam ?

your thinking is logical with logical minded people...in that assumption lyes your error...

I'll tell ya how ya deal with em'...it's called war...go ahead, try to answer these Q's...

I can't wait for the hypocrisy....

posted 10-08-2002 05:19 AM               

quote:

---

I've let Mech ramble far too much...T/S

---

It's good to finally know who's controlling this thread.

posted 10-08-2002 08:23 AM            

Even the most Bush-happy, flag suckling jackass must know by now something is wrong.

MEET THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

IF SADDAM HUSSEIN IS THE NEW HITLER, WHAT IS GEORGE W. BUSH?

posted 10-08-2002 08:34 AM            

WE do it by DEFENDING ourselves and understanding the root causes of terrorism and why it happens in the first place. Also by questioning OUR government out of the fact that THEY themselves supported and supplied dictators with "weapons of mass destruction".

Not by killing civilians and their infrastructure--thus creating MORE TERRORISTS and anger--and blindly following the words of George W. Bush.

posted 10-08-2002 08:54 AM            

So who says this country is in moral decline? On at least one political issue your Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the White House, and writers for every mainstream publication in the country are united, and that is: What to do about Iraq and Saddam Hussein?
www.mediacriticism.com

Our ex-leader Bill Clinton's words, as quoted by the Washington Post, ring out strong, lightening up our steps:

"[The President] added that the world community had to act `in the face of what I consider to be one of three or four most significant security threats that all of our people will face in the next whole generation, this weapons of mass destruction proliferation' [Washington Post, 11/15/97]."

Meanwhile, we are given no shortage of descriptions of Hussein (a.k.a. "Saddam") that illustrate just how far he is from the humanitarian examples of Clinton and George Bush:

"Saddam Hussein keeps his eye on the prize, looks for opportunities, forgets nothing and maintains endless patience. The U.S. and the U.N. should do no less [The Sun, 11/14/97]."

All of which leaves the left in a kind of quandary: if we criticize the cartoon-like images of Hussein as the man in black, and the U.S. as a gallant white knight, we become apologists for Hussein. There is no middle ground to trod.

Which is one reason why the Washington Post did not elaborate further on U.S. policy on weapons of mass destruction. If one looks to the alternative media we see that on April 12, 1990, Hussein, while still President Bush's friend and ally, proposed to destroy Iraq's arsenal of chemical and other nonconventional weapons if Israel agreed to eliminate its chemical and nuclear weaponry. The State Department, decrying the `linkage with Israel,' rejected the deal.

The meaning of this is clear: it is okay for our side to have weapons of mass destruction but not theirs.

As for Clinton's presumed credibility on the subject of global weapons proliferation, since he took office the U.S. has increased its world market share in exporting arms. Among the more morally suspect customers of these highly subsidized (by U.S. taxpayers) commodities is the Turkish regime. Last May, Turkey used many of the fighter jets and tanks the U.S. sold it to slaughter Kurds when they invaded Northern Iraq with between 25,000 and 50,000 troops (reports differ), with Washington's tacit approval.

Again, the moral here is obvious: it is okay for an ally of the U.S. (Turkey) to bomb Kurds in Northern Iraq; but if Hussein does so he is a barbarian.

Indeed, Clinton was so worried about the proliferation of advanced weaponry that he has sent members of his Cabinet to arms trade shows-to help sell them. His V.P. Al Gore uses White House stationery to draft letters to heads of foreign states to drum up sales. As our Lobbyist in Chief, Clinton had even used a personal phone to call up the president of the United Arab Emirates to request that the Sheik purchase eighty F-16 jet fighters from Lockheed Martin (The Progressive, 12/97).

If that weren't enough, Clinton led the way in lifting a 20-year ban on selling arms to Latin American countries, Also, he has refused to sign an international treaty to ban landmines that just about all other nations have endorsed [see "Spotlight" story in this issue's Sentinel section]. All of these facts become buried when the mainstream press discusses Hussein vs. the U.S.

Another item off the discussion list is how the U.S. is conducting its foreign policy without a shred of diplomacy. Hussein has been lately requesting that the U.N. investigative team have fewer Americans on it. Clinton's response, universally hailed by the press, is an unwavering no. We are prepared to start another war before allowing this concession.

This is a continuation of our policy after the 8/90 invasion of Kuwait by Hussein's order and before the 1/91 U.S.-led attack on Baghdad. In private, Hussein offered the H.W. Bush administration to pull out of Kuwait in five days-the Bushites said it had to be three. Without any further discussion on the subject we launched our attack on Iraq's civilian infrastructure.

(In fact, that period after the invasion of Kuwait and before the U.S. attack, when pundits debated the merits of militarism and hundreds of thousands of people around the world marched in protest of a possible war, is rapidly vanishing from the media's eyes. The Washington Post, for one, has consistently opined since 1991 that Hussein started the Gulf War, with many other news outlets following suit. It is unlikely that our approved version of history for the next generation will read any differently.)

This policy of zero tolerance for Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, which is occasionally mentioned in the media but always as Hussein's fault. A very good recent article in The Progressive ("Iraq's Children," 11,/97) showed an Iraqi society which has deteriorated to a level of hardship few of us could imagine . At least 500,000 children have died since the War's final atrocity up to now.

This is more than the number of children killed from both atomic bombs and the recent ethnic cleansing in Bosnia combined as well as the people killed in the WTC. None of these Iraqi children had anything to do with Kuwait; and their lives were worth more than whether Iraq pulled out of there in five or three days. They are where they are arguably because the richest nation and last superpower on Earth has a mainstream media that any totalitarian regime would covet.

A news article in the Sun closed by quoting war-hawk Newt Gingrich as saying that the strategy of economic sanctions is "a liberal fantasy of a foreign policy without force [sic] [The Sun, 11/14/97]."

posted 10-08-2002 09:20 AM            

The war against terrorism has been described in high places as a struggle against a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by "depraved opponents of civilization itself." That's a feeling that I share. The words I'm quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years ago. Those are...that's President Reagan and his Secretary of State. The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring that the war against international terrorism would be the core of our foreign policy....describing it in terms of the kind I just mentioned and others. And it was the core of our foreign policy. The Reagan administration responded to this plague spread by depraved opponents of civilization itself by creating an extraordinary international terrorist network, totally unprecedented in scale, which carried out massive atrocities all over the world, primarily....well, partly nearby, but not only there. I won't run through the record, you're all educated people, so I'm sure you learned about it in High School.

Reagan--US War Against Nicaragua

But I'll just mention one case which is totally uncontroversial, so we might as well not argue about it, by no means the most extreme but uncontroversial. It's uncontroversial because of the judgments of the highest international authorities the International Court of Justice, the World Court, and the UN Security Council. So this one is uncontroversial, at least among people who have some minimal concern for international law, human rights, justice and other things like that. And now I'll leave you an exercise. You can estimate the size of that category by simply asking how often this uncontroversial case has been mentioned in the commentary of the last month. And it's a particularly relevant one, not only because it is uncontroversial, but because it does offer a precedent as to how a law abiding state would respond to...did respond in fact to international terrorism, which is uncontroversial. And was even more extreme than the events of September 11th. I'm talking about the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua which left tens of thousands of people dead, the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery.

Nicaragua's Response

Nicaragua did respond. They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered the...condemned what they called the "unlawful use of force," which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don't work in a world that is ruled by force.

This case is uncontroversial but it's by no means the most extreme. We gain a lot of insight into our own culture and society and what's happening now by asking 'how much we know about all this? How much we talk about it? How much you learn about it in school? How much it's all over the front pages?' And this is only the beginning. The United States responded to the World Court and the Security Council by immediately escalating the war very quickly, that was a bipartisan decision incidentally. The terms of the war were also changed. For the first time there were official orders given...official orders to the terrorist army to attack what are called "soft targets," meaning undefended civilian targets, and to keep away from the Nicaraguan army. They were able to do that because the United States had total control of the air over Nicaragua and the mercenary army was supplied with advanced communication equipment, it wasn't a guerilla army in the normal sense and could get instructions about the disposition of the Nicaraguan army forces so they could attack agricultural collectives, health clinics, and so on...soft targets with impunity. Those were the official orders.

What was the Reaction Here?

What was the reaction? It was known. There was a reaction to it. The policy was regarded as sensible by left liberal opinion. So Michael Kinsley who represents the left in mainstream discussion, wrote an article in which he said that we shouldn't be too quick to criticize this policy as Human Rights Watch had just done. He said a "sensible policy" must "meet the test of cost benefit analysis" -- that is, I'm quoting now, that is the analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end." Democracy as the US understands the term, which is graphically illustrated in the surrounding countries. Notice that it is axiomatic that the United States, US elites, have the right to conduct the analysis and to pursue the project if it passes their tests. And it did pass their tests. It worked. When Nicaragua finally succumbed to superpower assault, commentators openly and cheerfully lauded the success of the methods that were adopted and described them accurately. So I'll quote Time Magazine just to pick one. They lauded the success of the methods adopted: "to wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves," with a cost to us that is "minimal," and leaving the victims "with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms," and thus providing the US candidate with a "winning issue": "ending the impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua." The New York Times had a headline saying "Americans United in Joy" at this outcome.

Terrorism Works--Terrorism is not the
Weapon of the Weak

That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror. Furthermore, the United States essentially agreed with that. After the war, the US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter terror operations in Europe. First I should say that the US picked them up and began carrying them out itself, often against the same targets, the former resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi methods published interesting studies, sometimes critical of them because they were inefficiently carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn't do this right, you did that right, but those methods with the advice of Wermacht officers who were brought over here became the manuals of counter insurgency, of counter terror, of low intensity conflict, as it is called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures that are being used. So it's not just that the Nazis did it. It's that it was regarded as the right thing to do by the leaders of western civilization, that is us, who then proceeded to do it themselves. Terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of those who are against 'us' whoever 'us' happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Nature of our Culture--How We Regard Terrorism

Well, an interesting indication of the nature of our culture, our high culture, is the way in which all of this is regarded. One way it's regarded is just suppressing it. So almost nobody has ever heard of it. And the power of American propaganda and doctrine is so strong that even among the victims it's barely known. I mean, when you talk about this to people in Argentina, you have to remind them. Oh, yeah, that happened, we forgot about it. It's deeply suppressed. The sheer consequences of the monopoly of violence can be very powerful in ideological and other terms.

The Idea that Nicaragua Might Have The Right To Defend Itself

Well, one illuminating aspect of our own attitude toward terrorism is the reaction to the idea that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself. Actually I went through this in some detail with database searches and that sort of thing. The idea that Nicaragua might have the right to defend itself was considered outrageous. There is virtually nothing in mainstream commentary indicating that Nicaragua might have that right. And that fact was exploited by the Reagan administration and its propaganda in an interesting way. Those of you who were around in that time will remember that they periodically floated rumors that the Nicaraguans were getting MIG jets, jets from Russia. At that point the hawks and the doves split. The hawks said, 'ok, let's bomb 'em.' The doves said, `wait a minute, let's see if the rumors are true. And if the rumors are true, then let's bomb them. Because they are a threat to the United States.' Why, incidentally were they getting MIGs. Well they tried to get jet planes from European countries but the United States put pressure on its allies so that it wouldn't send them means of defense because they wanted them to turn to the Russians. That's good for propaganda purposes. Then they become a threat to us. Remember, they were just 2 days march from Harlingen, Texas. We actually declared a national emergency in 1985 to protect the country from the threat of Nicaragua. And it stayed in force. So it was much better for them to get arms from the Russians. Why would they want jet planes? Well, for the reasons I already mentioned. The United States had total control over their airspace, was over flying it and using that to provide instructions to the terrorist army to enable them to attack soft targets without running into the army that might defend them. Everyone knew that that was the reason. They are not going to use their jet planes for anything else. But the idea that Nicaragua should be permitted to defend its airspace against a superpower attack that is directing terrorist forces to attack undefended civilian targets, that was considered in the United States as outrageous and uniformly so. Exceptions are so slight, you know I can practically list them. I don't suggest that you take my word for this. Have a look. That includes our own senators, incidentally.

Honduras--The Appointment of John Negroponte
as Ambassador to the United Nations

Another illustration of how we regard terrorism is happening right now. The US has just appointed an ambassador to the United Nations to lead the war against terrorism a couple weeks ago. Who is he? Well, his name is John Negroponte. He was the US ambassador in the fiefdom, which is what it is, of Honduras in the early 1980's. There was a little fuss made about the fact that he must have been aware, as he certainly was, of the large-scale murders and other atrocities that were being carried out by the security forces in Honduras that we were supporting. But that's a small part of it. As proconsul of Honduras, as he was called there, he was the local supervisor for the terrorist war based in Honduras, for which his government was condemned by the world court and then the Security Council in a vetoed resolution. And he was just appointed as the UN Ambassador to lead the war against terror. Another small experiment you can do is check and see what the reaction was to this. Well, I will tell you what you are going to find, but find it for yourself. Now that tells us a lot about the war against terrorism and a lot about ourselves.

After the United States took over the country again under the conditions that were so graphically described by the press, the country was pretty much destroyed in the 1980's, but it has totally collapsed since in every respect just about. Economically it has declined sharply since the US take over, democratically and in every other respect. It's now the second poorest country in the Hemisphere. I should say....I'm not going to talk about it, but I mentioned that I picked up Nicaragua because it is an uncontroversial case. If you look at the other states in the region, the state terror was far more extreme and it again traces back to Washington and that's by no means all.

US & UK Backed South African Attacks

It was happening elsewhere in the world too, take say Africa. During the Reagan years alone, South African attacks, backed by the United States and Britain, US/UK-backed South African attacks against the neighboring countries killed about a million and a half people and left 60 billion dollars in damage and countries destroyed. And if we go around the world, we can add more examples.

Now that was the first war against terror of which I've given a small sample. Are we supposed to pay attention to that? Or kind of think that that might be relevant? After all it's not exactly ancient history. Well, evidently not as you can tell by looking at the current discussion of the war on terror which has been the leading topic for the last month.

Haiti, Guatemala, and Nicaragua

I mentioned that Nicaragua has now become the 2nd poorest country in the hemisphere. What's the poorest country? Well that's of course Haiti which also happens to be the victim of most US intervention in the 20th century by a long shot. We left it totally devastated. It's the poorest country. Nicaragua is second ranked in degree of US intervention in the 20th century. It is the 2nd poorest. Actually, it is vying with Guatemala. They interchange every year or two as to who's the second poorest. And they also vie as to who is the leading target of US military intervention. We're supposed to think that all of this is some sort of accident. That is has nothing to do with anything that happened in history. Maybe.

Colombia and Turkey

The worst human rights violator in the 1990's is Colombia, by a long shot. It's also the, by far, the leading recipient of US military aid in the 1990's maintaining the terror and human rights violations. In 1999, Colombia replaced Turkey as the leading recipient of US arms worldwide, that is excluding Israel and Egypt which are a separate category. And that tells us a lot more about the war on terror right now, in fact.

Why was Turkey getting such a huge flow of US arms? Well if you take a look at the flow of US arms to Turkey, Turkey always got a lot of US arms. It's strategically placed, a member of NATO, and so on. But the arms flow to Turkey went up very sharply in 1984. It didn't have anything to do with the cold war. I mean Russian was collapsing. And it stayed high from 1984 to 1999 when it reduced and it was replaced in the lead by Colombia. What happened from 1984 to 1999? Well, in 1984, [Turkey] launched a major terrorist war against Kurds in southeastern Turkey. And that's when US aid went up, military aid. And this was not pistols. This was jet planes, tanks, military training, and so on. And it stayed high as the atrocities escalated through the 1990's. Aid followed it. The peak year was 1997. In 1997, US military aid to Turkey was more than in the entire period 1950 to 1983, that is the cold war period, which is an indication of how much the cold war has affected policy. And the results were awesome. This led to 2-3 million refugees. Some of the worst ethnic cleansing of the late 1990's. Tens of thousands of people killed, 3500 towns and villages destroyed, way more than Kosovo, even under NATO bombs. And the United States was providing 80% of the arms, increasing as the atrocities increased, peaking in 1997. It declined in 1999 because, once again, terror worked as it usually does when carried out by its major agents, mainly the powerful. So by 1999, Turkish terror, called of course counter-terror, but as I said, that's universal, it worked. Therefore Turkey was replaced by Colombia which had not yet succeeded in its terrorist war. And therefore had to move into first place as recipient of US arms.

Self Congratulation on the Part of
Western Intellectuals

Well, what makes this all particularly striking is that all of this was taking place right in the midst of a huge flood of self-congratulation on the part of Western intellectuals which probably has no counterpart in history. I mean you all remember it. It was just a couple years ago. Massive self-adulation about how for the first time in history we are so magnificent; that we are standing up for principles and values; dedicated to ending inhumanity everywhere in the new era of this-and-that, and so-on-and-so-forth. And we certainly can't tolerate atrocities right near the borders of NATO. That was repeated over and over. Only within the borders of NATO where we can not only can tolerate much worse atrocities but contribute to them. Another insight into Western civilization and our own, is how often was this brought up? Try to look. I won't repeat it. But it's instructive. It's a pretty impressive feat for a propaganda system to carry this off in a free society. It's pretty amazing. I don't think you could do this in a totalitarian state.

Turkey is Very Grateful

And Turkey is very grateful. Just a few days ago, Prime Minister Ecevit announced that Turkey would join the coalition against terror, very enthusiastically, even more so than others. In fact, he said they would contribute troops which others have not willing to do. And he explained why. He said, We owe a debt of gratitude to the United States because the United States was the only country that was willing to contribute so massively to our own, in his words "counter-terrorist" war, that is to our own massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities and terror. Other countries helped a little, but they stayed back. The United States, on the other hand, contributed enthusiastically and decisively and was able to do so because of the silence, servility might be the right word, of the educated classes who could easily find out about it. It's a free country after all. You can read human rights reports. You can read all sorts of stuff. But we chose to contribute to the atrocities and Turkey is very happy, they owe us a debt of gratitude for that and therefore will contribute troops just as during the war in Serbia. Turkey was very much praised for using its F-16's which we supplied it to bomb Serbia exactly as it had been doing with the same planes against its own population up until the time when it finally succeeded in crushing internal terror as they called it. And as usual, as always, resistance does include terror. Its true of the American Revolution. That's true of every case I know. Just as its true that those who have a monopoly of violence talk about themselves as carrying out counter terror.

The Coalition--Including Algeria, Russia,
China, and Indonesia

Now that's pretty impressive and that has to do with the coalition that is now being organized to fight the war against terror. And it's very interesting to see how that coalition is being described. So have a look at this morning's Christian Science Monitor. That's a good newspaper. One of the best international newspapers, with real coverage of the world. The lead story, the front-page story, is about how the United States, you know people used to dislike the United States but now they are beginning to respect it, and they are very happy about the way that the US is leading the war against terror. And the prime example, well in fact the only serious example, the others are a joke, is Algeria. Turns out that Algeria is very enthusiastic about the US war against terror. The person who wrote the article is an expert on Africa. He must know that Algeria is one of the most vicious terrorist states in the world and has been carrying out horrendous terror against its own population in the past couple of years, in fact. For a while, this was under wraps. But it was finally exposed in France by defectors from the Algerian army. It's all over the place there and in England and so on. But here, we're very proud because one of the worst terrorist states in the world is now enthusiastically welcoming the US war on terror and in fact is cheering on the United States to lead the war. That shows how popular we are getting.

And if you look at the coalition that is being formed against terror it tells you a lot more. A leading member of the coalition is Russia which is delighted to have the United States support its murderous terrorist war in Chechnya instead of occasionally criticizing it in the background. China is joining enthusiastically. It's delighted to have support for the atrocities it's carrying out in western China against, what it called, Muslim secessionists. Turkey, as I mentioned, is very happy with the war against terror. They are experts. Algeria, Indonesia delighted to have even more US support for atrocities it is carrying out in Ache and elsewhere. Now we can run through the list, the list of the states that have joined the coalition against terror is quite impressive. They have a characteristic in common. They are certainly among the leading terrorist states in the world. And they happen to be led by the world champion.

What is Terrorism?

Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That's terrorism. That's a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can't be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it.

But there's a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can't be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That's why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that's a serious problem. You can't use the actual definitions. You've got to carefully find a definition that doesn't have all the wrong consequences.

Why did the United States and Israel Vote
Against a Major Resolution Condemning Terrorism?

There are some other problems. Some of them came up in December 1987, at the peak of the first war on terrorism, that's when the furor over the plague was peaking. The United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible way. It passed unanimously. One country, Honduras abstained. Two votes against; the usual two, United States and Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote against a major resolution condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, in fact pretty much the terms that the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a reason. There is one paragraph in that long resolution which says that nothing in this resolution infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation to continue with their resistance with the assistance of others, other states, states outside in their just cause. Well, the United States and Israel can't accept that. The main reason that they couldn't at the time was because of South Africa. South Africa was an ally, officially called an ally. There was a terrorist force in South Africa. It was called the African National Congress. They were a terrorist force officially. South Africa in contrast was an ally and we certainly couldn't support actions by a terrorist group struggling against a racist regime. That would be impossible.

And of course there is another one. Namely the Israeli occupied territories, now going into its 35th year. Supported primarily by the United States in blocking a diplomatic settlement for 30 years now, still is. And you can't have that. There is another one at the time. Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being combated by what the US calls a terrorist force, Hizbullah, which in fact succeeded in driving Israel out of Lebanon. And we can't allow anyone to struggle against a military occupation when it is one that we support so therefore the US and Israel had to vote against the major UN resolution on terrorism. And I mentioned before that a US vote against...is essentially a veto. Which is only half the story. It also vetoes it from history. So none of this was every reported and none of it appeared in the annals of terrorism. If you look at the scholarly work on terrorism and so on, nothing that I just mentioned appears. The reason is that it has got the wrong people holding the guns. You have to carefully hone the definitions and the scholarship and so on so that you come out with the right conclusions; otherwise it is not respectable scholarship and honorable journalism. Well, these are some of problems that are hampering the effort to develop a comprehensive treaty against terrorism. Maybe we should have an academic conference or something to try to see if we can figure out a way of defining terrorism so that it comes out with just the right answers, not the wrong answers. That won't be easy.

4. What are the Origins of the September 11 Crime?

Well, let's drop that and turn to the 4th question, What are the origins of the September 11 crimes? Here we have to make a distinction between 2 categories which shouldn't be run together. One is the actual agents of the crime, the other is kind of a reservoir of at least sympathy, sometimes support that they appeal to even among people who very much oppose the criminals and the actions. And those are 2 different things.

Category 1: The Likely Perpetrators

Well, with regard to the perpetrators, in a certain sense we are not really clear. The United States either is unable or unwilling to provide any evidence, any meaningful evidence. There was a sort of a play a week or two ago when Tony Blair was set up to try to present it. I don't exactly know what the purpose of this was. Maybe so that the US could look as though it's holding back on some secret evidence that it can't reveal or that Tony Blair could strike proper Churchillian poses or something or other. Whatever the PR [public relations] reasons were, he gave a presentation which was in serious circles considered so absurd that it was barely even mentioned. So the Wall Street Journal, for example, one of the more serious papers had a small story on page 12, I think, in which they pointed out that there was not much evidence and then they quoted some high US official as saying that it didn't matter whether there was any evidence because they were going to do it anyway. So why bother with the evidence? The more ideological press, like the New York Times and others, they had big front-page headlines. But the Wall Street Journal reaction was reasonable and if you look at the so-called evidence you can see why. But let's assume that it's true. It is astonishing to me how weak the evidence was. I sort of thought you could do better than that without any intelligence service. In fact, remember this was after weeks of the most intensive investigation in history of all the intelligence services of the western world working overtime trying to put something together. And it was a prima facie, it was a very strong case even before you had anything. And it ended up about where it started, with a prima facie case. So let's assume that it is true. So let's assume that, it looked obvious the first day, still does, that the actual perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden network is undoubtedly a significant part. Whether they were involved or not nobody knows. It doesn't really matter much.

Where did they come from?

That's the background, those networks. Well, where do they come from? We know all about that. Nobody knows about that better than the CIA because it helped organize them and it nurtured them for a long time. They were brought together in the 1980's actually by the CIA and its associates elsewhere: Pakistan, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was involved, they may have been involved a little bit earlier, maybe by 1978. The idea was to try to harass the Russians, the common enemy. According to President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US got involved in mid 1979. Do you remember, just to put the dates right, that Russia invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Ok. According to Brzezinski, the US support for the mojahedin fighting against the government began 6 months earlier. He is very proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into, in his words, an Afghan trap, by supporting the mojahedin, getting them to invade, getting them into the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific mercenary army. Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or so bringing together the best killers they could find, who were radical Islamist fanatics from around North Africa, Saudi Arabia....anywhere they could find them. They were often called the Afghanis but many of them, like bin Laden, were not Afghans. They were brought by the CIA and its friends from elsewhere. Whether Brzezinski is telling the truth or not, I don't know. He may have been bragging, he is apparently very proud of it, knowing the consequences incidentally. But maybe it's true. We'll know someday if the documents are ever released. Anyway, that's his perception. By January 1980 it is not even in doubt that the US was organizing the Afghanis and this massive military force to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It was a legitimate thing for the Afghans to fight the Russian invasion. But the US intervention was not helping the Afghans. In fact, it helped destroy the country and much more. The Afghanis, so called, had their own...it did force the Russians to withdrew, finally. Although many analysts believe that it probably delayed their withdrawal because they were trying to get out of it. Anyway, whatever, they did withdraw.

Meanwhile, the terrorist forces that the CIA was organizing, arming, and training were pursuing their own agenda, right away. It was no secret. One of the first acts was in 1981 when they assassinated the President of Egypt, who was one of the most enthusiastic of their creators. In 1983, one suicide bomber, who may or may not have been connected, it's pretty shadowy, nobody knows. But one suicide bomber drove the US army-military out of Lebanon. And it continued. They have their own agenda. The US was happy to mobilize them to fight its cause but meanwhile they are doing their own thing. They were clear very about it. After 1989, when the Russians had withdrawn, they simply turned elsewhere. Since then they have been fighting in Chechnya, Western China, Bosnia, Kashmir, South East Asia, North Africa, all over the place.

The Are Telling Us What They Think

They are telling us just what they think. The United States wants to silence the one free television channel in the Arab world because it's broadcasting a whole range of things from Powell over to Osama bin Laden. So the US is now joining the repressive regimes of the Arab world that try to shut it up. But if you listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says, it's worth it. There is plenty of interviews. And there are plenty of interviews by leading Western reporters, if you don't want to listen to his own voice, Robert Fisk and others. And what he has been saying is pretty consistent for a long time. He's not the only one but maybe he is the most eloquent. It's not only consistent over a long time, it is consistent with their actions. So there is every reason to take it seriously. Their prime enemy is what they call the corrupt and oppressive authoritarian brutal regimes of the Arab world and when the say that they get quite a resonance in the region. They also want to defend and they want to replace them by properly Islamist governments. That's where they lose the people of the region. But up till then, they are with them. From their point of view, even Saudi Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, I suppose, short of the Taliban, which is an offshoot, even that's not Islamist enough for them. Ok, at that point, they get very little support, but up until that point they get plenty of support. Also they want to defend Muslims elsewhere. They hate the Russians like poison, but as soon as the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, they stopped carrying out terrorist acts in Russia as they had been doing with CIA backing before that within Russia, not just in Afghanistan. They did move over to Chechnya. But there they are defending Muslims against a Russian invasion. Same with all the other places I mentioned. From their point of view, they are defending the Muslims against the infidels. And they are very clear about it and that is what they have been doing.

WHY DID THEY TURN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES?

Now why did they turn against the United States? Well that had to do with what they call the US invasion of Saudi Arabia. In 1990, the US established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia which from their point of view is comparable to a Russian invasion of Afghanistan except that Saudi Arabia is way more important. That's the home of the holiest sites of Islam. And that is when their activities turned against the Unites States. If you recall, in 1993 they tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Got part of the way, but not the whole way and that was only part of it. The plans were to blow up the UN building, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the FBI building. I think there were others on the list. Well, they sort of got part way, but not all the way. One person who is jailed for that, finally, among the people who were jailed, was a Egyptian cleric who had been brought into the United States over the objections of the Immigration Service, thanks to the intervention of the CIA which wanted to help out their friend. A couple years later he was blowing up the World Trade Center. And this has been going on all over. I'm not going to run through the list but it's, if you want to understand it, it's consistent. It's a consistent picture. It's described in words. It's revealed in practice for 20 years. There is no reason not to take it seriously. That's the first category, the likely perpetrators.

Category 2: What about the reservoir of support?

What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not hard to find out what that is. One of the good things that has happened since September 11 is that some of the press and some of the discussion has begun to open up to some of these things. The best one to my knowledge is the Wall Street Journal which right away began to run, within a couple of days, serious reports, searching serious reports, on the reasons why the people of the region, even though they hate bin Laden and despise everything he is doing, nevertheless support him in many ways and even regard him as the conscience of Islam, as one said. Now the Wall Street Journal and others, they are not surveying public opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their friends: bankers, professionals, international lawyers, businessmen tied to the United States, people who they interview in MacDonalds restaurant, which is an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy American clothes. That's the people they are interviewing because they want to find out what their attitudes are. And their attitudes are very explicit and very clear and in many ways consonant with the message of bin Laden and others. They are very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy; its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they know it even if we don't want to. And of course their support for the Israeli military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year. The US has been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't like it. Especially when that is paired with US policy towards Iraq, towards the Iraqi civilian society which is getting destroyed. Ok, those are the reasons roughly. And when bin Laden gives those reasons, people recognize it and support it.

Now that's not the way people here like to think about it, at least educated liberal opinion. They like the following line which has been all over the press, mostly from left liberals, incidentally. I have not done a real study but I think right wing opinion has generally been more honest. But if you look at say at the New York Times at the first op-ed they ran by Ronald Steel, serious left liberal intellectual. He asks Why do they hate us? This is the same day, I think, that the Wall Street Journal was running the survey on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us because we champion a new world order of capitalism, individualism, secularism, and democracy that should be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate us. The same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the opinions of bankers, professionals, international lawyers and saying `look, we hate you because you are blocking democracy, you are preventing economic development, you are supporting brutal regimes, terrorist regimes and you are doing these horrible things in the region.' A couple days later, Anthony Lewis, way out on the left, explained that the terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism," nothing more and nothing we do matters. The only consequence of our actions, he says, that could be harmful is that it makes it harder for Arabs to join in the coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that, everything we do is irrelevant.

Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort of comforting. It makes you feel good about yourself, and how wonderful you are. It enables us to evade the consequences of our actions. It has a couple of defects. One is it is at total variance with everything we know. And another defect is that it is a perfect way to ensure that you escalate the cycle of violence. If you want to live with your head buried in the sand and pretend they hate us because they're opposed to globalization, that's why they killed Sadat 20 years ago, and fought the Russians, tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. And these are all people who are in the midst of ... corporate globalization but if you want to believe that, yeh...comforting. And it is a great way to make sure that violence escalates. That's tribal violence. You did something to me, I'll do something worse to you. I don't care what the reasons are. We just keep going that way. And that's a way to do it. Pretty much straight, left-liberal opinion.

5. What are the Policy Options?

What are the policy options? Well, there are a number. A narrow policy option from the beginning was to follow the advice of really far out radicals like the Pope. The Vatican immediately said look it's a horrible terrorist crime. In the case of crime, you try to find the perpetrators, you bring them to justice, you try them. You don't kill innocent civilians. Like if somebody robs my house and I think the guy who did it is probably in the neighborhood across the street, I don't go out with an assault rifle and kill everyone in that neighborhood. That's not the way you deal with crime, whether it's a small crime like this one or really massive one like the US terrorist war against Nicaragua, even worse ones and others in between. And there are plenty of precedents for that. In fact, I mentioned a precedent, Nicaragua, a lawful, a law abiding state, that's why presumably we had to destroy it, which followed the right principles. Now of course, it didn't get anywhere because it was running up against a power that wouldn't allow lawful procedures to be followed. But if the United States tried to pursue them, nobody would stop them. In fact, everyone would applaud. And there are plenty of other precedents.

IRA Bombs in London

When the IRA set off bombs in London, which is pretty serious business, Britain could have, apart from the fact that it was unfeasible, let's put that aside, one possible response would have been to destroy Boston which is the source of most of the financing. And of course to wipe out West Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the feasibility, it would have been criminal idiocy. The way to deal with it was pretty much what they did. You know, find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for the reasons. Because these things don't come out of nowhere. They come from something. Whether it is a crime in the streets or a monstrous terrorist crime or anything else. There's reasons. And usually if you look at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently of the crime, they ought to be addressed because they are legitimate. And that's the way to deal with it. There are many such examples.

But there are problems with that. One problem is that the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of international institutions. So it can't go to them. It has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court. It has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court. It is powerful enough to set up a new court if it wants so that wouldn't stop anything. But there is a problem with any kind of a court, mainly you need evidence. You go to any kind of court, you need some kind of evidence. Not Tony Blair talking about it on television. And that's very hard. It may be impossible to find.

Leaderless Resistance

You know, it could be that the people who did it, killed themselves. Nobody knows this better than the CIA. These are decentralized, nonhierarchic networks. They follow a principle that is called Leaderless Resistance. That's the principle that has been developed by the Christian Right terrorists in the United States. It's called Leaderless Resistance. You have small groups that do things. They don't talk to anybody else. There is a kind of general background of assumptions and then you do it. Actually people in the anti war movement are very familiar with it. We used to call it affinity groups. If you assume correctly that whatever group you are in is being penetrated by the FBI, when something serious is happening, you don't do it in a meeting. You do it with some people you know and trust, an affinity group and then it doesn't get penetrated. That's one of the reasons why the FBI has never been able to figure out what's going on in any of the popular movements. And other intelligence agencies are the same. They can't. That's leaderless resistance or affinity groups, and decentralized networks are extremely hard to penetrate. And it's quite possible that they just don't know. When Osama bin Laden claims he wasn't involved, that's entirely possible. In fact, it's pretty hard to imagine how a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, who doesn't even have a radio or a telephone could have planned a highly sophisticated operation like that. Chances are it's part of the background. You know, like other leaderless resistance terrorist groups. Which means it's going to be extremely difficult to find evidence.

Establishing Credibility

And the US doesn't want to present evidence because it wants to be able to do it, to act without evidence. That's a crucial part of the reaction. You will notice that the US did not ask for Security Council authorization which they probably could have gotten this time, not for pretty reasons, but because the other permanent members of the Security Council are also terrorist states. They are happy to join a coalition against what they call terror, namely in support of their own terror. Like Russia wasn't going to veto, they love it. So the US probably could have gotten Security Council authorization but it didn't want it. And it didn't want it because it follows a long-standing principle which is not George Bush, it was explicit in the Clinton administration, articulated and goes back much further and that is that we have the right to act unilaterally. We don't want international authorization because we act unilaterally and therefore we don't want it. We don't care about evidence. We don't care about negotiation. We don't care about treaties. We are the strongest guy around; the toughest thug on the block. We do what we want. Authorization is a bad thing and therefore must be avoided. There is even a name for it in the technical literature. It's called establishing credibility. You have to establish credibility. That's an important factor in many policies. It was the official reason given for the war in the Balkans and the most plausible reason.

You want to know what credibility means, ask your favorite Mafia Don. He'll explain to you what credibility means. And it's the same in international affairs, except it's talked about in universities using big words, and that sort of thing. But it's basically the same principle. And it makes sense. And it usually works. The main historian who has written about this in the last couple years is Charles Tilly with a book called Coercion, Capital, and European States. He points out that violence has been the leading principle of Europe for hundreds of years and the reason is because it works. You know, it's very reasonable. It almost always works. When you have an overwhelming predominance of violence and a culture of violence behind it. So therefore it makes sense to follow it. Well, those are all problems in pursuing lawful paths. And if you did try to follow them you'd really open some very dangerous doors. Like the US is demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden. And they are responding in a way which is regarded as totally absurd and outlandish in the west, namely they are saying, Ok, but first give us some evidence. In the west, that is considered ludicrous. It's a sign of their criminality. How can they ask for evidence? I mean if somebody asked us to hand someone over, we'd do it tomorrow. We wouldn't ask for any evidence.

Haiti

In fact it is easy to prove that. We don't have to make up cases. So for example, for the last several years, Haiti has been requesting the United States to extradite Emmanuel Constant. He is a major killer. He is one of the leading figures in the slaughter of maybe 4000 or 5000 people in the years in the mid 1990's, under the military junta, which incidentally was being, not so tacitly, supported by the Bush and the Clinton administrations contrary to illusions. Anyway he is a leading killer.