VIRTUAL CITIZENS - War on the World
On 10 January 2007, G. W. Bush announced his new “strategy” to “change America’s course in Iraq.”[1] The highlights are as follows:
(1) The new strategy for Iraq is an old set of tactics for policing Baghdad;
(2) Bush declared that American troops have been stupid and incompetent;
(3) Bush declared war on Iran (Iran has already attacked us); and
(4) Bush is not going to put up with sneaky, conniving, two-faced Muslims anymore.
» The Unmentionable Hypocrisy: Hussein Hanged, Bush and Blair Remain in Power
Saddam Hussein was hanged a week ago, today, for executing 148 people. Yet, even by conservative estimates, George W. Bush and Tony Blair are responsible for hundreds, or thousands, of times more deaths due to their war of aggression - the supreme international crime - in Iraq.But, while Saddam Hussein is hanged, Bush and Blair remain in power with apparent impunity.
Why the double standard?
Land of Enchantment and Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org
There is a decent chance that within the next month or two the New Mexico State Legislature will ask the U.S. House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And there is the definite possibility that a Congress Member from New Mexico will take up the matter when it gets to Washington. The Jefferson Manual, rules used by the U.S. House, allows for impeachment to be begun in this manner. It only takes one state legislature. No governor is needed. One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state’s petition. Then impeachment begins.
Comment is free: Confronting the playground bully
Once upon a time, George Bush said: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Somalia was probably the last place he had in mind when he made this announcement.
It was only a matter of time before the mask slipped and the US played its hand. Only a matter of time before the Ethiopians refused to abide by the status quo and carry out deeds hatched and plotted in Washington.
The president of Somalia, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, made his loyalty clear by laying his cards face up on his marble table. A spokesman said the air strike was based on “credible intelligence”, which in human speak means, was flawed beyond measure and obtained through nefarious means. Not seeming to care whether there have been civilian fatalities, Mr Ahmed spoke of his support of the American AC 130 bombing from his presidential palace in Mogadishu, claiming “America has the right to hunt down and air bombard wherever those who were responsible for bombing its embassies in East Africa are staying or hiding.”
And of those who are dead? Have they been identified as an al-Qaida cell? Rest assured that this is a message, coming through loud and clear: do as we say, not as we do. Anyone guilty of not toeing the line will be dealt with precisely and without discrimination. And that is what the US has done. The employment of air strikes by American forces that are employed to kill or maim hundreds has again signalled a complete lack of value for human life. And above all, has anybody mentioned that another fantastic recruiting ground has just been created, courtesy of Washington? Unless matters cease, this will most certainly turn into another Iraq.
ArmsControlWonk: More on the Leverett Redactions
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann claim that all the passages blocked by the CIA under White House pressure can found in other published articles, mostly quoting senior US officials less critical of the Bush Administration.I can’t prove it, but a plausible op-ed can be constructed from the crib sheet they provide in the New York Times and the redacted op-ed—a plausible op-ed that doesn’t threaten national security unless one goes all Sun-King and conflates the interests of the country with those of Mr. Bush.
Reuters - 10:08 PM Wednesday December 13
Bomb blasts killed 15 people in Baghdad on Wednesday and suicide bombers attacked an Iraqi army base as U.S. President George W. Bush ended a three-day review of Iraq policy and said he would not be rushed into making changes.
By Charley Reese
12/06/06 — – Al-Jazeera, the Arab television network that the Bush administration hates so passionately, has launched its English-language service but is, of course, having trouble finding an American cable or satellite system willing to carry it.
The British Broadcasting Corp. had a man watch the first day’s broadcast (it’s being distributed in Europe) and gave it a rave review: accurate, but grim.
A Big Stick and a Small Carrot: Liars and Their Lies
It is often claimed that Blair has absolutely no influence over Bush. Today, evidence suggests that this isn’t quite true. Here’s coverage of their press conference:
“It’s bad in Iraq,” Mr Bush conceded to reporters. But he said the violence was not a result of “faulty planning”.
“It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists… to foment hatred and to throttle at birth the possibility of a non-sectarian democracy.”
Now where have I heard that before? Ah yes. Blair has passed on to Bush his ridiculous “nothing to do with us” nonsense. He does have some influence after all.
Saddam: Let’s now charge the accomplices
By John Pilger
11/09/06 “Information Clearing House” — – In a show trial whose theatrical climax was clearly timed to promote George W Bush in the American midterm elections, Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to hang. Drivel about “end of an era” and “a new start for Iraq” was promoted by the usual false moral accountants, who uttered not a word about bringing the tyrant’s accomplices to justice. Why are these accomplices not being charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity?
Why isn’t George Bush Snr being charged? In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered a cover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipments being sent to Iraq via third countries. Missile technology was shipped to South Africa and Chile, then “on sold” to Iraq, while US Commerce Department records were falsified. Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Com mittee, said: “[We found that] Bush and his advisers financed, equipped and succoured the monster . . .”
Why isn’t Douglas Hurd being charged? In 1981, as Foreign Office minister, Hurd travelled to Baghdad to sell Saddam a British Aerospace missile system and to “celebrate” the anniversary of Saddam’s blood-soaked ascent to power. Why isn’t his former cabinet colleague, Tony Newton, being charged? As Thatcher’s trade secretary, Newton, within a month of Saddam gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja (news of which the Foreign Office tried to suppress), offered the mass murderer £340m in export credits.
Why isn’t Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to signal America’s approval of Iraq’s aggression against Iran. Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on 24 March 1984, the day that the United Nations reported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent against Iranian soldiers. Rumsfeld said nothing. A subsequent Senate report documented the transfer of the ingredients of biological weapons from a company in Maryland, licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department.
Why isn’t Madeleine Albright being charged? As President Clinton’s secretary of state, Albright enforced an unrelenting embargo on Iraq which caused half a million “excess deaths” of children under the age of five. When asked on television if the children’s deaths were a price worth paying, she replied: “We think the price is worth it.”
Why isn’t Peter Hain being charged? In 2001, as Foreign Office minister, Hain described as “gratuitous” the suggestion that he, along with other British politicians outspoken in their support of the deadly siege of Iraq, might find themselves summoned before the International Criminal Court. A report for the UN secretary general by a world authority on international law describes the embargo on Iraq in the 1990s as “unequivocally illegal under existing human rights law”, a crime that “could raise questions under the Genocide Convention”. Indeed, two past heads of the UN humanitarian mission in Iraq, both of them assistant secretary generals, resigned because the embargo was indeed genocidal. As of July 2002, more than $5bn-worth of humanitarian supplies, approved by the UN Sanctions Committee and paid for by Iraq, were blocked by the Bush administration, backed by the Blair and Hain government. These included items related to food, health, water and sanitation.
Above all, why aren’t Blair and Bush Jnr being charged with “the paramount war crime”, to quote the judges at Nuremberg and, recently, the chief American prosecutor - that is, unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country?
And why aren’t those who spread and amplified propaganda that led to such epic suffering being charged? The New York Times reported as fact fabrications fed to its reporter by Iraqi exiles. These gave credibility to the White House’s lies, and doubtless helped soften up public opinion to support an invasion. Over here, the BBC all but celebrated the invasion with its man in Downing Street congratulating Blair on being “conclusively right” on his assertion that he and Bush “would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath”. The invasion, it is reliably estimated, has caused 655,000 “excess deaths”, overwhelmingly civilians.
If none of these important people are called to account, there is clearly only justice for the victims of accredited “monsters”.
Is that real or fake justice?
Fake.
This article first appeared in the New Statesman.
Why Bush is seeking Confrontation with North Korea
by Gregory Elich
October 29, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
North Korea’s nuclear test and UN sanctions have brought relations between the U.S. and North Korea to their lowest point since President Bush took office. Yet it was only little more than a year ago that for one brief moment hopes were kindled for a diplomatic settlement of the nuclear dispute. At the six-party talks on September 19, 2005, a statement of principles on nuclear disarmament was signed between the U.S. and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea DPRK – the formal name for North Korea. The Bush Administration, however, viewed its signature on the agreement as only a tactical delay. During negotiations it had firmly rejected the statement, and was brought around only when the Chinese delegation warned that it would announce that the U.S. was to blame were the six-party talks to collapse.
Also blogging at fotdmike.com
This blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner, and is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material.
yet another blog theme is designed by Studieren-Info and proudly powered by WordPress
