Administration sponsored Armageddon 10/20/2003

The Administration shows its incompetence, moral bankruptcy, and perhaps psychosis in plans to send 1,000 Serb combat forces to fight the Taliban in Kandahar (10/4 San Diego Union Tribune). In grotesque contradiction to Serb actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, these forces are touted to have anti-terrorist capabilities.

If they actually have such capabilities, those skills should be used in Serbia to bring to justice the two most egregious terrorists on the planet, former Bosnian Serb President Karadzic and General Mladic. I suspect there is not the will to do so. Serbia may be democratized and reformed, but it recently issued a report claiming the mass graves around Srebrenica were primarily for combatants (10/12 SDUT). Serbia remains unredeemed.

An alliance with Serbs will not bring down the Taliban; it will make them ascendant.

Such an alliance will bring down the Karzai government, accomplishing the exact opposite of its stated purpose. We should not ally ourselves with terrorists simply because they are Christian terrorists.

Al-Qaeda has killed thousands, but Serbs have killed hundreds of thousands.

In 1992 and 1993, the West refused to stop Serbs from killing more than 200,000 Bosnian Muslims. Why? We enforced an arms embargo that kept Muslims nearly defenseless against well-armed Serbs. Why? Subsequent to our unconscionably delayed intervention in late 1995, we allowed Karadzic and Mladic, the two men who lead the genocide, to live for years with impunity in NATO-controlled areas of Bosnia. Why?

Given this planned alliance with Serbs, I see the possibility Western planners in the early Nineties foresaw the coming of world Jihad and acquiesced in Bosnia’s slaughter. It would deprive our perceived, future enemy of significant population resources in Europe. America’s funding of the oppression of Palestine, unprovoked aggression in Iraq, and now an alliance with Serbs, combine with other injustices against Islam to make world Jihad a reality. If this theory is correct, our planners didn’t just foresee it, they have created it.

If Armageddon comes in my lifetime, I will stand where I stand today, with the God of Abraham. He cannot be pleased that we divide ourselves in his name. I am a mere Irish-American and a Roman Catholic, but I stand with most all of my Muslim brothers against al-Qaeda terrorists and Palestinian terrorists, but also against aggressor Serbs, aggressor Israelis, and aggressor Americans, in defense of American ideals. Bring it on, George!

UN or NO 9/21/2003

The Administration contradicts itself but is unintentionally correct in saying we don’t need more US troops in Iraq, but we do need more foreign troops.

I submit US forces are needlessly dying. UN peacekeeping forces would no doubt be attacked in Iraq, but not to the extent US forces are attacked. Given the UN’s refusal to sanction America’s war, Iraqi guerillas are more likely accept a UN controlled over a US controlled transition.

I believe a UN transition is the best chance Iraq has to self determine its future. I fear the reason Mr. Bush opposes a UN transition is that it will prevent him from installing his puppet in Baghdad, someone like Ahmad Chalabi. If Mr. Bush’s people can manipulate an election in Florida, they can certainly manipulate an election in Iraq.

The US is not currently adept at nation building as seen in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Administration claims the UN is incapable of nation building as is apparent in Bosnia and Kosovo. This is not a fair comparison. Bosnia and Kosovo were civil wars, and Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars have been forced into unnatural unions with Serbs responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of their people.

I further suggest we reconstitute the Iraqi Army to provide security, and use Baathist party members with necessary skills to help rebuild the country. There are precedents for these suggestions. After WWII, Japanese troops provided security in Indochina, and Nazi party members helped rebuild Germany. Obviously Army officers and Baathist party members responsible for crimes against humanity should not be allowed to influence Iraq’s reconstruction.

Stop the unnecessary killing of Americans and Iraqis. Call your Congressmen at (202) 224 3121. Request they vote against Mr. Bush’s $87 billion for Iraq, and thereby force Mr. Bush to accept UN control in Iraq. America won the major battles of the war, now let the UN win the peace.

The Current Lie 7/23/2003

As of 7/14, the Administration claimed there is additional British intelligence supporting the uranium allegation, claimed London hasn’t made this intelligence available, claimed it did not know the source of this intelligence, and admitted it was not trying to determine the source (7/15 UT). This week’s Newsweek (7/28) noted the existence of a British report that the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium from several east African countries. I believe if this intelligence were significant, the U.S. would already have it.

The Administration’s claims are incredible given what we now know about the uranium allegation. The Italians informed the U.S. of the Niger documents two years ago. Joseph Wilson reviewed the uranium allegation for the CIA in February 2002 and found it to be baseless. His review was independent of the Niger documents. The CIA station chief in Rome was given the Niger documents in October 2002 and apparently tossed them out. The International Atomic Energy Agency was given the Niger documents in February 2003 and within two hours determined them to be forgeries. (Primary source 7/28 Newsweek)

Given all the intelligence and analysis showing the allegation to be baseless and the current controversy over the allegation, it is unbelievable the Administration has not gone after any and all intelligence supporting the allegation. I suspect in fact they have known all along - the allegation is baseless.

Even if we eventually find WMD, the intelligence was manipulated.

Request your local newspaper, your Senators, and your Representative demand the Administration either admit there is no significant, additional, British intelligence or make public that intelligence.

Sources: 7/15 San Diego Union Tribune and 7/28 Newsweek

"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is holding to the Niger story, noting that the British government now says other, unspecified intelligence supports the uranium allegation.” (7/15 UT)

“…London hasn't supplied Washington with any such information, Rice acknowledged.

Likewise, Baute's office has received nothing from the British three weeks after asking for the purported independent evidence, said sources at the UN agency's headquarters in Vienna..." (7/15 UT) (Jacques Baute is with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.)

"Amid the finger-pointing, the episode forced the administration to concede it did not know the source of the British intelligence - and, in fact, was not trying to determine the source." (7/15 UT)

WMD - Weapons of mass deception 7/19/2003 Work in progress

The real WMD were the Administration’s lies used to rationalize the Iraq war.

Iraq al-Qaeda connection

Lie: [State of the union address 1/28] “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.” (7/13 UT - San Diego Union Tribune)

Truth: “There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist operation,” former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said.

Intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaeda” and said so to the White House and Congress, Thielmann said.”

“That (Hussein) was promoting al-Qaeda is absurd,” Cannistraro said. (Vince Cannistraro is a former CIA counterterrorism chief) (7/13 UT)

Truth: “Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein’s government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agnecy’s classified report on the interrogation. In his debriefing, Mr. Zubaydah said Mr. bin Laden had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Mr. Hussein, the official said.” (James Risen 6/8 New York Times)

Truth: “The Bush administration pressed the CIA in the run-up to the war on Iraq to look for evidence of close cooperation between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but the agency found no proof, according to an internal CIA intelligence review.” (7/4 UT)

Truth: “The UN terrorism committee has found no evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda.” (7/2 UT) (This is a post war finding backing these other pre war findings.)

WMD

Lie: [President Bush 3/17] “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” (John W Dean 6/6 Findlaw’s Writ, William Rivers Pitt 6/3 Truthout)

Lie: [Secretary Rumsfeld 3/30] “We know where (Iraq’s WMD) are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” (Christopher Scheer 6/27 AlterNet.org, dod.gov/news/Mar2003)

Truth: “Jacoby (Director) said his agency (DIA) concurred in an intelligence community consensus last fall that Iraq had a program for weapons of mass destruction. But the DIA was unable to pinpoint any locations.” (6/7 UT) (Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby is the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).)

Truth: “As the military began to gear up for an invasion, top planners at Central Command tried to get a fix from the CIA on WMD sites they could take out with bombs and missiles. After much badgering, says an informed military source, the CIA allowed the CENTCOM planners to see what the agency had on WMD sites. ‘It was crap,’ said a CENTCOM planner… When the military visited these sites after the war, they found nothing but rubble. No traces of WMD.” (Newsweek 6/9)

Lie: [President Bush 10/7 in Cincinnati] “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…” (John W Dean 6/6 Findlaw’s Writ, Christopher Scheer 6/27 AlterNet.org)

Truth: “In two reports to Powell, INR concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear program at all.” (Newsweek 6/9) ( INR is the State Department’s bureau of intelligence and research.)

Lie: [President Bush 10/7] “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.” (John W Dean 6/6 Findlaw’s Writ, Christopher Scheer 6/27 AlterNet.org) “Powell did keep a hedged endorsement of the aluminum tubes (in his 2/5 address to the UN).” (Newsweek 6/9)

Truth: “The Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were the wrong specification to be used in a centrifuge, the equipment used to enrich uranium. The State Department’s INR concluded that the tubes were meant to be used for a multiple-rocket-launching system.” (Newsweek 6/9)

Lie: [The President’s sixteen words in his state of the union address 1/28] “The British government has learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Truth: “’They knew the Niger story was a flat out lie,’ states the former ambassador who investigated the charges.” (James Goldsborough 7/7 UT, New Republic as reported by Christopher Scheer 6/27 AlterNet.org) (The former ambassador James Wilson went to Niger in February 2002 at the request of the CIA to assess the intelligence report (7/6 UT).)

Majority Rule 8/4/2003 Version
Free America with runoff elections.

America is not a democracy in that we do not have majority rule. Americans who vote for third parties, or even third candidates, are disenfranchised. Our national leaders may be elected by mere pluralities (1) in both primary and general elections, resulting in compounded injustice. Plurality rule is the basis for the two party system where third parties and third candidates have almost no chance. Our choices are fundamentally limited. We cannot vote for our best choice without throwing away our vote unless our candidate is one of the two frontrunners in one of the two main parties.

The two party system facilitates corruption. Special interests need only contribute to the campaigns of the two frontrunners to cover their bets. Further, I suspect money alone can create a frontrunner. Although campaign financing reform is necessary, it is not as fundamental as majority rule, and majority rule may preclude the need for those reforms that could overreach and threaten free speech.

I submit if we opened up the electoral process, more Americans would register and vote as they would know their votes count. Americans may be apathetic, but that is not the basic problem. The basic problem is the limitations of plurality rule.

Only 51.3% of the voting age population voted in the last presidential election. Gore won the popular vote with a plurality of 48.4% against Bush with 47.9% and Nader with 2.7%. Bush won the electoral vote by only 5 votes, receiving 271 against Gore’s 266. If we had runoff elections, most all of Nader’s supporters would have voted for Gore giving him a clear majority and almost certainly the presidency even with the electoral college. (2)

Americans need real political power to effect change. Even mass movements are marginalized in a corrupt system. Majority rule isn’t a cure-all, but it is a major step in the right direction. By simply providing run off elections we can create majority rule, create a multi party system, enfranchise third party voters, and enfranchise third candidate voters.

It appears we can implement majority rule with changes in state and/or federal law. We do not need to amend the Constitution. Under the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have the primary responsibility to set the manner of holding both presidential and congressional elections. Alternately, Congress may alter the manner of holding congressional elections. (3)

Fight for true democracy here in America. Add majority rule to your list of political causes. Changing our voting process may be the only way to bring about many other political changes. Instant runoff voting is already a plank in the Green party platform. Insist your party and your candidates support majority rule. In California, if our legislators won’t support majority rule, we may be able to use an initiative. Register and vote for majority rule.

Sources:

1) Plurality (from Webster’s 9th new collegiate dictionary definition 3c) - a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast.

2) Source - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

3) U.S. Constitution Article I Section 4 (1) [Control of congressional elections] - The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 (2) [Appointment and qualifications of presidential electors] – Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors…

Both Vermont and Mississippi have majority rule. See http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/abc22.htm

4) See a tutorial on instant runoff voting (IRV) at http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/

See the following website for information on proportional representation http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

See other outstanding propaganda at

http://www.sdvfp.org/members-pages/JohnScanlon.html

Strategies

Any change in the two party system will be impossible without the acquiescence of one or both of the main parties. We must make changes from within these parties, recognizing these parties’ power structures have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They will have to give lip service to this cause but will likely take little action, or worse, sabotage our efforts.

The Democratic party could enhance its membership and power by enlisting third party members with promises to introduce legislation for instant runoff voting (IRV). The same can be said of individual democratic candidates. The party and Democratic candidates should support IRV as it will allow liberal, third party members to vote in runoff elections for Democrats.

Third party members (TPM’s) could register as Democrats and vote in primaries for Democratic peace candidates that, at a minimum, support instant runoffs. In California, TPM’s need only register as independents to vote in the democratic primary. TPM’s could help make the Democratic party the peace party, or at least the Just-war party. Should a peace candidate not win the Democratic primary, TPM’s could still cast a protest vote for a third party candidate.

A protest vote similar to the last presidential election would make it clear to the Democratic leadership; the party must change, support IRV, or it will continue to lose elections.

In the Democratic presidential primary, a candidate who receives less than 15% of the vote will be denied delegates. The number of delegates he would have received will be distributed proportionally among the remaining candidates including unjust war Democrats. Should your preferred candidate have less than 15% of the polls before the election, consider voting for your alternate. This system is archaic and undemocratic but until we change it, we must optimize the effectiveness of our votes with a full understanding of the system.

In state level voting, vote for Democrats who commit to introducing majority rule legislation, and don’t vote for those who won’t so commit.

A close partnership between Democrats and third parties would be mutually beneficial, and in fact, beneficial to the nation.

Questions and Issues:

We need constitutional lawyers to tell us exactly what state and federal laws have to be changed.

We should work to change CA law with regard to both state and federal elections. CA could influentially follow the lead of Mississippi and Vermont.

State legislatures are empowered under the U.S. Constitution to set the manner of federal elections. Would a CA IRV initiative be legal under the U.S. Constitution? Even if an initiative is not effective for federal elections, it can bring IRV to state elections. Why not begin a CA initiative process immediately?

The Green party already has an IRV plank. Would they be willing to lead the way with the help of other party members and the peace movement?

Recommendations for the Dean/Kucinich Campaign:

I recommend Dean/Kucinich commit to introducing federal legislation requiring all states use instant runoff voting (IRV) in congressional elections. Such support would win him the votes of third party members and possibly third party endorsements.

I think it’s healthy for third parties to run candidates for President and to use those candidacies to sell their platforms, but ask those candidates to endorse Dean/Kucinich in the general elections in return for the commitment to IRV.

If we fail to bring true democracy to America before the next unjust war is imminent, then make that next war civil war. Give me majority rule or give me death.

Support the troops by telling them the truth. Our troops in Vietnam and Iraq did not fight in defense of America or foreign democracy. During these wars, it was the anti-war protestors that defended American freedom.

In Vietnam 58,000 of our boys died for nothing. Our veterans complained that ARVN wouldn’t fight. I believe the men of ARVN wouldn’t fight because they lived there and knew the truth. Even if we had won the Vietnam War, if the South Vietnam government continued to be a corrupt military government, our boys would still have died for nothing.

Our troops in Iraq fought for the difference between Saddam and a new, corrupt, puppet warlord like Ahmad Chalabi. Iraq has no democratic traditions and a mere 60% literacy rate (1). “The United States has tried to install democratic regimes in 16 countries over the past century. It was successful in only four time-consuming instances – Germany, Japan, Panama and Grenada (2).” Panama had a literacy rate of 90%. Grenada had a literacy rate of 98%. (1)

We suffer from the same arrogance we had during Vietnam. We think this American democracy is infallible. Instead, corrupt dollar politics have created corrupt dollar diplomacy with unnecessary, unjust war. We aren’t even a democracy as we don’t have majority rule. Our national leaders may be elected by mere pluralities in both primary and general elections, resulting in compounded injustice. We must remove aggressor Americans from leadership with runoff elections, competition in a free press, and an end to corruption.

Fight for true democracy here in America. If we fail, let the next war be civil war.

Sources:

1) Time Almanac 2001

2) 4/13/2003 UT quoting a study by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

WMD in Iraq 4/23/03

WMD were not a legitimate cause for war. We deterred Saddam from using such weapons in the first Gulf War, in the second Gulf war, and in the twelve years between these wars. Even if Saddam had WMD, if he wasn’t willing to use them against an invading American army, there is no reason to believe he would have used them against us here.

War is effectively a WMD, to use war to eliminate WMD that were no threat to America is hypocrisy and unprovoked aggression.

This war will bring greater proliferation of nuclear weapons. The contradiction in the ways we dealt with Iraq and North Korea will make it clear to all the world’s dictators that nuclear weapons will deter America. As a result, they will pursue such weapons. In addition, the UN’s inability to stop America’s aggression while disarming Iraq will make future UN disarmament unacceptable to any sovereign nation.

If you feared Saddam’s WMD before this war, you were a fool. If you don’t fear WMD more now than you did before this war, you’re a greater fool.

An alternative to war:
Stop Terrorism with Justice 11/18/2002

Since 9/11, I have read almost nothing about what we have done to create the terror against us. America has dealt with the symptoms of terror, but not with those causes for which we are responsible.

We can eliminate 90% of future terrorism against America by replacing short-term, dollar diplomacy with a long-term, values-based foreign policy. There are many good reasons for the world’s Muslims to dislike America. Values-based diplomacy in our relations with Islam would require the following:

· Place justice ahead of peace in our foreign policy goals. We support peace in the Middle East because every time there is a war there, the price of oil goes up and the West goes into recession, but only justice will bring long-term peace.

· Support, with tangible resources, freedom and self-determination in Egypt and the Arab monarchies. We must counter the effects of our aid and petrodollars used by these governments to suppress their people.

· End all military and financial aid to Israel, until Israel ends the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Under a greater Israel plan, 400,000 Israelis have settled east of the green line since 1967. Our aid has helped finance this demographic aggression. It is no wonder Palestine despairs and turns to terror. Let us learn from England’s history in Ireland where settlements brought 450 years of terror. In Genesis, God promised Israel to the descendants of Abraham in perpetuity and speaking of Isaac said, “…I will keep my covenant with him and with his descendants forever...” American Jews and fundamentalist Christians must have faith that God will keep his promise by just means, not by the unjust oppression of Palestine.

· Recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of the future State of Palestine. Israelis in the West Bank including East Jerusalem have an “obligation to return” to Israel proper.

· Apologize and make amends to Muslim Bosnians for supporting the Bosnian arms embargo and for not intervening to stop the genocide of 200,000 Muslims in 1992 and 1993. The embargo froze in place an imbalance that left Serbs well armed and Muslims nearly defenseless. We show our flawed values by our willingness to make war for the price of oil and for Kuwait’s Al Sabah family but not to stop genocide.

· Arrest former Bosnian Serb President Karadzic and General Mladic, with military action in Serbia if necessary. These two are among the most egregious terrorist on earth. They were responsible for the genocide, yet they were allowed to live with impunity in NATO controlled areas of Bosnia for years. Given our inaction, we cannot claim to be in the vanguard against terrorism, and it would be reasonable for Muslims to think we value their lives less than we do Christians and Jews.

· Apologize and make amends to the people of Iran for the CIA’s part in the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and for backing Iraq in the 1980’s Iran Iraq war in spite of Iraq’s clear aggression. I believe Iran took hostages in 1979 partly to preempt the CIA’s further involvement in their internal affairs during the formation of a new government. Given the CIA’s history, Iran’s actions were not unreasonable. We remember and condemn Iran’s uncivilized actions in 1979, but refuse to remember our uncivilized actions in 1953 and in the 1980’s.

· Do not make unilateral war on Iraq and do not establish there an American puppet government. Iraqis and most other Muslims will despise us more than they already do. God bless America, but God d--- an American Empire.

Our politics are apparently as corrupt as our business. Our Congressmen claimed they voted for unilateral war for political reasons, but only 37% of Americans supported unilateral war before the vote while 68% of the House and 77% of the Senate voted for unilateral war. Their political reasons were not the wishes of their constituents; I suspect they were the wishes of their contributors. Given we have been a super power, our corruption extends well beyond our borders. Corrupt dollar politics creates corrupt dollar diplomacy.

Of those who say I am un-American and to “love it or leave it,” I say, “they are not Americans.” Americans would know good men can differ, value the freedom to differ, and value the differences. Americans would value truth and justice above all. Americans would value humility, be willing to recognize errors and make amends. Taking these actions would do more to reduce terrorism than hundreds of billions spent on security, but let us take these actions primarily because they are right and just.

Israel / Palestine 6/25/2002

Settlement activity is demographic aggression. Sharon doesn’t want peace; he wants a greater Israel. If you look at a map of settlements in the West Bank, you cannot but see plans for a greater Israel. Settlement activity did not stop during the peace process. The number of West Bank settlers, excluding East Jerusalem, doubled from 100,000 to 200,000. Forty new settlements have been created just since Sharon took power (Newsweek 5/27/02).

Sharon doesn’t want to stop the terror more than he wants to destroy the Palestinian Authority and leave Palestine with no government but the government of occupation. I believe this is evident in the recent destruction of Arafat’s compound, the Security Chief Rajoub’s compound, the Palestinian Statistics Bureau, the Education Ministry, and other public buildings.

On June 19th, Sharon’s office issued the following statement, “Israel will respond to acts of terror by capturing P.A. (Palestinian Authority) territory. These areas will be held by Israel as long as terror continues. Additional acts of terror will lead to the taking of additional areas…” (San Diego Union Tribune 6/19/02)

America cannot expect to be part of the solution until we stop being part of the problem. We have financed the oppression of Palestine for more than 35 years and are now financing the re-occupation of Palestine. End aid now. No other single act by the American government will do more to reduce future terror against us.