[Peace] News notes for July 21

[C. G. Estabrook]

	NOTES ON THE WEEK'S "WAR ON TERRORISM" --
	FOR THE A.W.A.R.E. MEETING 02.07.21

	"This administration is virtually the dream of concentrated wealth
	and power, both in its domestic assault against the general
	population and future generations in the interests of short term
	gain for small sectors of privilege, and in its international
	programs of world control by violence."

Summary of the week.  The administration prepares a possible September
11/October Surprise, an invasion of Iraq to cover over the revelations of
its deep complicity with corporate criminality in preparation of the
November elections. But none of this is a foregone conclusion: as Ricky
Baldwin points out in a note to the group, "...it's also an opportunity
for our side to speak out..."

The following highly selective news notes are followed by an article by
Justin Raimondo, "Our Phony Foreign Policy 'Debate,'" from the interesting
libertarian-right website, Antiwar.com. Comments in caps and these are
mine.  Regards, Carl

SUNDAY, JULY 21, 2000

FRONT PAGE STORY TELLS US WE DON'T REALLY NEED MUCH HEALTH CARE. A growing
body of research is leading many medical experts to ask whether more is
really better when it comes to health care. [NYT]

NOW THEY TELL US. "The American air campaign in Afghanistan, based on a
high-tech, out-of-harm's-way strategy, has produced a pattern of mistakes
that have killed hundreds of Afghan civilians." [NYT]

FRIDAY, JULY 19, 2002

AN ATTACK ON IRAQ TO COVER THEIR BACK?  The liberal Israeli paper Ha'aretz
quotes French government sources who say that the U.S. will attack Iraq
soon, possibly "in the middle of August, while Bush is seen vacationing at
his Texas ranch." And a UPI commentary says "Bet on this year rather than
next and sooner rather than later."

WHAT THE BRITISH COLONIALISTS CALLED THE "ARAB FACADE."  As US officials
and Iraqi opposition groups squabble over possible successors to Saddam
Hussein, Prince Hassan of neighbouring Jordan is emerging as a surprise
contender. The idea, which has support in the Pentagon and among
conservative thinkers in the US, envisages the prince rising above Iraqi
factionalism as a compromise figurehead, or even as king. Some argue that
his involvement could also ease tensions in Washington, where the state
department and CIA have been at loggerheads with Congress and the Pentagon
over Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial leader of the Iraqi National
Congress, an umbrella opposition group funded by US taxpayers. "Prince
Hassan is someone who has not been poisoned by the past 40 years of chaos
in Iraq and is perhaps the only person who can transcend the ethnic and
political complexities," said Michael Rubin of the Washington thinktank
the American Enterprise Institute. Hassan, 55, was crown prince of Jordan
for many years and effectively ruled the country during the terminal
illness of his eldest brother, the late King Hussein. But a few weeks
before his death in 1999, King Hussein removed him from the succession and
nominated his own son, now King Abdullah. On April 8 this year, Prince
Hassan had talks at the Pentagon with Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy
secretary of defence. The subject was never disclosed but since then he
has begun to assume a higher political profile. This culminated in his
dramatic "coming out" last week when - surrounded by TV cameras - he
arrived unexpectedly at a conference of exiled Iraqi officers in London.
It was the first time that a high-ranking Arab had publicly associated
himself with the Iraqi opposition. His move appears to have been well
received. Speculation has been heightened by the fact that the Jordanian
royal family is related to the Iraqi royal family, whose last king, Faisal
II, was deposed and assassinated in 1958. [GUARDIAN UK]

RESULT OF PUBLIC OUTCRY.  House Majority Leader Dick Armey, in his markup
of legislation to create a Homeland Security Department, rejected a
national identification card and scrapped a program that would use
volunteers in domestic surveillance. Mr. Armey, chairman of the House
Select Committee on Homeland Security, included language in his markup of
the legislation to prohibit the Justice Department from initiating the
Terrorism Information and Prevention System, also called Operation TIPS.
Mr. Armey's bill also would create a "privacy officer" in the Homeland
Security Department, which he said was the first ever established by law
in a Cabinet agency. Mr. Armey said this person would "ensure technology
research and new regulations from the department respect the civil
liberties our citizens enjoy." . . . The 216-page bill, sponsored by Mr.
Armey, Texas Republican, also bars the creation of national identification
cards, despite President Bush's support for them. [WASH TIMES]

WHAT CONSTITUTION? Government lawyers have a week to explain why an
American captured with Taliban fighters is being held without any charges
filed against him, Judge Robert G. Doumar of Federal District Court
ordered. The detainee, Yasser Esam Hamdi, 21, was born in Louisiana.
Justice Department lawyers say "enemy combatants" may be held without
charges as long as the United States is at war. The judge indicated he
thought that position, given the continuing battle against terrorism,
meant Mr. Hamdi could be held forever. [NYT]

THEY'RE NOT ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS (II). Five Israeli settlers have been
arrested for allegedly stealing thousands of rounds of ammunition from the
Israeli army and selling them to Palestinians. [NYT]

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2002

A COLONIAL WAR. The Washington Post mentions that two Palestinian children
in the West Bank were killed yesterday when they picked up ordnance "that
had been left by Israeli troops." It would have been good if the paper had
tried to say whether the explosives were purposely left as a booby
trap-since that's how a few Palestinian children died earlier this year.
[SLATE]

ACTING ON PRINCIPLE. Arab leaders have come up with a plan for Palestinian
statehood that incorporates Bush's demanded reforms and envisions Arafat
taking a ceremonial role. The plan won't get rolling until next January
because Arab leaders concluded that the Bush administration doesn't want
to have to deal with peace negotiations-and thus potentially have to
pressure Israel-before the November congressional elections. [WASH POST]

THE ADMISNITRATION READS THE POLLS, TOO. A NYT/CBS poll found, as the
headline puts it, "CONCERNS THAT BUSH IS OVERLY INFLUENCED BY BUSINESS."
Fifty-eight percent of respondents said businesses have too much influence
on the president. The WP, meanwhile, fronts the results of its own poll,
headlined, "POLL SHOWS BUSH'S RATINGS WEATHERING BUSINESS SCANDALS."
Despite the differing headlines, the two polls actually have similar
conclusions. The Post, for example, notes that 50 percent of respondents
said that Bush is paying too much attention to the needs of corporations.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2000

WAG THE MOUSE?  Eric Haseltine is moving from one top-secret organization
to another. Uncle Sam has plucked Walt Disney Co.'s chief of research and
development to become head of research for the National Security Agency,
which uses highly sophisticated technology to gather intelligence and
break codes to protect sensitive government information systems. Haseltine
worked for a decade at Walt Disney Imagineering, the company's design and
development group. As such, he would seem an unlikely choice for his new
government mission. But the worlds of the NSA and Walt Disney Imagineering
aren't so dissimilar. Both organizations include a diverse group of
top-level scientists and share a penchant for security and secrecy (Disney
won't say how many scientists it employees). There's a certain
institutional quality to the unmarked, drab buildings that make up the
sprawling Walt Disney Imagineering complex in Glendale, Calif.  Beyond
developing innovative ride systems for theme parks, Disney's research and
development team also has expertise in areas with military applications,
including virtual-reality technology and information systems. Disney
scientists are at the forefront of interactive TV and developing systems
for protecting the company against Internet piracy. [ORLANDO SENTINEL]

AND THE OTHER WAY. Washington has a new spy museum. E. Peter Earnest, who
served for 36 years with the CIA, including 20 years in the agency's
Clandestine Service, serves as the first executive director. His
experience and knowledge of the intelligence world is supported by an
advisory board of directors and advisory council that includes, among
others, the former chief of KGB foreign counterintelligence, the former
chief of disguise for the CIA, and the chair of the British Intelligence
Study Group. [ROLL CALL]

HOW MANY BAD APPLES DO WE HAVE TO SEE BEFORE WE BEGIN TO THINK, THERE'S
SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE TREE?  Fed. Res. Chairman Alan Greenspan said the
best way to handle corporate fraud is to impose harsh criminal penalties
for crooked execs. The chairman also warned against radical reform.
"Remember," he said, "the system is frayed, but it is not broken." [SLATE]

THEY'RE NOT ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS.  Israeli police arrested four Israeli
soldiers for allegedly selling Palestinian militants "large quantities" of
ammunition. [NYT]

TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2002

SEE "BAD APPLES," ABOVE. The NYT's op-ed page double-teams in digging up
dirt on Bush's role as one of the owners of the Texas Rangers. Columnist
Paul Krugman points out that when the Rangers were sold in the mid-1990s,
Bush's 1.9 percent share was worth $2.9 million, yet his co-owners gave
him $14.9 million. In other words, Krugman says, "A group of businessmen,
presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting
governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?"
Meanwhile, Krugman's teammate Nicholas Kristof says that Bush and his
partners used their government connections to get property that they
wanted to buy condemned, and thus would get it on the cheap. "Even
Kazakhstan would blush at such practices," says Kristof, who calls it a
"sordid tale of cronyism, of misuse of power, of cozy backroom, [and] of
money-grubbing." [SLATE]

MONDAY, JULY 15, 2002

VOLUNTEER SECRET POLICE. The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions
of United States citizens as domestic informants in a program likely to
alarm civil liberties groups. The Terrorism Information and Prevention
System, or TIPS, means the US will have a higher percentage of citizen
informants than the former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret
police. The program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to
report "suspicious activity . . . Highlighting the scope of the
surveillance network, TIPS volunteers are being recruited primarily from
among those whose work provides access to homes, businesses or transport
systems. Letter carriers, utility employees, truck drivers and train
conductors are among those named as targeted recruits. A pilot program is
scheduled to start next month in 10 cities, with 1 million informants
participating in the first stage. Assuming the program is initiated in the
10 largest US cities, that will be 1 million informants for a total
population of almost 24 million, or one in 24 people. Historically,
informant systems have been the tools of non-democratic states. According
to a 1992 report by Harvard University's Project on Justice, the accuracy
of informant reports is problematic, with some informants having
embellished the truth, and others suspected of having fabricated their
reports. Present Justice Department procedures mean that informant reports
will enter databases for future reference and/or action. The information
will then be broadly available within the department, related agencies and
local police forces. The targeted individual will remain unaware of the
existence of the report and of its contents . . . At state and local
levels the TIPS program will be coordinated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, which was given sweeping new powers, including
internment, as part of the Reagan Administration's national security
initiatives. Many key figures of the Reagan era are part of the Bush
Administration. [SIDNEY MORNING HERALD]

THE WATCHDOG PRESS. One major reason we are inundated with corporate
scandals is because the media dutifully accepted the myths that
corporations propagated. A case in point is the way stock options were
treated. Only a few publications the Economist and the Progressive Review
among them - raised the accounting of options as a serious issue. The
Bush-Harken scandal is another striking example. As we predicted during
the 2000 campaign, the media failed to ask serious questions about
candidate Bush's financial dealings, questions that were obvious and, if
pursued, probably would have resulted in a different electoral outcome. To
check on this, we did a computer search of the NY Times and Washington
Post in 2000 and found that while the Post ran seven stories that
mentioned both Bush and Harken during the year, Bush's business dealings
were the subject of exactly one: an op ed piece by David Ignatius. The NY
Times left the matter entirely to its columnists, with one piece by Bob
Hebert and one by Maureen Dowd. [PRO REV]

THE LIBERAL OPPOSITION. Right after voting to limit debate on legislation
clamping down on corporate abuses, 16 Democratic senators flew on
corporate jets from Washington to Nantucket, Mass., for a weekend retreat
with 250 major campaign donors. The jets were supplied by BellSouth Corp.,
Eli Lilly and Co., FedEx and AFLAC. All have given large sums of "soft
money" to both major parties, but Republicans generally have received the
majority. The cost of using the jets -- estimated by the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee at just over $44,000 -- will be counted as
in-kind soft-money contributions to the committee. Tovah Ravitz-Meehan,
DSCC communications director, said invitations to the weekend gathering
were sent to those who had given $20,000 or more . . . The Democratic
senators attending the Nantucket retreat are DSCC chairman Patty Murray
(Wash.), Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Bill Nelson
(Fla.), Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Joseph R. Biden Jr.
(Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Jon S. Corzine (N.J.), Byron L.
Dorgan (N.D.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), John
F. Kerry (Mass.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Charles E.
Schumer (N.Y.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). [WASH POST]

IF GOD HAD MEANT US TO VOTE, SHE WOULD HAVE SENT US CANDIDATES.  You would
never guess it by who gets the news coverage, but Bill Bradley remains the
third most popular candidate for president among Democrats. Gore has 30%,
H Clinton has 20% and Bradley has 10% in a recent CNN poll. Washington and
media favorites like Lieberman and Kerry are stuck with 5% and the "new
Clinton" John Edwards has only 2% - tied with Al Sharpton. [CNN]

WATCH WHAT YOU SAY.  A man who used a racial slur in Lancaster was
sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $200. Warren Overly was found
guilty of harassment. [WGAL, LANCASTER, PA]

WATCH WHAT YOU SAY (II).  State Department officials detained a young
National Review reporter for questioning at the daily briefing after he
asked about a classified cable involving embarrassing problems with U.S.
visas in Saudi Arabia. Joel Mowbray, 26, said several guards prevented him
from leaving the Foggy Bottom building for half an hour and that a
department official asked where he had obtained the cable from the U.S.
ambassador in Riyadh . . . According to Mowbray, a department official met
him in the hallway as he attempted to leave the briefing early and said
politely that he needed to answer some questions. Mowbray said he had a
lunch appointment but was told again that he needed to respond to
questions. After the reporter used his cell phone to call the magazine and
an attorney, one of several Diplomatic Security guards told him he was
blowing the incident out of proportion and was not being detained. But
when he attempted to leave, Mowbray said, the guard told him that now he
was being detained. He was let go after refusing to explain how he
obtained the cable. [WASH POST]

HONOR AMONG THIEVES. Just before taking office, former Treasury Secretary
Lawrence Summers [now president of Harvard] promised then-Enron chairman
Kenneth Lay he would keep an eye on energy deregulation, an issue pushed
by the energy-trading company, a letter shows. Summers' note to Lay on May
25, 1999, responded to Lay's earlier letter congratulating Summers on
succeeding Robert Rubin as President Clinton's treasury secretary. Lay
lobbied Rubin, to whom he ultimately offered a seat on Enron's board, and
Summers with easy cordiality on issues affecting Enron, Treasury
Department documents show. "I'll keep my eye on power deregulation and
energy-market infrastructure issues," Summers told Lay in a handwritten
"PS" at the bottom of his note. [AP]

SO LET'S SEND THE NUCLEAR WASTE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Local infant deaths
and childhood cancer rates have dropped dramatically following the closure
of eight US nuclear power plants. According to a report published in
Archives of Environmental Health, there has been a 17.4% fall in infant
mortality in counties lying up to 40 miles downwind of nuclear reactors in
the two years following the reactors' closure. Over the same period, the
national decline was just 6.4%. [ECOLOGIST UK]

WAR IS GOOD FOR (SOME PEOPLE'S) BUSINESS. The Halliburton Company, the
Dallas oil services company bedeviled lately by an array of accounting and
business issues, is benefiting very directly from the United States
efforts to combat terrorism. From building cells for detainees at
Guantánamo Bay in Cuba to feeding American troops in Uzbekistan, the
Pentagon is increasingly relying on a unit of Halliburton called KBR,
sometimes referred to as Kellogg Brown & Root. Although the unit has been
building projects all over the world for the federal government for
decades, the attacks of Sept. 11 have led to significant additional
business. KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and
the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation
and fuel transportation. The contract recently won from the Army is for 10
years and has no lid on costs, the only logistical arrangement by the Army
without an estimated cost. The government business has been well timed for
Halliburton, whose stock price has tumbled almost two-thirds in the last
year because of concerns about its asbestos liabilities, sagging profits
in its energy business and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission into its accounting practices back when Vice President Dick
Cheney ran the company. [NYT]

- Cheney's 2000 income from Halliburton: $36,086,635

- Increase in government contracts while Cheney led Halliburton: 91%

- Minimum size of "accounting irregularity" that occurred while Cheney was
CEO: $100,000,000

- Number of the seven official US "State Sponsors of Terror" that
Halliburton contracted with: 2 out of 7

- Pages of energy plan documents Cheney refused to give congressional
investigators: 13,500

- Amount energy companies gave the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign:
$1,800,000

YOUR TAX MONEY AT WORK.  An Israeli F-16 shot missiles at the home of a
Hamas militant in the Gaza Strip, but he escaped. [NYT]

WE NEED A WAR LEADER, RIGHT? The Los Angeles Times lead appears to have
some exclusive details on proposals Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is pushing
to weaken congressional oversight of the Pentagon. The LAT says Rumsfeld
has several ideas in mind: He wants to eliminate federal rules that
protect civilian workers at the Pentagon (meaning, the paper says near the
end of the piece, for example, he wants freedom to give merit-based pay
raises to some and pay cuts to others). He wants to exempt the Pentagon
from some environmental regulations, something the military has long
wanted. He wants to not have to submit over 340 annual reports on the
Pentagon's activities to Congress. Most controversially, he wants to send
initiatives straight to Congress, bypassing other agencies, and give
Congress limited time to vote on the initiatives. That proposal is not
likely to go anywhere, according to an official quoted at the end of the
piece. There's nothing new about the Pentagon trying to get more freedom,
the paper notes. However, sourcing the information to "senior
administration officials" but not offering many details, the paper argues
that this time around it's part of an administration-wide effort to
fundamentally alter the relationship of the executive to the legislative
branch.

SUNDAY, JULY 14, 2002

IT'S NOT INSIDER TRADING WHEN IT'S ALL IVY LEAGUERS. Two days after the
Washington Post editorialized against Congress becoming "distracted" by
the Harken Energy issue -- arguing that the SEC investigated George W.
Bush and found no evidence of insider trading -- the Post reports that 16
days before Bush sold his Harken stock, he got a notice that the company
was going to report losing $9 million, four times as much as the company
lost in the previous quarter. [SLATE]

	* * *

	Behind the Headlines by Justin Raimondo 
	Antiwar.com July 19, 2002
	OUR PHONY FOREIGN POLICY 'DEBATE'
	When it comes to foreign policy, there's only one party in America
	- the War Party

Oh, for joy! The New York Times is telling us there's a "Call in Congress
for Full Airing of Iraq Policy" - this after George W. Bush has been
rattling his saber in Saddam's face for the past year or so, developed a
comprehensive invasion plan, and already decided that the US will occupy
Iraq "for a year or more." So what's left to debate - the color of the new
Iraqi flag?

But then again, what kind of a debate can we expect when, as the Times
points out,

"Democrats and Republicans said there was broad bipartisan support for
ousting Mr. Hussein, even if that requires a military invasion if other
options fail."

Not that Congress isn't complaining. Their beef, however, is not that
we're initiating a bloody war entirely contrary to our own national
interests, not that the war will destabilize an already tortured region of
the world for many years to come, and will require a major outlay of
resources - but that Bush is

"Moving toward a major commitment of American troops under a veil of
secrecy, with too little consultation with Congress. Members complain that
much of what they know comes from news leaks."

Yeah, why should the President and Rummy have all the fun - Congress wants
a piece of the action, too! This is their idea of a "debate" - haggling
over details and maneuvering for maximum political leverage.

The big issue in Congress is not a question of war or peace - they're
already practically unanimous on the desirability of the former. The big
bone of contention is whether or not the President is required to come to
Congress for formal approval of an invasion - or if he's going to do it as
a "courtesy." To the Bushies, obeying the supreme law of the land - that
is, the Constitution of the United States - is a mere "courtesy," i.e. an
empty formality. It's mostly Democrats who insist on paying lip service to
that nearly forgotten document, but even this "is being hotly contested
within the party," as the Times puts it.

Both the House and the Senate will hold hearings on the Iraq issue in late
summer or early September, but the expressed concerns of legislators don't
bode well for a wide-ranging debate. The Times reports:

"Many legislators say the time has come for a more robust discussion of
several issues, including the threat from Iraqi chemical weapons, whether
the administration sees any potential successors to Mr. Hussein, the views
of European and Arab allies and whether the White House has a strategy for
extricating American troops after an invasion."

Mr. Hussein, indeed. The deadpan, largely unintentional humor of New York
Times-ese captures the grey miasma of American politics when it comes to
making decisions in the foreign policy realm. Where else but in the Grey
Lady could such a one-sided "discussion" be described as "robust"? Instead
of debating whether our role in the world is to effect "regime change"
wherever and whenever we so desire, they're already arguing over Saddam's
successor! Some "debate"! About as "robust" as any held at a Soviet party
congress.

If you're expecting visible opposition to this dangerous and even fateful
war of conquest from the Democrats, then you're sure to be disappointed. A
piece by Dan Balz in the Washington Post [July 15], averring "Democrats
Speak Up on Foreign Policy," tells us that the reluctance to criticize
Bush has faded:

"After months of hesitancy, leading Democrats have begun to challenge
President Bush directly on his conduct of foreign affairs," Balz writes -
forgetting to add from the right. We are told, initially, that the
Democrats are "offering pointed criticisms of [Bush's] policies on the
Middle East, U.S. relations with key allies and even the war in
Afghanistan." After this promising lead-in, however, disappointment
rapidly sets in, and by the time we get to the end of the article we learn
that those "pointed criticisms" are somewhat blunted:

"On the Middle East, Democrats have criticized the administration's
initial decision to disengage from the region, and some said Bush's most
recent speech, in which he called for Palestinians to replace Yasser
Arafat and others in the leadership, set out conditions that would be so
difficult as to be impractical. But they have been reluctant to offer
public pressure on Israel to alter any of its tactics, either in combating
terrorist attacks or halting settlement activity." When Ariel Sharon tells
Bush to "Jump!", his only question is: "How high?" - and the Democrats
can't bring themselves to criticize this sad state of affairs.

As the presidential wannabes of 2004 jockey for position, Senator John
Kerry (D-Mass.), seems to have taken the initiative in criticizing the
Republican foreign policy, raising the sensitive question of "Where's
Osama?" but otherwise speaking in grandiose generalities, to wit:

"In a recent telephone interview, Kerry offered an across-the-board
critique of the administration's foreign policy.

"'It's reluctant. It's shifting. It's inconsistent - and to some measure
disengaged globally,' he said. 'It's reactive, not proactive. Up until
9/11 it was singularly unilateral. Since then it's less so, but not half
as forceful and encompassing as I think America's foreign policy ought to
be at this moment. Not as bold and not as visionary.'"

Let's see: the conquest of Iraq, and the military occupation of much of
the Middle East - how much more "visionary" can you get? In asking for
boldness and then denouncing unilateralism, Kerry cuts the ground out from
under his own feet. As for being "disengaged globally," this seems an
unlikely characterization of an administration that has recently asserted
its intent to pre-emptively destroy an alleged potential threat. Far from
not being "all-encompassing," the ambitions of this administration
encompass far too much - indeed, they encircle the globe, as the US openly
asserts its imperial prerogatives from Iraq to Venezeula.

Kerry opposes the Saudi peace plan - mutual recognition and Israel's
withdrawal to its 1967 borders - as "not workable" and otherwise
faithfully echoes the American Likudnik line. When President Bush made
some noises in April about how maybe Ariel Sharon should please - pretty
please! - withdraw from the West Bank, Kerry earned a commendation from
William Safire for joining fellow presidential hopefuls Joe Lieberman and
Richard Gephardt in "speak[ing] out against the liberals' crusade to force
Israel to abort its clean-out of terrorist nests," as the Amen Corner's
columnist-in-chief characterized this open kow-towing to a foreign leader.

As a former leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry once seemed
to understand the criminal futility of a global crusade to impose American
values throughout the world. Testifying before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee chaired by Senator William Fulbright, in April, 1971,
Kerry said:

"We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism
and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without
helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and
tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war,
particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America,
to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by
siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be
it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American."

One wonders why, today, Kerry thinks the Iraqis will react any differently
to the prospect of their "liberation" by American (or American-backed)
troops.

Says Kerry:

"One of the great lessons I learned in Vietnam the hard way is that bad
things happen when people don't ask hard questions."

Too bad he isn't asking any.

So I guess it's up to us - you and me, i.e. The People - to start the
interrogation. How, exactly, is Iraq threatening American interests? Yes,
yes, I know all about these alleged "weapons of mass destruction" he's
supposed to be on the verge of developing, but former UN weapons inspector
Scott Ritter doesn't seem to think so. And there's no Iraqi connection to
9/11. As for the possibility that Saddam might have chemical weapons, his
neighbors aren't too concerned about that: indeed, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Iran, and even our old allies Kuwait and Qatar are all opposed to a US
invasion, and refuse to let us use their territories as a launching pad.
Only Israel is egging us on - and there's the rub.

A US invasion of the Middle East, sure to ignite the region in a general
conflagration, serves the interest of one and only one country, and that
is Israel. After all, whatever weapons Saddam has managed to cobble
together out of rusted spare parts and Crazy Glue will be aimed at Tel
Aviv, not Toledo. But it isn't only the Israelis who will benefit.

When the bombs start to fall on Baghdad, once again, you can be sure that
hosannas will be heard not only in Israel but also in whatever cave Osama
bin Laden is hiding in. As 200,000-plus Crusaders come pouring into the
epicenter of the Arab world, the Mad Sheik's promise of an implacable
struggle against the invading infidels will swell al-Qaeda's ranks,
provoking fundamentalist uprisings in Pakistan and throughout the Saudi
peninsula. The fundamentalist tide, rippling outward, will threaten
moderate pro-Western regimes in Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan: even the
stalwartly pro-American Turks will feel the tremors, as the houses of
cards that constitute the governments of the region collapse in rapid
succession.

No American interest is served by such a mad course. Yet not only do we
continue to pursue it, but the "debate" over our foreign policy becomes
more one-sided, and less democratic, the more our politicians bleat about
opening up "a national dialogue."

Look, guys, you can "dialogue" this! We know you don't want any real
discussion, "robust" or whatever, over Gulf War II, and that whatever your
party you all belong to the War Party when it comes to foreign policy. Oh,
a few of our esteemed representatives - remembering the wisdom of the
Founders - will warn against the consequences of this suicidal course, but
they'll be brushed aside in the rush to war, unless they receive support
from the public.

The problem, as always, is that the interventionists are emboldened by
greed and bloodthirstiness, while the partisans of peace are largely
passive. Visions of bombs dancing in their heads - of Afghanistan,
Christopher Hitchens declared "We bombed them out of the Stone Age"!-
today's warmongers, left and right, are motivated by a dream of Empire, a
vision of a world remade. Clearly they envision a "MacArthur
Regency"-style regime in Iraq, as in post-World War II Germany and Japan.
If such hubris is not defeated politically, it will be humbled, in the
end, by economics. As the Soviets learned to their dismay, overextension
can be dangerous and even fatal; the Romans, too, learned this lesson the
hard way. Speaking of the Romans
.

Today [July 18] marks the anniversary of the day when, in A.D. 64, Nero
fiddled while Rome burned - and that is exactly what our Congress is
prepared to do as New Rome is plunged into the Middle Eastern inferno.

Now is the time to get in touch with your representatives in Congress and
let them know what you think about the issue of war and peace in the
Middle East. Tomorrow will be too late.

	--END--