Fake 'War On Terror' Used

OneWorld US
By Haider Rizvi
1-27-7

NEW YORK (OneWorld) -- Government leaders across the world must stop using anti-terror laws as a tool to suppress opposition movements and deprive ordinary citizens of their due civil and human rights, say international civil society groups attending the World Social Forum in Kenya this week.

"The 'so-called war on terror' is being used by both democratic and repressive governments alike to justify restrictions on civil society activities," said Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of the World Alliance for Citizens' Participation (CIVICUS), a Johannesburg, South Africa-based coalition of hundreds of advocacy groups.

On Tuesday, in collaboration with the international human rights group Oxfam and the U.S.-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Naidoo's group held a news conference where they charged that many governments were committing human rights abuses and imposing unlawful restrictions on the movement of activists.

From Tunisia to Tonga and from the United States to Uzbekistan, the voices of activists and organizations are being silenced, said the groups' representatives, noting that many governments were trying to justify new security laws as a means to protect their citizens, but in practice, they were using them to create a climate of fear.

Many held the United States particularly responsible for the rise of such disturbing trends.

"The Bush administration has used the guise of the 'global war on terror' to obliterate fundamental principles of habeas corpus and sanction torture in Guantanamo," Emira Woods of IPS, who was present at the news conference, told OneWorld.

Describing the recent U.S. air attack on the Somali people as "unprovoked," she added: "This irresponsible set of policies constrains civil liberties, undermines democracy, increases anti-American sentiment, and makes the world less safe."

In amplifying concerns over the governments' abuse of power and restrictions on oppositions' movements, a number of Nobel Laureates and prominent figures from the entertainment world, who are attending the Forum meetings, also joined the activists' call to respect civil liberties and fundamental human rights.

"The war on terror in the world will never be won by force and injustice," said Desmond Tutu, the Noble Peace Prize-winning archbishop of South Africa, at the Forum. "It will remain a problem as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate, like dehumanizing poverty, disease, and ignorance."

Attending the Social Forum, Danny Glover, the award-winning Hollywood actor and former UN goodwill ambassador, and Nobel Peace Laureates Shirin Ebadi and Jodi Williams, said they fully shared such concerns and assured their full support for those demanding the protection of human rights and justice.

In addition to taking the United States to task, some activists expressed their grave concerns over the Russian government's use of draconian laws that threaten the activities of local and international non-governmental organizations. Others admonished the governments of Belarus and Zimbabwe for their continued attempts to silence political dissent.

Noting that in most cases, the definition of terrorism remained "vague and broad," activists said they had every reason to believe that anti-terror laws could be used to criminalize peaceful activities and violate freedom of expression, association, and assembly, a point that many United Nations experts on human rights have fully acknowledged in a number of reports.

Expressing their concerns as far back as October 2005, UN officials warned the General Assembly that attempts by many states to adopt new anti-terror measures could undermine international human rights standards.

In a report submitted to the General Assembly at the time, they emphasized that terrorism required "concerted action by the international community," not legislative steps that deny individual rights to a fair trial, freedom of speech, assembly, or to strike.

"Nothing can combat irrational acts and extreme forms of violence more effectively than the wisdom embodied in the rule of law," UN special rapporteur on human rights Leandro Despouy told the General Assembly.

What the Media Won't Show you About Iran!!!!

CLICK RIGHT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


They never tell you, nor show you how these nations really are or look, just the bad side of everything.

I never did Watch Andy Griffith, but this is what a Patriot Is!!!

Scarborough Repeats Lies Regarding Iran's President and Pimps A War With Iran

 

Why will CBX not put this On TV, Instead they stick it online

Why does CBS refuses to show U.S. television audiences

this report exposing the
slaughter and destruction of civil life in Baghdad?


 

 Warning

 

 This video should only be viewed by a mature audience

Click Play To View

Please watch this
story and pass the link on to as many people you know as
possible.

It should be seen. And people should know about this.







If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS – about the story –
not about my request,


then that would help highlight that people
are interested and this is not too gruesome to air,

but rather
too important to ignore.



Click here to play in Real Player

Video - Iraqi Troops' Brutality Learned from US Soldiers




Exclusive: Channel 4 News has obtained footage of
brutality by mainly Shi'a troops in Iraq, egged on by US
soldiers.



We see a joint patrol of US and Iraqi troops in Baghdad,
where our camera captures the pretty brutal treatment
meted out by the newly trained Iraqi soldiers to three
suspected insurgents caught in a car, all to the
accompaniment of laughter, whoops and egging on from the
US soldiers who watch from their Humvee.




Broadcast 01/24/07 Channel 4 - UK - Video Runtime

 

<

Click here to watch in Windows Media

Israeli separation barrier is cutting off Palestinians from their livelihood

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem and Anne Penketh in Herziliya

01/23/07 "The Independent" -- -- A British government-funded report says the route of Israel's separation barrier is trapping 250,000 Palestinians in enclaves designed to protect Jewish settlers in the occupied territory.

It says that creation of the enclaves cutting Palestinian communities off from the rest of the West Bank "almost totally ignores the daily needs of the Palestinian population" and is "focused almost exclusively on the desire to maintain the fabric of life of Israeli settlers".

The critical report ­ which says the existence of some Palestinian communities is threatened by the barrier ­ was produced by the Israeli planning and rights organisation Bimkom. The research was jointly funded by the New Israel Fund and the British Embassy in Tel Aviv.

It says the barrier is cutting employment for Palestinians and isolating farmers from markets, causing "particularly serious damage" to residents' health-care needs and undermining social and family life.

The report focuses on two categories of cut-off communities in the West Bank. The first are "seam enclaves" between the barrier, broadly to the east, and the 1967 Green Line, to the west. It comprises around 8,000 residents whose movements into the rest of the West Bank, where 2.5 million Palestinians live, are heavily restricted by checkpoints. Pointing out that residents in such enclaves require a military permit, the report says " Palestinians whose families have lived there for centuries must now acquire permits, without which their mere presence in their villages constitutes an offence."

The second ­ and larger ­ category are "internal enclaves" which are bound in, sometimes virtually encircled, by the barrier and roads forbidden to Palestinians to protect "fingers" of occupied territory inhabited by Jewish settlers and to ensure the settlers' access to Israel proper.

The report cites the example of the Bir Nabala enclave in which residents of five villages traditionally linked to Jerusalemwill have only two ways out, through tunnels, to Ramallah or the area of the West Bank village of Biddu.

The report also says, despite a series of Supreme Court decisions in favour of rerouting the barrier, "there has been no meaningful change in the system of considerations guiding the planners".

Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign ministry spokesman said the barrier had had a major effect in reducing suicide bombings and added: "For Palestinians there is an issue of quality of life; but for Israelis it is one of life or death."

Israel's Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, has spelled out a three-stage Middle East peace initiative tied to a timetable, saying that "a new plan" was needed to replace Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unilateral proposals scuppered by the Lebanon war. He envisaged the process leading to 18 months of "final status" talks on a permanent settlement.

* A blast damaged the offices of the satellite channel Al-Arabiya in Gaza City last night. Nobody was hurt.

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

CNN: Latino Gangs Killing Blacks In
L.A.

Liveleak.com

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Last Night we received an even mixture of support and utter condemnation
for simply reporting this issue, and writing a commentary denouncing
it. Now CNN is reporting it. Once again we take the brunt of bringing
you the facts first. See our article Racist
Mexican Gangs "Ethnic Cleansing" Blacks In L.A.

The Unthinkable: The US- Israeli Nuclear War on Iran

Monday, 22 January 2007

By Michel Chossudovsky

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration in liaison with Israel and NATO is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in "an advanced state of readiness".

If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.

The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.

In this regard, the structure of military alliances is crucial. China and Russia have entered into farreaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. The latter have a direct bearing on the conflict. Iran possesses an advanced air defense system as well as capabilities to target US and allied positions in Iraq and the Gulf States, as demonstrated in recent military exercises.

The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters:the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission. In this context, the war on Lebanon last Summer must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.

The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.

The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

Despite Pentagon statements which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater would trigger a nuclear holocaust.The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.

In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists

More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident", which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran.

We bring to the attention of our readers a selection of Global Research articles, which document various aspects of US-Israeli war preparations.

It is essential that this information reaches the broader public. We invite our subscribers and readers to distribute and forward these articles far and wide.

To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

There seems to be a reluctance by members of Congress to exercise their powers under the US Constitution, with a view to preventing the unthinkable: the onslaught of a US sponsored nuclear war. The consequences of this inaction could be devastating. Once the decision is taken at the political level, it will be very difficult to turn the clock backwards.

Moreover, the antiwar movement has not addressed the US sponsored nuclear threat on Iran in a consistent way, in part due to divisions within its ranks, in part due to lack of information. Moreover, a significant sector of the antiwar movement considers that the "threat of Islamic terrorism" is real. "We are against the war, but we support the war on terrorism." This ambivalent stance ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the US national security doctrine which is predicated on waging the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

At this juncture, with the popularity of the Bush-Cheney regime at an all time low, a real opportunity exists to initiate an impeachment process, which could contribute to temporarily stalling the military agenda.

The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

It is essential to bring the US-Israeli war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America, Western Europe and Israel. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

Racist Mexican Gangs Ethnic Cleansing Blacks in LA

Racist Mexican
Gangs "Ethnic Cleansing" Blacks In L.A.

Latino thugs indiscriminately murder blacks regardless of gang
membership, genocidal purge aligns with radical Aztlan theology

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Monday, January 22, 2007

Racist Mexican gangs are indiscriminately targeting blacks who aren't
even involved in gang culture, as part of an orchestrated ethnic cleansing
program that is forcing black people to flee Los Angeles. The culprit
of the carnage is the radical Neo-Nazi liberation theology known as
La Raca, which calls for the extermination of all races in America besides
Latinos, and is being bankrolled by some of the biggest Globalists in
the U.S.

A story
carried on the liberal website Alternet, charts an explosion in
brutal murders of blacks by Hispanic street gangs in L.A. Far from being
gang on gang violence, the Latinos are targeting innocent blacks in
accordance with a concerted ethnic cleansing campaign that seeks to
eradicate all blacks from Hispanic neighborhoods.

In one instance, 21-year-old Anthony Prudhomme was shot in the face
with a .25-caliber semi-automatic while lying on a futon inside his
apartment, slain by a Latino gang known as the Avenues as part of a
racist terror campaign in which gang members earn "stripes"
for each black person they kill.

In one typical case," writes journalist Brentin Mock, "Three
members of the Pomona 12 attacked an African-American teenager, Kareem
Williams, in his front yard in 2002. When his uncle, Roy Williams, ran
to help his nephew, gang member Richard Diaz told him, "Niggers
have no business living in Pomona because this is 12th Street territory."
According to witnesses, Diaz then told the other gang members, "Pull
out the gun! Shoot the niggers! Shoot the niggers!"

The fatwah against blacks began in the mid-nineties, with a 1995 LAPD
report concluding that Latinos had vowed to "Eradicate black citizens
from the gang neighborhood." In a follow up report on the situation
in east Los Angeles, the LAPD warned that "Local gangs will attack
any black person that comes into the city."

The author notes that since 1990 the African-American population of
Los Angeles has halved, partly as a result of rampant illegal immigration
and that there are noticeably fewer blacks walking the streets because
many have been forced to relocate in fear of the racist gangs.

"The LAPD estimates there are now 22,000 Latino gang members in
the city of Los Angeles alone. That's not only more than all the Crips
and the Bloods; it's more than all black, Asian, and white gang members
combined. Almost all of those Latino gang members in L.A. -- let alone
those in other California cities -- are loyal to the Mexican Mafia.
Most have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the Mexican Mafia's violent
racism during stints in prison, where most gangs are racially based,"
writes Mock.

Mock blames the "Mexican Mafia" for ordering the campaign
of ethnic cleansing from prison, as part of a turf war with the Black
Guerilla family, another prison gang, but fails to pinpoint the racist
creed from which the Mexican kingpins draw their inspiration - the long
standing Aztlan invasion agenda.

Aztlan's goal, known as La reconquista, is to cede and take over the
entirety of the southern and western states by any means necessary and
impose a Communist militant dictatorship. President Bush's blanket
amnesty program goes a long way to helping the extremists achieve
their aim.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get 5 months free at Prison
Planet.tv when you sign up for our New Years Special! TV
shows, conference footage, field reports, protest clips, in studio camera
and audio interviews, books, every Alex Jones film, dozens of other
documentaries! Click
here to subscribe!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the fact that the majority
of documented hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority
of Americans, Aztlan and La Raca race hate groups have become the
self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent
overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic
cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously
oppose it is scorned as racism.

Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and
driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic cleansing.
Flags and placards carried at marches depict white people having their
heads cut off, as seen in the picture below.

Those that protest such groups are then attacked by the establishment
media and labeled as racists, despite the fact that the Plan
of San Diego, a rallying cry for the hispanic Klan groups, advocates
total eradication of any race but hispanics.

Mecha's own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those
outside the race, nothing."

TV stations owned by rich white industrialists erect giant billboards
in Los Angeles claiming the city belongs to Mexico, as seen below.

Mainstream hispanics who love America abhor the virulent racism that
the Mexican klan groups embrace.

And who bankrolls these pocket radicals? Billionaire tax-exempt foundations
and NGO's owned by white men. Organizations like the Ford
Foundation, groups who are zealous in their quest to eliminate the
middle class and destroy America, turning it into a cashless society,
compact city, surveillance control grid where only two tiers of society
exist - the elite and the poor slaves.

During the May immigration protests, The Aztlanwebsite
carried the following statement.

"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the
US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement
will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant
civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable
us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming
of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow
and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan."

Here is the open call for violent separatism and the overthrow of existing
state government structures.

During the immigration demonstrations, which were orchestrated
by Rob Allyn of Rob Allyn & Co. who is closely tied with George
W. Bush, alarming reports of illegals carrying out violent beatings
began to surface. In Santa Ana California, illegal aliens swarmed
around in mobs invading schools, carrying out violent beatings and
in one incident a county worker had a Mexican flag plunged into his
chest.

The violent protests that began on May 1 last year were
characterized by throngs marching under Mexican flags, many of which
were illegal aliens, as a "day without gringos."

Imagine what the reaction would be if white middle class Americans
marched in their millions and called the event "a day without blacks."

The media continues to run defense for a violent militant movement
that seeks nothing less than the eradication of blacks and whites through
ethnic cleansing and the takeover of the southern and western states.
This is a separatist junta that has over 30,000 ruthless gang members
at its disposal once the call for mobilization is heard, along with
millions of illegal aliens pouring across the border.

These thugs have the temerity to call Latinos, blacks and whites who
are opposed to uncontrolled illegal immigration racists when it is their
own La reconquista philosophy that has spawned target hits in Los Angeles
as part of a virulently racist ethnic cleansing rampage. It's a bloodlust
that can only spread to other cities as the realization of Aztlan is
generously aided by billionaire Globalists who wish to see America balkanized,
plundered and destroyed.

Hillary for President?

By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Monday 22 January 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton is running for president.
Twelve people killed in a helicopter crash Saturday in Iraq. Thirteen other service members reported killed in other incidents. Two more on Sunday and two more on Monday.

Twenty-nine people dead in the last three days in a war that the senator has supported since she first voted "yea" to give Bloody George carte blanche to invade Iraq and with her continuing support via her "yea" votes on giving the war addict in the White House the key to the treasury.

Soon after Camp Casey, in August 2005, I was meeting with some Hollywood people who pretended that they supported me, but really were big money donors and supporters of Hillary. I was told that the senator was really against the war, but she was waiting for the politically correct time to come out against it. I was told that she was the best hope for the Democrats in 2008, and I should give her a break.

I don't know who Mr. and Mrs. Hollywood and Mr. Hollywood Got Rocks thought that they were talking to. My son was used as a "soldier of Christ" in BushCo's crusade against the world and a political pawn in this pro-war Democrat's moves toward the White House. I was disgusted and noted this in many blogs that I wrote at the time.

I supported the New York candidate for Senate who ran a very courageous, anti-war race against Clinton: Jonathan Tasini. CodePink New York did amazing work dogging the senator and her supporters everywhere she went, and outing the fact that she is a Republican in Democratic clothing. Unfortunately, the people of New York spoke - and Clinton, the pro-war candidate, beat out Jonathan. The conservative area she and President Clinton moved their carpet bags to after their presidency was over had a major impact on the last elections.

I, my sister Dede, and another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, whose son, Travis Nall, was killed in Iraq in 2003, met with Senator Clinton in DC in September of 2005. We poured our hearts and souls out to her. We cried as we told her of our sons and our fear for the people of Iraq and the escalating body count of our brave young people. She sat there stone-faced and walked out and told Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain.... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal.... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw." She may as well have slapped us in the face using Bloody George's line and using our son's sacrifice to justify her war-mongering.

On Thursday, January 18th, Senator Clinton introduced a meaningless bill to put a cap on the number of soldiers that can be in Iraq, set at January 1st levels. It is as weak and meaningless as a nonbinding resolution - and a politically safe move, since almost three fourths of the country oppose the war and oppose Bloody George. By the time she introduced her Senate bill last Thursday, over 1000 of our young people had come home in body bags and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis had died, while she was waiting for the best political time to be semi-against the war. How many of our troops are lying in Walter Reed with devastating injuries that could have been prevented if a Senate leader like Clinton had taken a moral stance instead of political one?

This occupation of Iraq can't be won by being smarter - it was lost before we went in. The US, again, was a big loser in a capricious military expedition, with the support of Senator Clinton. She is an amazingly brilliant person, and she cannot say that she was fooled by George. We, the American public, can be brilliant too, and we can't buy that baloney.

In 2005, I was dying to support Hillary for president: finally, a bright woman with experience. However, she is a champion fence-sitter and politically heartless.

I again affirm my commitment to peace. I don't care if it is a man or a woman; Democrat or Republican; white or black; Christian, Jew or otherwise. I will only support a candidate who is courageously and uncompromisingly committed to peace.

Hillary Clinton is not that person. She never will be. History speaks louder than words.

--------

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Bush's war of terror on April 4, 2004. She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and the Camp Casey Peace Institute. She is the author of three books; the most recent is Peace Mom: A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.

Rep. believes Democratic media reform bill may prevent possible 'fascist' takeover of US media

Miriam Raftery
Raw Story
Monday, January 22, 2007

Rep. Hinchey: New bill would break up media monopolies and restore fairness doctrine

Warns media reform critical to prevent 'end of democratic republic'

Concerns about monopolies and fears of a possible "fascist" takeover of the US media have prompted a Democratic congressman to push to restore the Fairness Doctrine, RAW STORY has learned.

"Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country," Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend. "This is a critical moment in history that may determine the future of our country…maybe forever."

Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission under the Reagan administration.

“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic – fundamental to a democracy.”

Last year, Hinchey introduced H.R. 3302 (MORA), but Republicans blocked the measure in committee. He also founded the Future of American Media Caucus in Congress in 2005. With Democrats now in control of Congress, a new media reform measure is expected to be assigned to the House Energy and Commerce Committee within the next couple of weeks, Hinchey’s staff confirmed.

“We’ll be trying hard to get the subcommittee and the full committee chairs to bring this to the House floor,” Hinchey pledged. A companion bill will be introduced on the Senate side by Bernie Sanders (D-VT), he added.

MORA would restore the Fairness Doctrine, reinstate a national cap on ownership of radio stations, lower the number of radio stations that one company can own in a local market, and reinstate the 25 percent national cap on television ownership, among other restrictions. The bill’s no-grandfathering provision would compel media conglomerates to divest to comply with new ownership limitations.

MORA would also require public interest reports from broadcasters and require more independently produced programming on TV. In addition, it establishes new public interest obligations to assure that broadcasters meet the needs of local communities and requires increased, sustained public input and outreach to give the people a voice in programming.

Media 'con job'
Hinchey faults the mainstream media for failing to tell Americans the truth about “an administration in Washington that has falsified information to people about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an illegal and unjustified attack perpetrated on Iraq. How was it that Congress voted to give the President that authority? And how was it that so many people just bought into it when Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and whatever weapons they had were given to them by the Reagan administration?”

Talk radio has become dominated by shows that are “right wing, even neo-fascist,” he said, adding that even the best newspapers gave readers a “con job” by reporting false information fed by the administration.

“This should make every single citizen in America deeply concerned,” he told conference attendees. “What lies will they tell in the future to jeopardize this democratic republic or even end this democratic republic? That is the objective of many of those involved.”

Hinchey believes the takeover of the U.S. media has been carefully calculated by the “political right wing,” starting with the abolition in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine, which was originally adopted in 1949 in reaction to the rise of global fascism prior to World War II.

“Fascist government dominated discussions in Europe. They could now broadcast all over and control all information going out. That’s how they took over governments in Spain and Italy,” Hinchey recalled. “The U.S. said the airways should be owned by everyone.”

The Fairness Doctrine required that broadcasters give equal time to people who wished to express an opposing viewpoint. “Under the Reagan administration, the FCC wiped out that rule and said only businesses that operate stations can express their view,” Hinchey noted. Congress passed a bill that would have required the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but that bill was vetoed by Reagan.

“The veto said clearly that this is an idea from the political right wing because we do not want to allow other points of view – because if we allow free and open discussion on the environment, healthcare [and other issues], in almost every case the right wing will lose.”

Asked whether the Congressman believes there is now an attempt at a fascist takeover of the U.S., a Hinchey staffer noted that Rep. Hinchey’s legislation arose from his concern about increasing concentration of media ownership into the hands of a few individuals and corporations. “Whether or not there is a purpose that includes fascism, we could wind up in a fascist situation if corporations end up controlling information without the government providing some balancing mechanism, such as the Fairness Doctrine,” said the staffer, who spoke on background only and did not wish to be named. “He would also say that the FCC’s recent efforts to weaken media ownership rules in order to enable corporations to own more and more outlets plays into that as well.”

How far would the Fairness Doctrine go?
If reinstated by Hinchey’s bill, the Fairness Doctrine would govern all news programs on public airways, including networks as well as cable stations such as Fox or MSNBC, but would not apply to entertainment shows. Thus a broadcaster such as Comedy Central could argue that the Daily Show or Colbert Report is exempt. Requiring multiple viewpoints via a Fairness Doctrine is particularly important in rural areas, where residents may have access to only a single TV station and can’t afford cable, the staffer added.

Similarly, regulation of talk radio programming would be dependent on whether those shows are defined by broadcasters as news or entertainment. But a Hinchey staffer noted, “We would argue that they are providing commentary on news much like what you see at the end of a news broadcast and as such, they should provide time to people providing other views. We are not saying that they should be taken off the air.”

Just how far would the Fairness Doctrine go? RAW STORY asked Hinchey’s staff whether a station might be compelled to give equal time to a holocaust denier or KKK spokesman if pro-Jewish or civil rights viewpoints were aired. According to a staffer, a station might air controversial opposing views with a disclaimer that those views do not necessarily reflect the station’s viewpoint. A broadcaster might also provide a factual report to dispel lies told by a guest.

A Hinchey spokesperson stressed that the Fairness Doctrine does have limits. “If you’re reporting on al Qaeda, you’re not going to have to have a sympathizer talk about the merits of Al Qaeda activities.”

What about races such as the California gubernatorial election following the recall of Governor Grey Davis, in which around 100 candidates were on the ballot? A broadcaster could impose “reasonable standards.” For example, a TV debate during the California gubernatorial race included candidates who polled above a certain level. “There is no way to have an exact science, but the spirit is what’s important,” Hinchey’s staffer said. “The FCC would look to see that a broadcaster had employed some guidelines and done its utmost to respect the doctrine.” Complaints would be investigated on a case-by-case basis by the FCC, as is currently done for indecency complaints, the staffer added.

The need for media reform is crucial, Hinchey stressed, citing the President’s escalation of the Iraq War and “jacking up” a “need to attack Iran and Syria.” He also expressed concerns over the elimination of habeus corpus and the President’s recent signing statement declaring a right to open citizens’ mail. “He is violating the Constitution and the law,” Hinchey said. “If you can control the media, you control ideas and actions of the people.”

While Hinchey said that impeachment is not likely to go forward, he stressed the importance of making sure that the American people see the proceedings of a “series of investigations” in the new Congress. “The people of America have got to understand what happened, who did it, and why they did it to make sure that no future president gets away with it again.”

Asked by RAW STORY what steps can be taken to assure that Congressional oversight hearings on the administration will be aired by major broadcast networks, Hinchey replied, “Some networks will carry it.”

Hinchey added, “There is a definite role for the public. The American people have got to understand how important this is. Five corporations control ninety percent of radio and TV. They are trying to change the rules of access to let them control the newspapers as well.”

In an op-ed published at a website run by the right-wing think tank Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the owner of the web-based news journal, Daley Times-Post, argues that Democratic efforts to exhume the fairness doctrine reveal "just how far to the left their party has slid over the years."

"Mr. Hinchey states that MORA 'seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market,' but he fails to point out that no company is going to be successful enough to buy very many media outlets in any market unless it gives its audience what it wants," Edward L. Daley writes. "Fed up with the left-wing bias that has permeated the television news industry for decades, today's media consumers demand both diversity and integrity from the people who provide them with news and information."

"That's why talk radio programs are so popular these days," Daley adds. "Shows like Rush Limbaugh's afford their listeners with a wide variety of viewpoints, and their hosts routinely cite articles from the most reputable news sources around."

On newspaper consolidation
RAW STORY spoke with Hinchey about increasing newspaper consolidation and newspapers that restrict access to political candidates. For example, the San Diego Union-Tribune refused to cover Democratic Congressional candidate Jeeni Criscenza, who was running against Republican incumbent Darryl Issa, the richest member of Congress, despite the fact that Criscenza visited hotspots in the Middle East, traveled to Mexico to observe the vote count, and made numerous high-profile campaign appearances throughout the district she sought to represent.

“This is an issue we’ll have to look at and address,” Hinchey said. “It’s clear it is a conspiratorial agenda going on, led by the right wing political operatives in America.”

Asked whether a Fairness Doctrine for newspapers is worth considering, particularly in cities with only one major newspaper, Hinchey responded, “It is, but the big thing now is for television and radio. The primary focus is on the broadcasting system, because that is where most Americans get their news.” Partisan newspapers is nothing new, he added, noting that Colonial Era publishers attacked both Jefferson and Madison.

As early as April of this year, a window is expected to open for the FCC to approve applications for FM radio stations. RAW STORY asked Hinchey what criteria the FCC will use to determine who will be awarded high-power FM licenses and how to make sure that right-wing groups or churches are not given priority over progressive applicants.

“To be candid, there isn’t anything we can do to be certain that this won’t happen,” the Congressman revealed. He noted that the FCC is an executive branch agency with five commissioners – and three are Republicans who control decisions. “It is a roll of the dice,” he warned, “but some of those dice are loaded – and the FCC is loading them.”

With Democrats now in control of the House, Hinchey has been named to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee with jurisdiction over the FCC budget. He posed a challenge to members of Congress to pass media reform, asking, “Will we be strong enough to bear this responsibility?”

Rep. believes Democratic media reform bill may prevent possible 'fascist' takeover of US media

Miriam Raftery
Raw Story
Monday, January 22, 2007

Rep. Hinchey: New bill would break up media monopolies and restore fairness doctrine

Warns media reform critical to prevent 'end of democratic republic'

Concerns about monopolies and fears of a possible "fascist" takeover of the US media have prompted a Democratic congressman to push to restore the Fairness Doctrine, RAW STORY has learned.

"Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country," Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend. "This is a critical moment in history that may determine the future of our country…maybe forever."

Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission under the Reagan administration.

“If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic – fundamental to a democracy.”

Last year, Hinchey introduced H.R. 3302 (MORA), but Republicans blocked the measure in committee. He also founded the Future of American Media Caucus in Congress in 2005. With Democrats now in control of Congress, a new media reform measure is expected to be assigned to the House Energy and Commerce Committee within the next couple of weeks, Hinchey’s staff confirmed.

“We’ll be trying hard to get the subcommittee and the full committee chairs to bring this to the House floor,” Hinchey pledged. A companion bill will be introduced on the Senate side by Bernie Sanders (D-VT), he added.

MORA would restore the Fairness Doctrine, reinstate a national cap on ownership of radio stations, lower the number of radio stations that one company can own in a local market, and reinstate the 25 percent national cap on television ownership, among other restrictions. The bill’s no-grandfathering provision would compel media conglomerates to divest to comply with new ownership limitations.

MORA would also require public interest reports from broadcasters and require more independently produced programming on TV. In addition, it establishes new public interest obligations to assure that broadcasters meet the needs of local communities and requires increased, sustained public input and outreach to give the people a voice in programming.

Media 'con job'
Hinchey faults the mainstream media for failing to tell Americans the truth about “an administration in Washington that has falsified information to people about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an illegal and unjustified attack perpetrated on Iraq. How was it that Congress voted to give the President that authority? And how was it that so many people just bought into it when Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and whatever weapons they had were given to them by the Reagan administration?”

Talk radio has become dominated by shows that are “right wing, even neo-fascist,” he said, adding that even the best newspapers gave readers a “con job” by reporting false information fed by the administration.

“This should make every single citizen in America deeply concerned,” he told conference attendees. “What lies will they tell in the future to jeopardize this democratic republic or even end this democratic republic? That is the objective of many of those involved.”

Hinchey believes the takeover of the U.S. media has been carefully calculated by the “political right wing,” starting with the abolition in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine, which was originally adopted in 1949 in reaction to the rise of global fascism prior to World War II.

“Fascist government dominated discussions in Europe. They could now broadcast all over and control all information going out. That’s how they took over governments in Spain and Italy,” Hinchey recalled. “The U.S. said the airways should be owned by everyone.”

The Fairness Doctrine required that broadcasters give equal time to people who wished to express an opposing viewpoint. “Under the Reagan administration, the FCC wiped out that rule and said only businesses that operate stations can express their view,” Hinchey noted. Congress passed a bill that would have required the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but that bill was vetoed by Reagan.

“The veto said clearly that this is an idea from the political right wing because we do not want to allow other points of view – because if we allow free and open discussion on the environment, healthcare [and other issues], in almost every case the right wing will lose.”

Asked whether the Congressman believes there is now an attempt at a fascist takeover of the U.S., a Hinchey staffer noted that Rep. Hinchey’s legislation arose from his concern about increasing concentration of media ownership into the hands of a few individuals and corporations. “Whether or not there is a purpose that includes fascism, we could wind up in a fascist situation if corporations end up controlling information without the government providing some balancing mechanism, such as the Fairness Doctrine,” said the staffer, who spoke on background only and did not wish to be named. “He would also say that the FCC’s recent efforts to weaken media ownership rules in order to enable corporations to own more and more outlets plays into that as well.”

How far would the Fairness Doctrine go?
If reinstated by Hinchey’s bill, the Fairness Doctrine would govern all news programs on public airways, including networks as well as cable stations such as Fox or MSNBC, but would not apply to entertainment shows. Thus a broadcaster such as Comedy Central could argue that the Daily Show or Colbert Report is exempt. Requiring multiple viewpoints via a Fairness Doctrine is particularly important in rural areas, where residents may have access to only a single TV station and can’t afford cable, the staffer added.

Similarly, regulation of talk radio programming would be dependent on whether those shows are defined by broadcasters as news or entertainment. But a Hinchey staffer noted, “We would argue that they are providing commentary on news much like what you see at the end of a news broadcast and as such, they should provide time to people providing other views. We are not saying that they should be taken off the air.”

Just how far would the Fairness Doctrine go? RAW STORY asked Hinchey’s staff whether a station might be compelled to give equal time to a holocaust denier or KKK spokesman if pro-Jewish or civil rights viewpoints were aired. According to a staffer, a station might air controversial opposing views with a disclaimer that those views do not necessarily reflect the station’s viewpoint. A broadcaster might also provide a factual report to dispel lies told by a guest.

A Hinchey spokesperson stressed that the Fairness Doctrine does have limits. “If you’re reporting on al Qaeda, you’re not going to have to have a sympathizer talk about the merits of Al Qaeda activities.”

What about races such as the California gubernatorial election following the recall of Governor Grey Davis, in which around 100 candidates were on the ballot? A broadcaster could impose “reasonable standards.” For example, a TV debate during the California gubernatorial race included candidates who polled above a certain level. “There is no way to have an exact science, but the spirit is what’s important,” Hinchey’s staffer said. “The FCC would look to see that a broadcaster had employed some guidelines and done its utmost to respect the doctrine.” Complaints would be investigated on a case-by-case basis by the FCC, as is currently done for indecency complaints, the staffer added.

The need for media reform is crucial, Hinchey stressed, citing the President’s escalation of the Iraq War and “jacking up” a “need to attack Iran and Syria.” He also expressed concerns over the elimination of habeus corpus and the President’s recent signing statement declaring a right to open citizens’ mail. “He is violating the Constitution and the law,” Hinchey said. “If you can control the media, you control ideas and actions of the people.”

While Hinchey said that impeachment is not likely to go forward, he stressed the importance of making sure that the American people see the proceedings of a “series of investigations” in the new Congress. “The people of America have got to understand what happened, who did it, and why they did it to make sure that no future president gets away with it again.”

Asked by RAW STORY what steps can be taken to assure that Congressional oversight hearings on the administration will be aired by major broadcast networks, Hinchey replied, “Some networks will carry it.”

Hinchey added, “There is a definite role for the public. The American people have got to understand how important this is. Five corporations control ninety percent of radio and TV. They are trying to change the rules of access to let them control the newspapers as well.”

In an op-ed published at a website run by the right-wing think tank Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the owner of the web-based news journal, Daley Times-Post, argues that Democratic efforts to exhume the fairness doctrine reveal "just how far to the left their party has slid over the years."

"Mr. Hinchey states that MORA 'seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market,' but he fails to point out that no company is going to be successful enough to buy very many media outlets in any market unless it gives its audience what it wants," Edward L. Daley writes. "Fed up with the left-wing bias that has permeated the television news industry for decades, today's media consumers demand both diversity and integrity from the people who provide them with news and information."

"That's why talk radio programs are so popular these days," Daley adds. "Shows like Rush Limbaugh's afford their listeners with a wide variety of viewpoints, and their hosts routinely cite articles from the most reputable news sources around."

On newspaper consolidation
RAW STORY spoke with Hinchey about increasing newspaper consolidation and newspapers that restrict access to political candidates. For example, the San Diego Union-Tribune refused to cover Democratic Congressional candidate Jeeni Criscenza, who was running against Republican incumbent Darryl Issa, the richest member of Congress, despite the fact that Criscenza visited hotspots in the Middle East, traveled to Mexico to observe the vote count, and made numerous high-profile campaign appearances throughout the district she sought to represent.

“This is an issue we’ll have to look at and address,” Hinchey said. “It’s clear it is a conspiratorial agenda going on, led by the right wing political operatives in America.”

Asked whether a Fairness Doctrine for newspapers is worth considering, particularly in cities with only one major newspaper, Hinchey responded, “It is, but the big thing now is for television and radio. The primary focus is on the broadcasting system, because that is where most Americans get their news.” Partisan newspapers is nothing new, he added, noting that Colonial Era publishers attacked both Jefferson and Madison.

As early as April of this year, a window is expected to open for the FCC to approve applications for FM radio stations. RAW STORY asked Hinchey what criteria the FCC will use to determine who will be awarded high-power FM licenses and how to make sure that right-wing groups or churches are not given priority over progressive applicants.

“To be candid, there isn’t anything we can do to be certain that this won’t happen,” the Congressman revealed. He noted that the FCC is an executive branch agency with five commissioners – and three are Republicans who control decisions. “It is a roll of the dice,” he warned, “but some of those dice are loaded – and the FCC is loading them.”

With Democrats now in control of the House, Hinchey has been named to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee with jurisdiction over the FCC budget. He posed a challenge to members of Congress to pass media reform, asking, “Will we be strong enough to bear this responsibility?”

Retired Generals Criticize Bush's Plan for Iraq

By John Holusha
The New York Times

Thursday 18 January 2007

A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.

"Too little and too late," is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. "The solution is political, not military," he said.

"A fool's errand," was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that "our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer."

Describing the situation in Iraq as "desperate but not terminal," he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

"There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests," he said.

In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, "Today, I don't have an understanding about how it will work militarily."

One general warned that even a plan to start withdrawing American forces from the country carried the risk that the armed Iraqi population will step up the level of attacks. "We will be shot at as we are going out." said Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army.

The Second Looting of New Orleans-Left out to dry and die by the US

he Second Looting of New Orleans
By Jordan Flaherty
AlterNet

Sunday 21 January 2007

The city is an international symbol of neglect and racism. But the federal government isn't the only one to blame.

A year and a half after New Orleans became an international symbol of governmental neglect and racism, the city remains in crisis. Students are still without books, healthcare is less available to poor people than ever, public housing is still closed, and infrastructure is still in desperate need of repair. In an open letter to funders and national nonprofits, a diverse array of New Orleanians declared, "From the perspective of the poorest and least powerful, it appears that the work of national allies on our behalf has either not happened, or if it has happened it has been a failure."

In a recent conversations with scores of New Orleans residents, including organizers, advocates, health care providers, educators, artists and media makers, I heard countless stories of diverted funding and unmet needs. While many stressed that they have had important positive experiences with national allies, few have received anything close to the funding, resources, or staff they need for their work, and in fact most are working unsustainable hours while living in a still-devastated city.

Research backs up the anecdotal reports. A January 2006 article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy argued that the amount given to post-Katrina New Orleans was "small-potato giving for America's foundations, which collectively have $500-billion in assets." The article also asserted, "just as deplorable as the small sums poured into the region are the choices foundations have made about where the money should go." In other words, very little of the money had gone to organizations directed by or accountable to New Orleanians. One prominent New Orleans-born advocate and lobbyist called this phenomenon the "Halliburtization of the nonprofit sector."

A February report from New York City's Foundation Center points out that the Red Cross, which raised perhaps two billion dollars for Katrina relief despite widespread accusations of racism and mismanagement, "ranked as by far the largest named recipient of contributions from foundation and corporate donors in response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita," receiving almost 35 percent of all aid. At the time of the report, another 35 percent of the money the foundations designated had not been spent. The Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, Salvation Army and United Way together made up another 13 percent. The rest was generally spread between other national relief organizations.

Community Responses

After nearly fifteen months of shuttered storefronts, a block of Black-owned businesses in New Orleans celebrated a rebirth this week. The street, on Bayou Road in the seventh ward neighborhood of New Orleans, is a hopeful sign in a city where 60 percent of the population remains displaced and many businesses are shutting down or moving. As recently as August, most of the area remained shuttered and empty. Now, almost every shop is open. The Community Book Center, a vital neighborhood gathering spot in the middle of the block, reopened this week, despite still having no front windows and a floor in major need of work. "Step carefully," Vera Warren-Williams, the owner, warned guests as they entered the store during the reopening celebration.

Neighborhood spaces like the Community Book Center have long been a vital part of New Orleans organizing, serving as a gathering place for people and ideas. The revitalization of Bayou Road is just one example community pulling together - friends and strangers coming by to help gut houses, clear debris, cook food. Anything to help, as the people of New Orleans struggle together against incredible odds in a city that was already devastated by poverty and privatization and neglect pre-Katrina.

Although Community Book Center is a crucial resource, spaces like these have received little outside support.

Foundations, according to the Chronicle article, "seem to have been preoccupied with the issue of accountability. Many foundations wondered how they could be certain that grants to local groups would be well spent and, therefore, publicly accountable."

While those are reasonable concerns, many in New Orleans see a double standard in this view. The Chronicle writer goes on to state, "the question of accountability didn't seem to bother the large foundations that gave so generously to the Red Cross, which had a questionable record of competence to begin with and attracted even more criticism in the aftermath of Katrina over its unwise use of funds, high administrative costs, and lack of outreach to minorities."

Many feel that the message from major funders has been that New Orleanians cannot handle the money appropriately. "Twenty seven years running a business, and they don't trust us with money," Jennifer Turner of the Community Book Center, comments, when asked about her feeling towards national funders. "They think we're all stupid or corrupt."

In the aftermath of Katrina, the people of New Orleans were depicted in the media as "looters" and violent criminals, or as helplessly poor and ignorant. In other words, as anything but a trustable partner in the rebuilding of their city. Even today, many news stories about New Orleans post-Katrina focus on FEMA payments that were misused or obtained through fraud, rather than the bigger story of corporate fraud.

Many feel this media depiction, and the bias and racism that it in many cases reflected, is in part to blame for the reluctance of major funders to give money directly to the people most affected.

"They figure if they give poor people money they'll buy crack and cigarettes," People's Organizing Committee and People's Hurricane Relief Fund co-founder Curtis Muhammad summarized.

Money and Resources

At a small corner bar in New Orleans' Central City neighborhood, community activists and organizers from grassroots base-building organizations such as Critical Resistance, the New Orleans Worker Justice Coalition and Safe Streets/Strong Communities gathered to celebrate a victory. After a year of organizing, protesting and lobbying, Safe Streets won city funding for an independent monitor over the city's notoriously corrupt and violent police department.

The Safe Streets victory is the result of several years of struggle by many organizations and individuals. More importantly, it is a part of an overall effort grounded in, and led by, those most affected. While there has been some funding for base building organizations such as those listed above, it has been pennies compared to the hundreds of millions directed elsewhere.

For a region of the country that has been historically underfunded, these issues are nothing new. "I'm very much afraid of this 'foundation complex,'" civil rights organizer Ella Baker said in 1963, referring to the changes happening then in the structure of grassroots movements.

In an article in an upcoming South End Press anthology about New Orleans post-Katrina, members of INCITE Women of Color Against Violence write, "Though hundreds of nonprofits, NGOs, university urban planning departments, and foundations have come through the city, they have paid little attention to the organizing led by people of color that existed before Katrina and that is struggling now more than ever."

Echoing this analysis, the Chronicle of Philanthropy article complains of a "long-term lack of concern and neglect that foundations that operate nationally and in the Gulf Coast region have shown for poor and minority Gulf Coast residents, even as some grant makers proudly strutted their awards to national antipoverty and antiracism programs."

The INCITE authors posit that successful organizing is rooted in the community and takes a long time to bear fruit. Mainstream funders don't appreciate this, and, "a look at who and what gets funding in New Orleans, from foundations to support work, reveals the priorities of these foundations and the entire nonprofit system. Organizations that represent their work through quick and quantifiable accomplishments are rewarded by the system. Foundations are not only drawn to them but are pressured by their own donors to fund them."

For many in the nonprofit field nationally, post-Katrina New Orleans has been an opportunity for career advancement. While local residents have been too overwhelmed by tragedy to apply for grants, a few well-placed national individuals and organizations have not hesitated to take their place in line. Although some have no relation to New Orleans, they often have previous relationships with the foundations, as well as resources that translate into easier access to funding, such as development staff, website designers, and professional promotional materials.

Systemic Failure

Foundations are not to blame for the continuing crisis in New Orleans, nor do they possess a special responsibility to help the city. However, many foundations have expressed a desire to support New Orleans' recovery, and funding is desperately needed on the ground. Because of this, their actions have taken on added scrutiny from people in New Orleans.

Foundations are an integral part of the current structure of U.S. nonprofits, a system that INCITE has called the Nonprofit Industrial Complex, to emphasize the intersecting, dependent and corporatized ways in which the system is constructed. It is a system in which organizations are frequently pitted against each other for funding, where organizers are discouraged from being active in their own community, and where accountability to and leadership from those most affected has become increasingly rare, and in many cases, the priorities of the "movement" are guided by those with money rather than being led by those most affected.

Perhaps the biggest lesson of Katrina for people concerned about social justice is that the structures of U.S. movements are in serious crisis. As the director of one base-building organization posed the question, "what's wrong with the 501c3 structure that everyone could come down for a five-day tour but no one could come to actually do the work for a month? What's wrong with a 501c3 structure where everyone is already so under resourced and then tied to projects and promised outcomes that the biggest disaster this nation has seen in decades occurs and no one can stop what they are working on to come down and help? What's wrong with the foundation world that they have to produce 207 fancy glossy interview reports to their board in order to shuffle a few thousand dollars our way?"

One thing that is clear is that the current paradigm simply doesn't work. Without community accountability, projects aimed to bring justice to that community are weaker and sometimes counterproductive.

Writing in the South End Press book, INCITE members argue that the structure of a non-accountable movement stopped organizations from responding more capably to the disaster when it happened, and that a movement more responsive to the local community would have been more effective. "Community organizing and community - based accountability are the things we have left when the systems have collapsed," they argue.

Many organizers told me that, in dealing with foundations, they were expected to be responsive to the foundations instead of to any concrete needs on the ground. "Its not just that you have to jump when they tell you to jump," the manager of one organization told me, "you also have to act like you wanted to jump anyway."

Again, these issues are not new - more than forty years ago, Fannie Lou Hamer, civil rights leader and co-founder of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, complained, "I can't see a leader leading me nowhere if he's in New York and I'm down here catching hell."

"What's wrong with our movement and our organizations," the director of another grassroots organization asked me, "that they couldn't collaborate and coordinate and offer us some organized plan of assistance instead of asking us to do more and more to help them help us? What's wrong with funders that they couldn't coordinate, the way they ask us to, so that they could come down once, together, and not on 15 separate trips?"

Moving Forward

When asked for solutions, many in New Orleans called for allies to bring a deeper respect for the experiences of the people on the ground. Others expressed an overall need for movements to move away from reliance on foundations and large donors.

Several organizers highlighted the examples of positive experiences. "National Immigration Law Center (NILC) came here in a principled way, looking to hire someone local, and to support already existing local projects," Rosana Cruz, who works with NILC and the New Orleans Worker Justice Coalition, explained. "Advancement Project does litigation led by and in support of grassroots organizing campaigns. OXFAM is a major international organization, but they came in and worked responsibly with small organizations on they ground they had previous relationships with. And they made multi-year commitments. They didn't just come and dump money - or worse, come and promise money then disappear, as some did."

"Ironically, many of the folks who have come through for us are Southern groups, who are themselves under resourced," the managing director of one organization told me. "Organizations like Project South and Southerners On New Ground (SONG) have been stronger allies than many larger national groups."

The Chronicle article asks foundations to play a role in "strengthening nonprofit organizations that serve low-income people and African-Americans, as well as other minorities ... America's foundations need to move from a policy of neglect of the nation's most vulnerable organizations to one of affirmative action, an approach that will mean changing the way many foundations do business."

"I would ask national organizing groups to send a staff person down for 6-12 months," begins the executive director of another organization, "I would also recommend all progressive and liberal foundations with Katrina money to do an analysis of funding and jointly release the results along with the plan for funding in 2007 and 2008."

Others listed specific needs they felt were unmet. "We need seed money, technical training and leadership development," explained Mayaba Liebenthal, an organizer active with the New Orleans chapters of Critical Resistance and INCITE."

The stakes are far beyond New Orleans. This is a struggle with national and international implications. If the people of New Orleans are supported in their struggle, it will be a victory against profiteering and privatization. Questions of race, class, gender, education, health care, food access, policing, housing, privatization, mental health and much more are on vivid display. "Everyone is here right now, or has come through," Curtis Mohammed comments, referring to the vast array of organizations and individuals who have visited the city. "If the movement continues to grow, New Orleans will be seen as a turning point." But, despite all of the resilience on display here, the people of New Orleans can't do it alone.

Jordan Flaherty is a union organizer and an editor of Left Turn Magazine.

Fox News smears Sen. Obama, says he 'covered up' Muslim past

Again, Fox is trying to point at Obama being a black terrorist.... Hey this is nothing new and Clinton was the person who leaked this information, so that is something for you libs to think about, b/c the neo-cons are not the only ones who play dirty.

U.S. lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran

Richard Cowan
Reuters
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday pushed legislation to prohibit a U.S. attack on Iran without Congress' permission.

The effort, led by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who in 2005 joined calls from many Democrats for a phased U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq war, came as lawmakers voiced concerns that the Bush administration might provoke a confrontation with neighboring Iran.

"The resolution makes crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress" authorizes a U.S. attack on Iran, Jones told reporters, referring to the 2002 vote by Congress authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The joint resolution, which would have the force of law if passed by the House and Senate and signed by President George W. Bush, would waive the congressional authorization only if Iran attacked the United States or its armed forces, or if such an attack was "demonstrably" imminent.

So far, Jones' resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.

Rep. Martin Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he did not trust Iran or its intentions in the Middle East. But he said the resolution on Iran was needed because the Bush administration had "lied so many times" in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Backers of the legislation said they hoped Democratic leaders in the House would advance their resolution in coming months, possibly as part of Iraq war funding legislation or other Iraq-related measures.

Concerns about a U.S. attack against Iran increased after the United States moved an additional aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf region and the Bush administration told Arab allies it would do more to contain Tehran.

In his speech announcing a troop buildup in Iraq, Bush said he would work to interrupt a "flow of support" from Iran to insurgents in Iraq

Is The U.S. Planning a Horrific Global Nuclear War?

By Michel Chossudovsky

01/17/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defence".

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theatre". (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its "coalition" partners).

The stated objective is to:

"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)

The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the "war theatre".

"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions

While the '2001 Nuclear Posture Review' sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document 'Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century' ). 'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:

"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)

The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:

Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1)

Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:

"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)

"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans

'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.

The DJNO states that the:

"use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible" (DJNO, p 47)

The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible and allow for changes in the situation":

"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..

Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.

...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms." 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine'

Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)

While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ('Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine')

We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research, February 2006) .

Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with "theater" commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional "war theaters".

Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran

An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006' )[http://www.globalresearch.ca].

In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled 'Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike' , or JFCCSGS was created.

Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command and Control.

According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies...

One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."

The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005).

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization

The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.

While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:

"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).


Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .

Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional "war theaters", very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week: January 26, 2006).

The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism". He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build "a safer World" and combat terrorism. Although Chirac has made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ''rogue states" and "terrorist non-state organizations".

Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack

The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration's National Security doctrine.

1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.

2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic terrorists".

These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.

The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror", i.e. countries such as Iran which allegedly possess WMD.

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing — that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, 'Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War' , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.…" (Keefer, February 2006 )

Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )

The Battle for Oil

The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney's "contingency plan" to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.

There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM) "theater" strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

(USCENTCOM, [http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy] , italics added)

Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.

On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.

The "war on terrorism" and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the "Battle for Middle East Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as "uncivilized", denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.

The values of Islam are said to be tied into "Islamic terrorism". Western governments are now accusing Iran of "exporting terrorism to the West" In the reactionary words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:

"There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. "We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region… You can never say never in any of these situations." (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)

Muslims are demonized (reminiscent of demonization against the Jews under the Nazi Germany propaganda machine during World War II), casually identified with "Islamic terrorists", who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the "civilized World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America's humanitarian "nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable."

The World is at a Critical Cross-roads:
Implications of Iran as an ally of Russia and China

It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.

In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.

The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.

It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defence system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.

The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..

From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."

Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international community.

War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.

"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...

Supported by the Western mass-media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.

Resistance to the Neo-fascist objectives of neo-conservative elites

The "anti-war movement" is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the "reasonable demands" of the "international community". These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.

To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighbourhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.

For the past year, Washington has been waging a "diplomatic arm twisting" exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.

Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, "expressing concern over Iran's nuclear program", seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

Humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

About the author

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, [www.globalresearch.ca] . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

Copyright © 2005 The Canadian