"Perhaps you wonder just where in the hell is the spineless major media in all this, as they watch the chicken-hawk Shrubster himself, between golf swings, announce how tens of thousands of American troops are being sent to the Gulf alongside an enormous billion-dollar military buildup and imminent gobs of heaping death raining down upon a paltry oppressed nation and coming up next on CNN, we interview that dumb guy from "Joe Millionaire." Perfect.

Perhaps you wonder where is the national TV coverage of all those huge anti-war protests, hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, from Spain to Berlin to New York to San Francisco.

Perhaps you wonder where are all the "serious" journalists, the risk-taking news agencies pointing up the absurdity of it all, the imminent horror, the outrage. Could it be these news agencies are owned by major conservative corporations? Could it be they're all terrified of losing ratings, of saying something unpopular, of invoking Cheney's wrath, of losing advertiser dollars and that ever-precious, ever-dwindling dumbed-down audience? One guess. " - Mark Morford, SF Gate, 01/10/03

Where, indeed, are the major media outlets? The very function of the fourth estate is to keep the electorate apprised of the activities of the nation's leaders through timely, accurate and unbiased reports. Yet we see little, or none, of such reporting, except in the small independent media outlets. Most of the American media is toeing the Bush administration's party line on the looming war with Iraq. None of the mainstream media outlets are asking questions regarding the state of the "War on Terrorism", after all Osama bin Laden and most of his lieutenants remain at large. Yet this glaring failure of the Bush administration remains unquestioned. Let's not forget those embarassing questions about president Bushs' and vice-president Cheneys' business dealings as private citizens that were conveniently swept under the rug with the shift of focus to Iraq.

Where is the coverage of the growing anti-war movement in the US? At home, it is spotty and erratic at best. One can find more and better infornation in the foreign press about goings on in the US. And this is a sad commentary on the state of the American press corps. They are so cowed by their corporate masters that they fear to criticize the Bush administration lest they be fired and blacklisted.

As I listened to a story on NPR today of how the World Food Program was facing cut-backs from donor-nations in Sudan, I couldn't help but wonder at how misguided Bush's foreign policy is.

How many people could have recieved adequate food and housing, medical care, safe drinking water, schooling, vaccinations...for the price of one day of the US military build-up in the Persian Gulf? It boggles the mind to think of how many lives could have been spared hunger, disease, grinding poverty, illiteracy for the cost of the entire build-up to date.

How much better would the cause, not just of this nation, but of all humanity be served by humanitarian action? How much better would the world be served if Bush lived up to the Christian ideals he so loudly lays claim to? But his claims are nothing more than the braying of an ass...loud, noisy, and meaningless. He and his followers do nothing but drape themselves in the mantle of sanctimonious self-righteousness, and claim themselves as Gods Chosen.

Compassionate conservatism...apparently, Bush and his administration reserve compassion only for those who have no need of it.

While Howdy mouths words about loving freedom and democracy and peace and humna rights he has been sucking up to Algeria and its security forces.

"But no American – or British – newspaper has dared to investigate another, almost equally dangerous, relationship that the present US administration is forging behind our backs: with the military-supported regime in Algeria. For 10 years now, one of the world's dirtiest wars has been fought out in this country, supposedly between "Islamists" and "security forces", in which almost 200,000 people – mostly civilians – have been killed. But over the past five years there has been growing evidence that elements of those same security forces were involved in some of the bloodiest massacres, including the throat-cutting of babies.The Independent has published the most detailed reports of Algerian police torture and of the extrajudicial executions of women as well as men. Yet the US, as part of its obscene "war on terror", has cosied up to the Algerian regime. It is helping to re-arm Algeria's army and promised more assistance. William Burns, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, announced that Washington 'has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism'." - Robert Fisk,
i The Independent,
01/04/03


Indeed, American intelligence agencies can learn the most effective placement of electrodes on male and female genitalia to elicit the greatest level of pain to the prisoner. And of course there are the methods of making prisoners feel as if they are smothering, and other more basic techniqes such as finger and toe-nail pulling, red-hot pokers, beatings and the like.

Why is the US media ignoring these facts? Why do they continue to play softball with a president bent on war regardless of whether or not evidence exists for its pursuit? Why do Americans continue to tolerate the egregious excesses of this administration in its pursuit of "Homeland security"? (
i These are rhetorical questions, I am already aware of the answers to them.
)

It's time to wake up, America. Else we find ourselves wearing chains, blinking stupidly at our new masters, wondering what has happened.

For a text of the article, goto: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=366199

"The Bush administration contends that it is not trying to make government less open. Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said, 'The bottom line remains the president is dedicated to an open government, a responsive government, while he fully exercises the authority of the executive branch.' " - Adam Clymer, The New York Times, 01/03/03

The actions of Howdy's administration, however, show this statement for the outright lie that it is.

In 2001, Herr Ashcroft issued a directive which encouraged federal agencies to reject any and all requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act if there was even the most tenuous legal reasons for doing so, with the promise that the DOJ would back them up in court.

We see the ongoing struggle between the GAO and "Bunker-Boy" Cheney over the transcipts of meetings he had with representatives from the energy industry regarding national energy policy. Such public policy and the process of its formulation must be open to public scrutiny. From the information that has been made available, Cheney basically bent the American public over a brass rail so the energy industry could have its way with us.

Then you have that walking corpse, Donald Rumsfeld, threatening Pentagon officials who discuss military operations with reporters. "I don't think the American people want to know anything that's going to cause the death of any one of these enormously and talented and dedicated and courageous people that are here today." he said before the troops at the Army Special Operations Command in November of 2001. What I want to know is how Rummy, or anyone else in Bush's cabinet, know what Americans really want. They are, after all, so divored from the everyday experience of the average person that there is no connection.

And we have the White House order to the National Archives not to release 68,000 pages of records from the Reagan administration. This, undoubtedly, was based on the fear of the skeletons that would come shambling from that closet.

Let's not forget Howdy's transfer of records from his days as Governor of Texas to his daddy's Presidential Library and, in effect, disappeared.

"Mr. Fleischer contends that there is no secrecy problem. "I make the case that we are more accessible and open than many previous administrations — given how many times [Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have briefed," he said."

Yeah, and shit don't stink either.

For the full text, go to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/politics/03SECR.html?tntemail0=&pagewanted=print&position=top

During Iraq's war with Iran in the 1980's, the Reagan administration did little or nothing to stop Iraq's chemical and biological warfare research and developement. In fact records are available that indicate the US provided Saddam Hussein with equipement and materials to produce these weapons, especially in the face of fears that Iraq would be overrun by Iran's human-wave attacks.

Rick Francona, a former Army intel officer in Baghdad during 1987, stated "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, bbbut that was not as sinister as nerve gas.

"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84 but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."

In November of 1983, with intel that Iraq was using chemical weapons on an almost daily basis, Reagan signed a secret order with instructions for the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" keep Saddam Hussein in power.

In December of that same year, Donald Rumsfeld was brought in by then President Reagan to act as a "Middle-East troubleshooter". Rumsfeld met with Hussein and reassured him that the US was willing to help his government and restore full diplomatic relations. Rumsfeld later said that he had "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, but statedepartment notes of that meeting mention nothing about such a warning.

Support for Hussein and his regime continued, even after evidence came to light of Saddam Hussein using chemical, nerve and possibly biologic agents against civilian Kurdish populations in northern Iraq.

When, now vice-president, Dick Cheney was CEO of Haliburton, an oilfield service company, Haliburton through its subsidiary Dresser-Rand sold nearly $73 million in equipment to Iraq. In a 7/30/2000 interview on ABC's "This Week", Cheney denied Haliburton ever did business with Iraq. He recanted that statement on the same program 3 weeks later.

Before Haliburton sold its stake in Dresser-Rand in 2000, Cheney signed some $30 million in contracts with Baghdad. Any claims of ignorance of Haliburton's dealings with Iraq on Cheney's part ring hollow, after all, there was due diligence on Haliburton's part in the acquisition of Ingersol-Dresser Pump Co.

So, we are now faced with the spectacle of both of these men out to have Hussein's cojones for breakfast. They beat the drums of war, and speak of evidence of Saddam Hussein having, and developing weapons of mass destruction, yet they fail to present that evidence...to anyone. Purged from the 12,000 page declaration provided by Iraq, was any mention of the US companies which provided Iraq with the equipment and materials necessary for the production on chemical and nerve agents. Why this animosity towards Iraq, if not for control of Iraqi oil-fields?

"Last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the United States could fight two wars at once if it had to, against Iraq and North Korea. Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized that the United States preferred peaceful solutions to international differences..." - David Stout, The New York Times, 12/30/2002

Is it just me, or does Rummy's statement ring hollow? After all, the US is positioning enough in the way of troops, supplies, armor, and aircraft to turn Iraq into a parking lot, in and around the Persian Gulf.

North Korea has admitted that it has a nuclear, not nukyuler as some have taken to saying, weapons program, the US blows it off as an international incident, nothing to worry about. Yet rumors of Iraq having such a program sends the Bush administration into an apoplectic fit, and results in the situation regarding Iraq we now find ourselves.

The difference is that North Korea has no oil reserves. Iraq, on the other hand, is sitting on nearly 25% of the worlds proven oil reserves. Imagine that, a failed Texas oil-man going to war over oil.

Matters became clearer when Colin Powell, in an interview on "Meet the Press" said, "The oil fields are the property of the Iraqi peopl. And if the coalition of forces goes into those fields and make sure they are used to benefit all the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on its way out the door." He went on to further say that the the income produced by the oilfields will be used "In accordance with international law and to the benefit of the people of Iraq." And, let's not forget, for the benfit of the oil companies which so generously supported Bush's presidential campaign.

British Labour MP, George Galloway said of Colin Powell's interview that "The point of invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil...They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this."

But this view from abroad never made it into the US media, which continues in supporting the administrations continuing drumbeat of war.

What has become of the "compassionate conservatism" which Howdy had as a plank in his campaign platform?

"Yes, this holiday season--even as Bush prepares the nation for war--selfishness is back in style for those at the top of the economic pyramid. Sacrifice and "compassionate conservatism" are out.

It almost calls for resurrecting the phrase "ruling class," a notion once popular in left-wing circles that claims that the primary function of the highest levels of government is to protect the interests of the very rich. According to this view, big business and the ultra rich influence government at various levels through campaign contributions, personal relationships and ideological affinity. Policy-making becomes not a "mediation" of competing interests but a not so subtle capturing of policy-making institutions by the rich and powerful.

While the Bush Administration is doing all it can to focus our attention on the threat of Iraq and Al Qaeda to the "American way of life," a close look at the current Republican domestic agenda makes you wonder whether this crude radical theory warrants a closer look. Ironically, while the GOP and much of the media apply the term "class warfare" any time the Democrats and their allies in the labor and environmental movements push for even the most timid reform, it is the Bush Administration that perfected the most blatant version of ruling-class politics.

During its first two years in office--from its $1.35 trillion tax cut (including elimination of the inheritance tax), which primarily benefits the wealthiest 2 percent of the population, to its repeal of Clinton-era "ergonomics" standards, affecting more than 100 million workers, that would have forced companies to alter their work stations, redesign their facilities or change their tools and equipment if employees suffered serious work-related injuries from repetitive motions--the Bushies have acted without shame to serve the interests of their friends in corporate board rooms and the very rich." - Kelly Candaele & Peter Dreier, The Nation, 12/23/2002

In the first two years of Howdy's occupation of the White House, his legacy has been one of fattening the purses of his campaign contributors, gutting environmental regulations, tossing aside worker safety rules, and generally screwing the average American.

For the complet text, go to: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030106&s=dreier

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; It's time to put aside the rhetoric of war and move beyond the politics of the current administration. Bush and his merry band must be called to task, and if they will not act responsibly either vote them out of office or dig up the evidence they have tried so hard to bury and offer them a simple choice: Resign or be impeached. Either solution is acceptable, so long as the power in this country is given back to we, the people.

In all fairness though, it is "We, the people..." who bear much of the blame for bring the nation to its current state of affairs. By failing to accept the responsibilies that living in a rfree an democratic society impose upon us, namely casting a considered and informed vote, as well as failing to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, we have America as it has come to be. We have an America whose domestic and foreign policy directed more by the goals of a few monied interests rather than the goals and interests of all of its citizens. It is time for Americans to awaken and once more take up our responsibilites to help secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. The dream of our forefathers is fading, and will soo be nothing more than a vague memory if we fail to do so.

Yesterday, Dr. Rowan Williams made a blistering criticism of Tony Blair's and George "Howdy-Doody" Bush's drumbeat of war against Iraq. His speech was to have been broadcast just after midnight last night to co-incide with an appeal for peace in the Holy Land and the Middle-East by Pope John Paul II.

Follow the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=364419

for the full text of the article.

Further exerpts from his Christmas message can be found here:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2606971.stm

It is a refreshing contrast to see the leaders of two of the world's great churches standing against the seemingly inevitable war in Iraq. It is a stark contrast to the Southern Baptist Convention here in the US, which is all in favor of bombing Iraq back into the stone-age, regardless of the cost. After all, they're just godless heathen over there. And besides, America is blessed by God, and George "Howdy-Doody" Bush is one of us. "Us" being white, wealthy, and giving only the most fleeting of lip-service to Christian ideals.

But we must remember that war with Iraq is not inevitable, and we the people must speak out to stop it before Howdy and his merry band take action unilaterally. Call, e-mail, snail-mail, do whatever you can to make your congressional representatives understand that the course being plotted by the adminstration is the wrong one. It is not too late...yet.

The Bush Administration's Christmas Gift to the Third World:

"Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice-president, last night blocked a global deal to provide cheap drugs to poor countries, following intense lobbying of the White House by America's pharmaceutical giants.

Faced with furious opposition from all the other 140 members of the World Trade Organization, the US refused to relax global patent laws which keep the price of drugs beyond the reach of most developing countries.

Talks at the WTO's Geneva headquarters collapsed last night after the White House ruled out a deal which would have permitted a full range of life-saving drugs to be imported to Africa, Asia and Latin-America at cut-price costs.

'The United States has announced that it cannot join the concensus'..." - Larry Elliot and Charlotte Denny, The Guardian, 12/21/2002

For the full text: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1221-01.htm

Bush's Christmas gift to the third world?...A big, fat "Fuck you!"

Merry Christmas.

"By raising the specter of nuclear use, President Bush is already defining the war he is about to initiate as a war without moral limit. Having imagined choices and consequences to that extent, alas, he does not seem to have considered what follow from an American return to the exercise of power by nuclear terror: a savage century. To his credit, though the president has given the world and his nation a fair description of what he imagines he might do. A fair warning, and not only to Hussein.

Have we heard it? On this Christmas Eve, which is nearly the eve of an aggressive American war, the nation goes down on its knees to pray for peace. We worship memories of our own virtue. What lies we tell ourselves! Santa Claus is coming tonight. We are the forces of good arrayed against evil. Yes, and Nixon's Christmas bombing brought us peace with honor." - James Carroll, The Boston Globe, 12/24/2002

In the face of President Bush's doctrine of preemption, his claims of Jesus being his "role model" ring hollow, especially at the celebration of Christ's birth. He, like so many others in both Democratic and Republican ranks, don the garb of sanctimonious piety so that they may appear as good and decent people. People who share a common set of values represented by the teachings of Jesus. But nothing could be further from the truth, they simply give a wink and a nod towards Christian values in order to secure the votes of those masses who fail to truly understand Christ's message of peace, tolerance and charity.

Being a Buddhist, I can only shake my head sadly, and wish them success on the path to enlightenment, for it seems certain that they will not reach it for many lifetimes yet.

I wish you, and the world, peace in the coming year.