SENSE AND NONSENSE – CONNECTING THE DOTS
From the editor: From Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 satirical novel, “It Can’t Happen Here,” in which war (with Mexico) is seen as a commodity to sell; through Joe Conason’s non-fiction “It Can Happen Here;” to the Michael Isikoff/ David Corn book “Hubris” in which Bush tells Rove in the summer of 2002 (seven months before going to war in Iraq), I don’t care what the polls say, just find me a way to sell it (the war), the conclusion is obvious. The American people have not only been sold a tragic “bill of goods,” the war in Iraq is a particular bill of goods that threatens the very fabric of the democratic republic that our constitution created. If we as citizens take the time to connect a series of dots, a picture of the tragic and bleak truth emerges along with a solution.
We did not go to war because of an intelligence failure. The intelligence community issued the necessary warnings against worst case scenarios even before 9/11. The failure was the administration’s determination to “cherry-pick” the CIA intelligence and to create its own neoconservative “intelligence.” (Note: See New York Times, Feb. 9, 2007, story by David Cloud and Mark Mazzetti regarding Pentagon Inspector General’s report on Douglas Feith and July 25, 2002, memo titled “Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case.”) The latest evidence of the CIA getting it right (reported by Walter Pincus in the June 3, 2007, issue of the Washington Post) is a previously classified six-page intelligence analysis compiled Aug. 13, 2002, that warned of “anarchy and territorial breakup in Iraq, a surge of global terrorism, and deepening of Islamic antipathy toward the United States.” (Note: Then CIA director George Tenet failed to emphasize these worst case scenarios in his meetings and briefings with the President.) Lesson: Tenet was and is a politician. CIA analysts are professional fact finders.
Valerie Plame’s cover while a covert CIA agent was illegally leaked (although “intent” could not be proved by federal prosecutors) because her husband Joe Wilson had discredited the administration’s concocted reason for attacking Iraq: weapons of mass destruction and the threat of a “mushroom cloud.” Wilson writes in the July 6, 2003, issue of the New York Times, “If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.”
The military’s ability to control information coming from the war zone through the policy of “embedded” coverage by so-called journalists. “Embedded” literally required journalists to be “in bed” with the military. This is a policy developed in direct response to the military’s reaction to the way the media (especially broadcast media) sent daily “film” of battlefield scenes depicting the carnage of the Vietnam war. Such control of the media is best exemplified by the military policy which did not allow photographs even of flag-draped caskets – much less graphic pictures from the battlefield in Iraq (except of course the staged destruction of Saddam Hussein’s statute.)
The corporate media’s willingness to trade accurate reporting for “access” to Washington “insiders.” This phenomenon is termed “access of evil” by writers such as David Goodman. This trade-off is documented in the transcripts of “Scooter” Libby’s trial – particularly in testimony by NBC talk show host Tim Russert when he testified he just assumes high-level Washington insiders are speaking “off-the-record” when they give him information. (Note: The best coverage of the Libby trial was provided by Marcy Wheeler author of “Anatomy of Deceit.”) In the history of journalism ethics, an “off-the-record” statement had to be agreed to by both parties verbally and prior to the statement being made. Ex-New York Times reporter Judith Miller is the “poster child” for abandoning this principle of journalism ethics. In short, the corporate media stopped being a “watch dog” and evolved into a “lap dog” of the Bush administration.
The administration’s Machiavellian use of language to promote war while appealing to the emotion of fear. “The global war on terror” should accurately be labeled “Bush’s global war on peace.” Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung writes in the Sept. 24, 2006 issue: “A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April (2006) cites the ‘centrality’ of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.”
The administration’s systematic disregard for the “rule of law.” The sick-bed scene recently described under oath by acting Attorney General Jim Comey upon the attempt by Bush’s Chief of Staff Andrew Card and then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to get a very ill John Ashcroft to sign off on an illegal attempt to wiretap American citizens is the most dramatic example of the contempt that Bush has for the rule of law. His violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and our own laws against torture (e.g., The War Crimes Act of 1994) are prime examples that the Bush administration believes it is “above the law.” (Note: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and The USA Patriot Act both attempt to legalize the notion that the President is above the law in times of war.)
The final dot to connect is the Bush administration’s failure to bring pressure upon Israel and Palestine to comply with “The Quartet Roadmap to Israeli-Palestinian Peace” completed May 1, 2003, and signed by the European Union, the United Nations, the U.S. and Russia.
By Maynard Chapman
Editor, The Compass Newsletter
The Solution: What can we do as individuals to change the dismal picture created by “connecting the dots?” We can elect a president who actually believes in democracy and the constitution and we can establish a 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate in 2008.
OP-ED ON THE ISRAEL LOBBY
From Auzie Blevins and Vince Larsen: Following are excerpts from an op-ed article written by Compass Society member Auzie Blevins of Billings and co-authored by Vince Larsen. It was published in the Billings Gazette, May 25, 2007. The article is titled, “Israeli Lobby, A Security Threat,” and it continues our coverage of the Israel Lobby’s influence upon U.S. foreign policy.
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone on unresolved for almost half a century leaving angry Palestinians in the West Bank besieged and occupied by Israeli forces. Facing Palestinian resistance, Israelis have imposed an iron-fisted occupation policy, while persisting in the construction of scores of illegal Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank. The settlement policy especially put the lie to Israel’s stated objectives of peace and is the source of widespread anger in the Muslim world. Jimmy Carter, in “Palestine – Peace Not Apartheid,” lists Israeli abuses and says Americans are ignorant about what is going on. He labels Israeli policy as apartheid and says Palestinians are treated worse than blacks were in South Africa. Over 9,000 Palestinians are in Israeli jails. Why does America continue to support Israel and its harsh policies? Why does it matter? The short answer lies in the power and influence of the Israeli Lobby. It matters because it undercuts our Middle East policy and makes the War on Terror un-winnable.”
“The Israeli Lobby is a loose but disciplined coalition of individuals and organizations who work to influence U.S. policy in Israel’s favor. A major player is the hard-line American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). With a $50 million budget, AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in America, behind only AARP. The Lobby also includes several prominent Christian evangelicals, leading Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and neo-conservatives such as Vice-President Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, and others. All support the Iraq war and a pro-Israel, anti-Iran, anti-Syria agenda.”
“Since the 1967 Six Day War, the U.S. has provided close diplomatic, military, and financial support to Israel. The Lobby plays a central role in this policy. Financial support for Israel totaled $140 billion between WWII and 2003 (according to the U.S. Agency for International Development’s ‘Greenbook,’) dwarfing that provided any other country. It has received $3 billion in weapons assistance and gets about $3 billion yearly in direct assistance. It is the only country not required to account for aid it receives. Since aid is “fungible,” U.S. taxpayers facilitate construction of roads and settlements on Palestinian land, a violation of U.S. policy and UN Resolution 242. Some aid may pay for Congressional lobbying operations. $3 billion has been provided for weapons development. It receives sophisticated weaponry such as Blackhawk helicopters, F-16 fighters, missiles and cluster bombs; all (of which) have been used against Palestinians. Consistent diplomatic support has repeatedly blocked IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspection of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, undercutting efforts to limit
Iranian nuclear development. The U.S. has vetoed 42 UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total cast by all other Security Council members.”
“Israel claims Syria and Iran and groups such as Hamas and Hezbullah are a shared threat. These entities may threaten Israel but are no threat to the U.S. Terrorist action against Israel is not unprovoked, but a response to Israel’s colonization of Arab land. (Compass Editor’s Note: The Measheimer/Walt paper identifies this response in the section entitled ‘Virtuous Israelis’ versus ‘Evil Arabs,’ with the following words: ‘The final moral argument portrays Israel as a country that has sought peace at every turn and showed great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. This narrative – which is endlessly repeated by Israeli leaders and American apologists such as Alan Dershowitz – is yet another myth. In terms of actual behavior, Israel’s conduct is not morally distinguishable from the actions of its opponents.’) Lawrence Wright says one motivation for the 9/11 attack was Osama bin Laden’s sympathy for the Palestinians, a fact omitted from ‘The 9/11 Commission Report.’ We have a terrorist problem, but largely because of our close ties to Israel.”
“The Lobby works behind the scenes to control Congress, the Executive, and information about Israel. It tries to defeat any candidate opposing Israel. Most members of Congress, including the Montana delegation, accept money from the Lobby – and toe the line. Information control is through ownership or appointment of Israeli sympathizers to governing boards of major newspaper chains and broadcast networks. Critics of Israel are labeled as either ‘anti-semitic or self-hating Jews.’ By silencing critics and open discussion, the Lobby violates the very foundation of our democracy.”
“Though its activities are legal, the Lobby functions as a de facto agent of a foreign country. It presents a real danger to America and Israel because it increases the likelihood of more terrorist attacks. The Lobby opposes talks with Iran and Syria about Iraq and recently blocked a requirement that the President consult with Congress before attacking Iran. It makes America the de facto enabler of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and complicit in Israeli crimes against the Palestinians. We look hypocritical in our efforts to promote democracy, respect human rights, and limit nuclear proliferation. It discourages Israeli peace efforts, marginalizes moderate Palestinian leaders and empowers groups like Hezbullah and Hamas. It is derelict to order our troops to fight against Islamic insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Lobby, our own government, and many Americans undermine their (the troops) efforts by aiding and abetting Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians.”
Auzie Blevins is a geographer and retired federal employee. Vince Larsen is a petroleum geologist. Sources: “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt, available online at HYPERLINK "http://www.lrb.co.uk" www.lrb.co.uk ; “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” by Jimmy Carter; “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” by Lawrence
Wright; “Second Chance,” by Zbigniew Brzezinski; and “On Israel, America & AIPAC,” New York Review of Books, 4/12/07 by George Soros.
MORE DOT CONNECTING ON GLOBAL WARMING
From the editor: Following are excerpts from three interesting articles – all of which are related to the problem of global warming.
From National Public Radio: Following are excerpts from an NPR interview with Michael Griffin, head of NASA, broadcast on Morning Edition, May 31, 2007:
Question: “It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change – global warming – from space. Are you concerned about global warming?”
Answer: “I’m aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we’ve had about one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I’m also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down – pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether this is a long-term concern or not, I can’t say.”
Question: “Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
Answer: “I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”
From NASA: Following is an excerpt from a NASA press release issued in response to the NPR broadcast.
“NASA is the world’s preeminent organization in the study of the Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet’s evolving systems. It is NASA’s responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA’s mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well.”
From The Associated Press: Following are excerpts from an AP article written by John Heilprin appearing in the June 5, 2007 issue of The New Mexican.
“The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.”
“A confidential report to the White House obtained by The Associated Press warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a decade ago.”
“Because of technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, the Defense Department has decided to downsize and launch four satellites paired into two orbits instead of six satellites and three orbits.”
“The reduced system of four satellites will now focus on weather forecasting. Most of the climate instruments needed to collect more precise data over long periods are being eliminated.”
“They (NASA scientists) said they will face major gaps in data that can be collected only from satellites about ice caps and sheets, surface levels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric carbon dioxide.” (emphasis added)
The Compass Society Newsletter
Maynard Chapman, Editor
Published by The Compass Society
Copyright © 2007, The Compass Society
