MATTHEWGOODONLINE

Well, it’s done. The House of Representatives has voted 263-171 in favour of the $700 billion dollar bailout plan.

Now that it’s over I suppose there’s one of two things that Americans can do.

1) Read today’s headlines and then carry on with their lives, which many will do given that they have their own daily survival to worry about.

2) Remain vigilant and make an effort to hold their representatives accountable if those on Wall Street that were responsible for the crisis eventually profit from it, which is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

US Army active duty suicides were up in 2007, according to Pentagon officials, surpassing the number of suicides in 2006, reaching 108. And to think that not too long ago there were actual discussions taking place at to the merits of post-traumatic stress disorder. One truly unfortunate aspect of this news is that a quarter of those that took their own lives did so while in Iraq.

While on the subject of Iraq, many of you are probably aware that former Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book makes some interesting assertions about the Bush Administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq and the way in which the war was promoted and planned. Not surprisingly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is defending the administration claiming that the fundamental reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Her logic? That you can’t look at it from a current point of view, but rather one prior to the invasion given the intelligence available.

Ya, Curveball was an amazingly reliable source, Condi.

Rice also employed the term ‘liberated’ with regards to the invasion and occupation. Five years, and countless lives after the ‘liberation’ of Iraq, it remains the most dangerous place in the world. So much so that millions of Iraqis have fled ‘liberated’ Iraq.

Of course, this is where those with no leg to stand on will point to the tyrannical realities of the Hussein regime and claim that his removal from power was paramount, that he was responsible for mass murder and a laundry list of other crimes.

And that’s true. I’m not going to argue that at all. But having said that, let’s have a little fun with a timeline regarding a horrible event that many pro-war pundits like to use as an example of why the Hussein regime needed to be overthrown.

1) In 1988 the Kurdish village of Halabja was gassed. Thousands were killed and injured in the attack, which was condemned throughout the world.

2) After the attack, Congress voted to stop all military and financial assistance to the Hussein regime.

3) President Ronald Reagan vetoed it.

4) The United States continued to aid the regime of Saddam Hussein.

This is fact, not fiction, and it would be well of those that believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of paramount importance to remember that the United States had dealings with Mr. Hussein as far back as the mid 1960’s.

You do not get to help create and feed monsters only to claim that history is inconsequential when it doesn’t suit your hegemonic objectives. Unless, of course, you’re the most powerful country in the world. Then you can get away with just about anything – including rewriting history, or simply making it disappear.

9/11 did more than just blind a nation, allowing one of the most dangerous foreign policy doctrines in US history to be instituted. It also largely rendered history moot. And that, no matter what the occurrence, is a very dangerous thing indeed.

Remarks made recently by Dr. Dahlia Wasfi at the Iraq Forum (via YouTube)…

Being that it’s an election year, you knew it was bound to happen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has written an open letter to US soldiers asking that they stay out of politics this election season. Of course, Mullen didn’t say don’t vote, just don’t talk about it…

“As the nation prepares to elect a new president we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times. Keeping our politics private is a good first step. The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Support and defend the Constitution? That would imply exercising the Constitutional rights of every American, whether they’re in uniform or not. Soldiers might be in the unfortunate position of having to support the current, and disastrous, foreign policy initiatives of this administration, but it does not mean that they’ve forfeited the right to disagree with it.

If the defense of the Constitution is at all important, then ensuring that men and women in uniform can exercise their First Amendment rights to the fullest extent seems only logical. Unless, that is, Mullen’s use of the phrase “…support and defending the Constitution” is just patriotic zealotry employed to instill a sense of duty while detracting from the fact that the Constitution itself guarantees the rights of all Americans to express themselves freely.

Obviously Mullen’s words sit very uncomfortably with me, especially…

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways. It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

In truth, the armed forces of the United States serve at the pleasure of the President through the approval of Congress, with the Secretary of Defense as an appointed civilian intermediary, making their use entirely political and wholly influenced by the foreign policy objectives of a specific administration, especially when it possesses a Congressional majority. While the people’s representatives have the ability to vote on whether the power to go to war can be furnished the Executive Branch, the reality is that the people do not have any real voice in the matter. We can pretend that that isn’t the case, that the public can apply pressure by lobbying their elected representatives, but the truth of the matter is that the game played in Washington is far more important than the concerns of constituents, and most in Congress adhere to the former before other considerations are taken into account. Note that I said most, not all.

Given the fact that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than The Second World War, and is the longest conflict fought since the Revolutionary War with an all volunteer army, it seems crucial to me that American service men and women should be politically active. In truth, the war in Afghanistan has now lasted seven years, three shy of America’s longest conflict, that being Vietnam, with the same distinction as that of Iraq – a war fought by an all volunteer force, one that has been pushed to its limits by an administration that knows all too well what would happen were a national draft to be instituted. That itself is a highly political matter, and one that US service men and women should most certainly be focused on.

To say that Admiral Mullen is out of line would be letting him off lightly. I would even go so far as to say that, in my opinion, not even Eisenhower, who was given supreme command of the most powerful army the world has ever seen, would have penned such a statement.

Mullen’s missive continues…

“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues. What I am suggesting — indeed, what the nation expects — is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”

This passage is nothing more than the employment of the same tired rhetoric used by those that are unable to differentiate between supporting those who serve while, at the same time, disagreeing with the policy that has placed them in harms way.

What do partisan leanings have to do with anything? With regards to the war in Iraq, common military sense should be the order of the day, and given the quagmire that the United States currently finds itself in, common sense should have dictated, some time ago, that the military initiatives promoted by the Bush Administration were catastrophically flawed. The Armed Forces of the United States went and did the administration’s bidding despite that fact, and have been abused as an instrument of a wholly arrogant and morally corrupt foreign policy agenda. To not only think, but dare suggest, that US service men and women should not take that into account, should not talk about it freely and openly, is wholly contradictory to what Admiral Mullen has claimed they are fighting to protect.

Let every pilot, every gunner, and every foot soldier wear their beliefs where they will. If they’re to fight and die for something that promotes the protection and projection of that very virtue, then to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Quote source: Thom Shanker, New York Times, May 26, 2008.

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

If you were looking for a fine example of ridiculousness today, look no further than the words of Stephen Mull, the US State Department’s acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs.

Yesterday, Mull made the following comment with regards to those nations currently participating at a conference in Dublin where representatives from more than 100 nations are working to craft a treaty to ban the use, production, stockpile, and sale of Cluster Bombs…

“This would have very grave implications. With one stroke, any country that signs the convention as it is now and ratifies it, in effect would make it impossible for the United States or any of our other allies who rely on these weapons to participate in these humanitarian exercises.”

So, for example, were Brazil to sign the treaty and a massive natural disaster were to devastate part of that country, Mull is basically saying that the United States would not offer humanitarian assistance because of Brazil’s stance on the United States’ refusal to stop producing, using, selling, and stockpiling Cluster Bomb munitions.

Even more – Canada is also represented at the conference and is one of the key nations, along with France and Germany, expected to play a role in swaying the UK’s position on the treaty.

So what if a part of this nation were devastated by a natural disaster? What if my hometown were to be rocked by the long awaited earthquake that we’ve been expecting for basically my entire lifetime? Canada is America’s foremost trading partner, not to mention the fact that after Katrina hit, members of my hometown’s emergency response team were there and helping people before their American counterparts even showed up. So much so, in fact, that various neighbourhoods were awash in Canadian flags as a show of gratitude.

What then, Mr. Mull? Are we on our own because we dared to stand with others and say that the use, production, stockpile, and sale of one of the most despicable conventional weapons in the world should be banned?

Given FEMA’s reposnse to Katrina, and the Bush Administration’s mishandling of the disaster, what of the outpouring of support from other countries, even those the United States government considers enemies, such as Cuba and Venezuela? Do you not think that by taking such a ridiculous position that further isolating the United States from those that, in times of disaster, are willing to forego ideological differences to lend their support is a good idea?

Arrogance knows no bounds, it seems. And all over a bloody bomb.

What can you expect from American politicians when you’re addressing them as an individual that was held captive at Guantanamo for almost five years of your life despite the fact that you did nothing wrong and were eventually released without charge?

Very little.

First, you can expect less than half a dozen of those that sit on the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs to actually show up to hear you speak. Second, you can be assured that most of them won’t even be able to remember your name, addressing you as “Mr. Karzai” rather than “Mr. Kurnaz”. Third, after you’ve addressed them, even if it is via video conference, you can expect the first response to your horrific detailing of what occurred while you were in US custody to read a little something like this…

“The first to speak after Kurnaz was finished was ranking member on the committee, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who expressed doubts about the testimony and recalled that the United States was “at war” and needed to protect itself even at the price of making some errors.”

That’s what you get after almost five years of unlawful and wrongful detention. Basically a shrug of the shoulders.

One wonders if Rohrabacher has read the newly released FBI report which details some of the practices used at Guantanamo and the objections to them made by various FBI agents to their superiors? And if he has, one wonders if he even cares.

Of all those that served in the military in my family, the one common trait shared by all of them is that they did not like to talk about their experiences. My Grandfather and Great Uncles went to lengths to avoid the topic, and as an inquisitive youngster I was sometimes scolded for my curiosity. At the time, of course, I couldn’t understand why, but as a grown man it’s something that I do.

Other members of my extended family have also served and seen combat, among them a cousin who was a United States Marine and a Great Uncle who served in Korea. In fact, my father came within an inch of becoming a member of the US Air Force in the 60’s after writing multiple aptitude tests which would have led to his serving as a member of a B-52 crew during Vietnam, most likely as a Navigations Officer. Thankfully, my Grandmother was adamantly opposed to the idea and he eventually declined the opportunity.

Death is in the eyes. When you spend time with a veteran that has witnessed the horrors of conflict that reality is ever present in their gaze. My Grandfather had it, my Great Uncles had it, and so do some of my friends, among them Patrick Pitt, one of this website’s contributing authors, a CF Artillery Captain that served twice in Afghanistan and, prior to that, throughout the Balkans. Daniel Regelburgge, a one-time matthewgood.org author, veteran of Iraq and NATO operations throughout the Balkans, and currently stationed at The Pentagon, does as well. Added to this list is also another site author, Roy El-Saghir, who was a member of the 82nd Airborne in the 1980’s and served in locations where US personnel weren’t supposed to be active, let alone involved in combat operations.

I mention this because a very real schism exists between public perception of military service and the reality and confusion faced by those that serve during wartime. The more politically complex the conflict, the greater that schism becomes. An example of this exists in the position of pro-war pundits that have, over the last seven years, completely skewed the line between military service and government policy. It has become entirely commonplace to suggest that if one does not support the political objectives of those that have taken us to war that those that have been sent to implement such policies are somehow being dishonoured and betrayed. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as it is entirely possible to support the welfare of our soldiers while adamantly disagreeing with the policies that have placed them in harms way.

The media has, of course, played a leading role in blurring such lines, leading to the diminishment of any negative information conveyed by veterans with regards to their experiences. After seven years of fighting, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, US veterans were finally gifted the opportunity to address Congress last Thursday about their experiences. And while they might not represent the totality of all those in uniform, their testimonies should not be overlooked nor marginalized…

“Antiwar veterans of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan took their case to Capitol Hill Thursday, baring their souls with stories of killings of innocent civilians, torture, and wrongful detentions.

“On several occasions our convoys came upon bodies that had been lying on the road, sometimes for weeks,” said Marine Corps veteran Vincent Emanuele, who served in al-Qaim near the Syrian border in 2004 and 2005.

“When encountering these bodies standard procedure was to run over the corpses, sometimes even stopping and taking pictures, which was also standard practice when encountering the dead in Iraq,” he told the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which organized the hearing.

Emanuele also said that U.S. military personnel often took “pot shots” at cars passing by.

“Our rules of engagement stated that we should first fire warning shots into the ground in front of the car, then the engine block, and the windshield. That is if the car was even moving in the first place,” he said. “Many times cars that actually had pulled off to the side of the road were also shot at.”

Thursday’s hearing was an outgrowth of an event in Maryland earlier this year called “Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan - Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations.” For four days in March, dozens of veterans of the two wars testified about atrocities they personally committed or witnessed while deployed overseas.

At the time, many of the veterans expressed a desire to take their case to Capitol Hill. Thursday they got their wish.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, addressed a panel of veterans at the start of the hearing.

“We now have an opportunity to hear not from the military’s top brass but directly from you,” she said, “the very soldiers who put your lives on the line to carry out this president’s failed policies.”

Nine veterans of the Iraq war told their stories before members of Congress and a packed gallery. One of the veterans had also served in Afghanistan. About 40 veterans were in the audience.

The veterans spoke about extremely lax rules of engagement handed down by commanding officers, which they said virtually guaranteed atrocities would be committed, and which in turn created a violent backlash among Iraqi people and a continued cycle of violence.

Former U.S. Army Capt. Luis Carlos Montalvan served directly under Gen. David Petraeus in 2005 and 2006.

“We have beaten our drum to try to raise the issue of the dereliction of duty committed by a number of generals who have been promoted and promoted again and continue to perpetuate the lies [that] paint a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq,” he said.

Montalvan said he personally witnessed U.S. military personnel carrying out waterboarding, the mock-drowning interrogation technique that has long been considered torture by U.S. courts.

Former Srgt. Adam Kokesh presented a picture of himself standing, smiling, in front of a dead Iraqi civilian that another marine had shot.

“This is a picture that I’m very ashamed of, having posed with this dead Iraqi as a trophy picture,” he said. “But what felt awkward to me at the time was not so much that I was taking the picture, but the fact that I had not killed this man and I was taking a trophy from somebody else’s kill.”

Kokesh said the person in the trophy photo was an innocent civilian whose car was accidentally “lit up” by marines.

Kokesh referenced similar photos that surfaced during and after the Vietnam war — some of which were presented at a “Winter Soldier” gathering organized by Vietnam veterans 37 years ago.

“At the first Winter Soldier investigation in 1971, one of the Vietnam veterans held up a similar photograph and said ‘Don’t ever let your government do this to you. Don’t ever let your government put you in a position where this attitude towards death and disregard for human life is acceptable or common.’ And we are still doing this to service members every day as long as these occupations continue,” he added.

Kokesh said his Marine Corps Civil Affairs team, including a major, was present when the trophy photo was taken. Numerous other marines also snapped their picture with the corpse, he said.

Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War hope this week’s hearing will spark an investigation by a full Congressional committee and speed the end of the wars.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) praised the veterans who spoke Thursday. “I want to thank you for having more courage than many members of Congress have — for coming here in defiance of what you have been instructed and taught to do,” she said. “They attempted to tell you that you should be satisfied by everything that you saw and everything that you did and everything you witnessed, but you’re not. I praise and honor you for that.”

The veterans’ testimony, however, may be overshadowed by an unrelated legislative maneuver that occurred just steps away from their hearing room Thursday: the House of Representatives defeated a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It’s eight o’clock in the morning. I have no idea what I am doing up, other than the fact that I went to bed pretty early. I watched The Other Boleyn Girl last night after rehearsal and prior to passing out. Why is it that no one can portray the Tudors with any historical accuracy?

Recent Catastrophes

Matters in China are looking grimmer by the day, as are conditions in Burma. One searches for words to put such catastrophes into context, but there are few. The best that I can offer is to suggest donating to the following relief efforts:

Oxfam
The Red Cross

Oxfam
The Red Cross

News Of Note

Congratulations are due the Supreme Court Of California who ruled yesterday that the State law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

According to a recent report, the United States has detained some 2,500 children in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at the US facility at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. While that number has decreased, there are still some 500 juveniles being detained in Iraq, 10 at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and of the 8 youths detained at Guantanamo, only two remain that were under 18 years of age when they first arrived. Of course, such detentions fly in the face of International Law as it pertains to Child Soldiers and juveniles, but there really is not point in arguing that fact being that the tenets of International Law only apply to those situations that the Bush Administration considers to be in their interest.

Speaking of juveniles, it seems that the United States is violating an international protocol forbidding the recruitment of youths under the age of 18 for service in the military. In the report entitled Soldiers Of Misfortune, it was found that the military is also disproportionately targeting poor and minority public school students. This, of course, should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. It’s conveniently always the “dregs of American society” that seem to be “compelled” to defend the “American way of life” while middle and upper class white kids sit at home watching them die on television. The sad reality of modern American wars is that if you want to see one brought to an abrupt end, have rich white kids come home in metal boxes.

The “N” Word

President Bush, who recently claimed that he gave up golf because he thought it sent the wrong message to those that have lost loved ones in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, addressed the Israeli Parliament yesterday claiming that negotiating with militant organizations and radical governments was no different than the appeasement of the Nazi’s…

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, Mr. Bush, the United States did nothing. It did not declare war on Germany, nor would it until Germany declared war on the United States on December 11th, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Habour. It would not act when France and the low countries were invaded and occupied, nor would it act when British cities were being decimated by German bombers.

For almost three years, while members of my family were in uniform, and their comrades were being stranded on French beaches having the crap kicked out of them only to be evacuated by civilian pleasure craft, the people of the United States wanted nothing to do with what was transpiring in Europe. By the time the “appeasement”, that you so casually referred to yesterday, had taken its toll, and Western Europe and parts of Africa were in German hands, the American public was still overwhelmingly against US involvement. Let’s also not forget that while Germany was being “appeased” by governments that had seen an entire generation devastated by war not two decades prior, major US financial institutions and corporations were doing business with the Reich, and would make millions in the process while those that would eventually fight along side American troops were being killed.

The reason, Mr. Bush, that you evoked the word “Nazi” yesterday was solely because you were in Israel, which is rather ironic being that an American company, that being IBM, sold the very machinery to the Nazi’s that they would later use to calculate the number of Jews, and others, eliminated during the Holocaust. Even more, that your own grandfather was the director of the Union Banking Corporation, with a convenient single share to his name, the assets of which were seized in 1942 under the Trading With The Enemy Act.

Like it or not, an American President addressing the Israeli Parliament is little more than a corporate president addressing shareholders.

New reports out of Burma have placed deaths caused by the cyclone that recently hit the country at upwards of 10,000 people, far greater than figures initially released. Some 24 million people live in the five regions of the country that were hit. There have also been reports that that 80% of Laputta has been completely destroyed.

If this doesn’t make you throw up in your mouth, nothing will. It is utterly fucking sick.

A piece by Chomsky from February of this year entitled The Most Wanted List that’s definitely worth a look.

Bill Fletcher Jr. weighs in on the recent demonizing of former President Jimmy Carter in a piece entitled Get Carter!: The Attack on Jimmy Carter’s Middle East Peace Efforts by Bush & Olmert.

Intrigue is afoot in Bolivia where the resource rich region of Santa Cruz has recently voted in an unofficial referendum for more autonomous rights. Those that opposed the vote boycotted it, leaving supporters of the region’s elite in the majority. Bolivian President Evo Moralez has claimed the vote illegal. Of course, all of this comes down to wealth, as is always the case when it comes to Latin American societies. Those that have it want to ensure that they retain their control over those industries that afford it, those that don’t want a greater distribution of national wealth. Being that Bolivia is the poorest nation in Latin America, the latter might have a point.

The quote of the day comes from Chomsky’s “The Most Wanted List”, which is linked above…