“Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny… all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Before I begin presenting my case, I need to make a few things clear. In recent months, I have taken part in numerous political debates on U.S. foreign and domestic policy and I have noticed an alarming and virtually universal trend among those who disagree with my analysis. It seems that most of my fellow American citizens equate the United States government with the Nation itself, as though government representatives and the country are one-in-the-same, virtually interchangeable. My objections to certain actions by the government were consistently deemed “anti-American,” as well as bringing accusations of “taking the side of the enemy,” and somehow “approving” of horrific foreign governments and their reprehensible actions. This took me by surprise, as I have always considered the United States to be “of the people, by the people and for the people,” with the government merely serving as a powerful apparatus charged with enacting policies that conform to the will of the population. Those who use the former definition often find themselves defending the actions of the government by default in emotional responses likened to the “mother of the accused,” who refuses to see the guilt of her son, no matter how much damning evidence is presented at his trial.

I think this is a serious mistake.

Those, like myself, who choose to follow the latter definition of the Nation, see the government as a powerful and dangerous instrument, in great need of vigilant oversight by the People, who are the true protectors of democracy.

Who am I and what do I stand for? I am an American citizen voicing an opinion in the public sphere within a free country. I am for the restoration of the American Democracy, as opposed to the American Plutocratic Empire, which is our current condition. This empire has been and continues to be a cancer on the earth, spreading death and destruction for corporate profit wherever it goes, in violation of all the sacred principles found in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. This empire violates human rights and international law with utter contempt and impunity. It is driving the entire world toward nuclear war and global environmental catastrophe. I am also a citizen who understands the concept of “blowback.” I am aware that every bomb dropped on a Muslim land is a victory for Osama Bin Laden. Every door kicked in during a “security sweep” in Baghdad is a call to Jihad. I realize that the Bush administration cynically used the 9/11 attacks to enact policies meant to increase the wealth and power for a small, select group of individuals, while INCREASING the threat of terrorism tenfold. I am also fully aware that the most prevalent form of terrorism in the world is state terrorism, which is responsible for significantly more death and destruction worldwide than the terrorist attacks by their non-state counterparts, like al Qaeda, Hezbollah or the numerous South and Central American groups on the United States government list of terrorist organizations. I see this cynical “war on terror” being used to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and reduce the civil liberties of the citizenry. I also see the enormous rise of the Military/Industrial Complex, which history has shown us is the precursor to fascism, the antithesis of democracy.

As a responsible citizen, I take my obligation to dissent against these wrongdoings quite seriously. In essence, the dangerous tool that is the government is out of control and needs to be reigned in. In order to do that, we the people need to thoroughly examine the actions of our government without passion or prejudice, to see where it has strayed from its core objective of enacting policies that conform to the will of the people under the principles put forth by our founding fathers in our most sacred documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only then can we restore the American Democracy and reclaim the moral high ground that was the trademark of our once great Nation.

PART 1: WHY DO THEY HATE US?
“As long as you keep Algiers, you will be constantly at war with Africa; sometimes this war will seem to end; but these people will not hate you any the less; it will be a half-extinguished fire that will smolder under the ash and which, at the first opportunity, will burst into a vast conflagration.”
- Baron Lacuee in 1831 at the beginning of the French occupation of Algiers, which came to a brutally violent end in the early 1960’s, having almost destroyed the nation of France.

President Bush wasn't the first President to ask, "Why do they hate us"? President Eisenhower posed the same question to his National Security Council, which outlined the basic reasons: The U.S. supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region. The interest in controlling the resources of the region, which the State Department dubbed the “greatest strategic prize in history,” as explained by then Head of the State Department Policy Planning staff George Kennan, was to have “veto power” over our industrial rivals.

Later, in 1953, the CIA, in what would be one the first of numerous post-WWII acts of foreign subversion for imperial gains, backed the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran, which led to the installation of a ruthless dictator, who catered to U.S. oil companies while brutally repressing the native Iranian population (“a half-extinguished fire” that smoldered “under the ash”) until his overthrow (in a “vast conflagration”) in the 1979 Islamic uprising. Thus began a long and consistent policy of U.S. support of ruthless dictatorships for strategic advantage, which gave birth to the violent by-product known in intelligence circles as “blowback.” The Iranian revolution resulted in the infamous hostage crisis, which was at that time the most famous example of “blowback.” But as we now know, it was merely prologue. Numerous embers were silently simmering “under the ash.”

Part 2: THE FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER
“We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism ... Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children... in short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth … the American people need to hear.”
- Former Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman in the National Catholic Reporter (October 2, 1998)

The U.S. helped "create" Osama Bin Laden during the latter part of the Carter administration and throughout the Reagan years, when they joined forces in fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The United States provided weapons, training and funds to Bin Laden and his Mujahideen, or “holy warriors.” The fact that Bin Laden was our friend and ally immediately dismantles the ludicrous idea that he is now merely against us because he "hates freedom.” He fought the Soviets because they were occupying and repressing Muslim lands, and the U.S. was more than happy to utilize these “holy warriors” in an effort, according President Carter’s National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, to “give the Soviet Union it’s own Vietnam.”

Bin Laden officially declared the United States an enemy during the first gulf war, when we used the Kuwait invasion as an excuse to place an enormous troop presence in Bin Laden’s homeland of Saudi Arabia, to protect the oil. Bin Laden has been remarkably consistent in his justifications for declaring a Jihad against the United States, all of which center on U.S. Middle Eastern foreign policy. He points to our continued support of the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaign within the occupied territories. This support is one of the greatest beacons of terrorist recruitment, as Bin Laden himself pointed out in his October 7, 2001 videotaped statement: “… I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine…” Interesting that Bin Laden's quote clearly implies the possibility of a United States living in "peace," while placing the blame on U.S. foreign policy. In addition to our support of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people, he points to the egregious U.S.-imposed sanctions in Iraq... "One million Iraqi children have thus far died although they did not do anything wrong," as well as the stationing of troops and building of military bases in Saudi Arabia, "… and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Muhammad." Notably, he has never once mentioned any objections to our "freedom," "democracy" or "western values." In fact, he very clearly responded to Bush's charges of "hating freedom," in another videotaped speech in 2003: "… unlike what Bush says – that we hate freedom – let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example."

During the early stages of the U.S. led invasion and occupation of Iraq, Brzezinski echoed the sentiments put forth nearly sixty years earlier by Kennan, arguing America’s control over Middle Eastern oil producers “gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the [Gulf] region.”

Apparently little had changed in the minds of strategic U.S. government planners, regardless of the enormous casualties suffered as a result of “blowback” from similar policies in the past.

Part 3: A CARPET OF BOMBS
“… the United States is not simply concerned with keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf; it also has an interest in preventing any potentially hostile state from gaining control over the region and its resources and using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world.”
– Kenneth Pollack, former CIA analyst and Clinton Administration National Security official.

In the latter half of 1996, the Taliban government in Afghanistan ended negotiations with United States oil and gas companies, who were interested in securing a lucrative contract to build a massive pipeline to connect the gas and oil resources in the Caspian Basin. Instead of choosing an American company for the contract, the Taliban chose the Bridas Corporation of Argentina. Among the severely disappointed negotiators was Halliburton CEO Richard Cheney, and Unocal consultants Hamid Karzai, Richard Armitage, and Zalmay Khalilzad. Later, in 1998, in response to the al Qaeda attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton pushed through an executive order banning all trade with the Taliban government, who were seen as al Qaeda sympathizers. Further attempts by Unocal and Halliburton were indefinitely placed on the back burner.

The “election” of George W. Bush, having placed Dick Cheney in charge of U.S. energy policy, re-opened this avenue of negotiations, effectively undermining President Clinton’s policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban regime. The immediate goal was to have the Taliban cancel the Bridas contract and give a new contract to a conglomerate of American energy companies, all significantly represented by high-level members of Bush’s own cabinet, as well as having participated in Richard Cheney’s “Energy Task Force.”

The Taliban once again resisted the U.S. overtures, and refused to void the Bridas contract. At the final meeting with the Taliban, on Aug. 2, 2001, State Department negotiator Christine Rocca, clarified the options: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." When the Taliban government wouldn’t budge, President Bush immediately notified Pakistan and India the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan before the end of October.

This was five weeks before the events of 9/11.

In the wake of al Qaeda’s attack, the “carpet of bombs” rained down on Afghanistan, making quick work of the Taliban regime. President Bush immediately appointed Unocal consultant Hamid Karzai as head of the temporary government and John J. Maresca, a vice president of Unocal, as the new U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. Among the first orders of business was the cancellation of the Bridas contract. Four months later, a new pipeline deal was negotiated between Interim President Karzai and President Musharraf of Pakistan, which favored U.S. oil and gas companies, with Unocal being the greatest contract recipient.

Meanwhile, the search for 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden proved futile and was soon abandoned in favor of the next phase in the “War on Terror.”

Part 4: THE PRICE WAS WORTH IT
“A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.”
Osama Bin Laden on CNN, 1997

On May 11, 1996 Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl about the reported 500,000+ Iraqi children who died in Iraq as a direct result of U.S. imposed sanctions. Her reply stunned many, “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price was worth it.”

The history of the sanctions (rarely, if ever discussed in mainstream media) begins with the strategic bombings of critical infrastructure within Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. The U.S. dropped over 90,000 tons of bombs, intentionally destroying civilian infrastructure, including 18 of 20 electricity-generating plants and the water-pumping and sanitation systems. The bombings themselves were a direct violation of the Geneva Convention against the specific targeting of infrastructure “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” thus making them a war crime.

Recently released de-classified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed that the U.S. knew full well that Iraqi water needed purification with chlorine in order to avoid “epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis and typhoid.” Later documents revealed that the U.S.-imposed sanctions SPECIFICALLY embargoed the import of chlorine needed to purify the water systems. Additionally, the U.S. sanctions forbade the import of the parts needed to repair the damaged purification and sanitation systems.

The results of these actions are well documented. Colonel John A. Warner III wrote in Airpower Journal, “…as a result (of the destruction of these facilities), epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps 100,000 civilian deaths and doubling the infant mortality rate.” Anupama Rao Singh, the United Nations Children’s Fund Representative in Baghdad observed that food shortages were virtually unknown in Iraq prior to what the State department admitted were the “toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history.” Richard Garfield’s universally accepted mortality studies put the number of Iraq children killed because of the sanctions at 350,000. The Lancet study, for the British Medical Society, estimated it at 550,000. Denis Halliday, the U.N. coordinator in Iraq called the sanctions, “a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq,” calling their implementation “genocide.” His resignation in 1998 in protest received little if any coverage by the U.S. corporate media.

Part 5: PNAC AND THE QUIET COUP
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
– Paul Wolfowitz Undersecretary for Defense and I. Scooter Libby Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, internal “Defense Planning Guidance Report,” leaked to the NY Times on March 7th, 1992

In 1997, a group of neo-conservative disciples of Ronald Reagan and economist Milton Friedman founded the Project for a New American Century, committed to the establishment of a United States led “benevolent global hegemony.”

According to the PNAC mission statement, the United States needed to understand and embrace four consequences:

1) We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global ?responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
2) We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
3) We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
4) 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 principles.

Members of this exclusive club included what would soon be a who’s who of high level government officials in the Bush II administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeb Bush.

The first “consequence” was easy enough to understand and was implemented to the letter by Donald Rumsfeld upon achievement of the post of Secretary of Defense under Bush II. The remaining “consequences” can only be truly comprehended when one understands how U.S.-imposed neo-liberal economics works. In short, neo-liberal economics consists of the installation (“carry out our global responsibilities”) of governments (usually cruel dictatorships, cynically labeled “democracies”) in foreign lands, which will open the markets (a.k.a. our “interests”) up to investment (a.k.a. our free market “values”) catering specifically to U.S. multinational corporations (a.k.a. our “prosperity”), while controlling and repressing the native populations (a.k.a. “friendly to our security”).

These principles weren’t new, as they were the very backbone of U.S. foreign policy for the better part of fifty years. The key difference with the PNAC ideology is they believe the U.S. should utilize this hegemonic policy over the entire world (a.k.a. “extending an international order”) and not merely impose it on the weak nations of the third world. Essentially, the fall of the Soviet Union was the opening by which the United States should enact a never-ending planet-wide empire. The very linchpin of the PNAC plan of world domination was control of Middle Eastern oil (the greatest strategic prize in history), to be used as a “lever” of control over enemies and allies alike, in what would effectively, in other words, amount to “using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world.”

On January 26th, 1998, PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton, demanding he “act decisively” against the WMD “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. They suggested a policy of regime change through military action. President Clinton, having read the numerous intelligence estimates, which clearly showed the current policy of sanctions and containment was working (“the price was worth it”), rejected the ideas suggested within the letter. The “crazies,” as the members of PNAC were called within the beltway community at the time, would have to wait a few more years before getting the chance to enact the “four consequences” upon the world.

On December 12th, 2000, George W. Bush (described by Ronald Reagan in a recently released diary entry from May 17th, 1986 as the Vice President’s “… ne’re-do-well son… the one who hangs around here all? the time looking shiftless… that so-called kid is already almost 40?and has never had a real job") was thrust into office by the Supreme Court in spite of losing the popular vote and immediately began to make control of Middle Eastern oil the spine of his foreign policy. The administration was replete with people with significant ties to the oil industry. Besides Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, eight cabinet secretaries, the national security advisor Condoleeza Rice (who has an oil tanker named after her), as well as 32 additional members of various departments all had direct ties to the oil industry. Within two weeks, the Bush administration revealed the new national security strategy, which essentially gutted the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, while additionally making regime change in Iraq a national priority. At the same time, Dick Cheney created an “Energy Task Force” to hash out a new energy policy. The task force consisted of cabinet members as well as numerous lobbyists and high level management from the oil and natural gas industry. The White House, under the cynical guise of “executive privilege,” has kept an exact list of who attended the meetings secret to this day.

Author Richard Behan describes the early accomplishments of the task force:

“The Energy Task Force wasted no time. Within three weeks of its creation, the group was poring over maps of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks. It studied an inventory of ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts’—dozens of oil companies from 30 different countries, in various stages of negotiations for exploring and developing Iraqi crude. Not a single U.S. oil company was among the “suitors,” and that was intolerable, given a foreign policy bent on global hegemony. The National Energy Policy document, released May 17, 2001 concluded this: ‘By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.’ That rather innocuous statement can be clarified by a top-secret memo dated February 3, 2001 to the staff of the National Security Council. Cheney’s group, the memo said, was “melding” two apparently unrelated areas of policy: ‘the review of operational policies toward rogue states,’ such as Iraq, and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.’ The memo directed the National Security Council staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as the “melding” continued. National security policy and international energy policy would be developed as a coordinated whole. This would prove convenient on September 11, 2001, still seven months in the future.”

Still, in the early stages of the Bush administration, the overriding problem faced by the now-powerful members of PNAC, was the lack of public support for warfare against a nation that seemed to be sufficiently contained. Members of PNAC lamented in a September 2000 article titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” that acceptance of military action in Iraq by the American public would be difficult in the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.” The dubious article has since been removed from the official PNAC web site.

On September 11th, 2001, the “new Pearl Harbor” was immediately seen as an opportunity to wage a war of choice against a sufficiently weakened and contained nation that posed no threat to the United States or its allies. The site of the fallen twin towers was still smoking when the Bush Administration began pushing all resources in the direction of war with Iraq. Richard Clarke, the highly respected counter-terrorism czar within the White House under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II recounted in his book, “Against All Enemies,” the beginning of the charade on the morning of September 12th, 2001, mere hours after the devastating attacks in New York and Washington D.C.:

“I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon were telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.”

Later that evening, Clarke met the President in the situation room:

‘He (President Bush) grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. “Look,” he told us, “I know you have a lot to do and all… but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way…” I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. “But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.”
“I know, I know, but… see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred….”

Thus began the drive toward building a case for war with Iraq in response to an attack in which they played no part. Numerous records now exist pointing to a deliberate and consistent misinformation campaign emanating from the executive branch, spear-headed by former Halliburton executive and current Vice President Richard Cheney. The defenses put forth by members of the White House to these charges have been easily rebuffed and usually fell to blaming “faulty intelligence.” Perhaps the most damning evidence contradicting the “defense” of this conspiracy was revealed in the May 1st, 2005 issue of the Sunday Times in the U.K. It was on this day that the Times released a newly leaked top-secret internal British government memo, soon to be dubbed the “Downing Street Memo.” The memo, dated July 23, 2002 and clearly labeled as “…extremely sensitive…. secret and strictly personal,” was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aid, to the British Ambassador to the U.S., David Manning, as well as cc’d to Defense Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, as well as several other top level cabinet members. It stated in part:

‘C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy… There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action…

… No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.? It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his wmd capability was less than that of libya, north korea or iran.’

NY Times Columnist Frank Rich has compiled additional evidence of manipulation of intelligence by members of the Bush Administration, most egregiously by Dick Cheney, notably:

September 21st, 2001 – In the President’s Daily Brief (PDF), the President and his staff, including the Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high level officials were told that there was no proof of Iraqi participation in 9/11 and “scant credible evidence” of any “significant collaborative ties” between Iraq and al Qaeda. They were further informed that Saddam Hussein viewed al Qaeda and other “radical Islamic Organizations” as a threat to him and his regime.

Tim Russert: “Iraq is harboring terrorists?”
Vice President Cheney: “Correct.”
- December 9th, 2001 on Meet the Press

November 20th, 2001 – “U.S. Embassy Niamey disseminated a cable on a recent meeting between the ambassador and the Director General of Niger’s French-led consortium. The Director General said ‘there was no possibility’ that the government of Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines.”

December 17th, 2001 – The results of a CIA-administered polygraph determine that Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a civil engineer who claimed to have helped Saddam’s men secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, was lying. Days later, Ahmed Chalabi arranges for Judith Miller of the NY Times to interview al-Haideri, who later reports the already debunked story on the front page of the “paper of record,” with no mention of the lie-detector results or intelligence assessments.

February 2002 – Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador to Niger, travels to Niamey and determines the alleged sale of yellowcake to Iraq to be unfounded. Later, the Defense Intelligence Agency issues a classified report that identifies Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a top member of al Qaeda in U.S. custody, as a likely fabricator. Among his fabrications were claims that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and had provided biological and chemical weapons training to al Qaeda operatives. The report concludes that the suspect was in all likelihood “describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

March 4th, 2002 – A high-level intelligence assessment concludes that the sale of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq was “unlikely.”

“… (Saddam) is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
- Dick Cheney on CNN’s Late Edition, March 24th, 2002

May 2002 – A fabricator warning is posted in U.S. intelligence databases in reference to a former major in the Iraqi intelligence service, the most important of three CIA sources who claimed to collaborate claims by the Iraqi defector known as “Curveball.” The CIA and DIA concluded that he was a liar. Two of the three sources had ties to Bush ally Ahmad Chalabi; all were deemed frauds.

“…we know that (Saddam is) working on nuclear.”
– Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, May 19th, 2002

August 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card forms the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which begins to meet weekly in the Situation Room. Regular participants include; Karl Rove, communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matelin and James Wilkinson, legislative liaison Nicholas Calio and policy advisors Condoleeza Rice and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Later, on September 7th, 2002, Card explains the White House’s public relations strategy on preemptive war with Iraq: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” Soon after, the PR onslaught for war with Iraq began in earnest.

“… what we know now, from various sources, is that (Saddam) has continued to improve the, if you can put it into those terms, the capabilities of his nuclear… and he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.”
- Dick Cheney in a speech to the California Commonwealth Club, August 7th, 2002

“… but we know now that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons”
– Dick Cheney in a speech to the VFW 103rd National Convention, August 26th, 2002

On September 8th, 2002, a story is planted by unnamed “Bush administration officials” and reported on the front page of the NY Times by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, claiming Saddam Hussein is intensifying his quest for A-bomb parts. The story introduces the claim that Iraq has “sought to acquire aluminum tubes believed to be intended… to enrich uranium for bomb material.” Later that very morning, numerous “Bush administration officials,” including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld appear on various morning talk shows, touting the report as proof of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. None of the talk show hosts think to ask their guests if they had, in fact, leaked the story to Miller and Gordon themselves earlier that week, in what would be a case of planting evidence, then pointing to that planted evidence as proof of a position. It was later revealed that the initial source of the story was none other than Ahmad Chalabi, once again acting in the role of official White House press liaison, disseminating information known to be false.

Dick Cheney: “… to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs.”
Tim Russert: “Aluminum Tubes.”
Dick Cheney: “Specifically aluminum tubes. There’s a story in the NY Times this morning…”
– on Meet the Press

“… with respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue… a nuclear weapon… and we saw in reporting just this morning… specialized aluminum tubes…”
– Colin Powell on Fox News Sunday

“… we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
– Condoleeza Rice on CNN’s Late Edition

Dick Cheney also took the opportunity to re-hash the long-ago debunked connections between al Qaeda and Iraq:

Dick Cheney: “… there is a pattern of relationships going back many years.”
Tim Russert: “What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?”
Dick Cheney: “It’s credible.”
– on Meet the Press

September 12th, 2002 – The White House web site posts a document ironically entitled “A Decade of Deception and Defiance,” which includes a reference to the Iraqi defector al-Haideri’s (previously discredited) claims of buried Iraqi WMD’s as well as Judith Miller’s article reporting those dubious claims. There was no mention of the lie detector results or intelligence assessments condemning al-Haideri as a fabricator. Two days later, President Bush spoke in his weekly radio address:

“… (Saddam) has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.”

Mid-September 2002 – CIA director George Tenet informs President Bush that both the State and Energy departments have doubts about Saddam’s aluminum tubes and that some in the CIA aren’t certain that the tubes were meant for nuclear weapons. Additionally, Tenet reports that a member of Saddam’s inner circle, his foreign minister Naji Sabri, had made a deal to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA and reported there was “no active weapons of mass destruction program.”

“We now have irrefutable evidence that (Saddam) has once again set up and reconstituted his program to enrich uranium… there’s no doubt about what he’s attempting. And there’s no doubt about the fact that the level of effort has escalated in recent months.”
– Dick Cheney, at a GOP fund-raiser in Casper Wyoming, September 20th, 2002

In retrospect, many in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, often remarked that members of Congress and the White House “saw the same intelligence” in regards to Iraq’s WMD program. But CIA Chief George Tenet’s blatant lie to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq’s nuclear program fiercely contradicts that assertion:

“The C.I.A. recently received intelligence showing that between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger, one of the world’s largest producers.”
– Tenet to the SFRC on September 24th, 2002

The fact that the yellowcake story had been officially debunked by numerous intelligence sources months ago was obviously known to the head of the CIA, yet he clearly sold the erroneous story to the only members of Congress authorized to hear the report. Meanwhile, the massive propaganda campaign was making an impact on the U.S. population, with a majority (51%) now believing for the first time that Saddam was “personally involved in 9/11.” Additionally, according to the CBS News poll, over 70% of Americans believed that al Qaeda members were currently in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld joined Tenet and Cheney in publicly advocating (long-disputed) evidence of an al Qaeda/Iraq link:

“We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq. We have… credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contracts in Iraq who could help them acquire… weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have… one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.”
- September 26th, 2002, at a Defense Department press briefing.

Two days later, Bush himself joined the fray:

“… (Saddam) has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq.”
– September 28th, 2002, on his weekly radio address.

October 1st, 2002 – The National Intelligence Communities (NIC) publish a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.” On the matter of aluminum tubes, the NIE states:

“… INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use in centrifuge reactors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.”

The scientific wing of the CIA had reported the only way to use the aluminum tubes for nuclear enrichment was to cut each tube in thirds, reduce the circumference of each piece, remove the inner coating and reduce the thickness of each piece significantly. One agent compared the exercise to “attempting to turn a Yugo into a Cadillac.” This unambiguous assessment apparently made no impact on President Bush, who spoke in a televised address a week later:

“Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
- Televised Presidential address from Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7th, 2002

Additionally, the President continued to insist on a significant Iraqi link to al Qaeda, without providing a shred of evidence in support of such claims:

“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

October 9th, 2002 – an Italian reporter provides the U.S. Embassy in Rome with copies of documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transactions. Upon first inspection, INR analysts question their authenticity.

October 21st, 2002 – The NY Times reports that Czech President Vaclav Havel had called the White House in early 2002 to directly tell all senior administration officials that there was no evidence that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. This alleged meeting was the backbone of every assertion made by White House officials that Iraq and al Qaeda had “high-level meetings.” The U.S. intelligence community had already long doubted the meetings took place. Later, a Czech official said that Havel didn’t make the calls, but insisted that there was no evidence that any such meetings between Atta and Iraqi officials had ever happened.

“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.”
– Dick Cheney, in a speech to the Air National Guard, December 2nd, 2002.

December 19th, 2002 – the United States officially responds to Iraq’s declaration of disarmament by publicly noting that Iraq had not accounted for African uranium from Niger, even though the theory that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger had long ago been debunked by U.S. intelligence. Later, on December 24th, 2002, Niger’s prime minister declares publicly that Iraq has neither purchased nor inquired about purchasing uranium from Niger since he took office in 2000.

January 2003 – In an informal National Intelligence Estimate submitted to the White House, intelligence agencies unanimously conclude that Saddam Hussein was unlikely to attack the U.S. unless attacked first. Later, the Pentagon requested an authoritative judgment on whether Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger. The National Intelligence Council drafted a memo stating unequivocally that the claim was baseless. The memo was also delivered to the White House.

January 10th, 2003 – a highly classified intelligence estimate distributed to high level members of the Bush administration, entitled “Questions on Why Iraq is Procuring Aluminum Tubes and What the IAEA Has Found to Date,” states that INR, the Energy Department and the International Atomic Energy Agency all believed that Iraq was using aluminum tubes for conventional weapons programs.

January 13th, 2003 – A State Department nuclear analyst sends and email to several intelligence analysts outlining his reasoning why “the uranium purchase agreement” acquired from the Italian reporter a few months earlier, was probably “a hoax,” citing the fact that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so “ridiculous” that it was “clearly a forgery.”

January 23rd, 2003 – Condoleeza Rice publishes an op-ed piece in the NY Times, cynically entitled “Why We Know Iraq is Lying,” which continues the Niger charade:

“… (Iraq’s) declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad.”

Colin Powell later plays his part in an interview with the European press, January 26th, 2003:

Reporter - “You referred in your speech to links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Now, even some of our secret service chiefs say publicly that there is no evidence of that.”
Colin Powell - “We do have evidence of it…of connections over the years between Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”

And the President continues the lie:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
– George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address

The infamous sixteen words put forth by Bush stood in stark contrast to the unvarnished intelligence estimates available at the time both in Britain and the United States intelligence communities, which had been provided to the President in numerous forms, most of which was classified and kept from most, and quite often all members of congress as well as hidden entirely from the public at large.

February 5th, 2003 – In his now-infamous speech at the United Nations, Colin Powell proceeded to recap the litany of falsehoods in regards to Iraq’s weapons programs and ties to al Qaeda. His presentation included a thorough rehashing of the “evidence,” which had previously been exhaustively discredited by the U.S. intelligence community. Tellingly, he failed to mention the alleged attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger, even though it had been one of the central themes driving the “need” for war. One can speculate that the Niger falsehood was easy enough to sell to the U.S. public, but a much tougher sell to the international community at large.

In any case, the speech proved to be the culmination of years of manipulation, geared toward drumming up support for the “unavoidable” war with Iraq. Clearly, while the intelligence was not perfect, the idea that the Bush Administration was “fooled” by “faulty intelligence” is just one more lie in a series of lies put forth in an abhorrent violation of the public trust.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie ... The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state."
-Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945

By February 21st, 2003, 57% of U.S. citizens believed that Saddam helped the 9/11 terrorists, in spite of the fact that there exists not a shred of evidence in support of such a claim. The relentless propaganda campaign had achieved its task.

Yet even after the massive propaganda campaign attempting to link Saddam Hussein with an advanced nuclear weapons program, the majority of American citizens still wanted to give nuclear regulatory inspectors more time to determine the true nature of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, if any. More importantly, a plurality believed an attack should only happen if approved by the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council recognized rhetoric over substance and refused to approve the invasion. On March 7th, 2003, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix cites more cooperation from Iraq and demands more time to continue inspections, which to date had revealed “no evidence” of Iraqi WMD programs.

On March 20th, 2003, the overwhelmingly American “coalition force” invaded Iraq in violation of the Geneva Convention and United Nations Charter against aggressive warfare. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
– Theodore Roosevelt, in the Kansas City Star, May 7th, 1918

Part 6: OPERATION IRAQI OIL (O.I.L)
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
– Abraham Lincoln

On March 26th, 2003, Lieutenant General Jay Garner, head of the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) sent a report to all senior U.S. Commanders a list of sixteen institutions that “merit securing as soon as possible to prevent further damage, destruction, and/or pilferage of records and assets.”

The top two places on Garner’s list to be protected were the Central Bank of Iraq and the National Museum in Baghdad. Within days of U.S. ground forces entering Iraq, CentCom gave its orders and the Oil Ministry building was fortified while the Central Bank and Museum were ignored and relentlessly looted. The Oil Ministry was LAST on Garner’s list. Clearly, Donald Rumsfeld (“stuff happens”) had different priorities. In addition to ignoring Garner’s list, Rumsfeld immediately dispatched thousands of American troops to secure each of Iraq’s numerous oil fields. Rumsfeld’s successful rush to protect the oil fields saved Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, which had secretly secured an enormous no-bid contract to safeguard the oil rigs nearly a year before the invasion, from having to earn the millions of taxpayer dollars they were being paid to put out any fires at the oil rigs.

The devastation of the Iraqi Museum, according to Paul Zimansky, a Boston University archaeologist, was “the greatest cultural disaster in the last 500 years.” Others compared the level of looting to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258. The destruction of important historical sites continues unabated, as evidenced by the desecration of the enormous stone temple in the ancient city of Ur by U.S. Marines, who spray-painted their motto, “Semper Fi” on its walls.

Five years have passed and the United States now has a larger presence than at any time since the invasion began. We need at this point in time to stop calling it the Iraq war; it's no longer a war, it's an occupation.

There is no "winning" or "losing" an occupation. History has taught us that you merely endure an occupation as long as you can, counting the bodies along the way.

Let's recap with a few facts:

Invasion was a violation of the U.N. Charter and Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime worthy of a trial in the World Court
Reasons for invasion were proven to be completely false
Illegal invasion has led to over one million innocent Iraqi deaths
Illegal invasion has led to over four million innocent Iraqi refugees
Illegal invasion has led to thousands of American deaths and tens of thousands of serious American injuries (when one adds the suicide rate of military personnel above the average rate for the nation, the death toll among U.S. soldiers reaches into the tens of thousands)
U.S. Intelligence and Military Analysts agree that the overwhelming majority of attacks on U.S. soldiers are being carried out by “liberated” Iraqi citizens
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens want the U.S to leave their country (91%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens approve of attacks on American troops (61%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens agree that a timetable for withdrawal would strengthen the Iraqi government (53%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens believe the American presence "provokes more conflicts than it prevents" (78%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens look upon Al Qaeda (94%) and Bin Laden (93%) somewhat or very unfavorably
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens believe we invaded for control of oil (77%)
The Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law recently proposed essentially confirms the Iraqi fears, as it will give 81% of oil control to U.S. and British oil companies
Illegal invasion has reportedly cost U.S. taxpayers over 1.3 trillion dollars that could have been used for much needed social programs like health care and education.
According to the Department of Defense, “coalition forces are still the primary target of attacks” in Iraq

Based on the facts listed above, how can we justify remaining in Iraq for one minute longer? We have no right to tell the Iraqi citizens, in THEIR country, that we know better than them and we will decide when to leave THEIR COUNTRY, in utter contempt of their opinions on the subject.

Quite often we hear the argument put forth, "We broke it, so we own it.”

How can we make such a claim when Iraqis don't agree with it? If Iraqi citizens made that statement, then it would have legs. Otherwise, it's an excuse to continue an illegal and immoral occupation against the will of the native population.

WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE THERE. PERIOD.

Let's not forget that we were talked into staying in Vietnam for additional YEARS based on the idea that, "if we leave, there will be a civilian bloodbath." There wasn't.

James Baker, a pro-imperialist hawk (also a high-level oil company consultant) and co-author of the Baker Commission Report, admitted to Anderson Cooper that there is "validity" to the idea that "getting the U.S. troops out will actually lessen the violence, that it will at least take away the motivation of nationalist insurgents."

The entire debate is "elitist". Superior Americans deciding how to "help" the savage and backward brown people (as we steal their resources and murder the population).

But what about our noble goal of giving the “gift” of Democracy to the people of Iraq?

In November of 2007, a majority of the elected Iraqi parliament voted to cancel the U.N. mandate allowing the U.S. led forces to remain in the country. In usual anti-democratic fashion, the policy has been ignored by the U.S. government, which went so far as to let the rest of the security council know that removal of the U.S. force is not an option, regardless of what measures the democratically elected representatives of the Iraqi people put forth. This isn’t the first time the U.S. government, in spite of all of it’s happy pronouncements of a democratic Iraq, has disregarded the will of its elected representatives. Early in 2006, more than half the parliament voted for a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, again summarily ignored. These blatant examples of contempt for democracy were met with little if any comment by the western media.

The reality is a true Democracy in Iraq is the very LAST thing the neo-cons in Washington would ever want.

Noam Chomsky explains:

“A sovereign Iraq, even partially democratic, could well be a disaster for US planners. With a Shiite majority, it is likely to continue improving relations with Iran. There is a Shiite population right across the border in Saudi Arabia, bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny. Any step towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there for human rights and a degree of autonomy -- and that happens to be where most of Saudi oil is. Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's hydrocarbon resources and independent of the US, undermining a primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the world-dominant power after World War II. Worse yet, though the US can intimidate Europe, it cannot intimidate China, which blithely goes its own way, even in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown -- the primary reason why China is considered a leading threat. An independent energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to link up with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia (which has its own huge resources) as an integral part, along with the Central Asian states (already members), possibly India. Iran is already associated with them, and a Shiite dominated bloc in the Arab states might well go along. All of that would be a nightmare for US planners, and its Western allies.”

What U.S. planners really want is another puppet government, which will cater to U.S. corporate interests at the expense of the native population. Some previous examples of U.S. “democracy promotion”:

1947 – CIA-backed electoral subversion in France.
1947 – CIA-backed electoral subversion in Italy.
1947 – US Military intervention against populist movement in Greece.
1948 – Military coup by CIA-trained Manuel Odria in Peru.
1948 – CIA subversion of elections in Columbia.
1948 – CIA-backed military coup in Venezuela.
1953 – U.S. & U.K. overthrow elected government of Guyana.
1953 – CIA-backed coup removes democratically elected Iranian parliament, which resulted in the installation of a brutal dictator (and CIA puppet) who repressed the Iranian population while catering to the United States multi-national corporations for the better part of 25 years.
1954 – CIA-backed coup overthrows elected government in Paraguay.
1954: The CIA overthrows Guatemala's government, ousting the elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, and installing the military dictatorship of Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas.
1960 – CIA-backed overthrow of government in Congo.
1962 – CIA-backed military coup in Laos.
1963 – CIA-backed military coup in Ecuador.
1964 - Military coup by CIA-trained René Barrientos Ortuño in Bolivia.
1965 – CIA-backed army coup in Indonesia.
1966 – CIA-backed military coup in Ghana.
1966 – CIA-backed coup to remove democratically elected government in Dominican Republic, preferring yet another ruthless dictator who would serve the U.S. while repressing the native population.
1967 - CIA-backed coup that brought Suharto to power in Indonesia and took perhaps as many as a million lives.
1967 – CIA-backed military coup by the Colonels in Greece.
1969 – CIA-backed military coup in Cambodia.
1973 - After Chileans elected Salvador Allende president in 1970, Henry Kissinger declared, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” Three years later, General Pinochet, supported by the CIA, engineered a coup and, for two decades, led one of the bloodiest regimes in the history of South America.
1973 – CIA-backed military coup in Uraguay.
1976 - Military coup by CIA-trained Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina.
1980 – CIA- subversion of elections in Jamaica.
1983 – U.S. invasion of Grenada
1980's - Contras’ US-backed terror campaign that took the lives of over 30,000 civilians
1980’s – After a universally acclaimed free election in El Salvador, the U.S. began CIA operations meant to destabilize the elected government. This resulted in yet another ruthless dictator, the destruction of a democratically elected government, the repression of millions and the death and imprisonment of tens of thousands more.
1984: Panamanian Presidential election of May 6 is a fraud arranged by Reagan Administration operatives and Noriega. Nicolás Ardito Barletta, former official of the World Bank, wins. Secretary of State George Shultz attends inauguration of his protégé (Ardito Barletta had been an assistant to Shultz when Shultz was a University of Chicago professor) to praise the rigged election as democracy in action.
1987 - Military coup by CIA-funded Sitiveni Rabuka in Fiji.
1993 - US-backed military coup by Sani Abacha in Nigeria.
2002 – CIA-backed military coup that temporarily overthrew the extremely popular democratically elected President of Venezuela.
2003 – illegal invasion of Iraq has resulted in the violent deaths of a reported 1.2 million civilians and the homelessness of several million more.

This is but a sample of our illegal interference in the political processes around the globe. One could delve into our governments support of the likes of Marcos in the Philippines, Chiang Kai-shek in China, Syngman Rhee in Korea, Diem, Ky, and Thieu in Vietnam, Batista in Cuba, Apartheid South Africa, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Kasavubu and Mobutu in Zaire, and so on. The M.O. remains the same.

This GUARANTEES terrorist-causing anti-American resentment that will be taken out on U.S. soldiers and civilians, which is merely a nuisance to those, like Dick Cheney and friends, who stand to make many more millions of dollars in "defense" and oil profits. After all, it's not their kids who are on the front lines.

Just look at the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law, one of President Bush’s notorious “benchmarks,” which privatizes 81% of Iraq's currently nationalized petroleum resources (the “greatest strategic prize in history”), opening them to "investment" by Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, and two British oil companies, BP/Amoco and Royal Dutch/Shell. These companies expect to sign the rarely used and notoriously profitable contracts called "production sharing agreements" which guarantee them extraordinarily high profit margins: they might capture more than half of the oil revenues for the first 15-30 years of the contracts' lifespan, and deny Iraq any income at all until their infrastructure "investments" have been recovered. So the Iraqi people will share among themselves all the revenue from 1/5th of their country's oil reserves. But they will get only a fraction from the remaining 4/5ths, where the American and British oil companies expect to generate immense profits. The law itself was drawn up within Dick Cheney’s office as a part of his “Energy Task Force” work, which began prior to the 9/11 attacks, in what can only be seen as an imperial oil-grab of the largest magnitude. When one realizes the facts “on the ground” in this regard, it’s hard not to imagine changing the name of the conflict from “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (O.I.F.) back to the more appropriate “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (O.I.L.) (the original name suggested for the invasion by the Pentagon before someone pointed out the obvious problem, I kid you not) in honor of the true nature of the conflict.

“In support of the people of Iraq, we the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, state our opposition to the Iraq Oil Law. We also oppose the decision of the United States government to require that the Iraq government pass the Oil Law as a condition of continued reconstruction aid in legislation passed on May 24th, 2007. A law with the potential to so radically transform the basic economic security of the people of Iraq should not be forced on Iraq while it is under occupation and in such a weak negotiating position vis-à-vis both the U.S. government and foreign oil corporations. The Iraqi Oil Law could benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, deny the Iraqi people economic security, create greater instability, and mover the country further away from peace. The U.S. government should leave the matter of how Iraq will address the future of its oil system to the Iraqi people to be dealt with at a time when they are free from occupation and more able to engage in truly democratic decision-making. It is immoral and illegal to use war and invasion as mechanisms for robbing a people of their vital natural resources.”
– Nobel Women’s Initiative members, Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi and Wangari Maathai

For a good example of what happens to a third world oil producing country in the hands of U.S. and British multi-national companies, one merely can look at Nigeria, where in 2004 80% of the nation’s revenue from the oil industry went to only 1% of the population, and only 2% of Shell Oil’s employees were from the local population.

Part 6: DOMESTIC STATE TERRORISM
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin

“What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took “decisive measures.”
– German Lawyer Sebastian Haffner, lamenting on the restricted civil liberties imposed under Hitler in response to the terrorist bombings of the German Parliament building in Berlin. The reduction of civil liberties after the Reichstag attack is seen by historians as the first in a series of steps taken by Hitler, which eventually led to the destruction of the German democracy.

“If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.”
Rep. Barbara Jordon, July 25th, 1974

Back in the States, the Bush administration continued to engage in blatantly unconstitutional activities in the self-proclaimed “War on Terror,” under the banner of the newly formed “Unitary Executive Theory.” This theory, constructed by right wing members of the Alberto Gonzalez Justice Department, under the direction of the Vice President’s office, effectively asserts the President of the United States has limitless powers in all foreign and domestic affairs in accord with his role as Commander-In-Chief. This theory has no basis in the U.S. Constitution, which implicitly gives Congress the power to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” In response to the “rules” imposed by Congress, President Bush has taken to releasing executive “signing statements,” which effectively tell Congress that he will only comply with laws that he agrees with, while summarily ignoring those with which he finds fault. The Unitary Executive Theory is a dictatorship by any other name. The standard definition of a dictatorship is as follows: An autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

Rep. John Conyers in his ongoing report of potential Bush Administration crimes:

“The misconduct found is not only serious, but widespread. The laws implicated by the Bush administration’s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congress; federal laws and international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; FISA laws; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. All told, some 26 separate laws and regulations have been implicated by the actions of various individuals within the Bush administration. Significantly, none of the misconduct has been independently reviewed by the Executive Branch, Congress or the Courts.”

In addition to working outside the parameters set forth in the Constitution, the Administration and its supporters continue to obfuscate the war debate behind the classic mantra of “support the troops.” The slogan is nothing more than a red herring meant to ward off criticism of policy, which has thus far proven all too successful in its goal.

Every warmongering leadership in history used the “support the troops” mantra in one form or another to silence meaningful debate on a war policy. Hitler’s supporters used it repeatedly prior to unleashing WWII on the rest of humanity. They often claimed that those questioning Hitler’s policies were guilty of being “unpatriotic,” “anti-German,” or “not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the “patriotic necessity” of “supporting the valient men in uniform.”

Part 7: FROM THE SAME FOLKS WHO SOLD YOU THE WAR IN IRAQ
“I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state. If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth. And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps. It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law… The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment… What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable.”
- Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, at an American University symposium on Sept. 20, 2007

Do you think the neo-con agenda stops at a "democratic" Iraq? No. They have made it clear that Iran is the next target, and the propaganda campaign has begun in earnest. The current cheerleading for war with Iran holds remarkable similarities to the lead up to the Iraq debacle. Unfortunately, most of the evidence used to debunk the lies put forth by the Bush Administration prior to the Iraq invasion appeared many months after the invasion had already taken place. This evidence usually consisted of a combination of leaked documents, whistle-blower testimony, lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act and appallingly belated reports from investigative journalists. In the case of Iran, we don’t have much “insider” information as to what intelligence reports the White House currently knows and how that information is being manipulated in an effort to sell yet another war for oil, but we do have plenty of circumstantial information currently at our disposal that leads us to that conclusion.

Largely spearheaded once again by Dick Cheney, the vast array of unsupported “evidence” includes accusing the largely Shia nation of Iran of supporting the mostly Sunni “terrorists” (mostly “liberated” Iraqi citizens) attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as the obligatory “mushroom cloud” references in regards to Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. All alleged “proof” put forth so far has rested on unsubstantiated claims made by government officials, once again dutifully reported by the corporate media, in a virtual replay of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. It seeems the mainstream media either never learns, or is in favor of the imperial agenda. Either way, the 4th estate has failed in its duty to provide a fair and balanced counterpoint to the powers-that-be, to the detriment of the democracy and the world in general.

Why is Iran our "Enemy"?

In order to fully understand why our nation is beating the drums of war with Iran, we need to begin with our relationship with Iran since the end of WWII.

In 1953, the CIA backed a military coup (with help from the British Secret Service) that deposed the democratically elected Iranian parliament, which resulted in the installation of a brutal dictator (and CIA puppet) who repressed the Iranian population while catering to the United States multi-national corporations for the better part of 25 years. It need not be mentioned how we would react if another country backed a coup that overthrew our own democracy, forcing us to live under a ruthless dictator for several generations, while systematically stealing our precious resources. In any case, the years of repression led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. Religious extremism relies on anger and hopelessness as its greatest recruitment tool, and the decades of U.S.-supported repression took its toll on the Iranian people. The Islamic revolution in 1979 removed the United States puppet and resulted in the much talked about hostage crisis. Once again, looking in context at the egregious U.S. meddling in Iran, can we really complain about the taking of our embassy in Tehran? Especially when one considers the fact that the President Carter, in the midst of the uprising, sent a General to the embassy in Tehran to help facilitate yet another military coup, to re-install the Shah. I'm not condoning the hostage taking, but merely putting into correct context.

Anyway, the new Iranian government was deemed a United States enemy, with a stated goal of "regime change" happening almost instantaneously. We then backed Saddam Hussein with military supplies and know-how, massive financial "grants" and logistical support in his illegal invasion of Iran a few years later. Close to a half million Iranians died in the war with Iraq, in large part due to the U.S. support. It need not be mentioned how we would feel if another country supported a massive illegal invasion of our homeland, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

As if backing the illegal Iraq invasion wasn’t enough, the United States added insult to injury by escalating the conflict and therefore the massive death count by playing both sides of the war through the illegal selling of arms to Iran during what came to be known as the Iran/Contra scandal. The funds acquired from the illegal arms sales to Iran were used to pay for yet another illegal endeavor; the proxy war against the peasants in Nicaragua, who were guilty in the eyes of the Reagan administration of having the audacity to want to control their own natural resources, instead of merely catering to U.S. multi-national corporations, as is the correct “order of things.” This war resulted in the United States being condemned as a terrorist State by the United Nations.

In 1988, the United States shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing all 290 passengers. Vice President George H.W. Bush later stated at a news conference that he “will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are.” Need we articulate what the reaction of the American public would be had the reverse happened to us?

After the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the Iranian government proved to be a great ally to the United States in its attempts to bring al Qaeda to justice. They volunteered intelligence information as to the wherabouts of al Qaeda operatives, as well as turned over captured al Qaeda prisoners to U.S. officials for questioning. The Iranian public took to the streets in vast numbers in solidarity with the American people.

Later, George W. Bush thanked the Iranian government after they helped the U.S. topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by infamously labeling them part of an “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea. This absurd charge ignored the fact that those three nations had little contact with one another and what contact they did have, especially in the case of Iran and Iraq under Saddam, would not qualify as friendly and therefore could hardly be termed an “axis” of any kind. This double-cross created an enormous firestorm in Iran, as the hardliners used it as leverage against the moderate Iranian President, pointing out that they had always stated that you could not trust the United States government.

Nevertheless, in 2003, the moderate Khatami government in Iran offered to completely suspend nuclear enrichment as well as open all areas of disagreement with Washington to negotiations. This included all nuclear issues, the Israeli/Palestinian issues and support of Hezbollah. The only condition placed on such negotiations was a halt to the threats of attack by Washington and removal of Iran from the “axis of evil.” Not only does the Bush administration reject the offer, they didn't even respond to it, and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. One has to question the true motivations of an administration that rejects such a pragmatic offer with such blatant contempt.

Additionally, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA and 2005 Nobel Laureate, proposed putting all weapons-grade fissile material production under international control and supervision, while allowing any nation that wanted the materials for peaceful use to apply for it. The only nation to agree to the very practical idea was Iran. The only nation on earth. During the same IAEA meetings in Vienna, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa, decreeing that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. Furthermore, the EU made a deal with Iran (a country that hasn’t invaded another nation in over 250 years) to guarantee "security" (read: no U.S. invasion) in exchange for a halt in uranium production. Washington forced the EU to back out of the deal.

Where did this lead? Khatami, who took a huge risk in taking a diplomatic stance with Washington in the face of severe hardline opposition, was humiliated and lost the next election to Ahmadinejad. Unlike in our ally countries like the arch-repressive Saudi Arabia and the brutal despotism in Egypt, Iran actually holds elections, with limited but very real consequences. Hardline President Ahmadinejad won the election, and the nuclear power program then began in earnest.

Even with the election of a hardliner President, Iran continued its diplomatic overtures. In 2006, Iran’s supreme leader had agreed to abide by the tenets of the Arab peace initiative, also known as the “Saudi Plan,” which is a two-state solution that respects Israel’s right to exist as a free and sovereign nation within the pre-war 1967 borders. This news was, as is usually the case, largely ignored by the U.S. corporate media.

In any case, here we are, on the verge of war with our "enemy," Iran. So why is Iran our enemy, anyway? What are the real reasons?

Iran has the oil and is not under the thumb of Washington, making them a de facto "enemy" of the U.S. and the West in general. Israel, the United States militant ally in the region, has always longed to install its own puppet government in Lebanon to make the "refugee problem" much simpler to "solve". Iran has ties to Hezbollah, which has successfully defied Israels imperialist ambitions in Lebanon. Therefore, Iran is only our enemy and Israel's enemy in so much as they have proven to be a serious obstacle to imperial aggression, and not because they pose any serious threat to the United States or Israeli homelands.

Let's logically look at the Iranian "threat". What would happen to Iran if they attacked either Israel or the United States, either directly or through a secondary agent? The answer is simple; they would be wiped from the face of the earth in a few hours. Israel has the capability to do this all by themselves. The United States clearly could do it as well. So, an attack by Iran would essentially be a call for mass suicide by the Iranian government. That makes little sense. As nasty as the Iranian government can be to its own population, they haven’t given the slightest hint that they are in fact a suicidal nation. What makes a lot of sense, in fact it's as clear as day at a mere glance, is the concept that Iran is only our "enemy" because they refuse to cater to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region.

Let's look at the nuclear threat that has everyone up in arms. Iran has maintained the right to produce nuclear power, which is in fact their right under the existing Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaties (In fact, the Iranian nuclear power program first began in the 1970’s under the guidance and approval of none other than Dick Cheney, then serving as Chief-of-Staff to President Ford). No independent monitor has found any proof that Iran have moved in the direction of nuclear weaponry, yet the U.N. still has been bullied into sanctioning them. As recently as September 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there is no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran.

ElBaradei:

"I repeat: we have not seen any undeclared facilities operating in Iran. We have not seen any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized. We have not received any information to that effect. So while we are still concerned about the nature of the Iranian program, I do not believe, at this stage, that we are facing clear and present danger that requires that we go beyond diplomacy."

That assessment has been reaffirmed in an official IAEA report in November 2007. And in the most recent development, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program has finally been released, after over a year of Bush administration delays. The document, released publicly on December 3rd, 2007, declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform enriched material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003. Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The assessment, once again, stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric put forth by the usual neo-con suspects.

Meanwhile, it is common knowledge that Israel has stockpiled an enormous nuclear arsenal at Iran's doorstep, thanks to the U.S.A, in violation of those same NPT's. When the U.N has repeatedly called for sanctions to be brought against Israel, the U.S. has vetoed those proposed sanctions in an egregious double standard that is almost never commented on in the United States corporate media. In November 2007, Israel displayed “chutzpah” of the highest caliber by publicly lamenting that the head of the IAEA is “sticking his head in the sand over Iran’s nuclear programme.” Additionally, the U.S. has recently entered into negotiations with India with a goal toward providing India with the technical know-how and resources to begin a large-scale nuclear weapons program, again in direct violation of those same NPT’s.

By the way, the anti-Iranian propaganda hit its peak with the corporate media firestorm over Iranian President Ahmadinejad allegedly saying, "Israel must be wiped off the map," which, it turns out was conveniently mistranslated in the U.S. and Israel. What he actually said, which was barely reported after the fact, was "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of history". Much different. It was clearly a shot at the current Israeli leadership and its illegal and immoral occupation of Palestinian territory, not the civilian population. Additionally, the statement was not even his own; he was reading a quote made by the Ayatollah nearly twenty years earlier.

In any case, one needs to just look at the facts to see that WE are the threat to Iran, and not the other way around. If Iran's greatest resource were pistachios and coffee beans, would they be our enemy? Of course not.

But getting back to the nuclear issue for a moment, one has to ask, why would Iran want a nuclear arsenal, if indeed they do? What would be the reason? The answer is simple and can be found by taking a comparative look at how the U.S. government handled two of the three members of the "axis of evil".

North Korea has a modest nuclear arsenal and therefore will not be attacked by the United States. Instead, we are forced to deal with North Korea through diplomatic means. Iraq had no such deterrent, and therefore was attacked as a first resort. What lesson did this teach Iran? What lesson did it teach the rest of the world? The United States, the leading Rogue State on the planet earth, perhaps in human history, will attack wherever and whenever they see a potential threat, real or imagined, unless there is a nuclear deterrent. Essentially, George Bush's unilateral, illegal invasion has basically told the world to acquire nuclear weapons, or else face the consequences. Would you blame Iran for wanting a nuclear deterrent under this scenario? Should they be punished for a situation that we created?

What a mess.

What can we do about this horrible situation that Bush has placed us in? Plan A would have us invade Iran. The war plans have already been drawn up and were leaked to the British Press. It entails a blitz of cruise missiles and bunker-busters, many with "low-yield" nuclear payloads, targeting weapons systems, defense systems, government buildings, infrastructure, etc the likes of which make the initial "shock and awe" of 2003 seem like child's play. This will result in enormous casualties, including tens of thousands of civilians, with many more likely over time (the Iraqi civilian death toll has surpassed one million as we speak), as well as creating an explosion of regional instability throughout the Middle East. At the same time, we would step up our hypocritical support of anti-Iranian terrorist operations in southern Iran, in hopes of creating a coup that would install a "friendly" government, one who would keep the population in line, while catering to our corporate needs, as is the usual M.O.

Iran would attempt a relatively modest retaliation, targeting our soldiers in Iraq and possibly the State of Israel, causing untold additional numbers of civilian casualties, as well as thousands of additional American casualties. Iran will also take the handcuffs off of the formidable Sadr militia in Iraq, which has been chomping at the bit to drive the U.S. out of the country. A battle with the extremely popular Sadr will enflame Shia passions nationwide, resulting in an explosion of anti-American backlash in the highly Shia country. U.S. soldiers would "defensively" kill thousands of additional "liberated" Iraqi citizens, making a bad situation infinitely worse. Iran would also call upon the warlords in Afghanistan to "make things difficult" for the Americans in Afghanistan, where they already have their hands full. This escalation would also inevitably lead to thousands of additional dead soldiers and civilians.

Israel will use the Iranian attack as a call to "defense" (in spite of the fact that Israel is pushing for a U.S. led attack against Iran more than anyone) and unleash an overwhelming attack both on Iran AND the nation of Lebanon, adding thousands to the civilian death toll. At this point, Israel will no longer be shackled by the constraints of world public opinion and will implement the already existing plan to annihilate Hezbollah and replace the elected government of Lebanon with a puppet government that will allow them to "solve" the "Palestinian refugee problem" once and for all. Israel will also use the window of opportunity to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Turkey will launch their own invasion of northern Iraq against the Kurdish population, leading to tens of thousands of additional civilian casualties.

Saudi Arabia will have their hands full trying to ruthlessly contain the Shia rebellion that will no doubt erupt in their oil-producing region. Syria, Jordon, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt will be flooded with refugees from Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, causing a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Millions will be at risk of starvation. Millions more will be homeless. Additionally, civilian uprisings in Pakistan will threaten to unhinge the already precarious Musharef regime, resulting in a potential coup within a nuclear-enabled state by radical Islamists.

Russia will use this window of opportunity to "clamp down" on "terrorists" in Chechnya.

U.S. resentment worldwide would spike to unprecedented levels and foreign travel by American citizens would be ill advised, even to our "ally" countries in Europe and the Americas.

Here in the states, the “police state” Daniel Ellsberg warned us about would become a very real possibility. An attack on Iran and the predicted worldwide backlash could, as explained by political author Naomi Klein, prove to be the impetus that allows Bush to “suspend the (2008) elections in the name of ‘national security,’ and take the control of the government via the ‘National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51’ and ‘Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20,’ released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted.” These directives, which again received little, if any coverage in the mainstream media, call for a consolidation of power into the executive branch, relegating the judicial and legislative branches into subservient, “consultant” roles in the event of a vaguely defined “catastrophic emergency,” taking place either here or abroad.

How do you like Plan A?

Let's all try a thought experiment.

Let's pretend Iran is the greatest military force in the history of the human race.

Let's also pretend that corn and wheat are the greatest source of energy on the planet.

Let's also pretend that Iran is allied with Cuba and helped Cuba build one of the largest nuclear-enabled military machines in the history of mankind off of the Florida coast.

Let's also pretend that the U.S. has no nuclear arsenal and a decent military capability, but clearly no match for either Cuba or Iran.

Let's further imagine that the coastal waters of the both the east and west coasts of the U.S. are teeming with Iranian battle groups, all carrying nuclear capabilities and each with enough firepower to flatten most of our major cities in only a few hours.

Continuing our little thought experiment, let's say Iran is supporting anti-American militias on U.S. soil, looking to overthrow our government through a terror campaign.

Add to this the Iranian President has labeled our country "evil" and has repeatedly spoke of "regime change" within our government. He also repeatedly accuses the U.S. of trying to develop nuclear weaponry; even though international nuclear regulatory commission members have found no proof whatsoever that the U.S. is doing anything illegal.

The Iranian leadership then forces sanctions against the U.S. for (legally) pursuing nuclear power, which Iran already has in abundance on their own homeland.

Let's pretend that at this point Iran invades and occupies Canada and Mexico, killing over a million citizens and overthrowing the governments.

They follow this by lining the north and south land borders of the U.S. with a massive military build up.

The population in Canada rises up in an insurgency against the illegal invading Iranian force.

Do you help the Canadians? Who is the villain in this scenario? Who are the victims? Would you find it perfectly acceptable for Iran to launch a massive “defensive” air assault onto sovereign U.S. targets? Would Iran be correct in its claim of “self-defense"?

The point is obvious...we need to take off our “brown shirts,” stop blindly following the propaganda and start using our brains. Citizens would do well to look at the actions of their government, as opposed to listening merely to their words. Bush’s actions are in direct opposition to the claimed objectives of his words. Although he has taken hegemonic zealotry to new heights, Bush isn’t alone in perpetrating this farce. One merely has to look at the egregious United States use of its United Nations veto in regards to WMD initiatives since 1972 to see the hypocrisy and convenience of our case against the WMD “threats” formerly of Saddam Hussein and presently in Iran:

• 1979 - The USA, UK and France veto a United Nations resolution calling for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid regime in South Africa (The vote is 114 to 3); The USA, UK and France veto a United Nations resolution concerning negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race (120 to 3)?
• 1980 - declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. The vote is 110 to 2; The USA and UK also veto a United Nations resolution calling for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions?
• 1981 - To establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East (107 to 2 with UK); for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons (118 to 2 with UK); Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament (78 to 3 including Canada). Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons (109 to 1)?
• 1982 -For a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (111 to 1); Request to USA and USSR to make public their nuclear arms negotiations (114 to 1, the USSR abstained); Prevention of arms race in outer space (138 to 1); Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons (95 to 1)?
• 1983 - Prevention of an arms race in outer space (147 to 1); Prohibition of manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction (116 to 1); Reversing the arms race (133 to 1), Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons (98 to 1); Requests a study on the naval arms race (113 to 1); Disarmament and security (132 to 1)?
• 1984 - Prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction (125 to 1)?
• 1987 - The USA vetoes 2 United Nations resolutions supported only by France and / or the UK: Calling for a comprehensive test ban (143 to 2); Calling for a halt to all nuclear explosions (137 to 3)?
• 2004 - Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency proposes that all production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control, with “assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies”. The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (or Fissban) was debated by the United Nations Committee on Disarmament in November. The vote was 147 to 1, with two abstentions: Israel and UK.
• 2005 - A year later the United Nations General Assembly would offer the same resolution (179 to 2 USA and Palau) with Israel and UK abstaining.

Part 8: WAR ON TERROR? OR WAR OF TERROR?
You want to reduce terrorism and WMD proliferation? You have several choices:

The Doctrine of Empire, which involves continuing to occupy and invade Muslim countries to steal their resources and repress their populations, virtually guaranteeing terrorist "blowback" in perpetuity (just ask the CIA, FBI, NSA, Department of Homeland Security, Baker Commission etc, who all agree this is, in fact, what is happening).

Or, you can fight the root cause of terrorism and WMD proliferation by:

• U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Our illegal occupation has fueled anti-American sentiment worldwide, which has served as a beacon for terrorist recruitment.
• We agree to pay reparations to the people of Iraq, to help them rebuild what we destroyed. Additionally, we agree to support a true democracy in Iraq and not another "puppet" democracy, as is our normal policy.
• We agree to abide, once again, by international law. This includes the Geneva Convention and the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaties, which we signed but have violated repeatedly and with utter contempt for decades. Additionally, we abolish the un-democratic Security Council ‘veto’ system, which has led to egregious abuses of power by the United States and other powerful veto-holding nations.
• We demand complete nuclear disarmament in the Middle East, which essentially means removing the United States arsenal, and the Israeli and Pakistani stockpiles. We then actively become a leading force in Nuclear disarmament worldwide, instead of developing new nuclear weapons, as is our current illegal strategy. We also put all future weapons-grade fissile material production under international control and supervision, as suggested by the I.A.E.A.
• We also demand that Israel agree to the peace plan proposed in the recent Arab initiative, which calls for a two- state solution, based on the pre-June 1967 borders. This complies with international law and is a fair and just proposal for peace.
• We begin diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria and agree to help them with their nuclear energy programs in exchange for a guarantee that they will not attempt to build nuclear weapons and will allow unfettered access by nuclear inspectors (which they have both agreed to, by the way)
• At home, we put serious effort into Renewable Energy technology with the goal of lowering greenhouse gasses and replacing the 20% of the oil we require from the Middle East with homegrown alternative energy. We sign the Kyoto Protocol and demand that the world follow us as we take the lead in lowering greenhouse gasses. Specifically, we challenge China to match our environmental initiatives, as opposed to the current policy of blaming each other (with a wink) for why we cannot take the necessary steps.
• Once advances in renewable energy negate our need for Middle Eastern oil, we remove our military support from Saudi Arabia (our current supplier), and back true democratic initiatives in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. We can keep a reduced, non-nuclear military presence in ally countries (democratic allies) in the region as true "peacekeepers," as opposed to war mongerers, under the control of the U.N. Security Council.

This plan would remove any incentive for Iran or anyone else in the region to acquire nuclear weapons, and it would emasculate the fringe Islamic fundamentalists in the region, who pray on anti-American resentment and hopelessness as their biggest recruitment tool.

This would ultimately reduce anti-western terrorism to the level of a police matter, as opposed to a military matter.

Additionally, the trillions of dollars earmarked for “defense” (a euphemism for tax-subsidized corporate war profiteering) could be used to provide universal health care & free college educations to all U.S. citizens, feed and clothe the poor, rebuild New Orleans, provide grants for medical and scientific research and development, and so on.

It's a better plan than the usual imperialist warmongering strategy, which led directly to the 9/11 attacks and has killed thousands of American soldiers as well as over a million innocent Iraqi citizens.

Part 9: THE "DEMOCRACY" OF ISRAEL
"… the US government is not prepared to support a 'real' inspection effort in which the team members can feel authorized to ask directly pertinent questions and/or insist on being allowed to look at records, logs, materials and the like. The team has in many subtle ways been cautioned to avoid controversy, 'be gentlemen' and not take issue with the obvious will of the hosts.”
- U.S. State Department memo on the United States “inspection team” sent to Israel to inspect the Israeli nuclear plant in Dimona , August 1969

But what of our “democratic” friend Israel? What of their security? After all, they are the only true democracy in the region, right?

First of all, it's not a democracy. A democracy values freedom and equality to all of its citizens regardless of their race, creed or religion. Israel treats the Palestinians worse than the U.S. treated its slaves.

Bruce Dixon explains:

“Imagine, if you will, a modern apartheid state with first, second and eleventh class citizens, all required to carry identification specifying their ethnic origin. First class citizens (Israeli Jews) are obliged to serve in the armed forces, kept on ready reserve status until in their forties, and accorded an impressive array of housing, medical, social security, educational and related benefits denied all others.

Second class citizens (Israeli Arabs) are exempted from military service and from a number of the benefits accorded citizens of the first class. They are issued identity documents and license plates that allow them to be profiled by police at a distance. Second class citizens may not own land in much of the country and marriages between them and first class citizens are not recognized by the state. Second class citizens are sometimes arrested without trial and police torture, while frowned upon and occasionally apologized for, commonly occurs.

Citizens of the eleventh class (Palestinians), really not citizens at all, have no rights citizens of the first class or their government are bound to respect. Their residence is forbidden in nearly nine-tenths of the country, all of which they used to own. The areas left to them are cut up into smaller and smaller portions weekly, by high walls, free fire zones and hundreds of checkpoints manned by the army of the first class citizens, so that none can travel a dozen miles in any direction to work, school, shopping, a job, a farm, a business or a hospital without several long waits, humiliating searches and often arbitrary denials of the right to pass or to return. Posh residential settlements for the first class citizens with protecting gun towers and military bases are built with government funds and foreign aid on what used to be the villages and farms and pastures of the eleventh class citizens. The settlers are allotted generous additional housing and other subsidies, allowed to carry weapons and use deadly force with impunity against the former inhabitants, and are connected with the rest of first class territory by a network of first-class citizen only roads.

Citizens of the eleventh class are routinely arrested, tortured, and held indefinitely without trial. Political activism among them is equated to “terrorism” and the state discourages such activity by means including but not limited to the kidnapping of suspects and relatives of suspects, demolition of their family homes, and extralegal assassination, sometimes at the hands of a death squad, or at others times by lobbing missiles or five hundred pound bombs into sleeping apartment blocks or noonday traffic. Passports are not issued to these citizens, and those who take advantage of scarce opportunities to study or work abroad are denied re-entry.”

We've all seen the United Nations roll call on the issue. It usually reads 110+ votes condemning Israel for numerous atrocities in the region and ordering them to cede the illegally occupied territories and 2 votes against, the U.S. (with a veto) and Israel. Sometimes some banana republic joins the U.S and Israel...perhaps Micronesia or the Marshall Islands, but you get the idea.

Much like the previous list of United States vetoes of U.N. initiatives geared toward curbing proliferation of WMD’s, the United States has virtually stood alone in supporting the continuing crimes of the nation of Israel:

1972 - The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli air raids by Phantoms and Skyhawks on Lebanon and Syria. In al-Hama, a suburb of Damascus, houses are bombed indiscriminately and people are machine gunned as they run for cover. Up to 500 Lebanese and Syrian civilians are killed in the air attacks.
1973 - The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution affirming the rights of Palestinians and calling on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories.
1976 - The USA vetoes four separate United Nations resolutions. The first condemns Israeli attacks against Lebanese civilians. The second condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. The third calls for self-determination for the Palestinians. The fourth affirms Palestinian rights.
1978 - The USA vetoes two United Nations resolutions. The first criticizing the living conditions of the Palestinians (110 to 2 with Israel). The second condemning the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories (97 to 3 Israel & UK).
1979 - The USA vetoes five United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. The first calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel (121 to 3: the three are USA, Israel and Australia). The second demands that Israel desist from human rights violations (111 to 2 w/Israel). The third is a request for a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries (120 to 2 w/Israel). The fourth offers assistance to the Palestinian people (112 to 3: the three are USA, Israel and Canada). The fifth discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories (118 to 2 w/Israel).
1980 - The USA vetoes six United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians: The first requests Israel to return displaced persons (the vote is 96 to 3 with Canada being the third country). The second condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people (118 to 2). Three resolutions condemn Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories (votes: 118 to 2; 119 to 2; 117 to 2). The sixth endorses self-determination for the Palestinians (120 to 3 with Israel and Australia).
1981 - the USA vetoes an astonishing 18 United Nations resolutions concerning Israel, including a demand that Israel cease excavations in areas of East Jerusalem considered by the United Nations to be part of the occupied territories. The vote is 114 to 2. Condemns Israel for bombing Iraqi nuclear installations (108 to 2). Two resolutions condemning Israeli policy regarding living conditions of the Palestinian people (109 to 2 and 111 to 2). To establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East (107 to 2). Demanding that Israel renounce possession of nuclear weapons (101 to 2). Two resolutions attempting to establish rights for the Palestinian people. The votes are 121 to 2, 119 to 3 (with Canada). To clarify the status of Jerusalem (139 to 2). Discusses Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip (141 to 2). Rights of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes (121 to 3 with Canada). Concerning revenues from Palestinian refugees’ properties (117 to 2). Establishment of the University of Jerusalem for Palestinian refugees (119 to 2). Concerning Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories (111 to 2). Condemning Israel closing of universities in occupied territories (114 to 2) Opposes Israel’s decision to build a canal linking the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Concerning sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories (115 to 2). Affirming the non-applicability of Israeli law over the occupied Golan Heights (121 to 2).
1982/1983 – Israel illegally invades the nation of Lebanon, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, as well as the total destruction of the civilian infrastructure. The United Nations General Assembly condemns the massacre and declares it to be an act of genocide. The vote is 147 to 2 (Israel and the USA). An Israeli soldier shoots 11 Muslims worshipping on the Haram-Al-Sharif in East Jerusalem. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning the shooting. Another resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights (occupied in 1967) is also vetoed by the USA. Between 1982 and 1983, six separate United Nations resolutions condemning the Israeli invasion of Lebanon are vetoed by the USA. In addition, the USA refuses to invoke its own laws prohibiting Israeli use of American weapons except in self-defense.
1984 - The USA vetoes numerous United Nations resolutions: Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States (voted by 134 to 2 with Israel); Condemns Israeli attack against Iraqi nuclear installation (106 to 2); On the elimination of racial discrimination (145 to 1); Affirming the rights of the Palestinian people (127 to 2); Convening a Middle East peace conference (121 to 3 including Canada); Prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction (125 to 1); Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons (84 to 1); Law of the sea (138 to 2); Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories (120 to 2); Condemns assassination attempts against Palestinian mayors (143 to 2).
1985 - The USA vetoes two separate United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions in Lebanon and the use of excessive force in the occupied territories.
1987 - The USA vetoes two United Nations resolutions. One condemning Israeli actions against civilians in Lebanon and the other calling on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1988 - the USA vetoes three United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions in Lebanon and urging a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Between 1983 and 1987, Israeli forces have killed over 50,000 people in Lebanon.
1988 - The USA vetoes two separate United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
1989 - three more similar resolutions are vetoed by the USA. The PLO wishes to appeal to the General Assembly of the United Nations but the leader, Yasser Arafat is refused a visa by the USA despite being recognized by over 60 countries. The Assembly meeting is moved to Geneva (Switzerland).
1990 - In Israel, troops open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Jerusalem killing 21 and injuring 150. An Israeli soldier shoots and kills 7 laborers at Oyon Qara; 13 Palestinians are killed while demonstrating against the killings. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution to send three Security Council observers into the area.
1995 - The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution confirming that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Convention.
1997 - The USA vetoes two United Nations resolutions that call on Israel to cease construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the other occupied territories. One of the votes was by 130 to 2 (USA and Israel).
2001 - On 28th March the USA vetoes a United Nations resolution calling for the deployment of unarmed monitors to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. This is the 73rd use of the veto in the United Nations by the USA since 1945. The vast majority of USA vetos were cast in support of Israel and South Africa during the apartheid era, and defending USA actions in Central America. Most of the vetos violate the spirit of United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and other documents describing basic human rights and humanitarian standards. In December the USA vetoes a United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.
2002 - Iain Hook, a 54-year-old United Nations relief worker is shot by an Israeli soldier in a clearly marked United Nations compound in Jenin. Israeli soldiers stop the ambulance sent to attend to the injured worker. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning the killing and the destruction of a warehouse belonging to the World Food Programme.
2003 - the USA vetos a United Nations resolution condemning the continued building of a fence by Israel on Palestinian land.

The voting record of the United States in regard to Israel stands in stark contrast, not only to the overwhelming majority of the world community, but more importantly in contradiction to the will of the American people, who have consistently called for an “even-handed” approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

So, why DOES the U.S. support Israel? Please don’t pretend it has anything to do with supporting another "beacon of freedom and democracy". To quote an Israeli friend of mine, who served in the Israeli Special Forces, "Israel is nothing more than an enormous U.S. Military Base in the middle of the largest oil-producing region on the planet". That's it, folks.

The idea that Israel and the United States want a fair and peaceful solution to the “Palestinian problem” is a myth, which can be easily dismissed by a mere cursory glance at the list of U.N. vetos as well as the “peace talks” at Taba and Camp David.

Norman Finklestein explains:

“There were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees.

Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.

Borders. The principle is clear. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders.

Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one iota of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it's not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch issued statements on the question of the right of return, believing categorically, under international law, every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return; not to some little parcels, but to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That's the law. Now, the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. Estimates range from tens of thousands to upwards of 400,000; well short of six million.

On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, EVERYONE BEGINS WITH WHAT ISRAEL WANTS and how much of its wants it's willing to give up. But that's not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it's a very, very different picture. So Arafat gets lambasted for walking away from the table, but every single concession came from his side of the table and not a single concession from Israel. “

Additionally, the most recent Arab Peace Plan, also known as the “Saudi Plan,” calls for a two state solution, based on the pre-war 1967 borders. The plan would respect “Israel’s Right to Exist” as a sovereign nation. The plan has been endorsed by virtually the entire planet, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian people, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordon, Lebanon and even the American people. Which entities don't agree to this fair and just plan for peace? Israel and the U.S. government, who have no interest in peace. Peace would mean they could no longer occupy coveted lands. Peace would mean they would have to respect international law. Peace would mean they could no longer steal natural resources. Peace would ultimately be bad for business. How can you make billions in war profits if peace were to break out? How could our oil companies make massive profits from Iraq and soon-to-be Iranian oil reserves if peace were to break out?

Meanwhile, the ethnic cleansing continues in the Apartheid state of Israel.

The United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine recently submitted a 24-page report condemning the state of Israel for numerous Human Rights atrocities and equated them to the Apartheid in South Africa. The report accused the Israeli government of being "“inimical to human rights — colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation”.

People often point at the anti-Israeli hostilities without fully acknowledging the history behind such anger and resentment.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe explains:

“The 1948 Palestinian-Israeli war is known to Israeli's as "The War for Independence," but for Palestinians, it will forever be the Nakba, the 'catastrophe'. The end of the war led to one of the largest forced migrations in modern history. Around a million people were illegally expelled from their homes at gunpoint, civilians were brutally massacred and hundreds of Palestinian villages, many having survived thousands of years, were deliberately burned to the ground. The truth of this massive crime has been systematically distorted and suppressed, had it taken place in the twenty-first century, it could only have been called 'ethnic cleansing'. It has been proven, through recently declassified Israeli materials, that 'transfer' (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) was from the start an integral part of a carefully planned strategy to remove massive numbers of the native population from their rightful homes and steal their land and resources.”

It was a massive war crime.

Later, in 1967, Israel could arguably claim self-defense for the first 3 days of the conflict (even though Israel fired the first shots in a surprise attack that effectively decimated the airpower of it's enemies in a few minutes time), at which point, having already won the war handily, they ignored the United Nations directives for a cease-fire and continued what amounted to an enormous "land-grab" and deportation campaign. They were knowingly and willingly deceiving the world community as to the status "on the ground" in order to delay sanctions against them, while they committed these crimes. They even sank a U.S. Navy ship in the gulf that they thought was intercepting their radio transmissions, which would have revealed the true Israeli intentions to the Americans, who at that time wanted the war to end. Thirty-four American soldiers were killed in the attack. Yet another egregious war crime.

In any case, ethnic Cleansing is considered a "Crime Against Humanity" and the people who perpetrate it today are considered criminals who are brought before special tribunals. But not in Israel's case. Why? Because the United States government would never allow it. We support these crimes.

But what about Hezbollah and Lebanon?

Hezbollah was born in defense of Lebanese territory from the illegal aggression of the Israeli army. Why does Israel have imperialist leanings in Lebanon? It’s all part of the plan to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories. The massive land-grab in 1948 and 1967 created an enormous refugee “problem”. What to do with all of those displaced Palestinian civilians? Six million and counting? They need a place to go, and it’s not going to be their legal homeland any longer. So Israel has taken a page from the United States foreign policy handbook. They want to install a puppet government in Lebanon that will cater to Israeli needs by taking in the bulk of the Palestinian refugees, making the ethnic cleansing process much easier to achieve. The rise of Hezbollah as the main arm of Lebanese defense came about as a result of Israel’s illegal 1982 invasion of Lebanon and have proven to be a formidable foe in combating Israeli aggression ever since. Israel has illegally invaded Lebanon five times since the 1978 war, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, while destroying the vital infrastructure and decimating the economy, all under a cynical “self-defense” posture that falls apart upon modest inspection. They have also illegally occupied Lebanese territory for 22 years, in spite of repeated world condemnation, as evidenced in the United Nations votes.

How is it that we rarely hear about Israel’s crimes?

Unfortunately, the U.S. corporate media is in bed with the enormously powerful Israeli lobby (as is Congress and the White House), and they go to great pains to hide the truth from the American people. Additionally, a truly “unholy alliance” has been reached between ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalists and the Zionist Israelis. The Christian zealots, while admittedly anti-Semites, nevertheless believe the “end of days” can only be achieved through a cleansed Jewish State in the Holy Land. Only then will the apocalypse begin, bringing God’s final judgment. The teaming of the right wing Christians and Israeli Zionists form an enormously influential lobby in Washington and throughout the corporate media.

For example, NY Times posted a 2006 article by Isabel Kirshner on Olmert’s waning hold on Power in Israel. In usual pro-Israeli fashion, you’ll notice the following assertion in regards to the June 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, “The war followed the June 12, 2006, kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid.”

Chomsky:

“In the U.S. corporate media, the timeline leading to the assault on Lebanon always begins with this kidnapping. The rest of the world gets the rest of the story, which includes perhaps the most critical information, summarily ignored by the U.S. media. The day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can join innumerable other Palestinians, many held without charges -- hence kidnapped. Kidnapping of civilians, which Israel has done in both Lebanon and the Palestinian territories repeatedly and with virtual impunity, is a far worse crime than capture of soldiers. The Western response was quite revealing: a few casual comments, otherwise silence. The major media did not even bother reporting it. That fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no moral justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about kidnapping is cynical fraud.”

Thousands of Palestinians are currently being held by Israel along with a few hundred Lebanese, many without official charges. Eighty-five percent of Lebanese civilians support kidnapping of Israeli soldiers for prisoner exchange programs. It was later revealed that Israel was hoping to illicit a response from Hezbollah, in order to justify a full-scale invasion geared towards annihilation of Hezbollah and eventually toppling the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

The fact that all of these Israeli crimes would not be happening were it not for full backing by the U.S. government is well known among the Middle Eastern Muslim community.

Part 10: BEACON TO THE WORLD
“Mr. President, we are going to meet this test of our generation. We are going to protect the freedom and the way of life that the beacon to the world of the way life should be. We can do no less.”

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison spoke these utterly inane words, which must be read at least twice, during President Bush’s 2nd inauguration celebration. It was the climax of numerous speeches by our plutocratic “leadership,” waxing poetic about our noble goals in Iraq and the world in general, in direct contradiction to the historical record. If we keep insisting that the U.S. is a “beacon” of goodness in the world and that everything we do is for messianic reasons, then we will be fighting significant terror for the rest of our lives. The overwhelming majority of the world’s citizens now view the United States as an imperialist bully and the leading rogue nation on the planet. Of course, we can ignore this or write it off as mere jealousy of our success and inherent “goodness.” Or, perhaps we could dare to look in the mirror and see what role we have in creating the circumstances that cause mass resentment of our Nation. Then maybe we can take steps to root out the causes that we are responsible for and thus alleviate much of the recruiting power for terrorist organizations. The idea that this is a war of good vs. evil or right vs. wrong is childishly naive in its simplicity. It’s the same jejune ideology that was put forth by the German “brown shirts,” who stormed into the numerous beer halls to berate and condemn their fellow Germans who were discussing and seriously debating the political dangers looming in the corporatism and fascism of the Nazi party.

Part 11: THE END OF DEMOCRACY
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would surely suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

The biggest mistake Americans make is arrogantly believing that they can't be fooled by imperialist propaganda, much like the German population in the 1930's as well as countless other ""righteous" nations in the past. We must not fall into the same trap that consumed the “good Germans” of the early 1930’s.

Chomsky:

“The democracy of Germany in the early 1930s was the most advanced country in Europe, taking the lead in art, science, technology, literature and philosophy. Then, in no time at all, it suffered a complete reversal of fortune and became the most barbaric, murderous state in human history. All that was achieved by using fear: fear of the Bolsheviks, the Jews, the Americans, the Gypsies - everyone who, according to the Nazis, was threatening the core values of European culture and the direct descendants of Greek civilization.”

Sound familiar? Do you think the German people thought they were wrong when they unleashed WWII on the rest of the world? Or were they filled with the same arrogant do-no-wrong, Nationalistic self-righteousness you see from the war-mongerers in this country?

Political Scientist Chalmers Johnson wrote of the "sorrow of empire," arguing that, "militarism, the arrogance of power and the euphemisms required to justify imperialism inevitably conflict with America's democratic structure of government and distort it's basic culture and values." Secrecy surrounding covert actions undermines democratic control. If present trends continue, Johnson said, "we will face a state of perpetual war," and the loss of democracy and constitutional rights; "propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war" will replace truthfulness; and economic "bankruptcy" will undermine the education, health, and safety of our fellow citizens."

How do we avoid this Orwellian outcome? It begins with campaign finance reform.

The U.S. electoral process, National Voting Rights Institute notes, is “subject to a de facto ‘Wealth Primary’ that effectively excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from meaningful participation in the political process. The Wealth Primary, is the process by which the person who collects the most money — the ‘winner’ of the Wealth Primary — almost always goes on to capture his or her party's nomination. It also means that those campaign contributors with the most money or access to money, choose the candidate who almost invariably goes on to win...Our current system of financing electoral campaigns now stands where the poll tax and the high candidate filing fee systems once stood,” NVRI adds, arguing that the Wealth Primary marginalizes non-wealthy voters like the old Southern “white primary” (the restriction of voting to whites only in the former slave states of the U.S. South) used to politically marginalize blacks.

Additionally, one of the biggest obstacles to a true American democracy is the myth of the “liberal media” conspiracy. Right wing billionaires own the majority of the mainstream corporate media outlets, including the NY Times. They get their funding, through advertising, from billion dollar corporations owned by similar right-wingers. They hire right wing editors and producers who control content. Then they hire "liberal" reporters who are emasculated as soon as they walk through the door and have no real power as to what their assignments are or what gets published.

Predictably, conservative think tanks (of which there are many) and right wing pundits (of which there are even more) like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, to name but a few, love to point out the "liberal" reporters as their "proof" of a "liberal media" conspiracy; completely ignoring the right wing ideologues who ultimately pull the strings (and pay their exorbitant salaries).

To Whom It May Concern: As a 60 yr. old woman who remembers the Vietnam War very clearly, including nightly reports from the field and front-page headlines regarding anti-war demonstrations, I was particularly disheartened at the lack of media coverage regarding the March for Peace on Oct. 27th in Manhattan. This march, in which I’m proud to say I participated with my son, his wife, my two daughters and my spouse, was a remarkable display of dissatisfaction by a wide stratum of society. All races, socio-economic levels, and ages were represented by the thousands, walking down Broadway in the pouring rain to protest the tragedies being compounded daily by the Bush administration, now in Iraq and, potentially, in Iran. I’m surprised a news reporter wouldn’t have been interested in speaking with a man walking in the downpour with his seeing-eye dog; or the numerous elderly walking with canes or arm-in-arm. While boomers like myself were over-represented, the younger generation was, tragically, under-represented. Where were the students; and where was the press? If we still have a free press in this country, why was there literally no mention of these thousands of people in the New York Times, The Daily News or the New York Post? Locally, only 1010 WINS reported the event. Is the press in New York controlled or is it still free? Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears to be controlled. Without a free and unbiased press, our country is in trouble, more so than I realized before this march. Nationwide, tens of thousands of people marched for peace on Oct. 27th; if you read any of the newspapers listed above, you remain ignorant of that fact. What it makes me wonder is: what else is occurring about which we are being kept in the dark; and who is deciding what information we may have? And does such deliberate misinformation contribute to the obliviousness of today’s students?
- Anne Fatone, Ph.D., letter to the Public Editor of the NY Times, October 29, 2007 (Letter was not published by the NY Times)

Dear Public Editor: How can it not be news that last Friday, three senior, respected members of the House Judiciary Committee, six-termer Robert Wexler (D-FL), leading hispanic member Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and floor leader Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), publicly called on the House Judiciary Committee to begin immediate hearings on Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach VP Dick Cheney? On Friday, Wexler announced that he was setting up a webside, asking for 50,000 people to sign on in support of his call for impeachment hearings. By the end of the first day, he had 53,000 signatures and as of today, just three days after the site was established, there were 77,300 signatures, rising by the second. There has been no report on this development in the impeachment story in the NY times, which is nothing short of astonishing. I also hear from Wexler's office that the Times rejected an op-ed submission written by the three congressmembers explaining their decision. While of course the opinion page editors have the right to make what choices they like about what runs, they have elected to run rather obscure opinion pieces by politicians, often on positions that the editors don't even disagree with. Here is a case of a perspective that is not shared by the editors, by three real players in the debate, and they don't deem it worthy of seeing print? As author of the book The Case for Impeachment, which was published by the mainstream publisher St. Martin's Press in 2006, and which, after selling a respectable 20,000 copies, went to paperback, all without receiving a review or mention in the NY Times, or for that matter in any mainstream newspaper in the country, I am well aware that the impeachment movement, which has seen over 100 cities and towns and one state senate (VT) vote out resolutions calling for impeachment, and which is a key demand voiced at every major anti-war demonstration, is being completely blacked out by the major media, including the Times. As a 34-year veteran, award-winning journalist, a former Times contributor, a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, a two-time Journalism Fulbright Scholar, and the author of a well-regarded book on impeachment, I find the whole thing unconscionable, especially considering the incredible amount of ink--and high-dudgeon editorials--that were expended on the ridiculous Clinton impeachment less than a decade ago. Your paper should do a better job of covering the news, and should stop covering up the news.
– Dave Lindorff, to the NY Times, December 19th, 2007 (Letter was not published by the NY Times)

Edward Herman, one of the foremost experts on media propaganda adds:

"The electoral process would not work in this highly undemocratic fashion without the full cooperation of the mainstream media in allowing financial support to define credibility and determine coverage, as the New York Times does in contradiction with its editorial admonitions on the importance of have competition based on substance other than money support. The media do this because they are part of the same corporate community as the election investor-funders: their owners are rich, their advertisers have strong pro-business political interests, their leading sources are members of the government, the flak they worry about is from powerful people and the right wing, and they work on the basis of establishment ideology. They accept or are frightened into cooperation with the pro-Israel donors and organizations. Their editors, having internalized all of these considerations, gravitate to allowing money flows to dominate, with a focus on the horse-race, and, importantly eschewing tendencies toward 'populism,' which is generally anathema to the investor community."

This farce is clearly seen in the "Democrat" vs. "Republican" debates, which implies that the two are not in fact the same business party, with common goals (imperialist power and corporate control for profit for the wealthy elite) and only slightly varying strategies and tactics for achieving those goals. The Democrats believe it's a smarter move to let some crumbs fall to the masses to keep them complacent, while the GOP believes you don't have to give any crumbs away when a truly strong propaganda campaign can fool the "bewildered herd" easily enough.

"There is a lot of talk right now," Noam Chomsky told David Barsamian in January 2007, "about how the United States is a divided country. We have to bring it together, 'red states' and 'blue states.' In fact, it is a divided country, but not in the way that's being discussed. It's divided between the public and the power systems, the government and the corporate system."

One need only look at a “liberal” candidate for president, Barack Obama, to see how distorted and right-wing based our “center” has become. Political activist and author Paul Street explains:

“{Obama} repeatedly votes to fund the criminal invasion and backs "mainstream" (pro-war) Democratic candidates against progressive antiwar candidates in the 2006 congressional primaries. After their attainment of a majority in the Congress in November of 2006, he warns Democrats against being seen as working against the remarkably unpopular and arch-criminal Cheney-Bush administration. He insists on claiming that the monumentally illegal, brazenly petro-imperialist and inherently mass-murderous invasion of Iraq was launched and has been fought with the ‘best of [democratic] intentions.’ He votes for a business-driven federal "tort reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress from misbehaving corporations. He joins Republicans in advancing the patently false claim of Wall Street and the Bush administration that Social Security is facing an imminent crisis that must be fixed through drastic measures. He sounds like Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani in criticizing his fellow Democrats' determination to ‘impose’ universal health care through supposedly oppressive ‘government mandates.’ He joins the more reactionary of the two business parties in supporting the expansion of the regressive North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) to Peru . He goes to NASDAQ to absurdly tell the lords of global finance that ‘your work [is] part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America . I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal.’ He criticizes efforts to muster support for filibusters against the appointment of reactionary Supreme Court justices certain to assault civil rights and liberties. He speaks on friendly terms to far-right Evangelical "Christian" audiences and tours in the South with an openly gay-bashing preacher.”

Street also notes that according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the 2008 Obama presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama '08), identified by CRP investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Of his top twenty election investors, fully eight are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300).

Only in an Orwellian nightmare world would Obama be considered a “centrist,” let alone a left leaning “liberal,” as the modern-day propagandists like Rush Limbaugh relentlessly describe him. The same can be said for another ludicrously labeled “liberal” candidate, Hillary Clinton. Clinton supports policies to the right of Obama (she has the dubious honor of receiving more campaign contributions from the “defense” industry than any other presidential candidate, regardless of political party), yet she has been called “liberal,” “socialist” and even “communist” repeatedly. Hillary even called Obama “too far left” in November of 2007!

Until we put a system in place that doesn't rely on massive amounts of money to be "donated" by an overwhelmingly small percentage of the population (1% of the population donates 80% of the campaign funds over $200), then we will never have the opportunity to truly elect a candidate "for the people".

Let’s not forget that the effects of this imperialist system aren’t merely felt abroad. Here in the United States, our elected officials or their corporate media lapdogs rarely comment upon the fact that we spend more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined; but the effect on the populous is enormous. The American Dream is becoming the American Pipedream for the majority of the population.

Part 12: FOLLOW THE MONEY
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” - President Dwight D. Eisenhower

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.

In order to see where neo-liberal economic policies are taking us here in the United States, it may be helpful to look at what effect these policies have had abroad. Take Central and South America, for instance. The United States has long instituted neo-liberal economics in the southern hemisphere through imperial economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank along with cynically titled “free-trade” agreements, all basically being offshoots of the U.S. Treasury Department and therefore de facto arms of the U.S. government. Born of massive repression, usually at the hands of U.S.-backed dictators, these policies entered into an environment replete with an abundance of natural resources as well as a strong labor force, but also in a vacuum of overwhelming poverty leftover from the centuries of colonial exploitation. Certainly neo-liberal policies, which were sold under the banner of “alleviating poverty,” would show some favorable results toward reducing poverty and hunger. The reality, however, is the polar opposite. Those countries that followed the economic “rules” imposed by the IMF and World Bank (a.k.a the Treasury Department), found themselves with an enormous increase in poverty and national debt, lower wages, longer work days, less benefits (if any benefits at all) and a complete lack of organized labor representation. These nations fell so deeply into debt that many had to “cheat” on the IMF and World Bank “rules” in order to merely pay the interest on their ever-growing debts. It wasn’t all bad, however, as the small wealthy elite within these societies made out like bandits, while production and profit for U.S. multinational corporations went through the roof. Dissent against the tenets of pro-U.S. neo-liberal economic policies was often met with severe violence and repression. Conversely, economies that had thrown off the shackles of neo-liberalism have shown more growth than at any time while under the wing of the United States. Venezuela is a prime example of this.

What can this teach us about where we are headed here in the states? Well, first we have to look at where these neo-liberal policies began. Post WWII was the golden era for overall economic growth in the United States. Real income grew equally between the different class levels, resulting in the largest and most financially healthy middle class in the history of the world. The labor movement was largely responsible for this, as well as the obvious advantages afforded the United States by being relatively unscathed by the ravages of WWII. Neo-liberal economic policy began in earnest with the “Reagan Revolution,” but was preceded, importantly, by the systematic undermining of the organized labor movement, which reached a critical point-of-no-return in the early 1970’s. Reagan quickly enacted economic policies based on “trickle-down” neo-liberal economic policies that were supposed to “raise all boats” through elevated corporate growth. Because the United States began the experiment with neo-liberalism from a much healthier economic place than our friends in the southern hemisphere, it has taken much longer to see the brutal, polarizing effects of the policy; but they are clearly present. The divide between the haves and have-nots has widened to such a degree, as we haven’t seen since the gilded ages of the late 19th century. The middle class, once enormously widespread and prosperous, has all but vanished. Our government has become the best democracy money can buy and has gotten to the point where our “representatives” regularly and egregiously put the welfare of the corporate world ahead of the needs of the overwhelming majority of the population. Where has our experiment with neo-liberal economics led us over the past 25 years? Keep in mind that corporate growth has reached all-time highs during this period, but to what end?

• The US is by far the most unequal of all industrialized societies, with the richest 10 percent of the population owning more than 70 percent of the nation’s wealth and the richest 5 percent of families receiving as much income as the bottom 50 percent.
• These numbers are prior to George W. Bush’s tax cut, which gave the top 1 percent of taxpayers nearly 40 percent of a tax reduction that will cost the US Treasury at least $1.8 trillion.
• The top 1 percent of households — average income $1.5 million — will save a collective $79.5 billion on their 2008 taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. That’s more than the combined budgets of the Transportation Department, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• Tax cuts will save the top 1 percent a projected $715 billion between 2001 and 2010. And cost us $715 billion in mounting national debt plus interest.
• We have a record 482 billionaires — and record foreclosures.
• Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires — and 5 million more people living below the poverty line (The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006).
• Between 1983 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1 percent of households grew by 78 percent, reports Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. The bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.
• In 2004, one out of six households had zero or negative net worth. Nearly one out of three households had less than $10,000 in net worth, including home equity. That’s before the mortgage crisis hit.
• In 1982, when the Forbes 400 had just 13 billionaires, the highest paid CEO made $108 million and the average full-time worker made $34,199, adjusted for inflation in $2006. Last year, the highest paid hedge fund manager hauled in $1.7 billion, the highest paid CEO made $647 million, and the average worker made $34,861, with vanishing health and pension coverage.
• The 400 richest Americans have a conservatively estimated $1.54 trillion in combined wealth. That amount is more than 11 percent of our $13.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the total annual value of goods and services produced by our nation of 303 million people. In 1982, Forbes 400 wealth measured less than 3 percent of U.S. GDP.
• And the rich, notes fortune magazine, “give away a smaller share of their income than the rest of us.”
• In 2000, at the peak of the heralded Clinton (an economic imperialist) economic “boom,” 11 million households (10.5 percent of all US households) were food insecure; black and Hispanic households had hunger and food insecurity rates three times greater than those of whites.
• More than 13 million or 17 percent of US children live in poverty, including more than 4 million under the age of six and the US child poverty rate is substantially higher than that of other industrialized nations.
• More than one in three US children live in or near poverty and more than 8 million people, including 3 million children live in homes that frequently skip meals or eat too little
• America’s Second Harvest, the nation’s leading network of food banks, reports that 23 million Americans relied on their agencies in 2001; 40 percent of those came from working families.
• One in eight US households has recently reduced the quality of their diet to utilize financial resources in other essential areas (rent, day care, clothing, medical care, transportation and utilities).
• American have the longest working hours and commuting times in the industrial world, exacerbating widespread job dissatisfaction and further degrading capacities for civic engagement that are already gravely challenged by corporate media and the wildly disproportionate political and ideological influence exercise by the wealthy owners and managers of giant corporations.
• Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population contributes more than of 80 percent of all money in federal elections in amounts of $200 or more. The vast majority of such wealthy contributors are wealthy white men with annual family incomes higher than $100,000.
• The winners of the political finance race (the “wealth primary” in the words of American campaign finance reformers) win 92 percent of the races for the US House of Representatives and 88 percent of the races for the US Senate.

One need only look at the contrast between where we were in the 1950’s and 1960’s (virtual equality of growth across all income levels) and where we are today to see the neo-liberal economic experiment as an unmitigated disaster for the overwhelming majority of the U.S. citizenry. We are headed down the same road that destroyed the economic well being of virtually the entire southern hemisphere. U.S. manufacturing jobs leave the homeland after the U.S. government, with massive tax dollars paid for by the masses, impose imperialistic economic and militaristic strangulation on third world nations forcing them to cater to U.S. corporations who then exploit the land and population of those nations for their own gain. Where does this lead? Slave labor. Corruption. Stolen land and resources. Sweetheart deals made behind closed doors with dictators. We need to break this cycle before the wealth and power are consolidated to such an extreme level that only a revolution could turn back the clock and restore a fair and truly democratic society, where the word “economy” represents the financial growth of the entire population and not merely those at the top of the corporate ladder. The current system recalls George Orwell’s prophetic “Animal Farm”:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

Nowhere can imperialism’s negative effect on the U.S. population be seen more than in the health care system.

There are currently 47+ million American citizens without health insurance, which is more than the combined population of Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming--with every single person facing financial destitution if they or a family member get sick or injured.

That is twenty-four of the 50 states.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost one-third of Latinos are uninsured, along with about one-fifth of African Americans. Fifteen percent of children aren’t covered, nor are 17.7 percent--or one in six--of full-time workers, nor even 11.2 percent of families classified as middle income, with household earnings between $50,000 and $75,000 a year.

These numbers will only get worse under the current system. Health Affairs, a policy journal, estimates that the number of uninsured Americans will grow to 56 million by 2013.

Meanwhile, the corporate giants of the health care industry are the big winners. The pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson made profits of $10 billion in 2005, followed closely by Pfizer at $8 billion in earnings, according to Fortune magazine. The drug companies Proctor and Gamble, Merck, Amgen, Abbot and the insurer United Health Group are all among the 50 most profitable of U.S. Fortune 500 companies.

Naturally, that means a big paycheck for health care executives. Johnson and Johnson’s CEO received salary and bonuses worth $28 million last year. When former Pfizer CEO Henry McKinnell left the company, he got benefits worth $180 million, according to the AFL-CIO.

Tellingly, the mainstream candidates from both parties continue to cater to this disastrous health care policy, in deference to their corporate backers in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Our subservience to these industries is why we have the worst medical system among industrial nations. The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. system 37th in the world. France, with it's universal, not for profit, single payer system is ranked number one. Followed by Italy, with a similar plan. Meanwhile, we are looking up at Costa Rica, Dominica, Columbia, Singapore, Malta and virtually all of Europe.

An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that over 2/3 of all Americans thought the government should guarantee "everyone the best and most advanced health care that technology can supply;" a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent regard universal health care as “more important than holding down taxes”; polls reported in Business Week found that 67% of Americans think it is a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27 5 dissenting; the Pew Research Center found that 64 percent of Americans favor the “U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes” (30 percent opposed). By the late 1980s, more than 70 percent of Americans “thought health care should be a constitutional guarantee,” while 40 percent “thought it already was.” Despite the overwhelming public opinion in favor of a universal, single payer government run health care program, the issue is not even on the table in mainstream political discourse. As John Kerry described it prior to the 2004 elections, a true universal health care system is “not politically viable,” (read: not acceptable to corporate America).

The only candidate who supports a single payer universal health care system, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, has been relegated to also-ran status by the corporate money filter. Apparently, Kucinich wasn’t sufficiently subservient to the corporate overlords who currently rule the planet. The “mainstream” Democratic candidates (Obama, Clinton and Edwards), have put forth sufficiently power-worshipping mutant forms of “universal” health care plans, which cater to big pharmaceutical and Insurance companies, while GOP candidates continue the tradition of putting forth fear-based “privatization” plans geared toward filling the coffers of wall street, and all but ignoring the harsh and deadly realities of such profit-driven systems.

Besides health care, other domestic examples of these neo-liberal policies are becoming more abundant with each passing day. Some examples:

Government taxes population. Uses tax money to "install" imperialist economic entities like the World Bank, IMF and "free trade" agreements onto the populations of south and Central America. Multi-National corporations move into those countries. Hire workers on pennies a day with no benefits, to jobs formerly done on U.S. soil by American citizens. Rape and pillage the land. Sell goods to U.S. taxpayers for "cheaper". Make billions in profits. U.S. taxpayer sees very little return on their tax investment. CEO's give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".

Government borrows money. The debt is now a shared debt for the population at large. Borrowed money is used to "fund" invasion of Iraq. Defense and re-construction corporations make billions in profits from this taxpayer funding in what amounts to tax-subsidized war profiteering. Population gets a ZERO return on their borrowed money. Iraqi Oil fields opened to “investment” by Multi-National corporations. Oil industry makes tens of billions in profits. U.S. taxpayer pays record high gas prices. CEO's of these corporations get huge bonuses for their "hard work".

Government taxes population. Uses taxes to fund government agencies like FEMA. Government sabotages FEMA through rampant corruption and cronyism. FEMA fails in its duties when a disaster strikes. Poor people lose their homes and jobs. Government says “see, the government can’t do anything right!” Government then pushes forth initiatives to “privatize” the jobs formerly done by FEMA. Multi-national corporations get huge no-bid contracts. Make billions in taxpayer dollars. No oversight. Land formerly inhabited by the poor and lower middle classes are “sold” for pennies on the dollar to corporate developers, who build large-scale for-profit condominiums and work spaces for the upper classes to enjoy. Republican Congressman Richard Baker was overheard telling lobbyists: “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.” CEO's give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".

I’ll close with a quote found on a NY Times political blog by someone calling himself ‘concerned citizen’:

“It is well and good to understand realpolitik. It is also well and good, however, to insist that one’s nation live up to its own stated principles. It is the hypocrisy of our nation to which any real patriot ought to vociferously object. We Americans ought to be holding our leadership to the highest possible standards that our own culture and political history have enshrined in our most cherished documents — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

When our “leadership” has blatantly violated these standards of behavior both domestically and internationally, it is our duty as citizens to object, to protest, to take political action, to vote, to educate, to lift the veil of ignorance and obfuscation, to criticize, to raise the uncomfortable issues that no one wants to discuss.

Yes, we have much that is admirable in this nation. Those who genuinely love these principles must never quietly acquiesce in their destruction. Those who see democracy under corporate assault must say so. Those who see families being destroyed by an economic system that requires two parents to work fulltime while their children become “latchkey kids” are less likely to fall in love with corporate economics.

When our nation commits dastardly acts against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in other nations it is the American citizen’s duty and responsibility to dissent, to criticize, to deplore, to protest against the defilement of our most sacred principles. It is our duty as citizens to upbraid those who perpetrate these offenses.

It is not patriotic to wrap oneself in the flag and trumpet “America, Love it or Leave it”. It is not patriotic to stick one’s head in the sand when our country does morally and legally indefensible deeds at home or abroad. True citizens must always dissent and object to these things. The price of liberty is constant vigilance.”

Amen, brother. – THOMAS FATONE APRIL 2008