Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality
Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality
By Anthony Gregory
Tuesday September 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM PDT
On the eve of September 10, 2001, I went to sleep a libertarian, distrustful of the state, holding both major political parties in contempt, seeing the federal government as the primary enemy of the American people, their lives and liberties. The next morning, watching the horrific news of the murderous attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, I found myself on the side of the government for the first time in years. That is to say, I thought it would be appropriate for the government to find the culprits behind 9/11 and bring them to justice. I thought capturing and executing the ringleaders would be appropriate. I favored raising a bounty to catch Osama bin Laden, or maybe even sending in commandos on a pinpointed mission to apprehend him.
This is not the course the government took, nor the approach supported by most Americans. In particular, I saw almost the entire conservative movement, which I had felt a closer affinity to than the liberals and leftists surrounding me in college, becoming bloodthirsty collectivists calling for total war. The overwhelming majority of progressives joined in the cause, elevating Bush's approval rating to about 90%.
On Fox News the night of September 11, a commentator said, "it's time to let loose the dogs of war." This sounded like insanity to me. How could a full blown war possibly be justified? The bad guys were a small group and the direct killers died in the attacks. Needless to say, although I went to sleep the night of September 11 believing the government should carry out its one primary function, defending life and liberty, I never embraced this collectivist ideology that allowed for the killing of foreigners who happened to live in the same part of the world as terrorists.
Indeed, the 9/11 attacks were obviously blowback for U.S. foreign policy. This seemed completely clear to me, especially when our leaders pointed the finger at Osama, seeing as how he had always made clear that his grievances were rooted in U.S. policy in the Middle East. Sanctions on Iraq, military aid for Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. interventions in the area had contributed to the deaths of millions of people in the last couple generations. Anyone paying attention had to know this.
And yet, of course the attacks of 9/11 were unjustified. They were terrorism. They were evil. They were murderous. Why can we say this? Because despite what the U.S. government had done to innocent Arabs and Muslims, these crimes could never justify acts of violence that predictably hurt innocent people. Yet the corollary of the very principle that renders 9/11 attacks evil is that the response to 9/11 must also at all costs avoid killing the innocent. Arabs responding to American crimes in their part of the world by attacking innocents is terrorism. Similarly, Americans responding to Arab crimes in our part of the world by attacking innocents is also terrorism. The bombing of Kabul, Afghanistan, in October 2001 was therefore murderous, no less so than the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq war that began in 2003 was, if anything, even less defensible.
This is not moral relativism. It is moral clarity. It is applying the same moral standards to all moral actors. Pro-war Americans lambaste anyone who dares have a "pre-9/11 mentality." But this is an untenable criticism. It actually smacks of moral relativism itself. Acts that were immoral before 9/11 continued to be afterwards. Human rights are universal and timeless. 9/11 did not change the morality of killing civilians any more than it changed the nature of government.
The nature of government, of course, is coercive and authoritarian. Even though I favored a forceful response to 9/11 to apprehend the guilty, I continued to see the government as the primary threat to liberty. This pre-9/11 mentality is informed by thousands of years of history. All those thousands of years of governments subjugating their peoples, more often exposing them to foreign threats than protecting them, should weigh at least as heavily as the emotional power of September 11, 2001. Much more happened in the world before 9/11 than after.
The week after 9/11 I remember thinking about how, even after the murderous attacks of 9/11, the U.S. government still had a far greater American death toll to answer for. It had killed many, many thousands through the FDA. It had killed hundreds of thousands in its wars, conscripting men to die for causes they might not believe in. In terms of liberty, the terrorists could never take that way. Only the government could. And it did, through airport security theater, destruction of the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention and torture, and trillions in taxes to pay for it all.
We have come to where perpetual war abroad, even in pursuit of bin Laden's ghost, is accepted as a natural component of American reality. We surrender our dignity at the airports without thinking. We see the militarization of local police and figure it must be necessary and wise. We forget about the many prisoners locked up in American dungeons in Guantánamo and Afghanistan, people whose only crime could have been being in the wrong place in the wrong time, or daring to fight back against an invading force that was laying waste to their neighborhood and family. They sit there, languishing in barbaric conditions, totally neglected as unpersons, and the pure immorality of this neglect never registers in the mainline political discussions.
Before 9/11 I saw government as a necessary evil, the greatest threat to its own subjects' life and liberty, but an essential bulwark of protection against domestic criminals and foreign aggressors. The experience shortly after 9/11 challenged this important element to this thinking. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and, via the Patriot Act, on the American people demonstrated that even at its one most celebrated function, the state is the opposite of what it pretends to be. It doesn't stop threats; it exacerbates them. It doesn't shield freedom; its every action, particularly in the name of protection, undermines freedom. It does not defend life; it treats human life as an expendable commodity for its own ends. I no longer saw government as necessary or effective in defending its people.
Four years ago, a new presidential candidate won the presidential election. Here we are at the end of his first term and there is no sign of the stampede toward the total state letting up any time soon. Two major wars based on lies and propaganda that have hurt more Americans than 9/11 did, to say nothing of millions of foreigners killed, maimed or displaced from their homes; myriad military operations throughout the globe; thousands rounded up without justice and dozens tortured to death; the presidency adopting the absolute power over life and death over any individual on earth, and priceless liberties shredded on the altar of power without anything to show for it. But the experience has surely disabused me of my pre-9/11 mentality. Before 9/11, I was naive enough to think that government, however clumsy and dangerous at home, might protect us from foreign threats. Now I realize that is perhaps the biggest lie in human history.
http://blog.independent.org/2012/09/11/abandoning-my-pre-911-mentality/
Re: Eleven Years Of Terrorizing Ourselves By Myron Pauli
<Grin>! Raimondo? A conservative? Hardly.
And you read in this rather boring, uninspiring, "Much Ado About Nothing" disortation by Moonbat Raimondo, that he is somehow Anti-Israel?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
At 02:24 PM 9/11/2012, you wrote:ROTFLMAO!
Agreed.
A dollar and a bier says Raimondo cares more for the national interests of Israel as compared to the United States.
There you go PROJECTING again. Raimondo is an Old Right Conservative who is rather vocally opposed to you ex-Trotskyites.
It's Always About Israel
Even when it isn't…
by Justin Raimondo, February 14, 2011
While most of the rest of the world, minus Glenn Beck, was celebrating the overthrow of one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, over in Israel – which bills itself as the only real democracy in the region – they were sour-faced and ready to rumble. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told his cabinet to shut up about the Egyptian events, but they just couldn't contain themselves as the specter of democracy in the Arab world moved closer to realization: We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with " vigilance and worry." The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that "in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances."
No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel's amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the "Egypt is Iran" meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events. No "analysis" of the situation was complete without a comparison to the Iranian revolution of 1979, a violent upsurge by Shi'ite radicals – in spite of the fact that this was a completely non-violent movement organized byurban students with a taste for tech-savvy tactics and secular views. To these people facts are merely burdensome details that can be safely ignored when constructing a narrative that fits their agenda – and their agenda, as always, is putting Israel first.
It's interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. Ha'aretz reports:
"'He had very tough things to say about the United States,' said Ben-Eliezer … He gave me a lesson in democracy and said: 'We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East. They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam."
Mubarak also gave a very Netanyahu-like prediction about the probable outcome of the Egyptian upsurge:
"He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf. He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances – dramatic changes and upheavals. He repeated the sentence, 'I have been serving my country, Egypt, for 61 years. Do they want me to run away? I won't run away. Do they want to throw me out? I won't leave. If need be, I will be killed here.'"
Poor mistreated misunderstood Mubarak – with only the Israelis' shoulder to cry on! His anger at the Americans is perhaps matched, these days, by his anger at the Swiss – who appear to have frozen his Swiss bank accounts, reported to contain as much as $70 billion.
Israeli rancor toward the Americans was given voice by presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who – speaking from Israeli soil – unleashed his invective at Washington for "abandoning" Mubarak. The Israelis, said the Huckster, are wondering aloud about the likelihood of the US coming to their aid in their hour of need given that they've thrown Mubarak overboard without so much as a by your leave. "We should at least acknowledge what a good ally he has been for all these years," scolded the fundamentalist Christian former governor-cum-preacher:
"Even the left wing Israeli press has expressed profound disappointment when the US said nothing positive about Mubarak. What they were looking for was some acknowledgment that he has been an ally and a friend. It's been good for Israel, and good for the US. If they're that quick to bail on Mubarak, then would they do the same to us?"
Oblivious to the implications of a comparison between Mubarak's regime and the Israelis, the Huckster prattles on, demanding that the US praise a bloody dictator whose torture chambers stain the conscience of the "free world." Which raises an interesting point: why are the Israelis so frightened by the example of an Arab populace rising up and non-violently overthrowing a US-supported tyrant? Supposedly they fear the breaking of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and the dropping of the blockade of Gaza on the Egyptian side, but I, for one, don't believe it for a minute. The Egyptian military is in firm control of this aspect of the situation – and, as dependent as Egypt's generals are on the US for military aid to the tune of over $1 billion annually, one can hardly imagine the new Egypt embarking on a military campaign against the Jewish state. As for Gaza, the Israelis rejected a proposal by the Egyptian military to send more troops to the Sinai to control the border – so they can't be too worried about that.
No, what they are really worried about is the prospect of the Palestinians, and their own downtrodden Arab population, taking up the non-violent insurrectionist tactics of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement and shaking the very foundations of the Israeli state. This would focus world attention on the horrific conditions in the occupied territories, and expose the true nature of the Israeli state as a repressiveSparta with its foot planted firmly on the necks of its Palestinian helots. As long as the Israelis have only the scary Hamas to contend with, they are safe: but as soon as a secular, youth-led non-violent intifada arises, the public relations consequences are going to be dire.
Israel is completely dependent on outside forces to ensure its continued survival: not just American aid and weaponry, but also a steady influx of Jews making aliya. If they lose the battle for world public opinion, that stream will turn into a trickle. And therein lies the deadly sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Israeli colonists: the demographic time bomb which will soon have the Arabs a majority in the Jewish state.
It isn't the nonexistent military threat from the new Egypt the Israelis are so worried about – it's the political example of " people power" winning out against a repressive regime armed to the teeth. If they can do it in Egypt, why not in Palestine? This is what the Israelis dread – and with good reason.
Even before the Egyptian uprising, there were indications of a secular youth-ledmovement in Palestine – specifically Gaza – which declared they've had it with both the Israelis and Hamas. Tel Aviv had better hope the Islamists crack down on those kids, because they are potentially a much more formidable adversary than the thugs who have taken over the Gaza strip.
Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis – or their American patrons – like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric. The US military's chief of staff, Admiral Mullen, is over in Israel right now, reassuring Netanyahu and his ultra-rightist government that we'll continue to ensure their "security" – but the status quo is unsustainable. Egypt will no longer be used as a base for US military operations in the region, at least insofar as they involve making threats to Iran. As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.
Some conservative anti-interventionists warn against " cheerleading" a foreign revolution, mindful of the tricks history plays on us: there's no telling but that a new tyranny might succeed the old. I don't buy it: the Egyptian people, who have spent the last 60 or so years putting up with one tyrant after another, are not about to give up their dearly-bought liberty and install an "Islamic" version of the old order.
The Arab peoples are waking up, and there is no putting them back to sleep: it took a mere 18 days to bring down a tyrant supported by both Israel and the US, and that revolution is spreading even as I write: to Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, and beyond. Following the example of Kuwait, the Emir of Bahrain has just granted his subjects a hefty multi-thousand-dollar " gift," hoping to bribe them into passivity – but the opposition is going ahead with protests.
In the run up to the Iraq war, when the neocons were making the case for the invasion, they told us we needed to drain the Arab "swamp" before we could eliminate the threat of Islamist extremism: we couldn't just stand by and let radicalism germinate, we had to take action to root it out by eliminating the very social and political conditions under which Arab civilization had been stunted and pathologized. Now, however, history has taken an unforeseen turn: the Arabs are draining that swamp all by themselves, first off by taking out the biggest frog in that stagnant pond – Mubarak. Islamist extremism flourished in Egypt, in spite of the repressive apparatus of the Mubarak regime, precisely because of the regime itself, which allowed no outlet for the natural impulse of a people to rule themselves.
Bush's "global democratic revolution" is indeed taking place, but without the US military which the former president and his neocon speechwriters imagined would be the instrument of change. The Glenn Becks and Mike Huckabees, who fulsomely supported the Iraq war, and who are now inveighing on Fox News against the coming of an " Islamic Caliphate," are blind to what has actually happened on the ground in the Middle East. While the Bush Doctrine ushered in an Islamist state in Iraq, where the oh-so-dreaded Sharia law is being encoded and enforced with a vengeance, the populist-nationalist uprisings in Egypt and throughout the region show every sign of ushering in a real sea-change in Arab consciousness, in which democracy and secularism triumph.
The Israeli government, and its American lobby, would do well to pipe down about the alleged "dangers" posed by the Egyptians' fight for freedom, lest they reveal more about themselves – and Israel – than they would care to admit. For Huckabee and his supporters, it's always about Israel – even when it isn't. If the Huckster is perfectly comfortable criticizing the conduct of the American government from foreign soil, then perhaps his supporters and well-wishers, who pride themselves on their "patriotism" and break into chants of " USA! USA!" at the drop of a hat, will start to wonder what country he's running for office in.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Share Our Wealth
Share Our Wealth
by Laurence M. Vance, September 11, 2012
Flamboyant, controversial, and extremely popular, Louisiana politician Huey P. Long died 77 years ago this week. Many of his proposals, however, are alive and well today in both major parties.
The seventh of nine children in a deeply religious home, Long was born in 1893 in the rural piney woods of north-central Louisiana. After working as a salesman and then attending law school, he was elected to the Louisiana Public Service Commission. A Democrat, Long served as governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and as one of Louisiana's U.S. senators from 1932 until his assassination in 1935 at the Louisiana state capitol.
He is remembered for his fiery populist rhetoric; his overseeing of massive public-works projects in Louisiana, including not just roads and bridges, but a new governor's mansion and state capitol; his great expansion of Louisiana State University (LSU); and his seemingly iron grip on the state of Louisiana.
It is said that at the time, Long was the nation's third-most photographed man (after President Franklin Roosevelt and aviator Charles Lindberg). He founded a national newspaper, the American Progress, spoke to crowds of thousands, and appeared on the cover of Time magazine for April 1, 1935.
After initially supporting Roosevelt in the 1932 election, Long soon became a left-wing critic of Roosevelt's New Deal for not going far enough toward the goal of massive wealth redistribution to alleviate income inequality.
Writing in The Progressive on April 1, 1933, Long presented his "Long Plan for Recovery":
- With the one law which I propose to submit, I think most of our difficulties will be brought to an almost immediate end. To carry out President Roosevelt's plan as announced in his inaugural address for redistribution and to prevent unjust accumulation of wealth, I am now drawing a law, but without consort with the president, for the following:
- A capital levy tax, principally on fortunes above $10 million graduated so that when a fortune of $100 million is reached, the capital tax levy will take all the balance above that sum. This will not prevent aggregated capital, that is, several persons combining their wealth in one big enterprise, but will prevent only one man owning from $10 million to $100 million without paying the government a substantial part and will further prevent any man from owning anything at all above the value of $100 million. An inheritance tax, heavier in the higher brackets than at present, graduated so that no one person can inherit more than $5 million, the balance to go to the government.
- An income tax about the same as now exists except that it shall be heavier in the higher brackets and finally providing that no one will be permitted to keep more than $1 million from earnings of one year.
- A capital levy tax, principally on fortunes above $10 million graduated so that when a fortune of $100 million is reached, the capital tax levy will take all the balance above that sum. This will not prevent aggregated capital, that is, several persons combining their wealth in one big enterprise, but will prevent only one man owning from $10 million to $100 million without paying the government a substantial part and will further prevent any man from owning anything at all above the value of $100 million. An inheritance tax, heavier in the higher brackets than at present, graduated so that no one person can inherit more than $5 million, the balance to go to the government.
The bills Long introduced in the Senate to bring about his proposals failed to pass. In fact, none of the bills and resolutions he proposed was passed during his three years in Congress.
In a national radio address on February 23, 1934, Long revealed his "Share Our Wealth" plan to redistribute the nation's wealth to provide every American with a decent standard of living. He maintained that "in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people." Long proposed, not an equal division of wealth, but a limit on the poverty "that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man's family."
The motto of Long's society was "Every Man a King." By limiting "the wealth of big men in the country," there would "be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life."
The proposals in the "Share Our Wealth" plan included:
- A limit on personal fortunes of $50 million (later reduced to $5 $8 million).
- A limit on annual income of $1 million.
- A limit on inheritances to $5 million.
- A guaranteed annual income of $2,000 (or one-third the national average).
- Free college education and vocational training.
- A pension for all Americans over 60.
- Veterans' benefits and health care.
- A 30-hour workweek.
- A four-week vacation for every worker.
- Greater regulation of commodity production to stabilize prices.
- At the time of Long's death in September 1935, there were more than 27,000 Share Our Wealth clubs with a membership of more than 7.5 million Americans.
- Social Security.
- Medicare.
- Medicaid.
- Earned Income Credit.
- Veterans' benefits.
- College financial aid.
- Bank-deposit insurance.
- Public-works projects.
- Economic-stimulus programs.
- Minimum-wage laws.
- Overtime-pay standards.
- Family and Medical Leave Act.
- Farm subsidies.
- Progressive income tax.
- Estate tax.
- High corporate-income tax.
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps).
- Housing programs (FHA, HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac).
- Housing-assistance payments.
It is a shame that both parties did not adopt the one policy of Long that would have saved billions of American dollars and thousands of American lives opposition to war. Long opposed both major wars of his time: the Spanish-American War and the First World War.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1209g.asp
9/11 and the National Security State
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9/11 and the National Security State
by Jacob G. Hornberger
On the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, let us never forget the role that the U.S. government played in engendering the anger and hatred that produced the attacks.
Yes, I know the standard statist response: "You're a justifier! You're a justifier! You're just justifying the 9/11 attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans."
But that's nothing more than a clever tactic designed to keep people from focusing on the role that the U.S. national-security state played in engendering the anger and hatred that led to the attacks. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, motive is different from justification. Just ask any criminal prosecutor, who emphasizes the motive of the accused to commit the criminal act while not justifying or defending what the accused has supposedly done.
With the end of the Cold War in 1989, people were talking about a "peace dividend," a concept that necessarily questioned why it was necessary to continue having an enormous national-security state.
Both the military and the CIA went into overdrive to convince American taxpayers as to why they should continue their existence. There was, of course, the ever-present international drug war, which the military and the CIA could wage in foreign countries. The military and the CIA could also work in tandem with American businesses to open up new markets around the world. And the military and the CIA never ceased to remind us that we continued living in an unsafe world, notwithstanding the end of the Cold War, and that the national security state could keep us safe.
Most important, after the end of the Cold War the U.S. government went into the Middle East and did its very best to poke hornets' nests. There was the Persian Gulf intervention against the U.S. government's old, faithful ally, Saddam Hussein, which killed and maimed countless Iraqi people. There was the Pentagon's intentional destruction of Iraq's water and sewage facilities with full knowledge that such action would help spread infection and disease among the Iraqi populace. There were the illegal no-fly zones that brought about the deaths of more Iraqis, including children. There were the brutal sanctions on Iraq, which prevented the water and sewage facilities from being repaired and which squeezed the economic lifeblood out of the Iraqi people, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. There was UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright's infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it." There was the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, with U.S. officials knowing full well the adverse effect such action would have on Muslim sensitivities. There was the foreign aid provided not only the Israeli government but also dictatorial regimes that brutally oppressed their own people, such as those in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Prior to 9/11, the scholar Chalmers Johnson, who had previously served as a consultant to the CIA, warned that unless the U.S. ceased and desisted from these provocative acts, there would almost certainly be terrorist retaliation on American soil. That's what his remarkable book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire was all about. It was published before the 9/11 attacks.
He wasn't the only one. Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, we were publishing articles that were saying the same thing that the U.S. government was doing things in the Middle East that were provoking massive anger, rage, and hatred within people in that part of the world, emotions that were likely to lead to terrorist retaliation on American soil.
And how could it be otherwise? If you go poking hornets' nests, it's only natural that the hornets are going to strike back. How come the U.S. government didn't see that?
In fact, what's amazing is the U.S. government's steadfast determination to continue its provocative actions even when warning signs appeared with respect to terrorist retaliation. There was the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. There were the terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa. There was the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, which was no different in principle from the attack that would follow several years later on 9/11. There was the terrorist attack on CIA officials outside CIA headquarters in Virginia.
The motivation given by the people who committed those attacks was always the same: anger, rage, and hatred arising out U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. None of them ever cited hatred for America's freedom and values for what motivated them to retaliate.
Why didn't the U.S. government change course after those terrorist attacks? Why didn't it cease and desist from what it was doing in the Middle East? Why didn't U.S. officials see that a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil was likely to result from U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?
We'll never know the answers to those questions. What we do know is that the U.S. government just continued poking the hornets' nests, which ultimately culminated in the 9/11 attacks.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. government used the 9/11 attacks to continue doing the same things in the Middle East that it was doing before the 9/11 attacks. Since the sanctions had failed to effect regime change in Iraq, U.S. officials used the 9/11 attacks as the excuse to accomplish their goal with a military invasion, one based on a bogus threat of WMDs. That military invasion, of course, rained even more death, destruction, torture, chaos onto the Iraqi people, none of whom had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. How could that not produce more anger and hatred against the United States?
Rather than treat the people who committed the 9/11 attacks as a criminal justice problem, which was the case with the 1993 attack on the WTC, the U.S. government used the military to address the problem, invading Afghanistan and effecting regime change there as well. In the process, the military killed countless people, including brides, children, and others who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. How could that not produce more anger and hatred against the United States?
The death and destruction wrought by the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan brought more anger, rage, and hatred, ensuring an endless stream of people who were eager to retaliate with terrorist acts.
And so it is today that the national-security state, which had lost its justification for existence at the end of the Cold War, claims that its continued existence is necessary to protect us from the terroristspeople whose terrorism is motivated by what the national-security state has done to people abroad.
For Americans, 9/11 also meant a denigration of our constitutional order, thanks to the national-security state. The military set up its prison camp and "judicial" system at Guantanamo Bay precisely for the purpose of avoiding any application of the Constitution there. Believing that 9/11 gave them extraordinary dictatorial powers, Pentagon officials declared the military would have omnipotent authority to treat its prisoners any way it wanted at Gitmo. No lawyers. No Bill of Rights. No Constitution. The military, which had ostensibly taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, wanted to establish a system in Cuba by which the military's powers were as omnipotent as those wielded by such military dictatorships as those in Egypt and Chile under Pinochet, both of which the U.S. national-security state had ardently supported.
It also meant a revolutionary upheaval in the relationship between the national-security state and the American citizen. Before 9/11, Americans were protected by the Bill of Rights. After 9/11, the military wielded the power to take Americans into custody without a federally issued arrest warrant, cart them away to a military dungeon or concentration camp, hold them indefinitely without trial, torture them, and even execute them, perhaps after a kangaroo military tribunal. As the federal courts affirmed, everything the military did to American citizen Jose Padilla, it could now do to every American.
There is obviously only one solution to this entire catastrophe: a dismantling of the national-security state. That's what should have been done after the Cold War (and even before). It was a giant mistake to have left it in existence. It will be a giant mistake to leave it in existence.
The problem we face, of course, is the extreme reverence that all too many Americans have for the military and the CIA. It's that reverence that prevents Americans from recognizing that the vast military-industrial complex, the CIA, the NSA, and the other parts of the national-security state are responsible, in large part, for the woes our country faces.
There is, of course, the out of control federal spending and debt. Even worse, there are the ever-growing infringements on the liberties of the American people. As long as Americans place the national-security state, including the military and the CIA, in a god-like status, they'll never be able to bring themselves to do what needs to be done to restore a free, peaceful, prosperous, harmonious society to our land.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-09-11.asp
America's 9/11 response subverted our values, liberties
September 11, 2012 at 1:00 am
America's 9/11 response subverted our values, liberties
By Juan Cole
The United States government's reaction to the attacks of 9/11 some 11 years ago took the world into a tragic era of unnecessary wars and confrontation that destabilized allies and threatened vital long-term U.S. interests.
At home, American liberties were endangered. It needn't have unfolded in that way. The U.S. is still bearing the costs of its lost decade, and is still debating whether to continue failed post-9/11 policies. We would do well to heed the warning of James Madison, that "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded."
Then-French President Jacques Chirac advised George W. Bush to avoid the phrase "war on terror," and urged that 9/11 be treated as a crime by a cartel. It is not as if such rogue organizations are harmless. Mexico's drug cartels are alleged to have killed 47,515 people since 2006.
But by pursuing wars against states in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of making the destruction of al-Qaida its highest priority, the Bush administration turned America toward perpetual war. Worse, it gave al-Qaida new life and recruiting grounds by militarily occupying Muslim countries and overseeing conflicts that led to the deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocents.
The Iraq War squandered American blood and treasure on a fruitless quest to impose American empire on the Middle East (Iraq was not related to 9/11). More than eight years later, Iraq is still unstable. On Sunday, some 100 died in bombings and violence and the Supreme Court sentenced an elected vice president to death for running Sunni death squads, after he had been accused by the elected Shiite prime minister. The U.S.-installed Shiite government predictably tilts toward Iran, and supports the government of Syria.
Last week Washington complained bitterly that Iraq was giving Iran over-flight rights for resupply of the army of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom the U.S. wants to see removed from power.
For this questionable achievement, the U.S. borrowed more than $1 trillion (on which we are still paying the interest), and faces trillions more in expenses in coming years as the bills for care of wounded veterans mount. We lost 4,486 military personnel killed in action, and more than 30,000 wounded, with a fifth of those suffering brain or spinal injuries. Many veterans of the Iraq War have some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, affecting their well-being, family life and friends.
Administration officials peddled falsehoods such as that Iraq was near to having a nuclear weapon or was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Both the transformation of news into propaganda and the justification of "pre-emptive wars" degraded American values. Americans were told to be afraid. The Bush administration authorized the use of torture, and set up black sites where suspects were held without trial and beyond any law. At home, the U.S. government turned to warrantless surveillance of our telephones and emails.
While the initial U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was necessary, in order to destroy the some 40 al-Qaida training camps, the Bush administration erred in launching a long-term military occupation of that country. Afghans, proud tribesmen who drove the British empire and the Soviet Union from their lands, were never going to accept an American and NATO occupation. The longer the intensive U.S. troop presence lasted, the more resistance the Afghans offered. President Hamid Karzai's team engaged in ballot-stuffing in the 2010 election, undermining American hopes of fostering democracy.
The attempt rapidly to train up thousands of Afghan police and troops, in hopes they could take over security duties as the U.S. and its allies finally withdraw, has run into trouble because some of the recruits so resent U.S. dominance of their country that they shoot at American troops.
Although the Obama administration has withdrawn from Iraq and plans on being largely out of Afghanistan by 2014, the perpetual wars continue. The U.S. is fighting remote-control conflicts by drone in northern Pakistan, Yemen and occasionally Somalia. The wars have no boundaries and are governed by no law. They include the use of drones for assassination, including of American citizens abroad. They do not have congressional authorization. They are classified so they cannot even be confirmed to us by our elected officials.
The U.S. government's response to the lawlessness and mass killing of 9/11 has too often been a subversion of American laws and values, and an abandonment of the ideals enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
The Founding Fathers would not have wanted the United States to launch wars of aggression as opposed to wars of self-defense, or to set aside the Bill of Rights. They were not naïve, and they faced more severe security challenges than do we today. Nevertheless, they insisted on the sanctity of individual liberties in the midst of those challenges.
Eleven years on, we need to get back to those basic American values.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120911/OPINION01/209110320#ixzz26BZ0lbLO
Re: Eleven Years Of Terrorizing Ourselves By Myron Pauli
At 02:24 PM 9/11/2012, you wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
There you go PROJECTING again. Raimondo is an Old Right Conservative who is rather vocally opposed to you ex-Trotskyites.
It's Always About Israel
Even when it isn't…
by Justin Raimondo, February 14, 2011
While most of the rest of the world, minus Glenn Beck, was celebrating the overthrow of one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, over in Israel – which bills itself as the only real democracy in the region – they were sour-faced and ready to rumble. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told his cabinet to shut up about the Egyptian events, but they just couldn't contain themselves as the specter of democracy in the Arab world moved closer to realization: We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with " vigilance and worry." The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that "in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances."
No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel's amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the "Egypt is Iran" meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events. No "analysis" of the situation was complete without a comparison to the Iranian revolution of 1979, a violent upsurge by Shi'ite radicals – in spite of the fact that this was a completely non-violent movement organized byurban students with a taste for tech-savvy tactics and secular views. To these people facts are merely burdensome details that can be safely ignored when constructing a narrative that fits their agenda – and their agenda, as always, is putting Israel first.
It's interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. Ha'aretz reports:
"'He had very tough things to say about the United States,' said Ben-Eliezer … He gave me a lesson in democracy and said: 'We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East. They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam."
Mubarak also gave a very Netanyahu-like prediction about the probable outcome of the Egyptian upsurge:
"He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf. He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances – dramatic changes and upheavals. He repeated the sentence, 'I have been serving my country, Egypt, for 61 years. Do they want me to run away? I won't run away. Do they want to throw me out? I won't leave. If need be, I will be killed here.'"
Poor mistreated misunderstood Mubarak – with only the Israelis' shoulder to cry on! His anger at the Americans is perhaps matched, these days, by his anger at the Swiss – who appear to have frozen his Swiss bank accounts, reported to contain as much as $70 billion.
Israeli rancor toward the Americans was given voice by presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who – speaking from Israeli soil – unleashed his invective at Washington for "abandoning" Mubarak. The Israelis, said the Huckster, are wondering aloud about the likelihood of the US coming to their aid in their hour of need given that they've thrown Mubarak overboard without so much as a by your leave. "We should at least acknowledge what a good ally he has been for all these years," scolded the fundamentalist Christian former governor-cum-preacher:
"Even the left wing Israeli press has expressed profound disappointment when the US said nothing positive about Mubarak. What they were looking for was some acknowledgment that he has been an ally and a friend. It's been good for Israel, and good for the US. If they're that quick to bail on Mubarak, then would they do the same to us?"
Oblivious to the implications of a comparison between Mubarak's regime and the Israelis, the Huckster prattles on, demanding that the US praise a bloody dictator whose torture chambers stain the conscience of the "free world." Which raises an interesting point: why are the Israelis so frightened by the example of an Arab populace rising up and non-violently overthrowing a US-supported tyrant? Supposedly they fear the breaking of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and the dropping of the blockade of Gaza on the Egyptian side, but I, for one, don't believe it for a minute. The Egyptian military is in firm control of this aspect of the situation – and, as dependent as Egypt's generals are on the US for military aid to the tune of over $1 billion annually, one can hardly imagine the new Egypt embarking on a military campaign against the Jewish state. As for Gaza, the Israelis rejected a proposal by the Egyptian military to send more troops to the Sinai to control the border – so they can't be too worried about that.
No, what they are really worried about is the prospect of the Palestinians, and their own downtrodden Arab population, taking up the non-violent insurrectionist tactics of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement and shaking the very foundations of the Israeli state. This would focus world attention on the horrific conditions in the occupied territories, and expose the true nature of the Israeli state as a repressiveSparta with its foot planted firmly on the necks of its Palestinian helots. As long as the Israelis have only the scary Hamas to contend with, they are safe: but as soon as a secular, youth-led non-violent intifada arises, the public relations consequences are going to be dire.
Israel is completely dependent on outside forces to ensure its continued survival: not just American aid and weaponry, but also a steady influx of Jews making aliya. If they lose the battle for world public opinion, that stream will turn into a trickle. And therein lies the deadly sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Israeli colonists: the demographic time bomb which will soon have the Arabs a majority in the Jewish state.
It isn't the nonexistent military threat from the new Egypt the Israelis are so worried about – it's the political example of " people power" winning out against a repressive regime armed to the teeth. If they can do it in Egypt, why not in Palestine? This is what the Israelis dread – and with good reason.
Even before the Egyptian uprising, there were indications of a secular youth-ledmovement in Palestine – specifically Gaza – which declared they've had it with both the Israelis and Hamas. Tel Aviv had better hope the Islamists crack down on those kids, because they are potentially a much more formidable adversary than the thugs who have taken over the Gaza strip.
Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis – or their American patrons – like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric. The US military's chief of staff, Admiral Mullen, is over in Israel right now, reassuring Netanyahu and his ultra-rightist government that we'll continue to ensure their "security" – but the status quo is unsustainable. Egypt will no longer be used as a base for US military operations in the region, at least insofar as they involve making threats to Iran. As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.
Some conservative anti-interventionists warn against " cheerleading" a foreign revolution, mindful of the tricks history plays on us: there's no telling but that a new tyranny might succeed the old. I don't buy it: the Egyptian people, who have spent the last 60 or so years putting up with one tyrant after another, are not about to give up their dearly-bought liberty and install an "Islamic" version of the old order.
The Arab peoples are waking up, and there is no putting them back to sleep: it took a mere 18 days to bring down a tyrant supported by both Israel and the US, and that revolution is spreading even as I write: to Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, and beyond. Following the example of Kuwait, the Emir of Bahrain has just granted his subjects a hefty multi-thousand-dollar " gift," hoping to bribe them into passivity – but the opposition is going ahead with protests.
In the run up to the Iraq war, when the neocons were making the case for the invasion, they told us we needed to drain the Arab "swamp" before we could eliminate the threat of Islamist extremism: we couldn't just stand by and let radicalism germinate, we had to take action to root it out by eliminating the very social and political conditions under which Arab civilization had been stunted and pathologized. Now, however, history has taken an unforeseen turn: the Arabs are draining that swamp all by themselves, first off by taking out the biggest frog in that stagnant pond – Mubarak. Islamist extremism flourished in Egypt, in spite of the repressive apparatus of the Mubarak regime, precisely because of the regime itself, which allowed no outlet for the natural impulse of a people to rule themselves.
Bush's "global democratic revolution" is indeed taking place, but without the US military which the former president and his neocon speechwriters imagined would be the instrument of change. The Glenn Becks and Mike Huckabees, who fulsomely supported the Iraq war, and who are now inveighing on Fox News against the coming of an " Islamic Caliphate," are blind to what has actually happened on the ground in the Middle East. While the Bush Doctrine ushered in an Islamist state in Iraq, where the oh-so-dreaded Sharia law is being encoded and enforced with a vengeance, the populist-nationalist uprisings in Egypt and throughout the region show every sign of ushering in a real sea-change in Arab consciousness, in which democracy and secularism triumph.
The Israeli government, and its American lobby, would do well to pipe down about the alleged "dangers" posed by the Egyptians' fight for freedom, lest they reveal more about themselves – and Israel – than they would care to admit. For Huckabee and his supporters, it's always about Israel – even when it isn't. If the Huckster is perfectly comfortable criticizing the conduct of the American government from foreign soil, then perhaps his supporters and well-wishers, who pride themselves on their "patriotism" and break into chants of " USA! USA!" at the drop of a hat, will start to wonder what country he's running for office in.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/
Agreed.
A dollar and a bier says Raimondo cares more for the national interests of Israel as compared to the United States.
ROTFLMAO!
There you go PROJECTING again. Raimondo is an Old Right Conservative who is rather vocally opposed to you ex-Trotskyites.
It's Always About Israel
Even when it isn't…
by Justin Raimondo, February 14, 2011
While most of the rest of the world, minus Glenn Beck, was celebrating the overthrow of one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, over in Israel – which bills itself as the only real democracy in the region – they were sour-faced and ready to rumble. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told his cabinet to shut up about the Egyptian events, but they just couldn't contain themselves as the specter of democracy in the Arab world moved closer to realization: We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with " vigilance and worry." The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that "in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances."
No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel's amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the "Egypt is Iran" meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events. No "analysis" of the situation was complete without a comparison to the Iranian revolution of 1979, a violent upsurge by Shi'ite radicals – in spite of the fact that this was a completely non-violent movement organized byurban students with a taste for tech-savvy tactics and secular views. To these people facts are merely burdensome details that can be safely ignored when constructing a narrative that fits their agenda – and their agenda, as always, is putting Israel first.
It's interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. Ha'aretz reports:
"'He had very tough things to say about the United States,' said Ben-Eliezer … He gave me a lesson in democracy and said: 'We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East. They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam."
Mubarak also gave a very Netanyahu-like prediction about the probable outcome of the Egyptian upsurge:
"He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf. He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances – dramatic changes and upheavals. He repeated the sentence, 'I have been serving my country, Egypt, for 61 years. Do they want me to run away? I won't run away. Do they want to throw me out? I won't leave. If need be, I will be killed here.'"
Poor mistreated misunderstood Mubarak – with only the Israelis' shoulder to cry on! His anger at the Americans is perhaps matched, these days, by his anger at the Swiss – who appear to have frozen his Swiss bank accounts, reported to contain as much as $70 billion.
Israeli rancor toward the Americans was given voice by presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who – speaking from Israeli soil – unleashed his invective at Washington for "abandoning" Mubarak. The Israelis, said the Huckster, are wondering aloud about the likelihood of the US coming to their aid in their hour of need given that they've thrown Mubarak overboard without so much as a by your leave. "We should at least acknowledge what a good ally he has been for all these years," scolded the fundamentalist Christian former governor-cum-preacher:
"Even the left wing Israeli press has expressed profound disappointment when the US said nothing positive about Mubarak. What they were looking for was some acknowledgment that he has been an ally and a friend. It's been good for Israel, and good for the US. If they're that quick to bail on Mubarak, then would they do the same to us?"
Oblivious to the implications of a comparison between Mubarak's regime and the Israelis, the Huckster prattles on, demanding that the US praise a bloody dictator whose torture chambers stain the conscience of the "free world." Which raises an interesting point: why are the Israelis so frightened by the example of an Arab populace rising up and non-violently overthrowing a US-supported tyrant? Supposedly they fear the breaking of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and the dropping of the blockade of Gaza on the Egyptian side, but I, for one, don't believe it for a minute. The Egyptian military is in firm control of this aspect of the situation – and, as dependent as Egypt's generals are on the US for military aid to the tune of over $1 billion annually, one can hardly imagine the new Egypt embarking on a military campaign against the Jewish state. As for Gaza, the Israelis rejected a proposal by the Egyptian military to send more troops to the Sinai to control the border – so they can't be too worried about that.
No, what they are really worried about is the prospect of the Palestinians, and their own downtrodden Arab population, taking up the non-violent insurrectionist tactics of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement and shaking the very foundations of the Israeli state. This would focus world attention on the horrific conditions in the occupied territories, and expose the true nature of the Israeli state as a repressiveSparta with its foot planted firmly on the necks of its Palestinian helots. As long as the Israelis have only the scary Hamas to contend with, they are safe: but as soon as a secular, youth-led non-violent intifada arises, the public relations consequences are going to be dire.
Israel is completely dependent on outside forces to ensure its continued survival: not just American aid and weaponry, but also a steady influx of Jews making aliya. If they lose the battle for world public opinion, that stream will turn into a trickle. And therein lies the deadly sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Israeli colonists: the demographic time bomb which will soon have the Arabs a majority in the Jewish state.
It isn't the nonexistent military threat from the new Egypt the Israelis are so worried about – it's the political example of " people power" winning out against a repressive regime armed to the teeth. If they can do it in Egypt, why not in Palestine? This is what the Israelis dread – and with good reason.
Even before the Egyptian uprising, there were indications of a secular youth-ledmovement in Palestine – specifically Gaza – which declared they've had it with both the Israelis and Hamas. Tel Aviv had better hope the Islamists crack down on those kids, because they are potentially a much more formidable adversary than the thugs who have taken over the Gaza strip.
Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis – or their American patrons – like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric. The US military's chief of staff, Admiral Mullen, is over in Israel right now, reassuring Netanyahu and his ultra-rightist government that we'll continue to ensure their "security" – but the status quo is unsustainable. Egypt will no longer be used as a base for US military operations in the region, at least insofar as they involve making threats to Iran. As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.
Some conservative anti-interventionists warn against " cheerleading" a foreign revolution, mindful of the tricks history plays on us: there's no telling but that a new tyranny might succeed the old. I don't buy it: the Egyptian people, who have spent the last 60 or so years putting up with one tyrant after another, are not about to give up their dearly-bought liberty and install an "Islamic" version of the old order.
The Arab peoples are waking up, and there is no putting them back to sleep: it took a mere 18 days to bring down a tyrant supported by both Israel and the US, and that revolution is spreading even as I write: to Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, and beyond. Following the example of Kuwait, the Emir of Bahrain has just granted his subjects a hefty multi-thousand-dollar " gift," hoping to bribe them into passivity – but the opposition is going ahead with protests.
In the run up to the Iraq war, when the neocons were making the case for the invasion, they told us we needed to drain the Arab "swamp" before we could eliminate the threat of Islamist extremism: we couldn't just stand by and let radicalism germinate, we had to take action to root it out by eliminating the very social and political conditions under which Arab civilization had been stunted and pathologized. Now, however, history has taken an unforeseen turn: the Arabs are draining that swamp all by themselves, first off by taking out the biggest frog in that stagnant pond – Mubarak. Islamist extremism flourished in Egypt, in spite of the repressive apparatus of the Mubarak regime, precisely because of the regime itself, which allowed no outlet for the natural impulse of a people to rule themselves.
Bush's "global democratic revolution" is indeed taking place, but without the US military which the former president and his neocon speechwriters imagined would be the instrument of change. The Glenn Becks and Mike Huckabees, who fulsomely supported the Iraq war, and who are now inveighing on Fox News against the coming of an " Islamic Caliphate," are blind to what has actually happened on the ground in the Middle East. While the Bush Doctrine ushered in an Islamist state in Iraq, where the oh-so-dreaded Sharia law is being encoded and enforced with a vengeance, the populist-nationalist uprisings in Egypt and throughout the region show every sign of ushering in a real sea-change in Arab consciousness, in which democracy and secularism triumph.
The Israeli government, and its American lobby, would do well to pipe down about the alleged "dangers" posed by the Egyptians' fight for freedom, lest they reveal more about themselves – and Israel – than they would care to admit. For Huckabee and his supporters, it's always about Israel – even when it isn't. If the Huckster is perfectly comfortable criticizing the conduct of the American government from foreign soil, then perhaps his supporters and well-wishers, who pride themselves on their "patriotism" and break into chants of " USA! USA!" at the drop of a hat, will start to wonder what country he's running for office in.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/
Re: New Memo Confirms That The Romney Camp Is Starting To Freak Out About Polls
There you go again with your fallacy spews ... much simpler I guess than actually addressing the words, concepts and ideas presented.
Romney stated: "I say we're going to replace Obamacare. And I'm replacing it with my own plan."
REPLACE does not a REPEAL make. REPLACE does not move the 'football' in the right direction. REPLACE maintains the status quo.
When PPACA was signed into law ... the Republican battle cry was "REPEAL!" Romney -- before even ascending to office -- has ALREADY watered that effort down.
It is YOU that is attempting to twist them into something else.
Those of us who pay attention and are not enamored with the endless RHETORIC spewed by Republicans understand that a Romney Administration will NOT repeal Obamacare.
You simply WANT -- desperately -- to believe that Romney is somehow different.
Regard$,
--MJ
"The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians" -- George Orwell, author of "1984" and "Animal Farm."
At 02:16 PM 9/11/2012, you wrote:
Sheldon Richmon.......Another far left American hating Moonbat who cloaks himself as a "Libertarian", A Bill Mahr wannabe.
Earlier, I sent you a quote regarding Romney's statement after his comments on Meet the Press. I agree with Romney on our health care system. It's fucked up. Governor Romney has been quite vocal on his opposition to ObamaCare before, and after his comments on Meet the Press however, and only far left extremists who are in support of the current socialist Administration can take his comments and twist them as somehow backpedaling on his very vocal insistance to repeal ObamaCare. You seem to take great delight in broadcasting these far left extremists' hatred for the Republican candidate, which is duly noted.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:13 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Romney says he won't repeal all of Obamacare
- Romney says despite pledge to repeal Obamacare, he'd keep some parts of it if he's elected
Associated Press – Sun, Sep 9, 2012 9:04 AM EDT
- WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mitt Romney says his pledge to repeal President Barack Obama's health law doesn't mean that young adults and those with medical conditions would no longer be guaranteed health care.
- The Republican presidential nominee says he'll replace the law with his own plan. He tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that the plan he worked to pass while governor of Massachusetts deals with medical conditions and with young people.
- Romney says he doesn't plan to repeal of all of Obama's signature health care plan. He says there are a number of initiatives he likes in the Affordable Care Act that he would keep in place if elected president.
- Obama has been campaigning on the benefits in his plan for the uninsured, women and young adults.
- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-says-wont-repeal-obamacare-130418140.html
- --
- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
- For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
- * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
- * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
- * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Eleven Years Of Terrorizing Ourselves By Myron Pauli
Agreed.
A dollar and a bier says Raimondo cares more for the national interests of Israel as compared to the United States.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Your Peeps
---
no ... she's a jew
.......And there's not a lot of difference between Mercer
& Raimondo, and Krystol & Wolfowitz.....
---
I agree. They will all put the interests of israel before America.
On Sep 11, 9:08 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your Peeps.......And there's not a lot of difference between Mercer
> & Raimondo, and Krystol & Wolfowitz.....
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:03 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mercer has argued against U.S. foreign aid for all countries,
> > including Israel.[24] She has also noted that Israel's struggle for
> > self-defense and the U.S.-led War on Terror should not be seen as the
> > same phenomenon, particularly by Israelis.[25] During the Israeli
> > incursion into Lebanon, she noted that "Israel's pulverizing of Lebanon
> > —blowing the place to kingdom come, killing hundreds of civilians, and
> > displacing thousands—threatens to sunder its moral superiority."[26]
> > Nevertheless, she has been characterized as reflexively pro-Israel by
> > some libertarians. In response to Mercer's support of Israel's
> > construction of a border fence on the West Bank,[24] Justin Raimondo,
> > editorial director of Antiwar.com, responded saying it is not Israel,
> > but its "American amen corner, typified by La Mercer", whom
> > libertarians despise, also characterizing Mercer as "an intellectual
> > street-walker".[27] Despite this characterization Raimondo later on
> > welcomed Mercer as an Antiwar.com contributor, and published 20 of her
> > columns.
>
> > Responding to paleoconservative academic and writer Kevin B.
> > MacDonald, who argued that Jewish leaders in movements such as
> > neoconservatism promote exclusively Jewish interests including mass
> > immigration into the U.S. from the Third World,[31] Mercer noted that
> > "Jewish activism, if anything, is self-defeating as a group strategy".
> > [32] She has argued that while many Jewish organizations promote
> > liberal causes such as multiculturalism, a contradiction exists
> > between the "leftist ideology so many Jews embrace, with its
> > indifference to assimilation and its extreme tolerance for alternative
> > lifestyles, and the survival of the Jewish religion and people",[32]
>
> > Mercer responded to Pat Buchanan's argument that the push to invade
> > Iraq in 2003 came from a Jewish neoconservative "cabal" advising
> > George W. Bush and acting in the best interests of Israel, rather than
> > the U.S.,[33] by noting that in fingering Jewish neocons specifically,
> > Buchanan was "seeing causal connections where none exist" while
> > failing to note the influence upon Bush by inner-circle gentile
> > neocons such as Condoleezza Rice and William Bennett.[34] In addition,
> > she noted that Bush's own vision for U.S. intervention in the Middle
> > East was in place before the September 11 attacks.
>
> > On Sep 10, 9:29 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Eleven Years Of Terrorizing Ourselves By Myron Pauliwritten by Ilana
> > Mercer on09.10.12ELEVEN YEARS OF TERRORIZING OURSELVES – BY MYRON PAULI*In
> > the early 20th Century, the "Great Powers" played a reckless game of
> > imperialism, competing to control the globe – Germans in Windhoek, French
> > in Zhanjiang, Brits in Lusaka, Turks in Mosul, Italians in Asmara, and
> > Austrians in Sarajevo and Russians in Lushunkuo.
> > > As part of this recklessness, the Russian "intelligence services" helped
> > the Serbian Black Hand who assassinated Serbian King Alexander and Queen
> > Draga (born September 11) in 1903. Later on, the Black Hand assassinated
> > Archduke Franz Ferdinand that set up the orgy of bloodletting known as
> > World War I. During that war, the German "intelligence services" sent Lenin
> > to Russia to start another orgy of bloodletting. The term "blowback" often
> > describes the whirlwind unleashed by these "intelligence services."
> > > Following Britain's World War I "victory," they decided to control the
> > Arab world with hand-picked corrupt monarchs with names like Farouk and
> > Feisal. After World War Two, the Soviet Empire countered with "secular
> > nationalists" like Gamal Nasser, Assad, and Hussein.
> > > In 1979, America decided to counter the Soviets by backing militant
> > Moslems in Afghanistan and throughout the Moslem world. In this, America
> > was assisted by the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Israelis. The Soviets got
> > suckered into invading Afghanistan which only increased American support of
> > Mujahedin hotheads.
> > > When the Soviets left, the Americans moved in– and became the new target
> > of the hotheads. The ultimate blowback came on 9/11/01. Added to this was
> > the anthrax attacks from some disgruntled Army employee and the "DC Sniper"
> > and you have all the domestic "terrorism" visited on America. I am not
> > counting semi-manufactured "foiled attempts," whereFBI provocateurs find
> > (typically) low-IQ minority misfitsto "agree" to do nonsense like shooting
> > fighter planes with Stinger missiles as a real attack on the USA – nor
> > pathetic plots like shoe-bombers, "liquid-mixing"-bombers and
> > underpants-bombers whose nuttiness was only exceeded by the even-nuttier
> > response.
> > > Total damageis a little over 3000 people and a couple of ugly buildings–
> > most assuredly a tragedy. A greater number of lives could be saved by
> > following Mayor Bloomberg's dietary advice. The money we have wasted since
> > could have built hundreds of buildings. Far greater than the damage caused
> > by "terrorists" in the US has been the response.
> > > The greatest expense have been the idiotic wars (beyond that of just
> > chasing Al Qaeda out ofAfghanistanperformed by Special Ops working with the
> > "Northern Alliance" in 2001) inIraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan which have
> > left refugees (tomorrow's terrorists) and instability.
> > > Next comes generally bloated military spending – the favorite of
> > the"Republikeynsians"(bragged about in TV ads throughout Virginia in 2012).
> > But as bad as a wasted aircraft carrier or a gold-plated golf course in
> > Germany might be, even worse is the damage we are doing to our souls.
> > > Far worse is the paranoid surveillance state that we are imposing –
> > first on the rest of the world but also on ourselves. Due process of law, a
> > concept that goes back to the Magna Carta, is utterly discarded.
> > Incarceration without trial,death by drone, Patriot Acts, NDAA, a
> > government that considers the lives of its people to be completely public;
> > but its own machinations to be completely secret; self-serving leaks of
> > lies to increase war fever, groping grandmas at bus stations …. – the list
> > goes on and on ad infinitum.
> > > A new Department, "Homeland Security" – gives billions to arm local
> > police to the hilt. I remember when people debated whether American police
> > should carry guns or be disarmed like the British Bobbies. Now, the police,
> > BATF, DEA and SWAT teams are often armed for a D-Day invasion on your
> > house.Tasersare routinely used at traffic stops. Laws multiply and their
> > enforcement becomes increasingly arbitrary. Urban neighborhoods and our
> > southern border are devastated by the idiotic "war on drugs" that continues
> > regardless of the evidence of its insanity.
> > > In the hands of an Obama, Bush, or Romney, these powers are frightening
> > enough; should the US suffer bankruptcy, I shudder to think of what USA
> > Fuhrer might arise to abuse such power. The subsequent abuses might make
> > 9/11/01 as forgotten as Queen Draga's birthday!
> > > As Ben Franklin forewarned, "They who can give up essential liberty to
> > obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
> > safety."******Barely a Blog (BAB) contributor Myron Pauli grew up in
> > Sunnyside Queens, went off to college in Cleveland and then spent time in a
> > mental institution in Cambridge MA (MIT) with Benjamin Netanyahu (did not
> > know him), and others until he was released with the "hostages" and Jimmy
> > Carter on January 20, 1981, having defended his dissertation in nuclear
> > physics. Most of the time since, he has worked on infrared sensors, mainly
> > at Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC. He was NOT named after Ron
> > Paul but is distantly related to physicistWolftgang Pauli; unfortunately,
> > only the"good looks"were handed down and not the brains. He writes assorted
> > song lyrics and essays reflecting his cynicism and classical liberalism.
> > Click on the"BAB's A List"category to access the Pauli archive.
> >http://barelyablog.com/eleven-years-of-terrorizing-ourselves/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Patriot Day
ROTFLMAO!
Pointing at the utter STUPIDITY of Boobus Americanus and their nationalistic, jingoist worship is somehow qualification for 'Moonbat-ism'?
You and your perpetual fallacy spews.
Regard$,
--MJ
Like every good Citizen, I spent all of yesterday remembering the events that changed everything; that is, the US-fomented wars against Canada, Mexico, the Confederacy, the Plains Indians, Spain, Germany, Japan, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Islam, not to speak of the long train of local wars, coups, and assassinations that have always characterized the imperial republic. -- LHR, Jr. 11 September 2011
At 02:11 PM 9/11/2012, you wrote:
This is a classic example of the ignorance and hatred that now seems to be chic in America. "What can we find wrong with our Nation?" asks Moonbat extraordinaire Vance......
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:31 PM, plainolamerican < plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
- Initially, the day was called the Prayer and Remembrance for the
- Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001. When the new
- name was proposed, it received opposition from Massachusetts, which
- already had a Patriots' Day.
- On Sep 11, 11:56 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
- > Point, if any?
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:50:27 AM UTC-4, MJ wrote:
- >
- > > *"Eleven years later, the combination of national self-pity, vaunting
- > > jingoism, and resolute blindness remains unbecoming." -- Sheldon Richman,
- > > 11 September 2012
- >
- > > **Patriot Day
- > > *Posted by Laurence Vance <javascript:> on September 11, 2012 08:46 AM
- >
- > > I just realized that today is Patriot Day< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Day>,
- > > not to be confused with Patriot's Day< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots%27_Day>.
- > > Not a federal holiday yet, but just wait a few years. Not sure why 9/11 is
- > > called Patriot Day. Perhaps Payback Day or Blowback Day or Federal Failure
- > > Day or Government Incompetence Day would be a better name for it. But of
- > > course, I'm not sure what the evil Patriot Act has to do with patriotism
- > > either.
- --
- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
- For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
- * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
- * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
- * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Moonbat2..jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Moonbat2..jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h6zbh4q00
Re: New Memo Confirms That The Romney Camp Is Starting To Freak Out About Polls
Sheldon Richmon.......Another far left American hating Moonbat who cloaks himself as a "Libertarian", A Bill Mahr wannabe.
Earlier, I sent you a quote regarding Romney's statement after his comments on Meet the Press. I agree with Romney on our health care system. It's fucked up. Governor Romney has been quite vocal on his opposition to ObamaCare before, and after his comments on Meet the Press however, and only far left extremists who are in support of the current socialist Administration can take his comments and twist them as somehow backpedaling on his very vocal insistance to repeal ObamaCare. You seem to take great delight in broadcasting these far left extremists' hatred for the Republican candidate, which is duly noted.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:13 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
Romney says he won't repeal all of Obamacare
Romney says despite pledge to repeal Obamacare, he'd keep some parts of it if he's elected
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mitt Romney says his pledge to repeal President Barack Obama's health law doesn't mean that young adults and those with medical conditions would no longer be guaranteed health care.
The Republican presidential nominee says he'll replace the law with his own plan. He tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that the plan he worked to pass while governor of Massachusetts deals with medical conditions and with young people.
Romney says he doesn't plan to repeal of all of Obama's signature health care plan. He says there are a number of initiatives he likes in the Affordable Care Act that he would keep in place if elected president.
Obama has been campaigning on the benefits in his plan for the uninsured, women and young adults.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-says-wont-repeal-obamacare-130418140.html--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Patriot Day
This is a classic example of the ignorance and hatred that now seems to be chic in America. "What can we find wrong with our Nation?" asks Moonbat extraordinaire Vance......
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:31 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Initially, the day was called the Prayer and Remembrance for the
Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001. When the new
name was proposed, it received opposition from Massachusetts, which
already had a Patriots' Day.
> > *"Eleven years later, the combination of national self-pity, vaunting
On Sep 11, 11:56 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Point, if any?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:50:27 AM UTC-4, MJ wrote:
>
> > jingoism, and resolute blindness remains unbecoming." -- Sheldon Richman,> > **Patriot Day
> > 11 September 2012
>
> > *Posted by Laurence Vance <javascript:> on September 11, 2012 08:46 AM
>
> > I just realized that today is Patriot Day<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Day>,
> > not to be confused with Patriot's Day<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots%27_Day>.
> > Not a federal holiday yet, but just wait a few years. Not sure why 9/11 is
> > called Patriot Day. Perhaps Payback Day or Blowback Day or Federal Failure
> > Day or Government Incompetence Day would be a better name for it. But of
> > course, I'm not sure what the evil Patriot Act has to do with patriotism
> > either.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)