conspiracy of 09/11/2001
You don't get very much useful info.
You do get, however, bgtruth.blogspot.com as the number 5 ranking.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
First the Bad News
If you do a yahoo search with terms:
conspiracy of 09/11/2001
You don't get very much useful info.
You do get, however, bgtruth.blogspot.com as the number 5 ranking.
conspiracy of 09/11/2001
You don't get very much useful info.
You do get, however, bgtruth.blogspot.com as the number 5 ranking.
Newsweek / Koran story: The resignation of Scott McClellan - Bloggermann - MSNBC.com
The resignation of Scott McClellan - Bloggermann - MSNBC.com
BG: Olbermann sees the ugliness, and .... decides McCellan should resign. How does getting another equally dishonest Press Secretary help the situation?
Link to Video (Olbermann Show / Interview with Author)
More from Alex Jones... (I actually believe most of this stuff.)
BG: Olbermann sees the ugliness, and .... decides McCellan should resign. How does getting another equally dishonest Press Secretary help the situation?
Link to Video (Olbermann Show / Interview with Author)
More from Alex Jones... (I actually believe most of this stuff.)
Monday, May 16, 2005
Staying What Course? - New York Times
Staying What Course? - New York Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 16, 2005
Staying What Course?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.
There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.
Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.
Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.
So what's the plan?
The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.
Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.
In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.
But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.
So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 16, 2005
Staying What Course?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.
There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.
Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.
Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.
So what's the plan?
The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.
Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.
In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.
But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.
So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Back to Top
I-BAT - 001
I-BAT - 001: "Research into 9/11 planning and a possible sequel, suggests that Maurice Strong and fellow insiders at Power Corp, Montreal, are laundering UN oil-for-food money through off-book partners, including French banks and oil, water and arms traders"
Meet the Poor Republicans - New York Times
Link to Good Discussion by Kevin Drum
Meet the Poor Republicans - New York Times: "May 15, 2005
Meet the Poor Republicans
By DAVID BROOKS
Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting."
BG: I had no idea where Brooks was going with this, but I was fairly sure I would find his discussion putrid. I was not disappointed.
Meet the Poor Republicans - New York Times: "May 15, 2005
Meet the Poor Republicans
By DAVID BROOKS
Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting."
BG: I had no idea where Brooks was going with this, but I was fairly sure I would find his discussion putrid. I was not disappointed.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Don't give in to sweet temptations - Nutrition Notes - MSNBC.com
Don't give in to sweet temptations - Nutrition Notes - MSNBC.com
Moderation can be difficult when it comes to sugary treatsBy Karen Collins, R.D.
Registered Dietitian
Special to MSNBC.com
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET May 13, 2005Chocolate, bakery, soft drinks and other sweets are available around the clock. Their constant availability can make eating moderate amounts of them difficult.
advertisement
Although complete avoidance of sweets is unnecessary for good health, the calories in sweets add up quickly, making weight control more difficult. Sweets can also replace nutritious foods that have vitamins, fiber, phytochemicals and other substances vital to our well-being.
Part of the problem with sweets is that setting reasonable limits can be confusing. Some experts suggest that no more than ten percent of our calories should come from added sugars. Added sugars means sweeteners like table sugar, high fructose corn syrup and honey, not the natural sugars in fruits and milk, for example.
According to these experts, a reasonable amount of added sugars would vary with a person�s calorie needs. Adults who are sedentary or trying to lose weight might limit themselves to 160 to 180 calories of added sugar (40�45 grams) per day.
This amount could be a 12-ounce regular soft drink or 2 cookies and a cup of ice cream, as long as few other sweetened foods, like jelly or sugary cereals were not eaten during the day. Moderately active people who want to maintain their weight, might have 200�240 calories of added sugar (50�60 grams). These people could enjoy a small candy bar and six small cookies, for instance, but sugar in a 12-ounce regular soft drink adds up quickly and leaves room for little else.
Watch the snacking
Moderation can be difficult when it comes to sugary treatsBy Karen Collins, R.D.
Registered Dietitian
Special to MSNBC.com
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET May 13, 2005Chocolate, bakery, soft drinks and other sweets are available around the clock. Their constant availability can make eating moderate amounts of them difficult.
advertisement
Although complete avoidance of sweets is unnecessary for good health, the calories in sweets add up quickly, making weight control more difficult. Sweets can also replace nutritious foods that have vitamins, fiber, phytochemicals and other substances vital to our well-being.
Part of the problem with sweets is that setting reasonable limits can be confusing. Some experts suggest that no more than ten percent of our calories should come from added sugars. Added sugars means sweeteners like table sugar, high fructose corn syrup and honey, not the natural sugars in fruits and milk, for example.
According to these experts, a reasonable amount of added sugars would vary with a person�s calorie needs. Adults who are sedentary or trying to lose weight might limit themselves to 160 to 180 calories of added sugar (40�45 grams) per day.
This amount could be a 12-ounce regular soft drink or 2 cookies and a cup of ice cream, as long as few other sweetened foods, like jelly or sugary cereals were not eaten during the day. Moderately active people who want to maintain their weight, might have 200�240 calories of added sugar (50�60 grams). These people could enjoy a small candy bar and six small cookies, for instance, but sugar in a 12-ounce regular soft drink adds up quickly and leaves room for little else.
Watch the snacking
WING - Trashing The Truth
WING - Trashing The Truth
BG: These postings are terribly confused (intentionally?) and off-base I think. Wingtv is subject to vendettas for sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water....
BG: These postings are terribly confused (intentionally?) and off-base I think. Wingtv is subject to vendettas for sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water....
Email that I received from Veterans Support Group
News on Veterans for Common Sense today:
Afghanistan riddled with drug tiesThe case of an Afghan village police chief, named Inayatullah, is a small example of a much larger problem. Is Commander Inayatullah a courageous law-and-order crusader responsible for smashing the drug mafia in his hamlet? Or, is he an opium smuggler? Or, as his bosses say, is he both?
Lawless Iraq is 'key drug route'Drug smugglers exploiting internal chaos in Iraq have turned the country into a transit route for Afghan heroin, an influential drug agency says.
U.S. Soldiers, Law Officers Snared in Border Drug StingA brazen conspiracy among U.S. law enforcement officers and soldiers to smuggle cocaine from Mexico was disclosed Thursday by the Justice Department, adding to concerns that public corruption north of the border was growing.
Law Protecting Soldiers Undermines War on TerrorWhat happens to U.S. soldiers who are charged with aiding and abetting an international terrorist organization?
U.S. army probes why troops go wild in ColombiaThe U.S. military is investigating what has gone wrong with its operations in Colombia, where troops have been arrested on suspicion of smuggling drugs and selling arms to far-right militias, a senior U.S. officer said on Wednesday.
Pentagon's war stories leave a legacy of doubtGiven that we now know what really happened in the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, is it any wonder the Italians dispute the U.S. government's version of how Nicola Calipari died in Iraq?
Veterans for Common Sense needs your supportConsider making a gift today. Every dollar helps support our work on national securty, civil liberties and human rights, veterans issues and U.S. energy independence. Click here to make a gift today. Please visit Veterans for Common Sense at www.veteransforcommonsense.org
Afghanistan riddled with drug tiesThe case of an Afghan village police chief, named Inayatullah, is a small example of a much larger problem. Is Commander Inayatullah a courageous law-and-order crusader responsible for smashing the drug mafia in his hamlet? Or, is he an opium smuggler? Or, as his bosses say, is he both?
Lawless Iraq is 'key drug route'Drug smugglers exploiting internal chaos in Iraq have turned the country into a transit route for Afghan heroin, an influential drug agency says.
U.S. Soldiers, Law Officers Snared in Border Drug StingA brazen conspiracy among U.S. law enforcement officers and soldiers to smuggle cocaine from Mexico was disclosed Thursday by the Justice Department, adding to concerns that public corruption north of the border was growing.
Law Protecting Soldiers Undermines War on TerrorWhat happens to U.S. soldiers who are charged with aiding and abetting an international terrorist organization?
U.S. army probes why troops go wild in ColombiaThe U.S. military is investigating what has gone wrong with its operations in Colombia, where troops have been arrested on suspicion of smuggling drugs and selling arms to far-right militias, a senior U.S. officer said on Wednesday.
Pentagon's war stories leave a legacy of doubtGiven that we now know what really happened in the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, is it any wonder the Italians dispute the U.S. government's version of how Nicola Calipari died in Iraq?
Veterans for Common Sense needs your supportConsider making a gift today. Every dollar helps support our work on national securty, civil liberties and human rights, veterans issues and U.S. energy independence. Click here to make a gift today. Please visit Veterans for Common Sense at www.veteransforcommonsense.org
Gagged, But Not Dead
Technorati Tags: sept11 sibel edmonds Ashcroft DOJ FBI translation coverup
Gagged, But Not Dead
By Sibel Edmonds
The Appeal Court’s decision on Sibel Edmonds’ Case is out: ‘Case Dismissed;’ no opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court’s decision, issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; “another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification.” Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she’s not dead.
On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.
In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport w"
Gagged, But Not Dead
By Sibel Edmonds
The Appeal Court’s decision on Sibel Edmonds’ Case is out: ‘Case Dismissed;’ no opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court’s decision, issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; “another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification.” Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she’s not dead.
On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.
In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport w"
KRT Wire | 05/12/2005 | So much for national security in the public interest
KRT Wire | 05/12/2005 | So much for national security in the public interest: "Posted on Thu, May. 12, 2005
Click here to find out more!
So much for national security in the public interest"
Click here to find out more!
So much for national security in the public interest"
Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell
Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell: "Bolton had on his staff a 'special adviser' named Matthew Freedman who pulled down a $110,000 per annum salary. Freedman is also a lobbyist who represents 'private clients.' He refused to tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who those clients were. However, it has been discovered that Freedman, a long time GOP operative like Bolton, is tied to the same oil industry network that once used Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as agents of influence."
Teens seek debate vs. Limbaugh
Teens seek debate vs. LimbaughBG: Limbaugh hot air rarely gets called out for what it is... this is great!
Saturday, May 14, 2005
BlondeSense: The Part You Haven’t Heard
BlondeSense: The Part You Haven’t HeardDahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches
Friday, May 13, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Monday, May 09, 2005
Home from Iraq
Journalist urges Americans to search for truth, freedom'
ABOUT THIS SPEECH This article is adapted from a speech given by photojournalist Molly Bingham at Western Kentucky University last month. Bingham, a Louisville native, was detained in 2003 by Iraqi security forces and held in Abu Ghraib prison from March 25 to April 2, 2003. Eighteen days after her release, she returned to Iraq to pursue stories for The New York Times, The Guardian of London and others. Taking a short break during the summer of 2003, Bingham had the idea of working on a story to explore who was involved in the nascent resistance that was becoming apparent throughout Iraq. She scanned the papers that summer, looking for an article that would show some journalist had reported the story, had gone deeper to find out the source of the new violence. No one had. So in August 2003, Bingham returned with British journalist Steve Connors and spent the next 10 months reporting the story of the Iraqi resistance. Her account was published in Vanity Fair magazine in July 2004; Connors shot a documentary film on the subject. This speech was a challenge to journalists, and Americans, to speak up and be sure their comments, questions and thoughts are heard, and that the First Amendment is celebrated in all its strengths. Bingham began her career as a photo intern for The Courier-Journal and Louisville Times.
U.S. soldiers at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Covering the war is difficult -- whether the subject is the U.S. or Iraqis. (BY ANTONIO SCORZA, GETTY IMAGES)
.gcitopjobs a:link {font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; color: #000099} .gcitopjobs a:visited {font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; color: #000099} .gcitopjobs a:active {font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; color: #990000} .gcitopjobs a:hover {font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-decoration: none; color: #990000}
DriversHAPPY DRIVERS=HAPPY FAMILIESSUMMITT TRUC...
General Help WantedHigh quality printer for the entertainme...
SalesSALES MANAGER, BUILDING PRODUCTS Holm In...
Accounting/ Finance/ BankingLOAN OFFICER (AUTO) Crescent Bank Trust ...
WINDOW INSTALLERSRenewal By Andersen
OtherMILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION Founded in 1...
All Top Jobs
About Top Jobs
We spent 10 months in Iraq, working on a story, understanding who the people are who are fighting, why they fight, what their fundamental beliefs are, when they started, what kinds of backgrounds they come from, what education, jobs they have. Were they former military, are they Iraqi or foreign? Are they part of al-Qaida? What we came up with is a story in itself, and one that Vanity Fair ran in July 2004 with my text and pictures. [My colleague Steve Connors] shot a documentary film that is still waiting to find a home. But the basic point for this discussion is that we both thought it was really journalistically important to understand who it was who was resisting the presence of the foreign troops. If you didn't understand that, how could you report what was clearly becoming an "ongoing conflict?" And if you were reading the news in America, or Europe, how could you understand the full context of what was unfolding if what motivates the "other side" of the conflict is not understood, or even discussed?
Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you:
Lesson One: Many journalists in Iraq could not, or would not, check their nationality or their own perspective at the door.
One of the hardest things about working on this story for me personally, and as a journalist, was to set my "American self" and perspective aside. It was an ongoing challenge to listen open-mindedly to a group of people whose foundation of belief is significantly different from mine, and one I found I often strongly disagreed with.
But going in to report a story with a pile of prejudices is no way to do a story justice, or to do it fairly, and that constant necessity to bite my tongue, wipe the smirk off my face or continue to listen through a racial or religious diatribe that I found appalling was a skill I had to practice. We would never walk in to cover a union problem or political event without seeking to understand the perspective from both, or the many sides of the story that exist. Why should we as journalists do it in Iraq?
Lesson Two: Our behavior as journalists has taught us very little. Just as in the lead up to the war in Iraq, questioning our government's decisions and claims and what it seeks to achieve is criticized as unpatriotic.
Along these lines, the other thing I found difficult was the realization that, while I was out doing what I believe is solid journalism, there were many (journalists and normal folks alike) who would question my patriotism, or wonder how I could even think hearing and relating the perspective "from the other side" was important.
Certainly, over the last three years I've had to acquire the discipline of overriding my emotional attachment to my country, and remember my sense of human values that transcend frontiers and ethnicity. And with a sense of duty to history, I needed to just get on with reporting the story. My value of human life and rights don't fluctuate depending on which country I'm in. I don't see one individual as more deserving of fair treatment than another. . . .
Now, I realize I'm in Kentucky, a state with many military connections, and there are many of you here who may have served, or have family members who serve, and let me take this moment to say that I have the utmost respect and sympathy for the American soldiers overseas right now, particularly in Iraq. They have been sent on a most difficult mission, to quell a population that will not be quelled, in a land awash with weapons. The American military is being used to find a solution to what is essentially a political problem, an equation that rarely adds up well. As if that were not enough, our soldiers have been sent with insufficient resources to protect themselves. In my mind, that is all inexcusable.
Lesson Three: To seek to understand and represent to an American audience the reasons behind the Iraqi opposition is practically treasonous.
Every one of the people involved in the resistance that we spoke to held us individually responsible for their security. If something happened to them -- never mind that they were legitimate targets for the U.S. military -- they would blame us. And kill us. We soon learned that they had the U.S. bases so well watched that we had to abandon our idea of working on the U.S. side of the story -- that is, discovering what the soldiers really thought about who might be attacking them. There were so many journalists working with the American soldiers that we believed that that story would be well told. More practically, if we were seen by the Iraqis going in and out of the American bases, we would be tagged immediately as spies, informants and most likely be killed.
As terrifying as that was to manage and work through, there was another fear that was just as bad. What if the American military or intelligence found out what we were working on? Would they tail us and round up the people we met? Would they kick down our door late one night, rifle through all our stuff and arrest us for "collaborating with the enemy?" Bear in mind that there are no real laws in Iraq. At the time that we were working, the American military was the law, and it seemed to me that they were pretty much making it up as they went along. I was pretty sure that if they wanted to "disappear" us, rough us up or even send us for an all expenses paid vacation in Guantánamo for suspected al-Qaida connections, they could do so with very little, or even no recourse on our part.
I could go into a long litany of the ways in which the American military has treated journalists in Iraq. Recent actions indicate that the U.S. military will detain and/or kill any journalist who happens to be caught covering the Iraqi side of the militant resistance, and indeed a number of journalists have been killed by U.S. troops while working in Iraq. This behavior at the moment seems to be limited to journalists who also happen to be Arabs, or Arab-looking, but that is only a tangential story to what I'm telling you about here.
The intimidation to not work on this story was evident. Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander just before we left. Dexter and the commander had gotten quite friendly, meeting up sporadically for a beer and a chat. Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment. And, again, this is not meant as any criticism of the military; they have a war to win, and dominating the "message," or the news is an integral part of that war. The military has a name for it, "information operations," and the aim is to achieve information superiority in the same way they would seek to achieve air superiority. If you look closely, you will notice there is very little, maybe even no direct reporting on the resistance in Iraq. We do, however, as journalists report what the Americans say about the resistance. Is this really anything more than stenography?
And many American journalists often refer to those attacking Americans or Iraqi troops and policemen as "terrorists." Some are indeed using terrorist tactics, but calling them "terrorists" simply shuts down any sense of need or interest to look beyond that word, to understand why indeed human beings might be willing to die in a violent struggle to achieve their goal. Pushing them off as simply "insane, wild Arabs" or "extremist Muslims" does them no service, but even more, it does the U.S. no service. If we as Americans fail to understand who attacks us and why, we will simply continue on this same path, and continue watching from afar as a war we don't understand boils over.
Lesson Four: The gatekeepers -- by which I mean the editors, publishers and business sides of the media -- don't want their paper or their outlet to reveal that compelling narrative of why anyone would oppose the presence of American troops on their soil. Why would anyone refuse democracy? Why would anyone not want the helping hand of America in overthrowing their terrible dictator? It's amazing to me how expeditiously we turn away from our own history. Think of our revolution. Think of our Founding Fathers. Think of what they stood for and hoped for. Think of how, over time, we have learned to improve on our own Constitution and governance. But think, mostly, about the words I just used: It was our decision and our determination that brought us where we are now.
Recall Patrick Henry's famous speech encouraging the Second Virginia Convention, gathered on March 20, 1775, to fight the British, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Why is it that we, as Americans, presume that any Iraqi would feel any differently? If the roles were reversed, do you think for a moment that our men wouldn't be stockpiling arms and attacking any foreign invader with the temerity to set foot on our soil, occupy our buildings of government and write us a new constitution?
Wouldn't we as women be joining with them in any way we could? Wouldn't the divisions between us -- how we feel about President Bush, whether we're Republican or Democrat -- be put aside as we resisted a common enemy?
Then why is it that this story of human effort for self-determination by violent means cannot be told in America? Are we so small, so confused by our own values that we cannot recognize when someone emulates our own struggle? Even if it is the U.S. that they are struggling against? I want to be careful to explain that I am not saying that the Iraqis fighting against us are necessarily fighting for democracy, but they are fighting for their right to decide for themselves what their nation looks like politically.
Lesson Five: What it's like to be afraid of your own country.
Once the story was finished and set to come out on the street, I was rushing back to the States -- mostly because we could no longer work once the story was published -- and I found I was scared returning to my own country. And that was an amazingly strange and awful feeling to have. Again, you could call me paranoid, but the questions about what might happen to me once in America -- where at least I would have more rights -- kept racing through my brain. I'm still here, so you could say that my frantic mental gymnastics about what could happen to me in my own country were paranoid anxieties.
But I would turn that question around:
How many other American journalists, perhaps not as secure in their position as I, have thought to do a story and decided that it's too close to the bone, too questioning of the American government or its actions? How many times was the risk that our own government might come in and rifle through our apartment, our homes or take us away for questioning in front of our children a factor in our decision not to do a story? How many times did we as journalists decide not to do a story because we thought it might get us into trouble? Or, as likely, how often did the editor above us kill the story for the same reasons? Lots of column inches have been spent in the discussion of how our rights as Americans are being surreptitiously confiscated, but what about our complicity, as journalists, in that? It seems to me that the assault on free speech, while the fear and intimidation is in the air, comes as much from us -- as individuals and networks of journalists who censor ourselves -- as it does from any other source.
We need to wake up as individuals and as a community of journalists and start asking the hard and scary questions. Questions we may not really want to know the answers to about ourselves, about our government, about what is being done in our name, and hold the responsible individuals accountable through due process in our legal or electoral system.
We need to begin to be able to look again at our government, our leadership and ourselves critically. That is what the Fourth Estate is all about. That's what American journalism can do at its zenith. I also happen to believe that, in fact, that is the highest form of patriotism -- expecting our country to live up to the promises it makes and the values it purports to hold. The role of the media in assisting the public to ensure those values are reflected in reality is undeniably failing today.
Go ahead, take a hard look in the mirror, ask the questions -- if there is something in our nation that needs repair or change, that is how it will get done, by asking those questions, getting answers and reporting them.
We still have the freedom in this country as individuals and as journalists to defend the rights enshrined in the Constitution, to defend the values that we as individuals still hold dear -- so why aren't we doing it? Are we scared? If we're scared, then who will be there to defend those rights and values when it is proposed that they be taken away?
I still believe in that country that I love so dearly, the place I think of when the words "freedom," "opportunity," "liberty," "justice" and "equality" are spoken on lips, but I want it to be a country I see, hear and feel every day, not one that lives in my imagination.
It's time we looked in the mirror and began to take responsibility for what our country looks like, what our country is and how it behaves, rather than acting like victims before we actually are.
Or do I need to start facing the reality that all I love and believe in is simply self-delusion?
Makow - Bankers Are Behind The Counter Culture The Aquarian Conspiracy
Makow - Bankers Are Behind The Counter Culture The Aquarian Conspiracy
BG: This is mostly Bullsh*t (accoring to me of course). I wouldn't have read the article if I had seen the Author (Makow) before clicking the link. Still, it's interesting to see how major pillars of Religion, Anti-feminist, are used to construct an explanation of where the true evil lies.
BG: This is mostly Bullsh*t (accoring to me of course). I wouldn't have read the article if I had seen the Author (Makow) before clicking the link. Still, it's interesting to see how major pillars of Religion, Anti-feminist, are used to construct an explanation of where the true evil lies.
Natural Petroleum - NO Connection With Biological Matter
Natural Petroleum - NO Connection With Biological Matter
BG: This seems like the right answer to me. (There are a lot of people such as Ruppert in the 911 Truth Moment who think oil is tied to organic decay.)
BG: This seems like the right answer to me. (There are a lot of people such as Ruppert in the 911 Truth Moment who think oil is tied to organic decay.)
The Truth Seeker - Voice of the White House � May 4, 2005 Gannon Guckett
The Truth Seeker - Voice of the White House � May 4, 2005I will then discuss the matter of the greatest breach of U.S. national security since Jonathan Pollard’s escapades in giving a boxcar full of vital secrets to Israel.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Friday, May 06, 2005
Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud
Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud: "Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud"
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Monday, May 02, 2005
Original Poster Request that I Provide That LINK
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
David Ray Griffin in Madison, WI on 4/18/2005
Video Link: http://911blogger.fileburst.com/videos/griffin_madison_full_150.avi
Very Large File... 150 Megabytes... smaller file available at link at beginning of this post.
Technorati Tag: sept11
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
David Ray Griffin in Madison, WI on 4/18/2005
Video Link: http://911blogger.fileburst.com/videos/griffin_madison_full_150.avi
Very Large File... 150 Megabytes... smaller file available at link at beginning of this post.
Technorati Tag: sept11
But here's a question: do you think the Italian computer whizzes will be any more competent than their American counterparts when they release their report? The U.S. report
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truthOhio GOP's "Coin-Gate" Scandal Grows and Grows
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Arrogant Nation
Arrogant Nation
From AxisofLogic.com
United States
Arrogant Nation
By Doug Soderstrom
Apr 30, 2005, 00:24
The arrogance of ignorance, a profoundly dangerous and ill-informed presumption that one’s own people are better (wiser, morally and spiritually ascendant, and more capable) than others, seems rather well entrenched within the American populace. It is such that seems to have created a social-political environment that continues to encourage the American effort to build a World Empire. All of the elements are there, in fact, it seems that at this very moment, at the very dawn of the third millennium, the foundation has been laid. The people have been primed, the leadership (The Bush-Cheney Administration) is in place, and The Great American War Machine is ready to take action.
But how did things get to such a point? What was it that allowed our country to have become so arrogant? Was it our taming of The West? Was it our near annihilation of The American Indian, the original inhabitants of this country? Was it our ability to have been so successful in an enslavement of The African American people? Was it our capacity to have economically ravaged Central America and The Caribbean? Was it our capacity for technological development? How about our having bombed Viet Nam and Cambodia into near stone-age oblivion? Then there was our war with Iraq in 1991, and the fact that we were able to kill 350 Iraqis for every American soldier who died. And what about our ability to have been so good at polluting the earth’s atmosphere setting the stage for a rather tragic warming of the world? Or the fact that four percent of the world’s population has been so successfully able to have consumed 35% of the world’s wealth? And what about the fact that we, no doubt, have the greatest military force in the history of the world, one that could destroy the entirety of the human race several times over? And what about our willingness to have thumbed our noses at nearly every institutional effort to resolve some of the world’s most grave problems (The World Court, The Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change, The Anti-Ballistic Treaty with Russia, The 2001 UN Conference on Racism, as well as other international attempts to resolve pending world problems). And finally, we can bask in the glory of having been so successful in bringing peace, prosperity and security to a democratic Iraq!
So given “such a fine history”…….. what is it about The American Citizen, on the eve of another Bush-Cheney four-year administrative reign, that qualifies him to be a candidate for such a grand design? What is it that seems to have paved the way toward empire? What is it about our own people that have made them so absolutely vulnerable, so inordinately willing to be led down the primrose path of a mad dash toward the building of a worldwide empire?
I would like to suggest that there are eight factors that have moved the American public to such a point. The first of which is an inclination toward ethnocentrism. Americans seem to be wracked with ethnocentric bias, a rather pride-filled tendency to reject anything that is not American, an attitude that leads our people to evaluate that which is American as better than that which is not of American origin. For example, it is common for Americans to believe that capitalism, the free enterprise system, is inherently better (more God-inspired) than any other economic arrangement, especially that of socialism which is, by many, considered to be evil and perhaps even devil-inspired. Also rather endemic is the presumption that Christianity is the one and only “right religion,” the only theological system that will enable an adherent to enter “the pearly gates” of Heaven, condemning all other religions to the category of false faiths that necessarily lead to Hell. And, of course, given our country’s current 9/11-oriented fear of another attack by “the terrorists,” the converse of such a proposition is a resolute hatred of The Moslem Faith as well as those of The Middle East who tend to follow its precepts. Representatives of the conservative-fundamentalist Christian community such as Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have pretty well summed up these folks feelings.
A second factor that seems to have created conditions conducive to “the empire-rization” of our country is the undeniability of how we, as a nation, have apparently normalized the fact of violence, how we have essentially created a “culture of violence” as a more or less accepted way of life in America. I suggest that hidden within the American Mind is a rather peculiar attachment or, perhaps one could say, a kind of fondness for that of violence….. almost to the point that anyone who objects to the use of violence may be considered as either weak, impractical, Un-American, or perhaps even un-Godly. Such a willingness to conveniently disregard, or perhaps even to deny, what used to be the quintessential fact of the Christian faith (that we should not do unto others that which we would not have them do unto us) seems rather commonplace in “such a religious country” as that of America. As evidence for the normalization of (and likely the desensitization towards) violence in our country I offer the following: The fact that The United States is the only developed country in the world that allows the use of capital punishment, and especially that of a willingness to execute children under 18 years of age (sometimes as young as 14 years of age), a willingness to use physical punishment (spanking) as a fundamental aspect of parental discipline, our country’s unwillingness to ban the use of handguns, the legalization of corporate practices that destroy the environment, the bastardization of the democratic nature of our union by allowing those with money to buy off those in the federal government, a general glamorization of violence in the media, the historical use of violence against minority groups (i.e. Native Indian Americans, Afro-Americans, women, homosexuals etc.), the increasing use of litigation as a form of violence, the legitimized use of violence in the advertising industry……... the tobacco company’s efforts to advertise their products to children (in order to replace those they have already killed) along with a willingness to allow themselves to be used as a way of destroying political careers, the acceptance of violence as an essential aspect of the video game industry, an historical unwillingness for schools to deal with the problem of bullying, the belief that war is an acceptable way to deal with international conflict, a general feeling that protest against war (standing up for peace) is an Un-American activity, the tendency to euphemize the killing of innocent civilians (parents, children, and friends) by referring to them as “collateral damage,” a rather confabulated attempt to condone impersonalized violence (killing people from afar…… as when people are slaughtered by missiles having been shot from hundreds of miles away), a rather fatuous belief that “might is right” (i.e. a belief that God has the “almighty right” to send anyone He wants to Hell, The Protestant Ethic’s “damning” of those who are poor, an extraordinary belief that our country along with its military power has been blessed by God), and a tendency for “the conservative-fundamentalist Christian community” to condone violence as an essential religious value (as found in The Old Testament of The Holy Bible). Again the list could go on but I think the point has been made.
Third, there seems to be a rather troubling tradition of spiritual duplicity, a feigned sense of religious piety that has taken hold of The American People. An appalling capacity for Americans to disregard the plight of others, an absence of compassion (empathic concern) for those less fortunate than ourselves, an essential unwillingness for the American people to put themselves into the place of others who, by any objective standard, have faired far less well than those in our own nation. Based upon conversations in my classroom as well as with others “on the street,” it appears to me that Americans are severely limited in their capacity “to place themselves into the shoes of others.” For those of you who are older think about how most Americans felt when they discovered that nearly a quarter of a million Japanese (nearly all of them civilians) died as a result of our country having dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What were their feelings in regards to our firebombing of Tokyo in which 100,000 Japanese civilians died, or our incendiary bombing of Dresden, Germany in which nearly 300,000 German civilians were torched? And then more recently, how many of you have run into friends who have anguished over the nearly one million Iraqis (at least 500,000 of whom were children) who died as a result of our twelve-year economic embargo of Iraq, or the nearly 15,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed as a result of our recent invasion of Iraq? Not to belittle the tragedy of nearly 3,000 Americans having lost their lives on 9/11, but how is it possible that our own people (many of whom refer to themselves as Christian) have such a deep concern for “those of their own kind” while simultaneously exhibiting such a pittance of empathic concern for the many more who have died at the hands of our own comrades? Unfortunately, such seems to be a rather moot point for the Christian community!
A fourth factor that has caused so many Americans to bask in the arrogance of their own ignorance is a relatively profound lack of knowledge in regards to world history. It is rather alarming how very little Americans seem to know about the history of our involvement in The Middle East. Based upon conversations with folks in my own community, it has become glaringly apparent that very few adults understand what it is that The United States could have done to cause their counterparts, those living in The Middle East, to have become so upset. I suppose that it has not occurred to many of these folks that The United States, over the past half century (ever since the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1947), has, along with Israel, a long track record of disregarding the rights of The Palestinian People, forcing them to live in a perpetual state of incarcerated poverty, that America has conspired to set up several “puppet governments” in The Middle East, that America has a history of supporting despotic Middle Eastern regimes, or that our country’s involvement in the production of Middle East oil has lead to the impoverishment of millions of Middle Eastern citizens. Again the list could go on.
The fifth ingredient has to do with PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) that was established in 1997. Its purpose was to create a plan that would guide The United States of America into the 21st century in a manner that would benefit the interests and needs of our country in relation to, or perhaps even at the expense of, those of the rest of the world. According to PNAC’s basic principals found on its official website it is stated that, “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly
to our security, our prosperity, and our principals www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.
To be sure it was a neo-conservative plan as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz. Jeb Bush, Daniel Pearl, among others were signatories of PNAC. The document clearly states that the United States not only has the right to militarily dominate the world, but even more perilously suggests that our nation has a moral responsibility to do such a thing, reasoning that what is best for our country is quite obviously best for the remainder of the world. To say the least, such sounds amazingly ethnocentric if not downright evil!
A sixth factor that seems to have prepared the way toward empire is the infamous, 9/11 (September 11, 2001) attack upon New York City and Washington D.C. At such a point in time the American public was pretty much absorbed in a domestic struggle as to what to do about a failing economy. But then came 9/11, and everything changed! The precipitous economic downturn was causing a great deal of fear and anxiety. However, after that fateful day in September, panic began to take hold. If the stock market decline was “a left hook to the stomach,” then 9/11 was, no doubt, the equivalent of having received “an absolutely crushing blow to the head” as this is the first time that the American People have been “brought to their knees” since the December 7, 1941 affair in Pearl Harbor. The result: A profound sense of insecurity that has seemingly swept the American mind. Consequently, the American public is being pressed to decide if they have the inner strength, essentially the moral courage, to move on, or are they going to allow themselves to wallow in pity? Are they going to allow themselves to become so terribly vulnerable, so distressingly dependent, so unashamedly weak that they will demand a leader (a strong man), someone to whom they can turn, someone they can trust to save them from ruin?
Seventh, the 9/11 event has seemingly moved our country into a time of great national peril, a time of immense fear, a fear of the death of much that we value; a fear that our economy is no longer under control (especially our country’s ability to control the lifeblood of our economy…. the flow of oil), a fear that we, as a country, are not as safe nor as strong as we once thought, that we are no longer in control of world events that could well plunge our country into another world war, a fear that we may have reached the end of an era……. an inability to maintain our present standard of living, à la The American Dream, and the never ending hope for a better, more stable, world. All said, as a result of 9/11, The American Mind has a received a severe blow, one that, unless we are able to find our bearings, able to “get back on our feet,” may have left us open to be manipulated by those who would very much like to use our insecurity as a launching pad to create a sense of safety that an American empire would seem to provide. Many have indicated that the need to be free is the driving force behind humanity. But I disagree. The one thing that no doubt trumps the desire for individual freedom is survival, the desire for just one more breath, the need to stay alive. As occurred in Germany in the years leading up to the beginning of World War II, the people were more than willing to shed their civil rights in exchange for a promise that they would be well taken care of by “their savior,” Adolph Hitler. A question for thought: Could something such as this be occurring in the United States?
The concluding factor that seems to be moving our country toward empire is an apparent need for someone who might be able to save us from destruction. In the 1930’s “that someone” was Adolph Hitler. However, in the year 2004, I believe “such people” to be George W. Bush and his neo-conservative companions. But why would I say such a thing? Well, in the 1930’s, the German people were looking for (perhaps even begging for) someone who would be able to “save them” from disaster? It is my opinion that The United States, because of an insecurity-driven sense of fear, has allowed itself to be propelled into a rather similar situation in that of today’s world. In attempting to link himself with that of the conservative-fundamentalist-evangelical Christian community, in wanting to convince these people that he is a true man of God, this community has come to accept George W. Bush as “their man,” the one God has pre-ordained to lead them through “this time of great trial,” the times leading up to Armageddon and the eventual return of Christ (The Rapture of The Church). Such has created conditions conducive to the rise of a neo-conservative power structure (exemplified by folks like George Bush, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others) that seems to be using the federal government as a means to a rather precarious end……. that of wanting to take possession of the American Mind, to be able to control The American People, in order that they might be used as pawns in their march toward world power.
It is the same group of despots who very methodically laid plans for that of The Homeland Security Act, Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, and the once infamous Total Information Awareness Program…… all in order to protect us, The American People, from being destroyed by our enemies. However, what most do not realize is that the enacting of such legislation has lead to the destruction of many of our hard earned constitutional rights such as the government’s right to: monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity; to secretly detain people without charges; prosecute librarians as well as others who keep records for having informed someone that their records had been checked by the federal government; monitor federal prison conversations between attorneys and their clients; deny Americans accused of crimes the right to retain a lawyer; search and even seize citizen documents without probable cause; jail an American citizen for an indefinite period of time while simultaneously denying him the right to have a trial; and to jail a citizen of this country, without the right to confront his accuser, even though he has not been officially charged with a crime (ReclaimDemocracy.org). At this point it seems pertinent to ask; who is the enemy……… “the terrorists” or the federal government itself?
Rather than having created a need to protect ourselves from such governmental intrusion, it seems that our response has been one of mindless complacency, an almost “do whatever you want to do” attitude. Such seems reminiscent of the people’s response to Adolph Hitler’s seductive invitation to the German People, “Give me your minds, and, in return, I will take care of you, I will make you safe.” So this is the question that we, as a people, must be prepared to ask ourselves: Are we willing to lay aside the fact of our hard-earned constitutional rights, the fact of our freedom, the fact of our integrity, even more, the fact of a moral responsibility to think and decide for ourselves………. or would it be better to settle for the pittance of a rather hollow Bush-Cheney promise that “the government” will take care of us, that they, just like some kind of gods, will protect us from being destroyed by our enemies……… A question not to be taken lightly!
So what does the foregoing mean? What does it mean that we have become so ethnocentrically arrogant, so open to the use of violence, so religiously crippled, so pervasively ignorant of our impact upon the world, so terribly frightened and insecure? Such I believe means that we, as a people, have allowed ourselves to have been set up, to have become rather ripe for the picking, to have become very ready and extremely well-prepared to be led by those in power (The Bush-Cheney Administration) into a jack-booted, goose-stepped march toward world empire, a determined attempt by our own country to dominate and to eventually rule the world.
But how could such a thing have happened? Much like the proverbial ostrich that stuck its head into the sand in order not to contend with reality, the American populace seems to have done much the same. Given such an arrogant ethnocentric orientation, we have come to believe that we are somehow superior to those of other nations. Through generations of conquest and appropriation we have been led to believe that our own understanding of world history, our interpretation of world events, our own rendering of our country’s involvement in The Middle East is The Truth, the one, and only, correct explanation of what has occurred. And just imagine…… all of this in light of a rather profound degree of ignorance regarding what has really gone on in relation to our country’s continued interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Given such an incredibly outrageous belief in our superiority, mired as it is in a sea of historical ignorance, it is no wonder that we, as a people, have become a living example of “the arrogance of ignorance.”
However, “such arrogance” within the context of an extremely dangerous post 9/11 world is creating a real mess, something akin to the arrogance of an incendiary being thrown on an already raging fire. So what might such an arrogant group of folks, with such a limited and distorted view of the world, do if confronted by an external threat to their existence vis-à-vis a terrorist attack? As a psychologist, it would seem a typical response for such a people to engage in an activity that would tend to ensure their image of strength while simultaneously allowing them to deny, to themselves as well as others, the fact of their own fear. Psychologists have a name for such a maneuver, a defense mechanism referred to as reaction formation, the forming of an outer antipodal reaction (power, virility, and strength) in order to cover up what is bothering one from within (fear). Of course, in such a case, it is altogether natural for the outer response (a show of strength and power) to become rather exaggerated because of, and in order to cover up (from oneself as well as others), the immensity of the fear having to be held within. Much like what an insecure bully might do if one were to call his bluff. However, what makes such a defensive maneuver so terribly dangerous is the fact of how exaggerated the response might become. As in the case of a bully, his fear, along with a need to protect “an image of strength,” would compel him not to simply strike his enemy, but rather to strike his enemy “very, very hard!” Perhaps an explanation for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld’s display of “Shock and Awe” during our most recent invasion of Iraq?
There is another part to the puzzle. As in the case of the bully, wouldn’t it “be nice” if there was a way that he could somehow blame his anger on the one he had just beaten up. And again, there is a defense mechanism that would allow one to do such a thing. It is called projection, the act of attributing undesirable behavior (such as aggression) to another as if the other was the one who had engaged in the angry behavior. Projection enables one (without his own awareness of course) to do something to another individual (like making him mad) in order that he might be able to blame (that is to project) his anger on the other individual. Such a maneuver, along with reaction formation, would rather conveniently enable an individual to project his previously unacknowledged fear-induced anger upon another while allowing him to conveniently reason that it was the other’s fault. Thus, it would seem a rather easy thing for The American People, out of a fear-induced sense of rage, to have decided to crush those who they deemed to be their enemy (the evil Islamic infidels of The Middle East) even though, but more importantly especially because, of an attempt to deny the fact that it was them (their own government’s foreign intervention into The Middle East) that, no doubt, caused their enemies to be so bitterly angry and “pissed off” in the first place.
No wonder the rest of the world seems to be so very mad at us. They can’t seem to understand why we have done the things we have chosen to do. They can’t seem to figure us out. To them, nothing we have done seems to make any sense. And no wonder……… because, you see, The American People can’t even figure themselves out. In fact, I believe that The American People don’t want to figure themselves out. For if they did……… if they were really able to understand why they have chosen to do some of the things they have done, I believe they would have little choice but to feel very, very ashamed!
Paralleling such self-deception has been an ongoing program of deliberate disinformation orchestrated and administered by the Bush-Cheney administration, an intentional effort to willfully deceive The American People. Part and parcel of such an attempt has been to distort “the truth” of what is really going on, and it seems that there are essentially two ways they have chosen to do such a thing; premeditated “sins of omission” (such as no attempt to inform The American Populace concerning our 50 year history of ignominious intervention into Middle Eastern affairs) as well as premeditated “sins of commission” (such as a determined efforts to distort the truth regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and the reality of what has, in fact, been going on in Iraq). Consequently, it is no wonder that so many of The American people seem to be “in the dark” as the government’s planned-out program of political disinformation has no doubt served to reinforce the American public’s desire not to know!
Of course, such a state of mass nescience is a good thing (in fact a very good thing) if one would like to have “a blank slate” on which to write! And that is exactly what those of The Bush-Cheney Administration would like to have; a relatively ignorant, malleable and docilely receptive populace on which they might be able to foist their plans for empire; a loyal group of followers who they can count on to get behind them and thus be willing to support their every attempt to build an empire of power. One that will allow them, the neo-conservative power structure of our country, to take over and to eventually be able to rule the world!
Now, such a plan to rule the world has been clearly acknowledged by PNAC (Project For The New American Century), and it is such that has undoubtedly directed nearly everything that The Bush-Cheney Administration has done since 9/11. Perhaps even more damaging is the so-called “Bush Doctrine,” documented in his (Bush’s) own “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” which clearly delineates his commitment to military preemption…….. a belief that The United States has the right to launch a military attack upon anyone that merely threatens our assumed right to dominate the world. As is stated in the document; “The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions……. even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”.
Now, at this point one might be inclined to say that it is ludicrous to say that the United States did not have a right to attack the country of Iraq. Well, actually not. The United States may have had the right to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, the reasoning for an attack upon Iraq was all wrong! First of all, the President’s declaration that the war was waged in order to establish freedom and democracy in Iraq and throughout The Middle East is patently false. Secondly, even though the stated reasons for attacking Iraq have been invalidated by several government studies, the likelihood is that the United States attacked Iraq in order to constitute a “puppet government,” in order to establish a geo-political presence in The Middle East by constructing military bases in Iraq, and in order to have access to Iraq’s reservoir of oil. Thirdly, our country brazenly chose to ignore the fact that our constant meddling in Middle East affairs for the past 50 years undoubtedly played a part in provoking Middle East anger that eventually led to the terrorists’ September 11, 2001 attack upon our nation.
Yes, the terrorist attack upon our country was obviously an act of evil! That cannot be denied. However, our previous interventions into The Middle East were every bit as bad! Neither side, the terrorists or that of our own country, has a right to justify an attack upon the other by saying, “We had no choice, but to attack in return,” because two evils a right does not make! There are two things that The United States does not seem to understand. First, as of 9/11 we really had it made. In the days following the attack we had the world in the palm of our hand! For the first time in years, the whole world felt sorry for us……. “the rich kids on the block.” Not an easy thing to pull off, but thanks to what the terrorists did, the whole world was once again on our side. However, after having chosen to attack Iraq, those “chips of gratitude” were instantly used up in Rumsfeld’s rather pitiful display of “Shock and Awe.” From that point on the world’s hate for us has risen in spectacular fashion.
The second thing that our country has never seemed to understand is the fact that violence is not a cure for itself. Increased violence only inflames! History proves that to be the case. The true antidote for violence is love. As a so-called Christian nation we should know such a thing. But apparently we do not. The teachings of Jesus in The New Testament make it clear that we should love not only God and our neighbor, but that of our enemy as well. But we do not, since such would seem so terribly impractical, if not downright stupid! The world (along with George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld) preaches peace through strength, and strength is generally defined as one’s ability to inflict devastative damage on the other. But, there is another kind of strength, one that most countries seem to know little about; the strength that comes from love. And what if love were considered to be a function of empathy, a willingness to love our enemy, an honest desire to understand him, a morally-driven inclination to place ourselves into the shoes of our enemy, an honest interest in wanting to know what it would be like to be him, a sincere desire to understand what it would be like if I were the one who was forced to contend with “the pain of my own blows?” Again, it was Christ who admonished that we should be willing “to take the beam out of our own eye before attempting to cast the speck from our enemy’s eye.” In other words, wouldn’t it be interesting to see what would happen if love were to prevail, if each country was willing to “fess up” to its own misdeeds rather than attempting to dissimulate blame on the other. I maintain that peace is predicated on truth (an honest search for it), and then, and only then, can love (a true respect for the other) become a possibility. In my opinion, peace is possible only when one is willing to lay aside his own particular interests, his own particular version of how things are or how they ought to be in order to pursue that of “a much greater truth,” that which is best for each regardless of what either of the two desire (the greater truth of peace and justice in the world). However, until such a point is reached nations will rail against one another and there will be never be peace, at least not as long as homo sapiens inhabit this planet!
It is one thing for a nation to proclaim its greatness in the presence of definitive evidence. However, when such a nation, as our own, The United States of America, proclaims its greatness due to the fact that it has become the richest nation in the history of the world, that it has determined that it knows what is best for the rest of the world and that it has the military might, and thus the assumed right, to force any and all of our demands upon the world………. we are heading for a heap of trouble!
If I have learned anything it is the fact that “pride always cometh before the fall.” It happened in Greece and then again in Rome. The consequences were similar for that of the French Empire as well as that of England. Then there was Hitler’s Germany and that of the Russian Empire. Eventually, everyone of these nations, each one an aspiring empire, wanting to rule the world, folded like a house of cards giving way to the enormous weight of the ignorance of its own rather arrogant pride.
Consequently, I think that it is incumbent that we, as a people, ask ourselves if we might not be moving in such a direction, if we might not be moving in a direction similar to that of other nations that aspired toward that of world empire. Considering the pronouncements in PNAC that clearly indicate our country’s desire to become the world’s next great empire along with that of The President’s policy of military preemption, a declared willingness to preemptively destroy anyone who is willing to challenge our authority to rule the world, the answer should be clear.
I suggest that there is only one thing that stands between what seems to be a rather mind-numbingly subservient willingness to surrender our civil rights to those in power, only one thing that could clear the way for an unimpeded grab for power, an outright takeover of our country by the neo-conservative power structure, and that is………….. a cataclysmic event such as a major chemical and/or nuclear attack by “the terrorists.” Such, I believe, would be sufficient to frighten, sufficient to create the insecurity necessary for the masses to relinquish their right, even worse their moral responsibility, to run the country. Such a crisis might perhaps be enough for the people of our country to go on ahead and give “the green light” to the neo-conservative power structure to extend their efforts to establish a world empire……. and, of course, to do such a thing all in order to protect us from our enemies! However, there is little doubt that such a move would destabilize and thus inflame the world to the point that war, perhaps even an all out nuclear war, would become an inevitability!
I suggest that we, as Americans, had better think about such matters before it is too late. Think about what the world might perhaps be like if we abnegate our personal as well as collective responsibility to think and choose for ourselves by allowing “those in power” to do the thinking and choosing for us. We must remember that “those people in Washington” are not Gods, rather they are fallible human beings just like you and me…… people who, if we allow the arrogance of their ignorance to take charge we may well be led into the vast abyss of a third world war. We, as a citizenry, have a morally bound duty to demand that those who we have given the power to rule in our stead do so in a way that might serve the best interests of humanity, rather than the mere interests of any disparate nation or that of a conglomerate of multinational corporations. It is time that we, as citizens, stand up and take charge of our nation and do so in a manner that might enable our country to become a harbinger of peace, love, and justice; a beacon of light, an example for the rest of the world to follow.
Doug Soderstrom Ph.D. is a Psychologist
Email: dougsod@wcjc.edu
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-soderstrom290405.htm
From AxisofLogic.com
United States
Arrogant Nation
By Doug Soderstrom
Apr 30, 2005, 00:24
The arrogance of ignorance, a profoundly dangerous and ill-informed presumption that one’s own people are better (wiser, morally and spiritually ascendant, and more capable) than others, seems rather well entrenched within the American populace. It is such that seems to have created a social-political environment that continues to encourage the American effort to build a World Empire. All of the elements are there, in fact, it seems that at this very moment, at the very dawn of the third millennium, the foundation has been laid. The people have been primed, the leadership (The Bush-Cheney Administration) is in place, and The Great American War Machine is ready to take action.
But how did things get to such a point? What was it that allowed our country to have become so arrogant? Was it our taming of The West? Was it our near annihilation of The American Indian, the original inhabitants of this country? Was it our ability to have been so successful in an enslavement of The African American people? Was it our capacity to have economically ravaged Central America and The Caribbean? Was it our capacity for technological development? How about our having bombed Viet Nam and Cambodia into near stone-age oblivion? Then there was our war with Iraq in 1991, and the fact that we were able to kill 350 Iraqis for every American soldier who died. And what about our ability to have been so good at polluting the earth’s atmosphere setting the stage for a rather tragic warming of the world? Or the fact that four percent of the world’s population has been so successfully able to have consumed 35% of the world’s wealth? And what about the fact that we, no doubt, have the greatest military force in the history of the world, one that could destroy the entirety of the human race several times over? And what about our willingness to have thumbed our noses at nearly every institutional effort to resolve some of the world’s most grave problems (The World Court, The Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change, The Anti-Ballistic Treaty with Russia, The 2001 UN Conference on Racism, as well as other international attempts to resolve pending world problems). And finally, we can bask in the glory of having been so successful in bringing peace, prosperity and security to a democratic Iraq!
So given “such a fine history”…….. what is it about The American Citizen, on the eve of another Bush-Cheney four-year administrative reign, that qualifies him to be a candidate for such a grand design? What is it that seems to have paved the way toward empire? What is it about our own people that have made them so absolutely vulnerable, so inordinately willing to be led down the primrose path of a mad dash toward the building of a worldwide empire?
I would like to suggest that there are eight factors that have moved the American public to such a point. The first of which is an inclination toward ethnocentrism. Americans seem to be wracked with ethnocentric bias, a rather pride-filled tendency to reject anything that is not American, an attitude that leads our people to evaluate that which is American as better than that which is not of American origin. For example, it is common for Americans to believe that capitalism, the free enterprise system, is inherently better (more God-inspired) than any other economic arrangement, especially that of socialism which is, by many, considered to be evil and perhaps even devil-inspired. Also rather endemic is the presumption that Christianity is the one and only “right religion,” the only theological system that will enable an adherent to enter “the pearly gates” of Heaven, condemning all other religions to the category of false faiths that necessarily lead to Hell. And, of course, given our country’s current 9/11-oriented fear of another attack by “the terrorists,” the converse of such a proposition is a resolute hatred of The Moslem Faith as well as those of The Middle East who tend to follow its precepts. Representatives of the conservative-fundamentalist Christian community such as Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have pretty well summed up these folks feelings.
A second factor that seems to have created conditions conducive to “the empire-rization” of our country is the undeniability of how we, as a nation, have apparently normalized the fact of violence, how we have essentially created a “culture of violence” as a more or less accepted way of life in America. I suggest that hidden within the American Mind is a rather peculiar attachment or, perhaps one could say, a kind of fondness for that of violence….. almost to the point that anyone who objects to the use of violence may be considered as either weak, impractical, Un-American, or perhaps even un-Godly. Such a willingness to conveniently disregard, or perhaps even to deny, what used to be the quintessential fact of the Christian faith (that we should not do unto others that which we would not have them do unto us) seems rather commonplace in “such a religious country” as that of America. As evidence for the normalization of (and likely the desensitization towards) violence in our country I offer the following: The fact that The United States is the only developed country in the world that allows the use of capital punishment, and especially that of a willingness to execute children under 18 years of age (sometimes as young as 14 years of age), a willingness to use physical punishment (spanking) as a fundamental aspect of parental discipline, our country’s unwillingness to ban the use of handguns, the legalization of corporate practices that destroy the environment, the bastardization of the democratic nature of our union by allowing those with money to buy off those in the federal government, a general glamorization of violence in the media, the historical use of violence against minority groups (i.e. Native Indian Americans, Afro-Americans, women, homosexuals etc.), the increasing use of litigation as a form of violence, the legitimized use of violence in the advertising industry……... the tobacco company’s efforts to advertise their products to children (in order to replace those they have already killed) along with a willingness to allow themselves to be used as a way of destroying political careers, the acceptance of violence as an essential aspect of the video game industry, an historical unwillingness for schools to deal with the problem of bullying, the belief that war is an acceptable way to deal with international conflict, a general feeling that protest against war (standing up for peace) is an Un-American activity, the tendency to euphemize the killing of innocent civilians (parents, children, and friends) by referring to them as “collateral damage,” a rather confabulated attempt to condone impersonalized violence (killing people from afar…… as when people are slaughtered by missiles having been shot from hundreds of miles away), a rather fatuous belief that “might is right” (i.e. a belief that God has the “almighty right” to send anyone He wants to Hell, The Protestant Ethic’s “damning” of those who are poor, an extraordinary belief that our country along with its military power has been blessed by God), and a tendency for “the conservative-fundamentalist Christian community” to condone violence as an essential religious value (as found in The Old Testament of The Holy Bible). Again the list could go on but I think the point has been made.
Third, there seems to be a rather troubling tradition of spiritual duplicity, a feigned sense of religious piety that has taken hold of The American People. An appalling capacity for Americans to disregard the plight of others, an absence of compassion (empathic concern) for those less fortunate than ourselves, an essential unwillingness for the American people to put themselves into the place of others who, by any objective standard, have faired far less well than those in our own nation. Based upon conversations in my classroom as well as with others “on the street,” it appears to me that Americans are severely limited in their capacity “to place themselves into the shoes of others.” For those of you who are older think about how most Americans felt when they discovered that nearly a quarter of a million Japanese (nearly all of them civilians) died as a result of our country having dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What were their feelings in regards to our firebombing of Tokyo in which 100,000 Japanese civilians died, or our incendiary bombing of Dresden, Germany in which nearly 300,000 German civilians were torched? And then more recently, how many of you have run into friends who have anguished over the nearly one million Iraqis (at least 500,000 of whom were children) who died as a result of our twelve-year economic embargo of Iraq, or the nearly 15,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed as a result of our recent invasion of Iraq? Not to belittle the tragedy of nearly 3,000 Americans having lost their lives on 9/11, but how is it possible that our own people (many of whom refer to themselves as Christian) have such a deep concern for “those of their own kind” while simultaneously exhibiting such a pittance of empathic concern for the many more who have died at the hands of our own comrades? Unfortunately, such seems to be a rather moot point for the Christian community!
A fourth factor that has caused so many Americans to bask in the arrogance of their own ignorance is a relatively profound lack of knowledge in regards to world history. It is rather alarming how very little Americans seem to know about the history of our involvement in The Middle East. Based upon conversations with folks in my own community, it has become glaringly apparent that very few adults understand what it is that The United States could have done to cause their counterparts, those living in The Middle East, to have become so upset. I suppose that it has not occurred to many of these folks that The United States, over the past half century (ever since the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1947), has, along with Israel, a long track record of disregarding the rights of The Palestinian People, forcing them to live in a perpetual state of incarcerated poverty, that America has conspired to set up several “puppet governments” in The Middle East, that America has a history of supporting despotic Middle Eastern regimes, or that our country’s involvement in the production of Middle East oil has lead to the impoverishment of millions of Middle Eastern citizens. Again the list could go on.
The fifth ingredient has to do with PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) that was established in 1997. Its purpose was to create a plan that would guide The United States of America into the 21st century in a manner that would benefit the interests and needs of our country in relation to, or perhaps even at the expense of, those of the rest of the world. According to PNAC’s basic principals found on its official website it is stated that, “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly
to our security, our prosperity, and our principals www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
To be sure it was a neo-conservative plan as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz. Jeb Bush, Daniel Pearl, among others were signatories of PNAC. The document clearly states that the United States not only has the right to militarily dominate the world, but even more perilously suggests that our nation has a moral responsibility to do such a thing, reasoning that what is best for our country is quite obviously best for the remainder of the world. To say the least, such sounds amazingly ethnocentric if not downright evil!
A sixth factor that seems to have prepared the way toward empire is the infamous, 9/11 (September 11, 2001) attack upon New York City and Washington D.C. At such a point in time the American public was pretty much absorbed in a domestic struggle as to what to do about a failing economy. But then came 9/11, and everything changed! The precipitous economic downturn was causing a great deal of fear and anxiety. However, after that fateful day in September, panic began to take hold. If the stock market decline was “a left hook to the stomach,” then 9/11 was, no doubt, the equivalent of having received “an absolutely crushing blow to the head” as this is the first time that the American People have been “brought to their knees” since the December 7, 1941 affair in Pearl Harbor. The result: A profound sense of insecurity that has seemingly swept the American mind. Consequently, the American public is being pressed to decide if they have the inner strength, essentially the moral courage, to move on, or are they going to allow themselves to wallow in pity? Are they going to allow themselves to become so terribly vulnerable, so distressingly dependent, so unashamedly weak that they will demand a leader (a strong man), someone to whom they can turn, someone they can trust to save them from ruin?
Seventh, the 9/11 event has seemingly moved our country into a time of great national peril, a time of immense fear, a fear of the death of much that we value; a fear that our economy is no longer under control (especially our country’s ability to control the lifeblood of our economy…. the flow of oil), a fear that we, as a country, are not as safe nor as strong as we once thought, that we are no longer in control of world events that could well plunge our country into another world war, a fear that we may have reached the end of an era……. an inability to maintain our present standard of living, à la The American Dream, and the never ending hope for a better, more stable, world. All said, as a result of 9/11, The American Mind has a received a severe blow, one that, unless we are able to find our bearings, able to “get back on our feet,” may have left us open to be manipulated by those who would very much like to use our insecurity as a launching pad to create a sense of safety that an American empire would seem to provide. Many have indicated that the need to be free is the driving force behind humanity. But I disagree. The one thing that no doubt trumps the desire for individual freedom is survival, the desire for just one more breath, the need to stay alive. As occurred in Germany in the years leading up to the beginning of World War II, the people were more than willing to shed their civil rights in exchange for a promise that they would be well taken care of by “their savior,” Adolph Hitler. A question for thought: Could something such as this be occurring in the United States?
The concluding factor that seems to be moving our country toward empire is an apparent need for someone who might be able to save us from destruction. In the 1930’s “that someone” was Adolph Hitler. However, in the year 2004, I believe “such people” to be George W. Bush and his neo-conservative companions. But why would I say such a thing? Well, in the 1930’s, the German people were looking for (perhaps even begging for) someone who would be able to “save them” from disaster? It is my opinion that The United States, because of an insecurity-driven sense of fear, has allowed itself to be propelled into a rather similar situation in that of today’s world. In attempting to link himself with that of the conservative-fundamentalist-evangelical Christian community, in wanting to convince these people that he is a true man of God, this community has come to accept George W. Bush as “their man,” the one God has pre-ordained to lead them through “this time of great trial,” the times leading up to Armageddon and the eventual return of Christ (The Rapture of The Church). Such has created conditions conducive to the rise of a neo-conservative power structure (exemplified by folks like George Bush, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others) that seems to be using the federal government as a means to a rather precarious end……. that of wanting to take possession of the American Mind, to be able to control The American People, in order that they might be used as pawns in their march toward world power.
It is the same group of despots who very methodically laid plans for that of The Homeland Security Act, Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, and the once infamous Total Information Awareness Program…… all in order to protect us, The American People, from being destroyed by our enemies. However, what most do not realize is that the enacting of such legislation has lead to the destruction of many of our hard earned constitutional rights such as the government’s right to: monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity; to secretly detain people without charges; prosecute librarians as well as others who keep records for having informed someone that their records had been checked by the federal government; monitor federal prison conversations between attorneys and their clients; deny Americans accused of crimes the right to retain a lawyer; search and even seize citizen documents without probable cause; jail an American citizen for an indefinite period of time while simultaneously denying him the right to have a trial; and to jail a citizen of this country, without the right to confront his accuser, even though he has not been officially charged with a crime (ReclaimDemocracy.org). At this point it seems pertinent to ask; who is the enemy……… “the terrorists” or the federal government itself?
Rather than having created a need to protect ourselves from such governmental intrusion, it seems that our response has been one of mindless complacency, an almost “do whatever you want to do” attitude. Such seems reminiscent of the people’s response to Adolph Hitler’s seductive invitation to the German People, “Give me your minds, and, in return, I will take care of you, I will make you safe.” So this is the question that we, as a people, must be prepared to ask ourselves: Are we willing to lay aside the fact of our hard-earned constitutional rights, the fact of our freedom, the fact of our integrity, even more, the fact of a moral responsibility to think and decide for ourselves………. or would it be better to settle for the pittance of a rather hollow Bush-Cheney promise that “the government” will take care of us, that they, just like some kind of gods, will protect us from being destroyed by our enemies……… A question not to be taken lightly!
So what does the foregoing mean? What does it mean that we have become so ethnocentrically arrogant, so open to the use of violence, so religiously crippled, so pervasively ignorant of our impact upon the world, so terribly frightened and insecure? Such I believe means that we, as a people, have allowed ourselves to have been set up, to have become rather ripe for the picking, to have become very ready and extremely well-prepared to be led by those in power (The Bush-Cheney Administration) into a jack-booted, goose-stepped march toward world empire, a determined attempt by our own country to dominate and to eventually rule the world.
But how could such a thing have happened? Much like the proverbial ostrich that stuck its head into the sand in order not to contend with reality, the American populace seems to have done much the same. Given such an arrogant ethnocentric orientation, we have come to believe that we are somehow superior to those of other nations. Through generations of conquest and appropriation we have been led to believe that our own understanding of world history, our interpretation of world events, our own rendering of our country’s involvement in The Middle East is The Truth, the one, and only, correct explanation of what has occurred. And just imagine…… all of this in light of a rather profound degree of ignorance regarding what has really gone on in relation to our country’s continued interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Given such an incredibly outrageous belief in our superiority, mired as it is in a sea of historical ignorance, it is no wonder that we, as a people, have become a living example of “the arrogance of ignorance.”
However, “such arrogance” within the context of an extremely dangerous post 9/11 world is creating a real mess, something akin to the arrogance of an incendiary being thrown on an already raging fire. So what might such an arrogant group of folks, with such a limited and distorted view of the world, do if confronted by an external threat to their existence vis-à-vis a terrorist attack? As a psychologist, it would seem a typical response for such a people to engage in an activity that would tend to ensure their image of strength while simultaneously allowing them to deny, to themselves as well as others, the fact of their own fear. Psychologists have a name for such a maneuver, a defense mechanism referred to as reaction formation, the forming of an outer antipodal reaction (power, virility, and strength) in order to cover up what is bothering one from within (fear). Of course, in such a case, it is altogether natural for the outer response (a show of strength and power) to become rather exaggerated because of, and in order to cover up (from oneself as well as others), the immensity of the fear having to be held within. Much like what an insecure bully might do if one were to call his bluff. However, what makes such a defensive maneuver so terribly dangerous is the fact of how exaggerated the response might become. As in the case of a bully, his fear, along with a need to protect “an image of strength,” would compel him not to simply strike his enemy, but rather to strike his enemy “very, very hard!” Perhaps an explanation for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld’s display of “Shock and Awe” during our most recent invasion of Iraq?
There is another part to the puzzle. As in the case of the bully, wouldn’t it “be nice” if there was a way that he could somehow blame his anger on the one he had just beaten up. And again, there is a defense mechanism that would allow one to do such a thing. It is called projection, the act of attributing undesirable behavior (such as aggression) to another as if the other was the one who had engaged in the angry behavior. Projection enables one (without his own awareness of course) to do something to another individual (like making him mad) in order that he might be able to blame (that is to project) his anger on the other individual. Such a maneuver, along with reaction formation, would rather conveniently enable an individual to project his previously unacknowledged fear-induced anger upon another while allowing him to conveniently reason that it was the other’s fault. Thus, it would seem a rather easy thing for The American People, out of a fear-induced sense of rage, to have decided to crush those who they deemed to be their enemy (the evil Islamic infidels of The Middle East) even though, but more importantly especially because, of an attempt to deny the fact that it was them (their own government’s foreign intervention into The Middle East) that, no doubt, caused their enemies to be so bitterly angry and “pissed off” in the first place.
No wonder the rest of the world seems to be so very mad at us. They can’t seem to understand why we have done the things we have chosen to do. They can’t seem to figure us out. To them, nothing we have done seems to make any sense. And no wonder……… because, you see, The American People can’t even figure themselves out. In fact, I believe that The American People don’t want to figure themselves out. For if they did……… if they were really able to understand why they have chosen to do some of the things they have done, I believe they would have little choice but to feel very, very ashamed!
Paralleling such self-deception has been an ongoing program of deliberate disinformation orchestrated and administered by the Bush-Cheney administration, an intentional effort to willfully deceive The American People. Part and parcel of such an attempt has been to distort “the truth” of what is really going on, and it seems that there are essentially two ways they have chosen to do such a thing; premeditated “sins of omission” (such as no attempt to inform The American Populace concerning our 50 year history of ignominious intervention into Middle Eastern affairs) as well as premeditated “sins of commission” (such as a determined efforts to distort the truth regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and the reality of what has, in fact, been going on in Iraq). Consequently, it is no wonder that so many of The American people seem to be “in the dark” as the government’s planned-out program of political disinformation has no doubt served to reinforce the American public’s desire not to know!
Of course, such a state of mass nescience is a good thing (in fact a very good thing) if one would like to have “a blank slate” on which to write! And that is exactly what those of The Bush-Cheney Administration would like to have; a relatively ignorant, malleable and docilely receptive populace on which they might be able to foist their plans for empire; a loyal group of followers who they can count on to get behind them and thus be willing to support their every attempt to build an empire of power. One that will allow them, the neo-conservative power structure of our country, to take over and to eventually be able to rule the world!
Now, such a plan to rule the world has been clearly acknowledged by PNAC (Project For The New American Century), and it is such that has undoubtedly directed nearly everything that The Bush-Cheney Administration has done since 9/11. Perhaps even more damaging is the so-called “Bush Doctrine,” documented in his (Bush’s) own “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” which clearly delineates his commitment to military preemption…….. a belief that The United States has the right to launch a military attack upon anyone that merely threatens our assumed right to dominate the world. As is stated in the document; “The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions……. even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”
Now, at this point one might be inclined to say that it is ludicrous to say that the United States did not have a right to attack the country of Iraq. Well, actually not. The United States may have had the right to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, the reasoning for an attack upon Iraq was all wrong! First of all, the President’s declaration that the war was waged in order to establish freedom and democracy in Iraq and throughout The Middle East is patently false. Secondly, even though the stated reasons for attacking Iraq have been invalidated by several government studies, the likelihood is that the United States attacked Iraq in order to constitute a “puppet government,” in order to establish a geo-political presence in The Middle East by constructing military bases in Iraq, and in order to have access to Iraq’s reservoir of oil. Thirdly, our country brazenly chose to ignore the fact that our constant meddling in Middle East affairs for the past 50 years undoubtedly played a part in provoking Middle East anger that eventually led to the terrorists’ September 11, 2001 attack upon our nation.
Yes, the terrorist attack upon our country was obviously an act of evil! That cannot be denied. However, our previous interventions into The Middle East were every bit as bad! Neither side, the terrorists or that of our own country, has a right to justify an attack upon the other by saying, “We had no choice, but to attack in return,” because two evils a right does not make! There are two things that The United States does not seem to understand. First, as of 9/11 we really had it made. In the days following the attack we had the world in the palm of our hand! For the first time in years, the whole world felt sorry for us……. “the rich kids on the block.” Not an easy thing to pull off, but thanks to what the terrorists did, the whole world was once again on our side. However, after having chosen to attack Iraq, those “chips of gratitude” were instantly used up in Rumsfeld’s rather pitiful display of “Shock and Awe.” From that point on the world’s hate for us has risen in spectacular fashion.
The second thing that our country has never seemed to understand is the fact that violence is not a cure for itself. Increased violence only inflames! History proves that to be the case. The true antidote for violence is love. As a so-called Christian nation we should know such a thing. But apparently we do not. The teachings of Jesus in The New Testament make it clear that we should love not only God and our neighbor, but that of our enemy as well. But we do not, since such would seem so terribly impractical, if not downright stupid! The world (along with George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld) preaches peace through strength, and strength is generally defined as one’s ability to inflict devastative damage on the other. But, there is another kind of strength, one that most countries seem to know little about; the strength that comes from love. And what if love were considered to be a function of empathy, a willingness to love our enemy, an honest desire to understand him, a morally-driven inclination to place ourselves into the shoes of our enemy, an honest interest in wanting to know what it would be like to be him, a sincere desire to understand what it would be like if I were the one who was forced to contend with “the pain of my own blows?” Again, it was Christ who admonished that we should be willing “to take the beam out of our own eye before attempting to cast the speck from our enemy’s eye.” In other words, wouldn’t it be interesting to see what would happen if love were to prevail, if each country was willing to “fess up” to its own misdeeds rather than attempting to dissimulate blame on the other. I maintain that peace is predicated on truth (an honest search for it), and then, and only then, can love (a true respect for the other) become a possibility. In my opinion, peace is possible only when one is willing to lay aside his own particular interests, his own particular version of how things are or how they ought to be in order to pursue that of “a much greater truth,” that which is best for each regardless of what either of the two desire (the greater truth of peace and justice in the world). However, until such a point is reached nations will rail against one another and there will be never be peace, at least not as long as homo sapiens inhabit this planet!
It is one thing for a nation to proclaim its greatness in the presence of definitive evidence. However, when such a nation, as our own, The United States of America, proclaims its greatness due to the fact that it has become the richest nation in the history of the world, that it has determined that it knows what is best for the rest of the world and that it has the military might, and thus the assumed right, to force any and all of our demands upon the world………. we are heading for a heap of trouble!
If I have learned anything it is the fact that “pride always cometh before the fall.” It happened in Greece and then again in Rome. The consequences were similar for that of the French Empire as well as that of England. Then there was Hitler’s Germany and that of the Russian Empire. Eventually, everyone of these nations, each one an aspiring empire, wanting to rule the world, folded like a house of cards giving way to the enormous weight of the ignorance of its own rather arrogant pride.
Consequently, I think that it is incumbent that we, as a people, ask ourselves if we might not be moving in such a direction, if we might not be moving in a direction similar to that of other nations that aspired toward that of world empire. Considering the pronouncements in PNAC that clearly indicate our country’s desire to become the world’s next great empire along with that of The President’s policy of military preemption, a declared willingness to preemptively destroy anyone who is willing to challenge our authority to rule the world, the answer should be clear.
I suggest that there is only one thing that stands between what seems to be a rather mind-numbingly subservient willingness to surrender our civil rights to those in power, only one thing that could clear the way for an unimpeded grab for power, an outright takeover of our country by the neo-conservative power structure, and that is………….. a cataclysmic event such as a major chemical and/or nuclear attack by “the terrorists.” Such, I believe, would be sufficient to frighten, sufficient to create the insecurity necessary for the masses to relinquish their right, even worse their moral responsibility, to run the country. Such a crisis might perhaps be enough for the people of our country to go on ahead and give “the green light” to the neo-conservative power structure to extend their efforts to establish a world empire……. and, of course, to do such a thing all in order to protect us from our enemies! However, there is little doubt that such a move would destabilize and thus inflame the world to the point that war, perhaps even an all out nuclear war, would become an inevitability!
I suggest that we, as Americans, had better think about such matters before it is too late. Think about what the world might perhaps be like if we abnegate our personal as well as collective responsibility to think and choose for ourselves by allowing “those in power” to do the thinking and choosing for us. We must remember that “those people in Washington” are not Gods, rather they are fallible human beings just like you and me…… people who, if we allow the arrogance of their ignorance to take charge we may well be led into the vast abyss of a third world war. We, as a citizenry, have a morally bound duty to demand that those who we have given the power to rule in our stead do so in a way that might serve the best interests of humanity, rather than the mere interests of any disparate nation or that of a conglomerate of multinational corporations. It is time that we, as citizens, stand up and take charge of our nation and do so in a manner that might enable our country to become a harbinger of peace, love, and justice; a beacon of light, an example for the rest of the world to follow.
Doug Soderstrom Ph.D. is a Psychologist
Email: dougsod@wcjc.edu
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-soderstrom290405.htm
BG: Most Clueless Generation.. maybe. most Evil Empire Building Generation ... it seems so, but here is Kristof in NYT with mindless completely irrelevant self-loathing.
s a baby boomer myself, I can be blunt: We boomers won't be remembered as the "Greatest Generation." Rather, we'll be scorned as the "Greediest Generation." Our influence has been huge. When boomer blood raged with hormones, we staged the sexual revolution and popularized the Pill. Now, with those hormones fading, we've popularized Viagra. As we've aged, age discrimination has become a basis for lawsuits, and the most litigated right has become the right to die. The hot issue of the moment is Social Security, and the newest entitlement program is a prescription drug benefit for the elderly. Our slogan has gone from "free love" to "free blood pressure medicine." But I fear that we'll be remembered mostly for grabbing resources for ourselves, in such a way that the big losers will be America's children. Traditionally in America, the people most likely to be poor were the elderly. As recently as 1966, for example, 29 percent of Americans over 65 were below the poverty line, compared with only 18 percent of American children. But that same year, Medicare took effect to provide medical care for the elderly, and Social Security adjustments steadily reduced poverty among them. We were suitably embarrassed that old people were eating cat food or scavenging garbage cans for food, so we reallocated resources to the elderly. As of 2003, the share of elderly below the poverty line had fallen by two-thirds to 10 percent - representing a huge national success. Retirement in America is no longer feared as a time of destitution, but anticipated as a time of comfort and leisure. On the other hand, the proportion of children below the poverty line is still 18 percent, the same as it was in 1966. And while almost all the elderly now have health insurance under Medicare, about 29 percent of children had no health insurance at all at some point in the last 12 months. One measure of how children have tumbled as a priority in America is that in 1960 we ranked 12th in infant mortality among nations in the world, while now 40 nations have infant mortality rates better than ours or equal to it. We've also lost ground in child vaccinations: the United States now ranks 84th in the world for measles immunizations and 89th for polio. With boomers about to retire, I'm afraid that national priorities will be focused even more powerfully on the elderly rather than the young - because it's the elderly who wield political clout. "The elderly are retired, and it's easier to get them to go to rallies or write their congresspeople," notes Heather Boushey of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "Children can't vote, don't give money and have no power, and neither do their parents." We boomers are also preying on children in a more insidious way: We're running up their debts, both by creating new entitlement programs and by running budget deficits today. Laurence Kotlikoff, an economist and fiscal expert who with Scott Burns wrote the excellent and scary book "The Coming Generational Storm," calls this "fiscal child abuse." The book says that the Treasury Department commissioned a study by two economists of the United States' long-term liabilities, for inclusion in the 2004 federal budget. The study found that the government faces a present value "fiscal gap" - the excess of expected payments over expected revenues - of $51 trillion. That's 11 times our official national debt and also greater than our total net worth, meaning that in some sense we're bankrupt. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration took a look at the study, blanched, and declined to publish it. In coming years, we'll hear appeals for better nursing homes, for more Alzheimer's research and for more wheelchair-accessible office buildings, and those are good causes. But remember that American children are almost twice as likely as the elderly to live in poverty, and that you get much more bang for the buck vaccinating a child than paying for open-heart surgery. The solution is not to force the elderly to get by on cat food again. But we boomers need to resist the narcissistic impulse to ladle out more resources for ourselves. Our top domestic priorities should be to ensure that all children get health care and to get our fiscal house in order. Otherwise, we boomers may earn a place in history as the worst generation. E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com
Judge Blocks Release of 9/11 Report
Judge Blocks Release of 9/11 Report: "Judge in Moussaoui Case Blocks Release of Sept. 11 Report
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post "
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post "
Saturday, April 30, 2005
9/11 blogger: Hey look, the media talked about 9/11!
9/11 blogger: Hey look, the media talked about 9/11!this article is all over the news today.. over 92 instances on news.google.com alone.. is it anything new? no. why is it all over the news? to try to get the patriot act's monitoring laws on our libraries extended.. perhaps someone should've asked why there were no arab names on the flight manifests, or ask what names they booked the tickets under before they re-run the same info about how the terrorists ordered their tickets.. nah, just run the article.
By MIKE WILKINSON and JAMES DREW, Blade Staff Writers
Printer-friendly version: "The federal probe into whether local Republican fund-raiser Tom Noe was illegally funneling money to the Bush campaign had been ongoing for months. It reached a turning point Wednesday night."
village voice > news > Mondo Washington by James Ridgeway
village voice > news > Mondo Washington by James Ridgeway: "Mondo Washington
In the Name of Sibel Edmonds
Intelligence whistleblowers storm Capitol Hill, asking for the right to be heard."
In the Name of Sibel Edmonds
Intelligence whistleblowers storm Capitol Hill, asking for the right to be heard."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)