[Peace-discuss] Comments on tonight's discussion

[C. G. Estabrook]

[From the generally excellent blog, left i on the news, come the 
following notes, which touch on points made in the discussion during and 
after the AWARE meeting tonight.  --CGE]

The sad state of the U.S. antiwar movement

Back in May, ANSWER circulated a proposal to all antiwar organizations 
to come together on a date to be mutually agreed for a unified massive 
national march to stop the war. So what happened?

United for Peace & Justice held a national convention, specifically 
voted not to cooperate with ANSWER, and called for "a day of regional, 
mass antiwar demonstrations in 6 to 8 cities around the country on 
Saturday, October 27th."

The Troops Out Now Coalition called for an encampment in Washington, 
D.C. from Sept. 22-29 ending with a march on the White House on Sept. 29.

And now the ANSWER Coalition, together with others including Code Pink, 
Gold Star Families for Peace, Latino Movement USA and the National 
Lawyers Guild have called for a march on the White House on Sept. 15. 
ANSWER has also declared its support for the UfPJ call for actions on 
Oct. 27, and has announced a march for San Francisco on that date.

And that's where we stand.

// posted @ 6/29/2007 01:56:00 PM //

Israel's prisoners, again

A year ago, Israel arrested ("kidnapped" would be more accurate) 64 
Palestinian Cabinet ministers, legislators, and other officials. They've 
pretty much dropped out of the news, at least the Western news, but a 
sentence in today's New York Times reminds us that most of them are 
still in Israeli prisons:

     Of the 74 Hamas legislators, 40 are in Israeli prisons.

On what grounds? As I wrote last September, supposedly because 
membership in Hamas, classified as a "terrorist organization," is 
illegal under Israeli law, except for one thing, as I pointed out: the 
West Bank and Gaza are not Israel, and Israeli law shouldn't apply in 
Palestine any more than American law applies in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of 
course the real "law" that's being applied is the same one the U.S. 
applies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) - might makes right.

// posted @ 6/28/2007 10:12:00 AM //  Comment (1)

Michael Moore, "Sicko," health care in Cuba, and ignorance in America

What is it with American TV personalities that they're not only 
abysmally ignorant about the quality of health care in Cuba, but are so 
eager to parade their ignorance in front of the public? This weekend I 
watched Richard Roeper (of "Ebert & Roeper at the Movies") with guest 
host (Roger Ebert still being off the air) Michael Phillips of the 
Chicago Tribune reviewing Michael Moore's new film, "Sicko" (you can 
watch the review, at least for a while, here). At the end of the review, 
there was this exchange:

     Roeper: "And yes, we know that when he goes into the Cuban hospital 
well of course they're going to show how great they are for Michael 
Moore and his cameras."

     Phillips: "Yeah, I don't buy that part about Cuba either."

Last night, Jay Leno interviewed Moore, and after making the same 
suggestion (that the Cubans just "put it on" for Moore), asks, "Is the 
health care really good in Cuba?" Moore sets him (and Roeper and 
Phillips) straight, recounting a story which makes it clear that the 
9-11 workers got exactly the same treatment as normal Cubans (he also 
recounts the story of the "healthcare Olympics" that he staged, in which 
NBC refused to allow him to say on the air that Cuba had won).

// posted @ 6/27/2007 11:18:00 AM //  Comments (5)

Tom Hayden vs. Stephen Colbert

Monday night, Stephen Colbert interviewed Tom Hayden, and I can't decide 
who's the bigger tool - Hayden or Colbert? Colbert beating the drums 
(some will say sarcastically, but I say if you can't tell the 
difference, then there is no difference) for war, Hayden unable to 
defend even the simplest concept, such as that it is impossible for the 
U.S. to "win" in Iraq, not just because of a lack of the right 
"strategy" or sufficient troops, but because the entire concept is 
bogus, and what we should be talking about is who lost in Iraq, and 
that's the Iraqi people.

Update: YouTube pulled the video for copyright infringement, so if you 
haven't seen it yet, too late!

// posted @ 6/27/2007 10:33:00 AM //  Comments (29)
Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Whose "family jewels"?

The news today is filled with the release of "the CIA's 'family 
jewels'." The lead of an article in the Washington Post is typical:

     "After Fidel Castro led a revolution that toppled a friendly 
government in 1959, the CIA was desperate to eliminate him..."

Nonsense. "The CIA" wasn't desperate to eliminate Castro, the U.S. 
government was, starting at the top. The CIA doesn't decide to 
assassinate foreign leaders without direct orders from the President of 
the United States.

Today's segment of "The Situation Room" (Wolf Blitzer) dealing with the 
release suffered the same problem, as did BBC World News, with nary a 
mention of any other part of the U.S. government other than the CIA. 
You'd get the idea that the CIA is a rogue agency, operating 
independently of the White House and Congress. This is complete 
nonsense. The CIA is an arm of the United States government, just as 
much as the military and the State Department, and its actions implement 
the policies of that government. A fact you'll be hard-pressed to know 
listening to the coverage of this event in the corporate media. Almost 
as much as you'll be hard-pressed to know that the idea that this 
document represents the "old" CIA and not the current CIA (and 
government) is pure bollocks.

Update: The New York Times is now out with its take on the story, which 
actually includes the following analysis, but not until the 21st 
paragraph of the story, well below the level at which this information 
makes it into the "short-attention-span" broadcast media:

     "Historians have generally concluded that far from being a rogue 
agency, the C.I.A. was following orders from the White House or top 
officials. In 1967, for instance, President Lyndon B. Johnson became 
convinced that the American antiwar movement was controlled and financed 
by Communist governments, and he ordered the C.I.A. to produce evidence."

// posted @ 6/26/2007 04:43:00 PM //


U.S. Congress: saying "eliminated from the pages of history" is genocide

A few days ago, ever vigilant to show its obeisance to Israel, the House 
of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to urge the United Nations to 
charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with genocide because of 
his statement that Israel will be "eliminated from the pages of 
history," naturally claimed by Congress to have been a call "for the 
destruction of the State of Israel." This despite Ahmadinejad's very 
clear statement that the "wiping out" he was referring to is precisely 
the kind of "wiping out" that happened to the Soviet Union, and has 
nothing to do with "a fight between Judaism and other religions."

Only two members of the House voted against the resolution, Republican 
Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. A handful of others voted 
"present" or didn't vote. All the rest voted for this absurd resolution.

Update: Looking more closely, I find that the expression of fealty to 
Israel wasn't just implicit, it was explicit: "Reaffirms the strategic 
U.S.-Israel partnership and reasserts the U.S. commitment to defend 
Israel's right to exist as a free and democratic state."

Second update: Just learned a lot more from this blog (via Tom Tomorrow):

     "There is reasonable doubt with regard to the accuracy of the 
translations of President Ahmadinejad's words in this resolution. 
President Ahmadinejad's speeches can also be translated as a call for 
regime change, much in the same manner the Bush Administration has 
called for regime change in Iraq and Iran, making this resolution very 
ironic," Kucinich said.

     Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two 
independent translations of the speech from The New York Times and 
Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant 
differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution 
before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was 
blocked.

	###