|
American citizens can now register online to vote at register.com
November 2002
Posted November 24, 2002
Humor impaired environmentalists just don't get it! November 23, 2002 -
President Bush may go down in history as the president who saved the environment. Yes, this is true. He proposes to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years. How?
"Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy, Cogeneration, and New Technology ... Business Challenges ... Transportation Programs ... Carbon Sequestration." - Global Climate Change Policy Book, White House, February 2002
New clean air rules, announced on November 22, 2002, appear to be the first step in the President's program:
"The Bush administration yesterday relaxed clean air rules that limit emissions from utilities, refineries, and manufacturers, and mandate when they must upgrade pollution control equipment. The administration also proposed additional rule changes that, if adopted, would further ease federal restrictions on the largest polluters."
With a typical lack of perspective, environmentalists responded with something less than enthusiasm:
"'More than 30,000 Americans die every year from power-plant air pollution alone, and crippling the standards will only make things worse,' said John Walke, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's clean-air program." - White House loosens Clean Air regulations, Seattle Times, November 23, 2002
Obviously, they just don't get it. Industrialists want less pollution, too. So we can trust them to respond to the President's "Business Challenges" and spend the money necessary to clean the machine and make the world safe for birds, bugs, flowers and children. After all, look how responsibly they have behaved. (Qwest) If we can't trust the American President and the captains of industry, then whom can we trust? (Enron)
It would be nice if the answer to that question was, the American citizen. Sadly, that's the joke - if the average American citizen was more interested in civic virtue than personal comfort, there would be a national protest.
But there isn't, because stupidity is running rampant through our neighborhoods masquerading as sane, happy people when in reality their bodies have been snatched, like pod people, by an insidious idiocy that keeps them preoccupied with ball games, gossip, inane talk shows, irrelevant issues and dog and pony shows about why we should start wars and throw out every American principle to combat what should and would be a minor terrorist threat if the moneyed few weren't so intent on preserving their place at the pinnacle by clamping down on every innovation which might somehow menace their new world oligarchy and the multinational corporations by which they command.
So, while President Bush laughs at the pod people, a few of us hope that the non-polluting compressed air powered car will squeeze, somehow, past the white coated guards at the DOT, and that the Moller Skycar will slip in low enough under the FAA's radar to free us from the tedious concrete and provide the middle class with a mobility of such easy breadth as will, together with the savings from the compressed air powered car, infuse so much new wealth into the lower 80% of the population that young folks will be invigorated with enough enthusiasm to shrug off the old apathies and redesign our future by rewriting our present in eager prose that set aside old fears.
But then, that's about as likely to happen as pollution laws from President Bush that put the health of the environment and American citizens ahead of corporate profits. Get it?
- The Boston Globe
October 2002
Posted October 7, 2002
Emperor George Jr.? October 7, 2002 -
Concerns that Bush may be angling to create an American Empire escalated on Sunday when U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott accused him of plotting to make himself emperor:
"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor - to create Empire America."
Maybe so. Certainly, I've wondered about that, myself. But it's widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney is the real power behind the Oval Office, and that George Jr. is just their fair-haired boy. A political Milli Vinilli doing the soft shoe on stage as he lip syncs the policies and pronouncements of the Republican master minds sequestered behind the greenback door.
What's more, while a political coup making Bush de facto emperor is possible, it's not very likely as the many American patriots serving in the military would almost certainly oppose it. Not to mention Republicans, who have as much to lose as anybody. But there can be no doubt something rank is going down:
"One of the dilemmas we've had since 9/11 is that this country has been continuously terrorized by the government. Every week they announce a new threat. 'Today is a code orange.' 'Today is a code red.' ... It is the oldest game in the book. They found this war very convenient to obscure people's views about what is happening domestically."
What this all suggests is a broad based power grab. Mostly Republican, partly Democrat, all corporate money.
- Seattle Times
Posted October 1, 2002
Deposing Saddam Hussein - Diversion or Destiny? September 6, 2002 -
Some people believe the real purpose of the war on terror and the president's efforts to depose Hussein are to divert attention away from his and Cheney's culpability in the recent corporate scandals:
"The vice president's arrival was greeted by protesters who argued that the threat of war with Iraq was part of the president and vice president's strategy to divert attention from their own corporate misdeeds." - Cheney Talks Economics in California, Fox News, August 7, 2002
Others believe it's to divert our attention away from the economy:
"Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said...the administration was rattling the war sabers against Iraq before the Nov. 5 elections, when the control of Congress will be decided, to divert attention from a faltering economy and other bad domestic news." - G. Robert Hillman, The Dallas Morning News, September 19, 2002
Dick Morris disagrees. He believes the economy is irrelevant and has nothing to do with presidential politics anymore:
"In the past 10 years, politics and economics have gotten divorced from one another. Voters have come to understand that the basic economic decisions in Washington are made by Alan Greenspan, not by George W. Bush." - Dick Morris, New York Post, August 21, 2002
A lot of very smart people more or less agree with him, and think it's really about oil:
"Iraq contains one of the planet's largest reserves. President George W. Bush would hardly go after Saddam for the oil alone, but it's certainly a factor." - Jane Bryant Quinn, Newsweek, September 30, 2002
Still others say it's personal, that W. is after the guy who threatened his dad. Then of course there's the whole world domination theory:
"Late last week, The New York Times published the full text of the president's new 'National Security Strategy,' which the administration is submitting to Congress. It is a shocking document. It outlines policies that would put the United States on the same collision course that empires follow when they take a nosedive. It is a document wherein Bush essentially proposes to do Osama bin Laden's work for him. Bush plans to turn America from a well-meaning-but-flawed superpower into public enemy No. 1." - Knute Berger, Seattle Weekly, September 25 - October 1, 2002
But why does it have to be only one all-encompassing reason? Because of our desire to boil everything down into neat little explanations? Unfortunately, politics, like life, is too messy for that. The messy truth is that all of the above probably play a part. The war on terror provides a great ploy to divert our attention from more pressing domestic issues, while at the same time it secures potentially lucrative oil deals for American oil companies and provides the Bush Administration with the excuse they need to pursue their goal of creating a true American Empire.
What should we do about it? The obvious answer is to vote for Democrats. But as William Greider has noted, "in the rarefied social milieu of high-powered Washington, most Democratic senators live a long, long way from the rank-and-file Democrats who put them in office." So while a strong Democratic showing on November 5th might send a message, that's about all it would do.
Which brings us back to the question of, what should we do? Answer: I don't know. About the only thing we can know with any degree of certainty, here, is that, based on the track record of Daddy Bush, Boy George is almost certainly lying to us:
"This administration is capable of any lie ... in order to advance its war goal in Iraq."
- Christian Science Monitor
September 2002
Posted September 20, 2002
Condoleezza Rice - Inconceivable! May 16, 2002 -
According to National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the 9/11 attack was inconceivable:
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
If you say so, Doc, but a whole lot of Americans read all about it in 1997:
"The American political situation takes a disturbing turn as the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are obliterated when a Japanese terrorist lands a 747 on the Capitol." - Executive Orders, Tom Clancy, 1997
Either the Bush Administration is staffed by people who live in a world far removed from the American mainstream, or they're idiots. Or maybe they are hiding something. But what would they have to hide?
- White House
May 2002
Posted May 20, 2002
Will al-Qaida strike from the sea? May 19, 2002 -
Another terrorist attack on America could be imminent:
"U.S. intelligence agencies have intercepted a vague yet troubling series of communications among al-Qaida operatives over the past few months indicating that the terrorist organization is trying to carry out an operation as big as or bigger than the Sept. 11 attacks, according to intelligence and law-enforcement officials."
Moreover, unlike 9-11, evidence suggests this attack might not be carried out within the United States:
"The senior official said Friday that the amount of intelligence relating to another possible attack - in Europe, the Arabian Peninsula or the United States - had increased in the past month."
Rumors abound. Recent news reports raise concerns al-Qaida may possess a nuclear device which they intend to use against us. Were I an anti-American terrorist bad guy in possession of a nuclear device, however, the last thing I'd do is try to smuggle it into the United States.
Why? Because it would be so much easier - not to mention more destructive - to detonate said nuclear device on the Cumbre Vieja, a volcano on the island of La Palma in the Canary Islands. Should this cause the western flank to collapse, it will generate a megatsunami that would do everything the most recent rumors say they will do: wreak havoc from the Arabian Peninsula and Europe to the eastern seaboard of the Americas, inundating Florida and slamming as far north as Newfoundland.
Who knows if the master minds behind al-Qaida are smart enough to think up something like this? But I sure hope Tom Ridge and his advisors are smart enough to help the people of La Palma,
Cape Verdes and other vulnerable islands secure their shores against the kind of secret terrorist operation that would make a James Bond script writer drool.
- Seattle Times
April 2002
Posted April 24, 2002
Patrick J. Buchanan - What price, empire? April 2, 2002 -
In February, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated that Palestinians had forced Israel to fight a war on terrorism:
"We all want peace, we are all committed to peace. My aim is to achieve a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians, to ensure a quiet and peaceful life for both our peoples. ... I know that the war of terrorism which was forced upon us 17 months ago raised serious questions." - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Address to the Nation, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, February 21, 2002
Like most Americans, I've followed the news, listened to the rhetoric and endless chattering about the personalities. Sharon's a hard liner, Yasser Arafat's a weasel, the Israelis are simply defending themselves, the Palestinians are oppressed. It all makes about as much sense to us in the uncivil West as the Serbs and Croats slaughtering one another: ornery and senseless as the Hatfields and McCoys, but with bigger guns.
There are Biblical reasons why Americans care about Israel. Many see prophecy fulfilled in this conflict. Some fear it, others welcome it. But the primary reason for American concern is oil: We pay and support Israel to help secure a steady supply from the Middle East. And since they are our allies, bought and paid for, we walk a careful line between embracing Israeli rhetoric and policies without offending too much the Arabs whose oil we drink by the tanker. So when Israel declared their own war on terror, the U.S. made noises of support:
"Israel has got no better friend than the United States, as far as I'm concerned. (Applause.) Israel is a democracy. We share a lot of values with Israel. I have a dream. I can't think of anything better than to have a dream for peace, for Israel. I think the Israeli people want to have peace." - George W. Bush, Remarks by the President in Town Hall Meeting, Orange County Convention Center, Orlando, Florida, December 4, 2001
But it didn't take long before Bush began pressuring Israel to make nice:
"Israel must continue its withdrawals. And all Arab states must step up to their responsibilities." - George W. Bush, Remarks by the President to the George C. Marshall ROTC Award Seminar on National Security, Cameron Hall, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia, April 17, 2002
Maybe Bush still supports Sharon's "war on terror." Maybe he's just using American muscle to mitigate the mayhem. And maybe lasagna is just meat sauce and cheese. No president since Teddy Roosevelt has been known for unvarnished candor. Bush, least of all: His measured drawl resonates with layers of meaning. So why would the president say we support Israel's war on terror but that it's time to withdraw? Perhaps because Israel is not engaged in any war on terror, and we know it:
"Israel is not at war with terror. Israel is at war with Palestine. ... The terrorism of the suicide bombers of the intifada - ugly and awful as its manifestations are in Netanya, Haifa, and Jerusalem - is but a tactic in a guerrilla war of national liberation being waged by the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation."
The sad truth is, these people are just at war. Have been for thousands of years. And though they trace lineage back to the same Abraham of the Old Testament, pray to the same God, and share many of the same virtues, their hatred runs deep and hot as molten magma that erupts hissing like sand in the desert wind, spitting blood and tears:
"What makes the situation there so cruel is that the people killing each other are really brothers and sisters. Both are Semitic, desert-dwelling, pork-avoiding, Mediterranean nomads who've wandered the Earth for centuries searching for new places to open jewelry stores. Both peoples worship at the exact same holy site in Jerusalem, and both share a common ancestry through Isaac and Ishmael, beget from Abraham. What is so wrenching about this is that the similarities and the commonalities are so great, and the differences so silly. This isn't about God. It's about the funny little thing you wear on your head in your tribe is different from the funny little thing I wear on my head in my tribe, so you have to die." - Bill Maher, Politically Incorrect, Friday, April 12, 2002
Okay, so it's a stupid war. Most wars are. But that doesn't change the nature of the Palestinians' acts of terror. True enough. But terror used in time of war is not a terrorist act, but a guerrilla tactic:
"Michael Collins used terror to bring into being an Irish Free State. Menachem Begin blew up the King David Hotel to drive the British out of Palestine. The Mau Mau used terror to run the British out of Kenya. Nelson Mandela's ANC used terror to overthrow white minority rule in South Africa, as did Mugabe in Rhodesia. The FALN used terror to drive the French out of Algeria. Islamists used terror to run the Marines out of Lebanon. And Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the Al Aqsa Brigades are using terror to drive the Israelis off the West Bank and out of Gaza."
Ironically, just as history is written by the conquerors, so "terrorists" on the winning side are transformed into heroes:
"Terrorism works, and the terrorists of yesterday often emerge as the statesmen of tomorrow. Begin and Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize, and a third Nobel laureate is now holed up in Ramallah."
What's the answer, then? If this conflict is really a war, just that, no war on terrorism but a plain war, bloody, stupid and simple, then how can it be resolved through other than more generations of hatred, hostility and bloodshed?
"The only hope lies in a Palestinian state. A small state of their own would give Palestinians a huge stake in peace and in preventing acts of terror against Israel - i.e., national survival. Syria does not allow acts of terror on the Golan Heights, because Assad knows he has a nation to lose in any war with Israel. And, after independence, the IRA, the Irgun, the Mau Mau and the ANC terminated the terror."
More than this is required, however. For beyond Israel, many see America as the next target:
"Just as Israelis must be asking themselves today, 'What price Judea and Samaria?' we should be asking ourselves, 'What price empire?' For, in Arab and Islamic eyes, ours is the last of the Western nations and imperial presence in their part of the world."
President Bush is right to call on Sharon to withdraw. But he would do well to heed his own counsel before we find ourselves embroiled in something far worse than a war on terrorism.
- WorldNetDaily
February 2002
Posted February 25, 2002
Patrick J. Buchanan - No way out? February 19, 2002 -
It's taken as axiomatic that a cornered rat will fight to the death. So what does the American President hope to accomplish by threatening Iraq?
"When Gen. Colin Powell told Congress we have no war plans regarding Iran and North Korea, the signal was clear all the way to Baghdad. Mr. Bush intends war on Iraq."
Maybe he hopes to finish the job George the Sr. started. If so, where's the provocation to justify an attack?
"In 1990, Saddam had committed naked aggression against a fellow Arab League state and U.N. member by invading, occupying and annexing Kuwait. Condemnation was universal. ... Today, Iraq has not committed aggression. The Arab League opposes a U.S. war on Iraq. NATO opposes a U.S. war on Iraq. The Security Council opposes a U.S. war on Iraq."
Maybe he simply hopes this will ease attention away from his monumental "axis of evil" blunder. But giving Hussein no way out is not the way to do it:
"Never close off an enemy's avenue of retreat. JFK gave Nikita Khrushchev a way out of Cuba, and nuclear war was averted. We did not offer the German generals who wanted to kill Hitler anything but 'unconditional surrender.' So, Nazi Germany fought to the death and took untold millions of innocents down with them."
Unless he hopes the threat will bring back the Iraqi allies Bush Sr. abandoned at Desert Storm's end. But when we left them hanging, Hussein had them killed. It will take a lot more than rattling sabers to breath new life into Saddam's home grown opposition. Let's hope that doesn't include pushing Saddam so far back into a corner that he feels compelled to respond with savage force.
- World Net Daily
Posted February 18, 2002
Joseph Laconte - Idiot rage is better than reasoned response? February 18, 2002 -
When a beloved family pet suddenly goes berserk and rabidly attacks the neighborhood children, we put the animal down then search for the cause. What was the vector of infection? How did it happen? What can we do to prevent it from happening again? This is a reasoned response. We seek to understand. It is part of being human. It is part of what makes us human.
Following the 9-11 attack, we did the same thing. Even while we made ready for war millions of Americans asked similar questions about the terrorists. What was the vector of infection? How did it happen? What can we do to prevent it from happening again? This is natural, normal and right. It is the human thing to do. Despite this, some feel idiot rage is better than a reasoned response:
"Recall that within days of the September 11 terrorist attacks, public intellectuals in America and abroad began rationalizing the events. They launched a dogged hunt for the 'root causes' of Islamic rage: poverty, globalization and U.S. support for Israel, to name a few."
Understanding an act is not, as Mr. Laconte contends, rationalizing that act. Rationalization makes excuses. It's the "boys will be boys" response. Dealing with a misbehaving boy, a reasonable person disciplines the child. But they also seek the root cause of the misbehavior. Understanding the cause of a misbehavior gives power to prevent a recurrence. Ironically, despite his dismissal of reason, Mr. Laconte demonstrates he embraces precisely that which he denigrates: understanding what motivated the attackers.
"We know, from former al Qaeda members, that what happens in terrorist training camps has less to do with global politics than with a theological vow to wage endless aggression. We know, from textbooks used in radical Islamic schools, that children are taught a grammar of war and of hate."
Clearly, he accepts the affect these had on the men who attacked America. By implication, he accepts that by changing what is taught we can mitigate the possibility something like this will happen again. What he's really railing against is the rest of the story behind the terrorist networks: these teachings merely cultivated the hatred of America which was already sprouting from the seeds of discontent sown by our own foreign policies.
"Those still on a quest for the 'root causes' of Islamic extremism will fail to see the evil at their own doorsteps."
A failing Mr. Laconte appears to share. Ignoring half the problem is no solution. To prevent future terrorist attacks on America, we need to deal with the whole problem. We need to deal with the role American foreign policy has played in this problem, too.
- Washington Times
Posted February 8, 2002
George W. Bush - State of the Union: January 29, 2002 -
"America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuilding that country."
With an oil pipeline for us and opium poppies for them? Well, maybe, but at least we're helping to mitigate the starvation and oppression of women so pervasive there. This is good for Afghanistan. But what about America?
"What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning."
What our leaders have gained is an enemy against whom we must unite, a war that will endure, a shadowy threat to make us afraid not to support our president even if he plays politics with the terrorists themselves:
"Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others"
Yes, and most of those 19 men were from Saudi Arabia. But this is an inconvenient fact:
"These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are."
Everywhere, perhaps, but Saudi Arabia. America, however, will not be exempt.
"My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades -- because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. ... We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home."
The question many are asking and which all of us should ask is, "Will our liberty be the price of our freedom?" Hard to say. Harder, still, is to fathom how President Bush intends to revitalize our economy:
"When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs."
Wonderful! Terrific! How?
"The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipment, and by speeding up tax relief so people have more money to spend."
Sounds good, although as others have noted the idea of stimulating the economy through lower taxes and higher government expenditures is a bit oxymoronic, but my question is, how will he make it stick when American corporations are busy building factories in other countries where labor is cheap and labor and environmental laws are lax? Although his speech this morning suggests he wants all of us to raise cattle to sell to China (being an American Indian, I'd rather sell them salmon and buffalo), he didn't really say. But he did say something I very much wanted to hear:
"This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil."
I like that! I liked it when Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and Carter said virtually the same thing, too. And I'll like it even more if he can make it stick.
For all the criticism I am sometimes inclined to heap on Bush, not the least of which was the way he strove to look like a Republican Al Gore during the election, it seems clear he understands something about the American people which Clinton did not: our capacity to stand tall:
"None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September the 11th. Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate, and more about the good we can do."
Well said! But "let's roll" as a new creed? It wasn't that long ago when a statement like that would have been taken as an invitation to have sex. But the Freedom Corps is an interesting proposal:
"To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home; rebuilding our communities; and extending American compassion throughout the world."
Volunteerism has always been a patriotic means of drawing the nation together in times of crisis; federal volunteer organizations, however, can be a risk in the wrong hands, as the Hitler Youth demonstrated so dramatically.
"Steadfast in our purpose, we now press on. We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory."
- The White House
January 2002
Posted January 16, 2002
George W. Bush - Playing politics with the Trade issue: January 15, 2002 -
During the past several years, two pundits have kicked up a big fuss about international free trade: Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Daddy Bush said they were opposed to trade. That was a lie. Neither was opposed to trade: They have never advocated shutting down trade, but both have demanded fair trade arrangements. Now, Home Boy Bush is telling the same lie:
"There are some who play politics with the trade issue. They want to shut down trade. I like to remind people, those who shut down trade aren't confident. They're not confident in the American worker; they're not confident in the American entrepreneur; they're not confident in American products."
Confident? Con is more like it. He looks us in the eye and tells us exactly what we want to hear:
"I know we've got the best workers in the world; I know we can make the best products in the world. And therefore, we ought to have free and fair trade around the world."
But Home Boy isn't telling the whole story. Americans could make the best products in the world if the international free trade policies of Ron "The Teflon" Reagan, Daddy Bush, Slick Willie, and Home Boy Bush didn't encourage corporate traitors to export our manufacturing jobs to third world countries.
"This isn't a Republican issue, this isn't a Democrat issue. Trade is a jobs issue. And the United States Senate needs to hear the voices of the working people and get me a bill I can sign."
He's right about that. We need to let him know we want trade, we need trade, but that we will not stand for trade agreements that put the interests of corporate traitors first and the economic well-being of hard working Americans last.
We want more than a president who borrows the "fair trade" rhetoric of patriots like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, we want more than a president who works for the corporations: We want a president who works for America and Americans, a president who works for us.
- The White House
Posted January 15, 2002
Dick Polman - Are Clinton and Bush birds of a feather? January 14, 2002 -
Okay, whatever the sins of his youth may or may not have been, it's hard to imagine President George W. being caught dallying with the help. In this respect, he will almost certainly never be like Slick Willie. But when it comes to how they dealt with al-Qaeda prior to 9-11, history may find both wanting. Bush, as noted in the article below, for backing off on al-Qaeda in the interests of oil, Clinton, for ignoring them altogether:
"So the retrospective indictment looks like this: Clinton cared too little about foreign policy, and never met with his first CIA chief, James Woolsey; he was distracted by personal scandal at a time (1998) when bin Laden was making strides; he lacked the guts to use sustained military muscle; he didn't oppose the Taliban's efforts to seize power in Afghanistan; he spurned Sudan when that nation offered to hand over bin Laden in 1996."
But Clinton shouldn't bear the burden alone. Republicans of the day were squarely opposed to his efforts to curb terrorism:
"In 1996, the GOP Congress blocked a Clinton provision that would have given the FBI more electronic surveillance tools for the domestic tracking of terrorists - the same provision that passed overwhelmingly after Sept. 11. ... Three years ago, in fact, when Clinton wanted to create a well-funded Domestic Terrorist Team, conservative Phyllis Schlafly scoffed at the idea, warning that Americans 'should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Clinton's plans to use aggressive presidential actions to wipe out public memory of his impeachment trial.'"
Ultimately, the fairest assessment may be for all Americans to share the blame. When our government - the people we elected to represent our interests - struck deals with oppressive foreign regimes to keep the oil flowing, we blithely looked the other way.
The question is, once we have stamped out the terrorist networks which threaten us today, will we learn from the part we, as a nation, played in creating the terrorists, and do better? Or will we just as blithely ignore our role and continue to support politicians and policies which guarantee that ultimately, eventually, 9-11 will happen again?
- Philadelphia Inquirer.
Posted January 11, 2002
Paula Zahn & Richard Butler - Will Bush be implicated in 9-11? January 8, 2002 -
It's no secret Unocal wanted to build a pipeline across northern Afghanistan. But now it appears that, while negotiating with the Taliban over this, the Bush administration interfered with ongoing investigations which might have prevented the 9-11 attack:
"The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan."
Bin Laden was almost certainly planning the 9-11 assault on America long before Bush took office and, like the downturn in the economy, there was nothing the current administration could have done to prevent the attempt. But had they allowed the investigation to continue, the WTC would probably still be standing today. An outcome which would have been good for the American people, but bad for those whose interests required an excuse to make war on Afghanistan:
"That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs."
So, evidently as a direct result of Bush's interference, they have their war and a new, more pliable government in Afghanistan, and we have a grave where the World Trade Center once stood.
- CNN.
Posted January 3, 2002
Andrew Reding - The Americas in Chaos: December 27, 2001 -
While American eyes are focused on the War Against Terrorism, south of the border our continent is on the verge of a revolution that may pose an even greater threat:
"President Bush is betting that Argentina's economic meltdown will not spread beyond its borders. But a social crisis behind the economic one threatens all of Latin America, and ultimately the United States."
The problems in Latin America are patronage, populism and poverty:
"In Argentina, almost half the population lives below the poverty line. ... Yet because Latin American countries are democracies, extreme inequality translates into populism. The easy way to win elections is to offer handouts to the have-nots, either in the form of subsidies or government jobs."
Although similar forces are at work in the U.S., our system of checks and balances mitigates their effects. For example, the Communist platform of 1900 has been almost entirely absorbed by both major party platforms, and the Libertarian platform of 1976 is likewise being absorbed, plank by plank. If we were not immune from the terrorist acts of a few determined Muslim men, however, we are even more vulnerable to southern revolution:
"None of this bodes well for the United States, whose economy is tied to Mexico through NAFTA, and which seeks a hemispheric free trade zone."
Although I oppose NAFTA and support International Fair Trade policies, rather than Free Trade policies, this is a problem which we cannot ignore. The best thing for American people may be for our government to step in and provide our southern neighbors with development assistance:
"Shortsighted U.S. policies are themselves part of the problem. Washington attacks the symptoms, but never the causes, of the Latin American malady. It spends billions of dollars on military efforts to crush left-wing guerrillas, but will not invest in large-scale development assistance."
- Pacific News Service.
|
