"This was only weeks after the illegal and immoral conflict in Iraq([search]) had been launched by the Bush([search])-Cheney Gang. Its action, we now know, was based on a pack of deliberate and dirty lies."

OK, I HAVE HEARD YOU AND I BELIEVED WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND SO NOW I WILL NEVER BELIEVE ANOTHER PINKO-BEDWETTER LIBERAL EVER AGAIN BECAUSE THEY HAVE MADE THE PRESIDENT LOOK BAD WITH THEIR CRAP AND AS YOU SAID *LIES*, AND I DO THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE SENT OUT THAT HAS PROMPTED ME TO RELOCATE THE FOLLOWING BEDWETTER LIES...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], bu t what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."&! nbsp; - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction ha s proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeki! ng and d eveloping weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intel ligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working agg ressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspecto! rs left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capa city for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ..... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

Send this to everybody you know..The media and networks won't do it. Why do you suppose that is?

George W. needs our help -lets do all we can.

...

Thank You, CJ

LAW4GIVER-AT-GMAIL.COM

burn the imperialist flag it for slaverly of blacks and stealing indian lands

National and global social movements need to embrace a practical and focused goal of accumulating power in order to takeover governments. Conventional politics and left-thinking in the USA are dead, in Europe they are dying.


In the USA there is little that activists can do other than relocate supporters of change to states in the USA where they can seize power through the ballot; or aid the revolutions in the Andes through fundraising. Protests, lobbying and voting are stupid. They actually aid the power elite who want the appearance of democracy and opposition – as long as it can accomplish nothing. This is also true in the EU, though there is some potential there for new types of coalitions in Germany, Italy, France and the EU Parliament (or the streets!) (14). (This does not mean that you never go to protests or vote, it means that you stay on task, focused on raising funds for the Andes and building an organization to manage and develop these funds. In the midst of a national campaign to raise money, technicians and human shields for revolutions in the Andes, then protests against US policies there and or everywhere would make sense because they would serve a purpose beyond the First Amendment (expression) and some education. )


The leaders of USA environmental and justice groups are barriers to change. They debate whether to try new strategies or fall back on style and simply modify the current moderate plan of merging left issues together in a coalition with moderate democrats – a strategy where victory becomes as meaningless as defeat! (15)


The USA is an empire of corporate, trade and, military alliances. Only through extending our conceptions of politics – which is another word for Power – extending it beyond the imaginary borders of nations can we create a better world.(16)


James Petras has a criteria for judging anti-imperialist governments:
"Do they pay the foreign debt to US and European banks; do they respect the privatization of strategic industries; do they promote new privatizations; do they keep their markets open to overseas exporters; do they support the dollar against the euro by holding their reserves in dollars; do they pass regressive labor, pension and minimum wage legislation; do they abide by IMF agreements and impose austerity programs and regressive tax laws?" Add to this list, bans on GMOs. Why let Monsanto or Dow or any non-local company control your seed or farm production? Chavez banned GMOs – Lula legalized them. [ The UK and Poland debate the issue and the risks]

A Global War is on, and the only subjects worth studying; organizing or executing are those that can change the whole system in a short time. The target is always to stop the USA: Get USA military-espionage programs and USA-backed death squads out of all countries; and create an appealing and diverse counter-power to USA hegemony.

Without a rapid decline in consumption in the rich countries all environmental issues are hopeless and the chances of meaningful social change are non-existent. Resource wars and wars of imperialism will be the only issues left. These are the challenges and time limits that we face.

There is no way to avoid the catastrophe of global warming because the capitalist model of consumption growth and rampant pollution to reduce costs combines with US greed to guarantee massive increases in greenhouse gases. To survive in this post-global warming future of brutal US imperialist wars, the few remaining moral people in the US and Europe should fund revolutions in the Andes to create an alternative model and a counter to US hegemony. There are billions of dollars in potential funding up for grabs in the US and Europe. The deceptions and failures of the Narrow left and the Enviros has created a vacuum where people are looking for something positive to invest in.
8. There is a process or hierarchy of resistance and movement building that can guide our efforts to stop imperialism and protect the environment. The basis of this hierarchy is that we must be honest and probing about our goals (near term and long run); about the strategies that could achieve them; and deeply open to debate and to clearer thinking than in the past. The Real Left needs to make sense - AND be understandable, with real solutions to all of the linked problems:

A Hierarchy of Action, Purpose and Socio-Political Evolution:

How to Change the World: Applied Resistance by Movements & States

Stop the USA Economic Cancer and Imperialist Aggression
a. Build Revolutionary Coalitions in Latin America: First in the Andes where Revolutions are Ripe and the Indigenous Populations are the Highest.
b. Raise Billions of Dollars to Help these Groups and Anyone Fighting Capitalism in the Andes

Force the USA – EU – OECD to Consume and Pollute Less.
a. Reduce USA Corporate Profits Through Trade Barriers (Tariffs and Quotas), Embargos, Debt Erasures, Boycotts and the Expropriation of USA Corporate Holdings. Expel Everything and Everyone Connected to the USA and Seize Their Stolen Possessions. (21)
b. Make the USA-EU Empires Pay Higher Oil Prices With Oil Embargos or by Utilizing Most of the Oil Within the South. Charge the USA Surcharges for Oil Purchases (& other products) and Require Them to Use Ships and Refineries in the South.


Defend and Build up the Revolutions in the South
a. Prepare Strategies to Resist USA Imperialist Attacks. The Best Defense is a Strong People with a Clear Ideology, Decentralized Economy and Decentralized Mobile Armed Forces.


Build a Personal and Social Consciousness of the Importance of the Environment to Self Reliance, Solidarity and National Defense
a. Solidarity Economics: A Solidaristic Decentralized Cooperative and Local-Oriented Economy.
b. Education (Latin America) for Solidarity and Eco-protection/ Sustainability. (23)

How do we factor the uncertainty of the timeframe concerning the issues of global warming’s peak or the next wave of US invasions into our models and plans for resistance?


A Summary of the "Ten Observations." : Strategies of Truth

USA activist like to tout: Peace, Justice and Environmental Sustainability
So – First comes the war against capitalism (which is mostly a mental war of rejecting the brainwashing they feed us) and then the establishment of sustainable-oriented governments in the Andes and then in all of Latin America.
Then there will come the wars against US aggression and Yankee invasions. Then we will be on the road to peace.
Then we do years of education and experiments in new theories of economic development, then we will be on the road to justice.
Then if there is an environment left we try to protect and restore it. Then we might be approaching the road to sustainable development. (25)
To move this hierarchy of needs and evolution along people in the USA-EU can send money, many skilled specialists and trades people to the revolutions in the Andes.
Instead of growing frustrated with the inevitable defeats in the USA (failure to change anything) and the reality that protests and lobbying can actually encourage the right wing or the ignorant voters to fight change more, activists can earn strategic victories by aiding, visiting and organizing around the revolutions in the Andes. These People to People – or "Pueblo a People" campaigns can be positive and real.
Move beyond political stalemate to make a real difference. Forget politics as you knew it. Do the politics of building global and continental resistance. Forget lobbying and all environmental or social justice organizing in the USA. That won't work – never change anything soon. The Andes have a lot to teach us and a world to win - a dollar a year from every person in the USA could make the difference.
Take the power where you can find it!

The value of international solidarity and a large campaign for Venezuela in the US is worth billions to Chavez. More than any money we could raise for the Andes, a growing US movement and international support would build morale, honor, dignity and inspiration …

10. To build a counter-power to the imperialist USA, activist groups need to reach beyond national boundaries to build strong alliances in Latin America with indigenous people (50 to 80 million people), workers in the Andes (50 to 80 million people), African descendants (100,000,000 to 120,000,000 people), and to finance aid programs with Venezuelan and Andean revolutionary groups. Solidarity with these groups and the 200 million Latin American people trapped in neoliberal (USA-imposed) poverty can yield dividends abroad and within the USA. (26)

HUGO CHAVEZ: "Imperialism not invincible!
Look at Vietnam, Iraq and Cuba resisting, and now look at Venezuela… Some people say that we cannot say nor do anything that can irritate those in Washington. I offer you the words of Argentine independence hero José de San Martin:
‘Let's be free without caring what anyone else says.’” -- Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela

We Call on all people to appeal to the following leaders:
If Jorge Martin, Alan Woods, Alexander Cockburn, Campesino groups from all over Latin America, Tariq Ali, Jeffery St. Claire, President Hugo Chavez, Indigenous groups from the Andes, the MST in Brazil and Bolivia, Felipe Quispe, Oscar Olivera, Omar Fernández, Abel Mamani, Manuel Marulanda Velez, Alfonso Cano, Raul Reyes, James Petras, Walden Bello, Eduardo Tamayo, Wendel Berry, Vandana Shiva, Arhundati Roy, Ken Livingston, Ward Churchill, the German Greens/ EU Nordic/Left Blocs, the Uruguayan Leftists, the Chilean Communist Party, Ruben Zamora, the Cubans, radical ecologists, the Italian PRC, other activists and professors would come forward with all of their power to support a clear plan for a new type of participatory socialist – or solidaristic - economy then many people, activists and movements would come together from around the world to promote this vision. The deadlock of US-world politics would be broken and with some luck and hard work the South would begin to construct the vibrant models that are possible there.

by Mike Whitney

The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It’s an issue that has caused anti-war Leftist’s the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who’ve never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American “Exceptionalism”.

For myself, I can say without hesitation, that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21-year-old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.

As Americans we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.” [Emphasis mine]

The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a “duty” to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people. Violence is not the issue, but the justification for the use of violence. The overwhelming majority of the world’s people know that the war in Iraq was an “illegal” act (Kofi Annan) of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. A recent poll conducted in the Middle East (released by the Center for Strategic Studies) shows that “for more than 85% of the population in four of the five countries polled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) thought the US war on Iraq was an act of terrorism.” Lebanon polled at 64%. (Pepe Escobar, “It’s Terror When We Way So,” Asia Times, April 23, 2005) Terrorism or not, there’s no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.

The argument most commonly offered by anti-war Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn’t defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that “We can’t just leave them without security” creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.

At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power. (Bush acknowledged this himself when he ordered Syrian troops to leave Lebanon) The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington’s “demonstration elections.” This may not suit the members of the Bush administration, but it’s a first step in the long process of reintegrating and rebuilding the Iraqi state. There’s no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the passed two years. The Bush administration hasn’t shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we’re nowhere near that period yet.
Who’s Killing Whom?

It’s not the insurgency that’s killing American soldiers. It’s the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world’s remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harms way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would, trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed. American’s would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration’s hands not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Expect another dictator or Mullah

We shouldn’t expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war. Regardless, it is not the right of the US to pick-and-choose the leaders of foreign countries or to meddle in their internal politics. (The UN, as imperfect as it may be, is the proper venue for deciding how to affect the behavior of foreign dictators) At this point, we should be able to agree that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein in every quantifiable way than they are today. Even on a physical level, the availability of work, clean water, electricity, sewage control, medicine, gas and food were far superior to the present situation. On a deeper level, the insecurity from the sporadic violence, the increasing brutality, and the gross injustice of the occupation has turned Iraq into a prison-state, where the amenities of normal life are nowhere to be found.

Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq’s publicly owned industries, banks and resources) an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, “the return-in full force of Saddam’s Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services.” (Pepe Escobar, “The Shadow Iraqi Government,” Asia Times, April 21, 2005)

Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam? (Rumsfeld’s unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn’t tamper with his counterinsurgency operatives, most of who were formerly employed in Saddam’s secret police)

We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don’t realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself. The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect that if it weren’t for the resistance the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, anti-war advocates should carefully consider the implications of so-called “humanitarian” objectives designed to pacify the population. “Normalizing” aggression by ameliorating its symptoms is the greatest dilemma we collectively face.

We should be clear about our feelings about the war and the occupation. The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination, ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence. The toppling of foreign regimes and the destruction of entire civilizations cannot be justified in terms of “democracy” or any other cynically conjured-up ideal. The peace and security of the world’s people depends on the compliance of states with the clearly articulated standards of international law and the UN Charter. Both were deliberately violated by the invasion of Iraq. Crushing the insurgency will not absolve that illicit action; it will only increase the magnitude of the crime. Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat would serve as a powerful deterrent to future unprovoked conflicts and would deliver a serious blow to the belief that aggression is a viable expression of foreign policy.

www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Whitney0502.htm

I believe that radicals or rebels who make use of national symbols, only serve to lend them legitimacy. And, as national symbols, they are SO easy for conservatives to coopt, time and again. The political right in the US has repeatedly succeeded in exploited the poverty of American consciousness by casting itself as the under dog upstart fighting for the people, "against the state". Bush's phony Texan schtick (the guy's from Maine) is another case in point- wealth and power playing itself as down-home rebel.

Radicals need to start articulting more local solutions, more global perspectives, and more universal identities. Nationalism is not the way to go.