posted on September 8, 2003 07:21:34 AM new
why is it that most of the world sees the lies and we here in America are so easily duped?
A.N.S.W.E.R. COALITION RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT BUSH'S NATIONAL TELEVISION ADDRESS OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2003
President Bush's illegal war and occupation of Iraq has left the Administration in a position of extreme political vulnerability. He now wants the United Nations and U.S. taxpayers to bail him out. Having defied U.S. and world public opinion - which preemptively opposed his planned, illegal invasion of Iraq - the Bush administration wants to internationalize responsibility for the U.S. quagmire in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting daily he wants the soldiers of other countries to do more of the dying to take the heat off himself at home. And in the name of fighting international terrorism he wants the already suffering working class, poor and middle class communities to foot the bill to the tune of another $87 billion (triple what they had projected). Having had his public rationale(s) for the war exposed in recent weeks as a complete fraud, Bush shamelessly reverts to the time-tested tactic of trying to scare the hell out of people.
President Bush's conduct on Iraq - before, during and now after the Iraq war - has made the old cliché about truth being the "first casualty in war" to be a grand understatement. Everything about this "pre-emptive war" is premised on deceit. Even in the realm of ever duplicitous "world politics," the Administration's pattern of cynical deception was and remains breathtaking. Tonight's nationally televised address conforms to this pattern of endless deceit.
1) Bush lied before the war. Iraq never posed a grave and imminent danger to the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq never possessed nuclear weapons. Iraq was not rapidly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. This was a war of aggression against the second-largest oil producer on the planet that had been weakened by a decade of economic sanctions and political isolation.
2) Bush lied during the war. This was not liberation. The Iraqi people did not welcome the U.S. armed forces as liberators but as occupiers. Their lives did not become better. On the contrary, this culturally rich society has been torn apart, deprived of necessary services to sustain civilian society and on the brink of internal collapse.
3) Bush is lying now. Iraq is not the battlefield between "international terrorism" and the forces of so-called "freedom" and "civilization." The growing resistance to U.S. occupation is the consequence of an angry and proud people in Iraq who insist on reclaiming their own sovereignty. Having killed tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal invasion - and a growing number of dead and maimed U.S. soldiers - the Bush team wants U.S. taxpayers to spend at least another $87 billion on the occupation of Iraq. The vast majority sentiment in Iraq wants the U.S. soldiers to leave and the U.S. GIs want to go home. The Iraqi people's call to end the occupation is not a call for even more foreign nations to occupy it and to take a share in the looting of Iraq's natural resources. The truth is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is viewed by the people of the Middle East as an act of "international terrorism" and as such it can only lead to a dangerous escalation in the cycle of violence.
Why did Bush address the nation tonight? He, like Nixon a generation ago, fears that the people of the United States are turning against this criminal war. During his administration, Bush has only rarely felt that he must address the people, and does so when he fears that a sentiment is growing strong enough to challenge his illegal actions. He must then lie more to convince the people of the U.S. to support his criminal endeavors, or at least acquiesce in them. His shameful "top gun" act aboard the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Lincoln, in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, was an effort to tell people in the United States and around the world that the war was over and that no more critical attention need be focused on Iraq. Tonight, with that lie laid bare, he is seeking to go a new route, to convince people that far from being over, the war is a high stakes game to save "civilization" and "freedom" and that it requires endless sacrifice in human life and vitally needed resources.
The A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition calls on people in the United States to join together for a massive demonstration in Washington DC on October 25th to demand "Bring the Troops Home Now, End the Occupation of Iraq." Tens of thousands will be in the streets that day as the antiwar movement picks up new momentum. For information about transportation to Washington DC or to get literature go to http://www.internationalanswer.org
posted on September 19, 2003 05:43:54 AM new
9/11 - ARE AMERICANS THE VICTIMS OF A HOAX?
Latest update: Sat Mar 2 14:20:12 PST 2002
The time has come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving our guns and our gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts which have emerged from the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to recognize the very real possibility, indeed probability, that We The People are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax.
In a normal terrorist event, the terrorists cannot wait to take credit, in order to link the violence to the socio-political intent of the terrorist organization. Yet the prime suspect in the New York Towers case, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden (whose brother is one of George W. Bush's Texas business partners), has issued only two statements regarding the September 11th attacks, and both of those are denials of any involvement.
Huge problems are emerging in the official view of events. It's known that the United States was planning an invasion of Afghanistan long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers. Indeed the attacks on the World Trade Towers perfectly fit the timetable of an invasion by October stated by US officials just last summer.
The 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't point to Afghanistan. They come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates; all across the middle east without a focus in any one region. Indeed, even as the FBI was admitting that its list of 19 names was based solely on identifications thought to have been forged, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saudi Al-Faisal insisted that an investigation in Saudi Arabia showed that the 5 Saudi men were not aboard the four jet liners that crashed in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 11. "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened," Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press in Washington after meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House. A sixth identified hijacker is also reported to still be alive in Tunisia, while a 7th named man died two years ago!
The 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't even appear on the passenger lists of the hijacked planes. Check it out for yourself - here's the full list of alleged hijackers along with the passenger manifests.
CNN reported that the men who hijacked those aircraft were using phony IDs, using the names of real people still living in Arab nations in the middle east.
In another development, the BBC is reporting that the transcript of a phone call made by Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls shows that the flight attendant gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, seat numbers which were NOT the seats of the men the FBI claimed were responsible for the hijacking!
FBI Chief Robert Mueller admitted on September 20 and on September 27 that at this time the FBI has no legal proof to prove the true identities of the suicidal hijackers. Yet in the haste to move forward on the already planned war in Afghanistan, our government and the FBI (which does not have the best record for honesty in investigations to begin with, having been caught rigging lab tests, manufacturing testimony in the Vincent Foster affair, and illegally withholding/destroying evidence in the Oklahoma Bombing case) are not taking too close a look at evidence that points away from the designated suspect, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden.
In particular, the FBI, too busy harassing political dissenters to find spies in its midst, the long rumored mole inside the White House, or plug leaks in high-tech flowing to foreign nations, has willfully and criminally ignored the implications of some vital pieces of information the FBI is itself waving around at the public.
We are being told that this crack team of terrorists, able to breeze past airport security as if it wasn't there, wound up leaving so much evidence in its wake that the bumbling Inspector Clouseau (or the FBI) could not fail to stumble over it. The locations where the terrorists supposedly stayed are so overloaded with damning materials that they resemble less a crimes scene, and more a "B" detective movie set, with vital clues always on prominent display for the cameras.
Yet another problem lies with the described actions of the hijackers themselves. We are being told on the one hand that these men were such fanatical devotees of their faith that they willingly crashed the jets they were flying into buildings. Yet on the other hand, we are being told that these same men spent the night before their planned visit to Allah drinking in strip bars, committing not just one, but two mortal sins which would keep them out of Paradise no matter what else they did. Truly devout Muslims would spend the day before a suicide attack fasting and praying. Not only does the drinking in strip bars not fit the profile of a fanatically religious Muslim willing to die for his cause, but the witness reports of the men in the bars are of men going out of their way to be noticed and remembered, while waving around phony identifications.
Because of the facts of the phony identifications, we don't really know who was on those planes. What we do know is that the men on those planes went to a great deal of trouble to steal the identities of Muslims, and to make sure those identities were seen and remembered, then to leave a plethora of planted clues around, such as crop dusting manuals, and letters in checked baggage (why does a terrorist about to die need to check baggage?) that "somehow" didn't get on the final, fatal, flight.
Fake terror is nothing new. According to recently released files, our government planned Operation NORTHWOODS to stage phony terror attacks against American citizens in the wake of the Bay Of Pigs, to anger Americans into support for a second invasion of Cuba. The plan was spiked by JFK. If our government has ever actually carried out such plans to stage phony terror attacks, the documents have remained classified. But given the reality of Operation NORTHWOODS, or the manner in which FDR maneuvered Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, one cannot rule out the possibility that, once again, the people of the United States are being lied to by their own government, to manufacture consent for a war of invasion already being discussed with other nations the previous summer.
It is also quite possible, indeed likely, that the United States is being spoofed by a third party to trigger a war. It has happened before. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a defector from Israel's secret service, Mossad, Israel decided to mount a false flag operation designed to further discredit Libya, and provoke the US to attack an Arab nation. A transmitter loaded with pre-recorded messages was planted in Tripoli, Libya, by a Mossad team.
The `Trojan Horse' beamed out fake messages about Libyan-authorized bombings and planned attacks that were immediately intercepted by US electronic monitoring. Convinced by this disinformation that Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of a Berlin disco in which a US soldier died, President Ronald Reagan ordered massive air attacks on Libya, including an obvious- and illegal (under US law) attempt to assassinate Qadaffi himself. Some 100 Libyan civilians were killed, including Qadaffi's two year old daughter. Libyan officials had no idea why they were attacked.
It is worth remembering the motto of the Mossad is, "By way of deception, thou shalt do war."
Whether they were involved in the attacks or not, it cannot be doubted that Israel has benefited from the attacks in New York. While world attention is focused on what the US will do in Afghanistan, Israel has escalated its attacks against Palestinians towns. Israel has repeatedly tried to claim that Palestinians were involved in the New York attacks, hoping to bury the Palestinian cause under the rubble of the World Trade Towers.
Because of the faked IDs and stolen identities, we don't really know who planned the World Trade Towers attacks. We only know who they wanted us to blame.
And we know that the United States has been tricked in the past into bombing someone who did not deserve the attack, and that those who were bombed then embarked on what from their point of view was justified retaliation that culminated over Lockerbie. And while bombs were falling and planes were crashing, Israel was laughing at us that we had been so easily fooled into bombing Israel's targets for them.
Are we being hoaxed again, by Israel, or by our own government, or by both? It's impossible to rule that out. Right now there are a lot of people who want war. Oil companies want Afghanistan's petroleum products. Our corporations want "friendlier" markets. The CIA wants all that opium. And all those war-mongers, with all their greed and agendas, will not hesitate in the least to pour your tax dollars and your children's blood all over Afghanistan, to get those "friendlier" markets, oil, and opium.
Because of the vested interests at work here, American citizens must, more than at any other time in recent history, rely on themselves to decide what is happening in our nation. Too many of those who purport to report the "truth" to us are eager to grab more tax money and more children to pour into a war of invasion, poised at a region which has swallowed up every army that has tried to conquer it since the time of Alexander The Great.
And one more thing. Take a good look at the map of Eurasia and plot out where the United States has military deployments. They march in a straight line through the middle of Eurasia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan.
The United States is prepared to cut the Russian Federation off from the oil rich middle east, and to control transportation routes from China and India into the Middle East. When Russia realizes that this is the real agenda, that's when "Dubya Dubya Three" will really get going!
posted on September 19, 2003 05:50:43 AM new
Skylite, do you REALLY believe all of this garabage you post?
I have asked this before and you seem to tap dance around this subject.
I have the impression you do not and are just posting, well cutting and pasting, as you don't seem the type to actually be able to formulate any type of topic for discussion without using cut and paste...
But at least you give a reason for the round table so keep on showing how humorous you are by your contiued cut and paste posting.
posted on September 21, 2003 05:58:04 AM new
HOW THE LIES ARE SPREAD...
First, the lie is broadcast to 6 million people via Good Morning America.
...."We know it (Iraq) had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with al-Qaeda in particular, and we know a great many of bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime to attack in Iraq," Wolfowitz said Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Then the lie is retracted, for the record and to a smaller, more discriminating audience of a few thousand as if it's an innocent mistake.
On the subject of bin Laden deputies, Wolfowitz said he was referring to only one man — bin Laden supporter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the few names that Bush administration officials previously have cited to assert links between al-Qaeda and Iraq before the war.
...."Zarqawi is actually the guy I was referring to — should have been more precise," Wolfowitz said Friday. "It's not a great many — it's one of bin Laden's key associates — probably better referred to that way than a key lieutenant."
...."I appreciate the chance to say it a little more carefully because this was sort of unanticipated," Wolfowitz told the AP in retracting his statements. "I went ... to talk about Sept. 11."
BTW... NOTHING is "unanticipated" on a news broadcast to millions of people.
posted on September 21, 2003 06:52:30 AM new
"On this year's 9/11 anniversary, for instance, Wolfowitz told ABC, "We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with Al Qaeda in particular and we know a great many of [Osama] bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime." We know nothing of the sort, says Scheer, who points out that the next day Wolfowitz was forced to admit such in a Senate hearing. At that same Senate hearing, Vincent Cannistraro, formerly the CIA's director of counter-terrorism operations and analysis, testified:
"There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans."
posted on September 21, 2003 08:28:17 AM new
why ???....skylite asks....well maybe it's because we can see what groups like ANSWER really have on their agenda for the US. They are anti-American and their supporters would love nothing better than to see the US brought down. Are YOU a supporter of the ANSWER group? I'm guessing you must be since you post articles with their views of the US.
----------
Here's one for you skylite and all who support groups affiliated with ANSWER.
Moment of Truth
(For the Anti-American Left)
David Horowitz
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Every movement has its moment of truth. At an "anti-war" teach-in at Columbia University last week, anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova told 3,000 students and faculty: "Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a world where the U.S. would have no place."
De Genova continued: "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."
This was a reference to the ambush of U.S. forces by an al-Qaeda warlord in Somalia in 1993. The Americans were there on a humanitarian mission to feed starving Somali Muslims. The al-Qaeda warlord was stealing the food and selling it on the black market. His forces killed 18 American soldiers and dragged their bodies through the streets in an act designed to humiliate their country.
In short, America can do no good, and nothing that is done to America can be worse than it deserves.
The best that can be said of the crowd of Columbia faculty and students is that they did not react to the Mogadishu remark (perhaps they did not know what "Mogadishu" referred to). But they "applauded loudly" when the same professor said, "If we really [believe] that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."
In other words, the American left as represented by faculty and students at one of the nation's most elite universities wants America to lose the war with the terrorist and fascist regime in Baghdad. In short, the crowd might just have well applauded the professor's first statement as well.
The phrase "a million Mogadishus" has a resonance for those of us who participated in an earlier leftist "peace" movement, during the war in Indochina. In 1967, at the height of the conflict, the Cuban Communist leader Che Guevara (still an icon among radicals today) called on revolutionaries all over the world to "create two, three, many Vietnams" to defeat the American enemy. It was the sixties version of a call for jihad.
In the late sixties, I was the editor of Ramparts, the largest magazine of the New Left, and I edited a book of anti-American essays with the same title, "Two, Three, Many Vietnams." Tom Hayden, a leader of the New Left (later a Democratic state Ssenator and activist against the war in Iraq) used the same slogan as he called for armed uprisings inside the United States.
In 1962, as a Marxist radical, I myself had helped to organize the first protest against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley. At the time, America had only 300 "advisers" in Vietnam, who were seeking to prevent the Communist gulag that was to come. John F. Kennedy was president and had been invited to speak on the campus. We picketed his appearance. Our slogan was "Kennedy's Three R's: Radiation, Reaction and Repression."
We didn't want peace in Vietnam. We wanted a revolution in America. But we were clever. Or rather, we got smarter. We realized we couldn't attract large numbers of people by revealing our deranged fantasies about America (although that of course is not how we would have looked at them). We realized that we needed the support of a lot of Americans who would never agree with our real agendas if we were going to influence the course of the war.
So we changed our slogan to "Bring the Troops Home." That seemed to express care for Americans while accomplishing the same goal. If America brought her troops home in the middle of the war, the Communists would win. Which is exactly what happened.
The nature of the movement that revealed itself at Columbia is the same. When the Mogadishu remark was made, it was as if the devil had inadvertently exposed his horns and someone needed to put a hat over them before others realized it. That someone was the demonstration organizer, Professor Eric Foner, the prestigious head of Columbia's history department.
Actually, when Foner spoke after De Genova at the teach-in, he failed to find the Mogadishu remark offensive.
Instead, he dissociated himself from another De Genova comment to the effect that all Americans who described themselves as "patriotic" were actually "white supremacists."
But the next day, when a reporter from New York NewsDay called Foner, the professor realized that the Mogadishu remark had caused some trouble. When asked now about the statement, he said it was "idiotic."
He told the reporter: "I thought that was completely uncalled for. We do not desire the deaths of American soldiers."
Foner did not say (and was not asked) how he thought organizing an anti-American demonstration to protest America's war in Iraq and express the hope that we lose would not encourage the enemy and possibly lead to American deaths.
Eric Foner is the scion of a family of American Communists (and American Communist leaders) at that. In the sixties he was an anti-American Stalinist. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he wrote a piece in the London Review of Books saying, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." After receiving much adverse reaction, he wrote a self-exculpatory piece for the New York Times explaining that his uncertainty was actually patriotic.
Eric Foner's cover-up reflects a powerful tactical current in the movement to derail America's war in Iraq. Until now, the largest organization behind this movement has been "International ANSWER," which thanks in part to the efforts of the War Room and www.frontpagemag.com has been revealed as a front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea.
According to a comprehensive (but partisan and sympathetic) report in the New York Times, some factions of the left became disturbed that the overtly radical slogans of the International ANSWER protests were "counter-productive."
Last fall, they met in the offices of People For The American Way to create a new umbrella organization called United for Peace and Justice that would present a more palatable face to the American public.
As it happens, the name of the new organization was similar to that of one of the two main groups behind the national protests of the anti-Vietnam movement.
It was called the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice and it was a run by the American Communist Party. (As it happens, the other organizer of the national demonstrations was the MOBE, which was run by the Trotskyist Communist Party.)
The groups that People for the American Way assembled to create the new Iraq protest organization picked Leslie Cagan to be its leader. Cagan is a veteran of the old Vietnam left – a pro-Castro radical who was still a member of the Communist Party after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Ms. Cagan's politics were no less radical and anti-American than International ANSWER's. But Leslie Cagan understood the problem of too much candor. "If we're going to be a force that needs to be listened to by our elected officials, by the media," Ms. Cagan told the Times, "our movement needs to reflect the population."
In other words, we have to keep our horns hidden. According to the Times, since that meeting, the left has been hiring Madison Avenue firms to shape its messages and has been putting up billboards with the slogan "Peace Is Patriotic" to make its point.
At the Columbia teach-in, Professor Foner had this to say about patriotism. "I refuse to cede the definition of American patriotism to George W. Bush," Foner said, drawing a cheer from the audience. "I have a different definition of patriotism, which comes from Paul Robeson: The patriot is the person who is never satisfied with his country."
It's true that Paul Robeson was never satisfied with his country. He was an icon (and member) of the American Communist Party who received a Stalin Peace Prize from the dictator himself.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
The war in America's streets is not about "peace" or "more time for inspections." It is about which side should lose the war we are now in. The left has made crystal clear its desire that the loser should be us. Even if the left had not made this explicit, a "peace" movement directed at one side makes sense only as an effort to force that side to retreat from the battle and lose the war. Which is exactly what the Columbia professor said.
If this is patriotism, what is treason?
--------
Be careful which 'anti-war groups' you support. Know what their basic values are. Don't let your hatred for an American president [from either side] let you be played for a fool in regards to what these groups hope to truly accomplish in our country.
posted on September 21, 2003 10:26:39 AM new
dave - If you choose to side with groups like ANSWER, that is your right as an American citizen. I do not wish to side with groups who's **real/hidden** agenda is the destruction of my country. I don't give a $hit who the president at the time is. To me, this is not a partisan issue. It's an issue of those who support our American way of life, and those who wish to see it destroyed.
posted on September 21, 2003 10:29:50 AM new
And I meant to add:
Groups like ANSWER don't care which 'side' is in office either. They work against BOTH parties.
John F. Kennedy was president and had been invited to speak on the campus. We picketed his appearance. Our slogan was "Kennedy's Three R's: Radiation, Reaction and Repression.
