More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

A deranged Bush says war on terror not winnable
(Associated Press, August 30, 2004)
The best way to deal with them is to bring them to justice in foreign lands before they hurt us again," Bush told the crowd crammed into a high school gym, drawing a lengthy standing ovation. "It means a full-scale offensive campaign ... and never yielding one inch to these people." . . . Earlier in the day, in an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show that was broadcast to coincide with the start of the Republican National Convention in New York, Bush was asked "Can we win?" the war on terror. . . . "I don't think you can win it," he responded. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." . . . "You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness," he said. . . . Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards seized on the comment. . . . "After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism," Edwards said. "This is no time to declare defeat."

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 8:08 PM

 

6,000 in Athens protest U.S. Iraq policy
(Matthew Schofield, Knight Ridder Newspapers, August 27, 2004)
In the strongest anti-American showing yet during the Olympic games, about 6,000 war protesters Friday night marched through the city center. . . . The protesters, many of whom made a point of saying they dislike American foreign policy, not Americans, gathered, officially, to register their disgust at a planned weekend visit by Secretary of State Colin Powell. . . . "This is not an anti-American protest, it is anti-war," said protest co-organizer Costas Peitas. "We have nothing against the American people." . . . Nicoletta, a 32-year-old Athenian protester who would not give her last name, said during the march, "We protest Bush. We protest Powell. We protest the U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would we protest all Americans?" . . . The march began peacefully, protesters carefully avoiding police blockades and snaking through a heavy tourist part of the city. They chanted in favor of a free Palestine, and against leaders of countries involved in the Iraqi occupation. . . . One banner urged the Iraqi insurgents to victory. . . . And many protesters said that the Olympics themselves were a reason for protest: the high costs, the high security, the nationalistic fervor of fans. . . . This protest did degenerate. After being stopped by riot police near the Greek Parliament, protestors launched a barrage of water bottles. Police responded with pepper spray. At that point, the march became a mad dash through the city, with protesters breaking pavestones into pieces and using the rocks to smash store windows as they fled.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:56 PM

 

At Last! Some Constructive News
The link above will take you to one of the most hopeful projects on the Internet. We have Kris Roose to thank for following through on the idea of hosting a portal that converges the constructive news from many disciplines. Here is what their mission statement says:

This Webpage aims to contain some of the hottest topics of Constructive News. All over the world people are contributing to the construction of the world of tomorrow, from science and technology to psychology, including art and sociology.

Sources: From our own surfing on the net, and suggestions from you all, a list of recent remarkable realizations is presented, and updated once or twice a week.

The difference with other ""constructive news" sites (as shown by a Google search) is that we do NOT enlist purely commercial events, or negative actions (e.g. lawsuits) undertaken to reach constructive goals. We do not only include social or alternative news, but also important scientific and technological news, and progressive and constructive political initiatives.

You ought to check it out. I think it will make you feel a little more hopeful.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:00 PM

 

Bush's Big Blunder: Chalabi
(Robert Scheer, CBS News - Originally Appearing in The Nation, 11 August 2004)
In January, when President Bush delivered his State of the Union speech to Congress celebrating the success of the "pre-emptive" war against Iraq, a controversial Iraqi exile named Ahmad Chalabi sat in a place of honor behind First Lady Laura Bush. . . . The symbolism was no accident: Despite being a fugitive from Jordan for a conviction in absentia on bank fraud charges, this darling of neoconservative hard-liners was the Pentagon's and White House's favored and well-paid advisor on all things Iraq -- including weapons of mass destruction, ties with al Qaeda and the odds for a post-invasion insurgency. As is now apparent, he and his cronies seemed to have lied spectacularly about it all. . . . He was appointed by the U.S.-led coalition authority to the Iraqi Governing Council, and his power was enhanced as relatives and members of the organization he headed, the Iraq National Congress, were appointed to key ministries. . . . When his nephew Salem was named the lead prosecutor of Saddam Hussein, it appeared clear that despite polls showing him to be the least trusted politician in Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi was doing quite well for himself. . . . Today, however, it is hard to imagine that anybody would want to be in Ahmad Chalabi's shoes -- or those of the many top officials of Bush's White House, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who so assiduously backed him. . . . For those keeping score at home, that's two indicted Chalabis, one huge black eye for the Bush Administration and a healthy dose of vindication for the CIA and the State Department, both of which decided long ago that Ahmad Chalabi wasn't trustworthy and strongly objected to his being tapped as a handy George Washington for "liberated" Iraq. . . . Both Chalabis are declaring their innocence. Steady Chalabi defenders, led by New York Times columnist William Safire, and Ahmad Chalabi himself claim that all his problems stem from a vendetta by L. Paul Bremer III, the recently departed U.S. administrator of occupied Iraq. Could that possibly explain why Chalabi, once the U.S. invasion's loudest Iraqi backer, is now calling on fundamentalist Shiites to expel the Americans? . . . His strong and continuing ties to Tehran and allegations that he has spied for Iran raise a very serious question few seem eager to confront: 'Was Our Man Chalabi' a double agent working for the theocratic ayatollahs when he helped lobby and lie the United States into overthrowing Hussein, Iran's despotic but secular enemy? . . . And beyond Chalabi, why did it so thoroughly escape the Bush Administration and much of the media that in deposing the secular Sunni tyrant Hussein we would open the door for the Iraqi Shiite majority to create its own regime -- one that would most likely be sympathetic to Shiite Iran not only for religious reasons but because many of its new leaders had been sheltered, armed and financially supported by Tehran when they were in exile. . . . How ironic that a close alliance between Iraq and the fanatical ayatollahs of Iran is the most likely accomplishment of the U.S. invasion. That would lend credence to the claim in a revealing Newsweek cover story on Ahmad Chalabi's checkered past that "the Bushies were bamboozled by a Machiavellian con man for the ages." . . . Of course, if we re-elect this President, then we'll be the dumbest marks of all.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:08 PM

 

Bush & Cheney Knew They Were Lying About WMDs
(David Sirota and Christy Harvey, In These Times, 03 August 2004)
[NOTE: This is only a small fragment of a lengthly and well-researched article. We strongly recommend that you click on the link above and read this article in its entirety.]

Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak. . . . As the 9/11 Commission recently reported, there was "no credible evidence" of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting in an election year, the White House is grasping at straws to avoid being held accountable for its dishonesty. . . . But as author Flannery O'Conner noted, "Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." That means no matter how much defensive spin spews from the White House, the Bush administration cannot escape the documented fact that it was clearly warned before the war that its rationale for invading Iraq was weak. . . . Top administration officials repeatedly ignored warnings that their assertions about Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and connections to al Qaeda were overstated. In some cases, they were told their claims were wholly without merit, yet they went ahead and made them anyway. Even the Senate report admits that the White House "misrepresented" classified intelligence by eliminating references to contradictory assertions. . . . In short, they knew they were misleading America. . . . And they did not care. . . . There is no doubt even though there was no proof of Iraq's complicity, the White House was focused on Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks. As CBS News reported, "barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." Former Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke recounted vividly how, just after the attack, President Bush pressured him to find an Iraqi connection. In many ways, this was no surprise - as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and another administration official confirmed, the White House was actually looking for a way to invade Iraq well before the terrorist attacks. . . . But such an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country required a public rationale. And so the Bush administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the "Iraqi threat" in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." . . . Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation - stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future. . . . In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs." The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." . . . Nonetheless, the administration continued to push forward. In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons." He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave "concerns about Iraq's potential nuclear programs." . . . Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS's Gwen Ifill that the administration's nuclear assertions were "absolutely supportable." That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: "There's a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." . . . [COMMENT: It's the BIG LIE once again folks. The Fascists have moved in on America.] . . . In the summer of 2002, USA Today reported White House lawyers had concluded that establishing an Iraq-al Qaeda link would provide the legal cover at the United Nations for the administration to attack Iraq. Such a connection, no doubt, also would provide political capital at home. And so, by the fall of 2002, the Iraq-al Qaeda drumbeat began. . . . It started on September 25, 2002, when Bush said, "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam." This was news even to members of Bush's own political party who had access to classified intelligence. Just a month before, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda, I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda." . . . To no surprise, the day after Bush's statement, USA Today reported several intelligence experts "expressed skepticism" about the claim, with a Pentagon official calling the president's assertion an "exaggeration." No matter, Bush ignored these concerns and that day described Saddam Hussein as "a man who loves to link up with al Qaeda." Meanwhile, Rumsfeld held a press conference trumpeting "bulletproof" evidence of a connection - a sentiment echoed by Rice and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. And while the New York Times noted, "the officials offered no details to back up the assertions," Rumsfeld nonetheless insisted his claims were "accurate and not debatable." . . . Within days, the accusations became more than just "debatable"; they were debunked. German Defense Minister Peter Stuck said the day after Rumsfeld's press conference that his country "was not aware of any connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda's efforts to acquire chemical weapons. The Orlando Sentinel reported that terrorism expert Peter Bergen - one of the few to actually interview Osama bin Laden - said the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda are minimal. In October 2002, Knight Ridder reported, "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in [Bush's] own government privately have deep misgivings" about the Iraq-al Qaeda claims. The experts charged that administration hawks "exaggerated evidence." A senior U.S. official told the Philadelphia Inquirer that intelligence analysts "contest the administration's suggestion of a major link between Iraq and al Qaeda." . . . While this evidence forced British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other allies to refrain from playing up an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, the Bush administration refused to be deterred by facts. [COMMENT: Again, the BIG LIE at work.] . . . Conclusion: They knew they were misleading America . . . In his March 17, 2003 address preparing America for the Iraq invasion, President Bush stated unequivocally that there was an Iraq-al Qaeda nexus and that there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." . . . In the context of what we now know the White House knew at the time, Bush was deliberately dishonest. The intelligence community repeatedly told the White House there were many deep cracks in its case for war. The president's willingness to ignore such warnings and make these unequivocal statements proves the administration was intentionally painting a black-and-white picture when it knew the facts merited only gray at best. . . . That has meant severe consequences for all Americans. Financially, U.S. taxpayers have shelled out more than $166 billion for the Iraq war, and more will soon be needed. Geopolitically, our country is more isolated from allies than ever, with anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the globe. . . . And we are less secure. A recent U.S. Army War College report says "the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the more narrow focus on defeating al Qaeda." U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi put it this way: "The war in Iraq was useless, it caused more problems than it solved, and it brought in terrorism." . . . The administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq - a country that was not a serious menace before invasion. . . . Of course, it is those troops who have it the worst. Our men and women in uniform are bogged down in a quagmire, forced to lay down life and limb for a lie. . . . To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for these deceptions. They also will say intelligence gave a bit of credence to some of the pre-war claims, and that is certainly true. . . . But nothing can negate the clear proof that President Bush and other administration official officials vastly overstated the intelligence they were given. They engaged in a calculated and well-coordinated effort to turn a war of choice in Iraq into a perceived war of imminent necessity. . . . And we are all left paying the price.

. . . Read more!


posted by LoZo 4:55 PM