Veracifier
Oct. 17, 2007
President Bush weighs in on S-CHIP, President Putin, torture, Blackwater and his own place in government.
Day: October 17, 2007
Eritrea ranked last for first time while G8 members, except Russia, recover lost ground
Reporters Without Borders
Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007
Bloggers now threatened as much as journalists in traditional media
Eritrea has replaced North Korea in last place in an index measuring the level of press freedom in 169 countries throughout the world that is published today by Reporters Without Borders for the sixth year running.
The Palast Report on Air America’s Clout: Gore No More (video)
Greg Palast
“Gore No More”
The Palast Report
Greg Palast and Louie Free on why the Al draft is daft.
10.16.07 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)
Warning
.
This video contains images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.
Selected Episode
Oct. 16, 2007
“Putin & Ahmadinejad Meet at Caspian Sea Summit,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
“Russia to Expand Ties With Iran,” IRIB2 TV, Iran
“Hezbollah & Israel Swap Prisoner and Corpses,” Al-Alam TV, Iran
“Interview With Secretary Rice,” IBA TV, Israel
“The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad,” New TV, Lebanon
“Taliban Master PR,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.
Paths Towards Fascism by Naomi Wolf
by Naomi Wolf
ICH
10.17.07
The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot
From the book’s Preface:
I wrote this book because I could no longer ignore the echoes between events in the past and forces at work today.
When I discussed these issues informally with a good friend who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors — and who teaches students about the American system of government as a kind of personal response to what happened to her family — she insisted that I present this argument. Continue reading
Russian Press Blasts Anglo-Saxon Terrorist Controllers by Webster Griffin Tarpley
by Webster Griffin Tarpley
Global Research, October 16, 2007
www.tarpley.net – 2007-09-14
Washington DC, September 14 — In the wake of the terrorist atrocity at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, in the Russian Federation, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made remarks to the western press which expose the key role of the US and British governments in backing Chechen terrorism. Whatever Putin’s previous role in events regarding Chechnya, his current political posture is one which sharply undercuts the legitimacy of the supposed Anglo-American “war on terror,” and which points up the hypocrisy of the Bush regime’s pledge that it will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them — since Washington and London are currently harboring Chechens implicated in terrorism. All in all, Putin’s response to Chechen events has, with the third anniversary of 9/11, brought the collapse of the official 9/11 myth measurably closer. The hypocritical terror demagogy of Bush and Blair has now been undercut by the head of state of another permanent member of the UN Security Council.
On Monday September 6, Putin spoke for three and one half hours with a group of some 30 western correspondents and Russia experts at his dacha near Novo Ogarevo outside Moscow. There is no official transcript so far, but accounts have been published in The Guardian, The Independent, and Le Monde. The Washington Post waited until Friday, September 10 to publish an article, but left out the most significant remarks. There are now signs that the Anglo-American press is beginning a new campaign against Putin as a dictator, stressing the obvious in order to silence his attacks on the US-UK sponsorship of Chechen terror.
Putin, a KGB veteran who knows whereof he speaks, told the gathering that the school massacre showed that “certain western circles would like to weaken Russia, just as the Romans wanted to destroy Carthage.” He thus suggested that the US and UK, not content with having bested Russia in the Cold War, now wanted to proceed to the dismemberment and total destruction of Russia – a Carthaginian peace like the one the Romans finally imposed at the end of the Punic Wars in 146 BC, when they poured salt into the land of Carthage so nothing would ever grow there again. (Le Monde, September 8, 2004)
“There is no link between Russian policy in Chechnya and the hostage-taking in Beslan,” said Putin, meaning that the terrorists were using the Chechen situation as a pretext to attack Russia. According to a paraphrase in Le Monde: “The aim of that international terrorism, supported more or less openly by foreign states, whose names the Russian president didn’t want to name, is to weaken Russia from the inside, by criminalizing its economy, by provoking its disintegration through propagating separatism in the Caucasus and the transformation of the region into a staging ground for actions directed against the Russian Federation.”
“Mr. Putin,” continues Le Monde, “reiterated the accusation he had launched in a veiled form against western countries which appear to use double-talk. On the one side, their leaders assure the Russian President of their solidarity in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, the intelligence services and the military – ‘who have not abandoned their Cold War prejudices,’ in Putin’s words — entertain contacts with those the international press calls the ‘rebels.’ ‘Why are those who emulate Bin Laden called terrorists and the people who kill children, rebels? Where is the logic?’ asked Vladimir Putin, and then gave the answer: ‘Because certain political circles in the West want to weaken Russia just like the Romans wanted to destroy Carthage.’ ‘But, continued Putin, “we will not allow this scenario to come to pass.’”
Le Monde continues: “This is, according to Putin a bad calculation, because Russia is a factor of stability. By weakening it, the Cold War nostalgics are clearly acting against the interests of their own country.” In Putin’s words: “We are the sincere champions of this cooperation against terrorism, we are open and loyal partners. But if foreign services have contacts with the ‘rebels,’ they cannot be treated as reliable allies, as Russia is for them.” (Le Monde, September 8, 2004)
In Guardian correspondent Jonathan Steele’s account of the meeting with Putin, this is the Russian President’s response to the US and UK on the question of negotiating with the Chechen guerrillas of Aslan Maskhadov: “Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers?” (London Guardian, September 7, 2004)
As Michel Chossudovsky pointed out some years back, the Chechen leaders Basayev and Al Khattab were trained in the CIA-run camps for Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. In 1999, Putin rode to power on a backlash against Chechen terror which he had in all probability staged himself – thus judoing a long-standing US-UK capability. The key point is that the Russian press is now openly denouncing London and Washington as centers for terrorist control. This can blow the lid off the 9-11 hoax.
On Saturday, September 4, Putin had delivered a national television address to the Russian people on the Beslan tragedy, which had left more than 300 dead, over half of them children. The main thrust was that terrorism constitutes international proxy warfare against Russia. Among other things Putin said: “In general, we need to admit that we did not fully understand the complexity and the dangers of the processes at work in our own country and in the world. In any case, we proved unable to react adequately. We showed ourselves to be weak, and the weak get beaten.”
“Some people would like to tear from us a tasty morsel. Others are helping them. They are helping, reasoning that Russia still remains one of the world’s major nuclear powers, and as such still represents a threat to them. And so they reason that this threat should be removed. Terrorism, of course, is just an instrument to achieve these gains.”
“What we are dealing with, are not isolated acts intended to frighten us, not isolated terrorist attacks. What we are facing is direct intervention of international terror directed against Russia. This is a total, cruel and full-scale war that again and again is taking the lives of our fellow citizens.” (Kremlin.ru, September 6, 2004)
Around the time of 9/11, Putin had pointed to open recruitment of Chechen terrorists going on in London, telling a German interviewer: “In London, there is a recruitment station for people wanting to join combat in Chechnya. Today — not officially, but effectively in the open — they are talking there about recruiting volunteers to go to Afghanistan.” (Focus — German weekly newsmagazine, September 2001) In addition, it is generally known in well-informed European circles that the leaders of the Chechen rebels were trained by the CIA, and that the Chechens were backed by US-sponsored anti-Russian fighters from Afghanistan. In recent months, US-UK backed Chechens have destroyed two Russian airliners and attacked a Moscow subway station, in addition to the school atrocity.
Some aspects of Putin’s thinking were further explained by a press interview given by Aslambek Aslakhanov, the Chechen politician who is one of Putin’s official advisors. A dispatch from RIA Novosti reported Aslakhanov’s comments as follows: “The terrorists who seized the school in Beslan, North Ossetia, took their orders from abroad. ‘They were talking with people not from Russia, but from abroad. They were being directed,’ said Aslambek Aslakhanov, advisor to the President of the Russian Federation. ‘It is the desire of our “friends” – in quotation marks — who have probably for more than a decade been carrying out enormous, titanic work, aimed at dismembering Russia. These people have worked very hard, and the fact that the financing comes from there and that they are the puppet masters, is also clear.” Aslakhanov, who was named by the terrorists as one of the people they were going to hold talks with, also told RIA Novosti that the bid for such “talks” was completely phony. He said that the hostage-takers were not Chechens. When he talked to them, by phone, in Chechen, they demanded that he talk Russian, and the ones he spoke with had the accents of other North Caucasus ethnic groups. (RIA Novosti, September 6, 2004)
On September 7, RIA Novosti reported on the demand of the Russian Foreign Ministry that two leading Chechen figures be extradited from London and Washington to stand trial in Russia. A statement from the Russia Foreign Ministry’s Department of Information and Press indicated that Russia will put the United States and Britain on the spot about extraditing two top Chechen separatist officials, who have been given asylum in Washington and London, respectively. They are Akhmad Zakayev, known as a “special representative” of Aslan Maskhadov (currently enjoying asylum in London), and Ilyas Akhmadov, the “Foreign Minister” of the unrecognized “Chechen Republic-Ichkeria” (now residing in the USA). (RIA Novosti, September 7, 2004)
“SCHOOL SEIZURE WAS PLANNED IN WASHINGTON AND LONDON”
This was the headline of an even more explicit unsigned commentary by the Russian news agency KMNews.ru. This analysis blames the Beslan school massacre squarely on the U.S. and British intelligence agencies. The point of departure here is that Shamil Basayev, the brutal Chechen field commander, has been linked to the attack (something that Putin advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov yesterday said was known to the Russian FSB, successor of the KGB). The article highlights the recent rapprochement of London and Washington with key representatives of Aslan Maskhadov: Britain’s giving asylum to Akhmad Zakayev (December 2003) and the USA welcoming Ilyas Akhmadov (August 2004).
KMNews: CHECHEN TERROR BOSS ON US STATE DEPARTMENT PAYROLL
KMNews writes: “In early August, … ‘Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Chechen Republic-Ichkeria’ Ilyas Akhmadov received political asylum in the USA. And for his ‘outstanding services,’ Akhmadov received a Reagan-Fascell grant,” including a monthly stipend, medical insurance, and a well-equipped office with all necessary support services, including the possibility of meetings with political circles and leading U.S. media….“What about our partners in the ‘anti-terrorist coalition,’ who provided asylum, offices and money to Maskhadov’s representatives?” asks the Russian press agency. Citing the official expressions of sympathy and offers of help from President Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, KMNews warns: “But let’s not shed tears of gratitude just yet. First we should ask: were ‘Special Representative of the President of CRI’ Zakayev or ‘Minister of Foreign Affairs of the CRI’ Akhmadov, located in Great Britain and the USA, aware of the terrorist acts that were in preparation? Beyond a doubt…. And let’s also find out, how Akhmadov is spending the money provided by the Reagan-Fascell Foundation. We note: this Foundation is financed by the U.S. Congress through the budget of the State Department! “Thus, the conclusion is obvious. Willingly or not, Downing Street and the White House provoked the guerrillas to these latest attacks. Willingly or not, Great Britain and the USA have nurtured the separatists with material, information and diplomatic resources. Willingly or not, the policy of London and Washington fostered the current terrorist acts.” “As the ancients said, cui bono? Perhaps we are too hasty with such sweeping accusations against our ‘friends’ and ‘partners’? Is there a motive for the Anglo-American ‘anti-terrorist coalition’ to fan the fires of terror in the North Caucasus?” “Alas, there is a motive. It is no secret, that the West is vitally interested in maintaining instability in the Caucasus. That makes it easier to pump out the fossil fuels, extracted in the Caspian region, and it makes it easier to control Georgia and Azerbaijan, and to exert influence on Armenia. Finally, it makes it easier to drive Russia out of the Caspian and the Caucasus. Divide et impera! – the leaders of the Roman Empire already introduced this simple formula for subjugation.”
KMNews: TERROR SUPPORTERS “ON THE BANKS OF THE THAMES AND THE POTOMAC”
KMNews continues: “Alas, it must be recognized that the co-authors of the current tragic events are to be found not in the Arab countries of the Middle East, but on the banks of the Thames and the Potomac. Will the leadership of Russia be able to make decisions, in this situation?” “Yes – if there is the political will. The first thing is that black must be called black, and white, white. It is time to admit that no “antiterrorist coalition” exists, that the West is pursuing its egotistical interests (spreading its political influence, seizing fossil fuels deposits, etc.). Our own coalition needs to be formed, with nations that are genuinely interested in eliminating terror in the North Caucasus. Finally, it is time to change the entire tactics and strategy of counterterrorism measures. It is obvious that catching female suicide bombers on the streets of Moscow or carrying out operations to free children who are taken hostage, are, so to speak, the ‘last line of defense.’ It is time to learn to make preemptive strikes against the enemy, and it’s time to carry combat onto the territory of the enemy. Otherwise, we shall be defeated.” (Source: KMNews.ru, September 7, 2004)
Izvestia stresses the probable ethnic composition of the terrorist death squad, and its likely role in exacerbating tensions in the ethnic labyrinth of the Caucasus. Izvestia finds the targeting of North Ossetia in the Beslan incident “not accidental,” pointing to the danger of “irreversible consequences” for interethnic relations between Ossetians, Ingushis and Chechens. “Russia is now facing multi-vectored threats along the entire Caucasus,” the paper writes. (Izvestia, September 3, 2004)
In the wake of Putin’s speech, prominent Russian commentators discussed the recent terror campaign against Russia in terms of a possible “casus belli” for a new East-West conflict. Several commentaries have reaffirmed Putin’s key statement, that international terrorism has no independent existence, but functions only as “an instrument,” wielded by powerful international circles committed (in part) to the early destruction of Russia as a nuclear-armed power.
A commentary in the widely read Russian business news service RosBusinessConsult (RBC) was entitled “The West is unleashing Jihads against Russia.” In language seldom heard since the end of the Cold War, RBC charges that the recent wave of terror attacks against Russia, beginning with the sabotage of two airplanes and a terror bombing at a Moscow subway station, and culminating so far in the Beslan attack, was immediately preceded by what RBC calls “an ultimatum from the West,” for Russia to turn over the Caucasus region to “Anglo-Saxon control.”
ANGLO-SAXON TERROR ULTIMATUM TO RUSSIA FROM THE LONDON ECONOMIST
“Some days prior to the onset of the series of acts of terrorism in Russia, which has cost hundreds of lives, a number of extremely influential Western mass-media, expressing establishment positions, issued a personal warning to Vladimir Putin, that Russia should get out of the Caucasus, or else his political career would come to an end. Therefore, when the President on Saturday spoke of a declaration of war having been made against Russia, this was not just a matter of so-called ‘international terrorism’… One week prior to the first acts of terrorism, the authoritative British magazine, the Economist, which expresses the positions of Great Britain’s establishment, formulated the Western position concerning the Caucasus, and above all the policy of the Anglo-Saxon elite, in a very precise manner,” RBC writes.
CZECH NGO BLOWS UP RUSSIAN TANK; BRITISH EXPERTS TRAIN CHECHEN GANGS
The RBC commentary goes on to cite the Economist of August 19, which contained what RBC characterizes as a virtual ultimatum to Russia. RBC notes that “the carrying out of such a series of coordinated, highly professional terrorist attacks, would be impossible without the help of qualified ‘specialists’.” RBC notes that at the end of August one such “specialist,” working for an NGO based in the Czech republic, was arrested for blowing up a Russian armed personnel carrier. Also, British “experts” have been found instructing Chechen gangs in how to lay mines. “It cannot be excluded, that also in Beslan, the logistics of the operation were provided by just such ‘specialists’,” notes RBC.
The RBC editorial concludes: “Apparently, by having recourse to large-scale terrorist actions, the forces behind that terrorism, have now acted directly to force a ‘change’ in the political situation in the Caucasus, propagating interethnic wars into Russia. “The only way to resist this, would be for Moscow to make it known, that we are ready to fight a new war, according to new rules and new methods — not with mythical ‘international terrorists’, who do not and never existed, but with the controllers of the ‘insurgents and freedom fighters’; a war against the geopolitical puppet-masters, who are ready to destroy thousands of Russians for the sake of achieving their new division of the world.” (RBC, September 7, 2004)
In a related comment, the Chairman of the Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, Dmitri Rogozin, declared in an interview on Sunday September 5: “I think those behind the terrorism are those who would like to see Russia totally discredited as a power…. I think that the aim is to destabilize the political situation in the country and plunge Russia into total chaos.” (Ekho Moskvy, September 6, 2004)
Western press organs have responded to the school massacre with a campaign to blame, not the terrorists, but the Putin regime and Russian society. This disingenuous policy has further stoked Russian resentment. On September 6, Strana.ru headlined, “Western Press: The Tragedy Is Russia’s Own Fault,” commenting that “unlike official politicians, journalists do not want to admit that the bombings and hostage-takings in our country are acts of international terrorism.” Another example of this Putin-bashing was the article by Masha Lippman in the Washington Post of September 9.
A basic reason for the US-UK surrogate warfare against Russia is the great Anglo-Saxon fear of a continental bloc of the type which emerged during the run – up to Bush’s Iraq aggression. The centerpiece of the continental bloc is the German-Russian relationship. Washington and London fear that Russia will soon agree to accept euros in payment for its oil deliveries. This would not just prevent the Anglo-Americans from further skimming off oil transactions between Russia and Europe. It would represent the beginning of the end of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world, a role which the battered greenback, weakened by Bush’s $500 billion yearly trade deficit and Bush’s $750 billion budget deficit, can no longer fulfill. If Russia moves to the euro, it is expected that the Eurasian giant may be quickly followed by Iran, Indonesia, Venezuela, and other countries. This could put an end to the ability of the US to run astronomical foreign trade deficits, and would place the question of a US return to a production-based economy on the agenda. The oil-euro question is expected to be discussed at the upcoming Russian-German economic summit.
RUSSIA TO PAY FOR OIL WITH EUROS?
In a half-page article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and headlined “Realizing the Strategic Partnership,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov predicted key progress in the energy sector. Lavrov said that numerous proposals by Moscow on how to expand cooperation in the sphere of future-shaping high-tech branches of the economy will be put on the agenda of the September 11-12 German-Russian economic summit in Hamburg. Russia calls for the development of “mutually beneficial cooperation in aerospace, information technology, telecom, biotechnology, development of new materials, laser technology, and nanotechnology. Lavrov wrote that Russia expects a breakthrough at the Hamburg talks — which will also deal with the energy sector. (Frankfurter Allgemeine, September 3, 2004)
Global Research Articles by Webster Griffin Tarpley
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Webster Griffin Tarpley, www.tarpley.net, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7109
Al Jazeera: Inside Story: Putin’s Iran visit (videos)
Inside Story investigates the implications of the Russian leader’s trip for Tehran.
see
Iran and Russia may establish joint Navy in Caspian Sea
Caspian States issue joint Declarations in a message to the US
The Iran hawks By Juan Cole
Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton think a tough line on Tehran will sell politically. They could be right.
Future historians may conclude that the key issue in the 2008 presidential campaign was not Iraq, but whether the United States should go to war with Iran. Sparring over Iran dominated the Republican debate in Dearborn, Mich., last week, while a Senate resolution condemning Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as terrorists divided the Democrats, some of whom (including Sen. Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) feared that it might give Bush a pretext to launch another war. Unexpectedly, Tehran has emerged as a preoccupation of candidates — as a litmus test for attitudes toward war and domestic security.
The Republicans are competing to see who can wax most bellicose. The two candidates with the greatest need to compensate for their socially liberally pasts, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, have been extra warlike. Giuliani in particular seems to be running for velociraptor-in-chief.
In an ABC interview on Sunday, Giuliani made fun of Romney for saying during the Dearborn debate that he would seek the advice of counsel before launching a war on Iran. Moderator Chris Matthews had asked, “If you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?” Romney had replied that the president “has to do what’s in the best interest” of the country “to protect us against a potential threat.” He said nothing about needing a congressional declaration of war; indeed, he was clearly suggesting that for him to strike Iran it would suffice to get a legal opinion that such an act did not require a formal declaration of war.
During his Sunday interview, Giuliani attempted to portray Romney’s brazen end run around the Constitution as evidence of wimpiness. “That’s one of those moments in a debate,” he told ABC News, “where you say something and you go like this [wiping his mouth with the back of his hand] … wish I can get that one back.
“Basically, right out of the box,” Giuliani continued, “first thing, you’re faced with imminent attack on the United States, I don’t think you call in the lawyers first. I think maybe the generals, the ones you call in first, they’re the ones you want to talk to.”
But Matthews, of course, had not asked Romney what he would do were the U.S. attacked. His question concerned a sudden U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, and whether the president should seek congressional authorization for such an act of war.
During the debate itself, Romney also took heat for not mentioning the need for congressional authorization, although the rebuke came from a lonely voice out of the GOP’s isolationist past. “You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war,” said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Paul declared flatly that the Constitution was clear and that Romney’s talk about consulting attorneys was “baffling.” He also maintained that “the thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous.” When Giuliani shot back that Sept. 11 had been such an attack, Paul interrupted him. “That was no country,” snapped Paul. “That was 19 thugs. It has nothing to do with a country.”
Sen. John McCain tried to present himself as the voice of reason in the debate, saying, “Of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval.” Last spring, however, when badgered by a belligerent audience member at a South Carolina campaign event about how long the U.S. should tolerate Iran’s alleged bad behavior, McCain had been caught on camera singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb/ Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the old Beach Boys hit “Barbara Ann.” If any major Iranian political figure had made a similar jest about striking the U.S., it would not have been quickly forgotten in Washington. McCain’s ditty, and the relative lack of controversy about it, speak volumes about the aggressive mood in the U.S.
Among the Republican front-runners, debate about Iran occurs in a dark, upside-down fantasy land, where a weak third-world regime with no air force to speak of plots a military strike on the planet’s sole superpower. The third-world regime is led by a genocidal commander-in-chief who serves a global conspiracy; to stop him, the president of the superpower might be compelled, after a quick chat with a lawyer and a few bars of a golden oldie, to launch an aggressive war. (And even the part about a conversation with an attorney is seen by some of the candidates as an abdication of manhood.)
Perhaps because of his chest-thumping contest with Giuliani, Romney especially has shown a talent of late for putting the ignorant in fear-mongering. During the Dearborn debate, Romney alleged that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had “spoken about genocide,” and said it was important not to “allow that individual to have the control of launching a nuclear weapon.” In an ad released after the debate, in a clear attempt to out-Giuliani Giuliani, Romney declaimed, “It’s this century’s nightmare, jihadism — violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism.” He told the cameras that the fundamentalists’ goal is to establish a “caliphate,” and wanted to “collapse” countries such as the United States as part of that goal. “We can and will stop Iran,” he added, “from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
President Ahmadinejad, whose job is more or less ceremonial, is not the commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. He has never advocated “genocide,” and his expressed wish that the “occupation regime over Jerusalem” (i.e., the Israeli government) eventually vanish has been mistranslated.
As for the rest, the candidates simply assume that Iran has a nuclear weapons research program, which has not been proven. It certainly does not have a nuclear weapon at present, and the National Intelligence Estimate indicates that if it were trying to get one, it would take until at least 2016 — and then only if the international environment were conducive to the needed high-tech imports. (Ahmadinejad, by the way, will not be in power in 2016.) Also, someone really needs to let the Republicans know that Iran is Shiite, meaning it abhors Sunni fundamentalists and rejects the caliphate.
Iran has also become an obsession on the Democratic side of the aisle, albeit absent the rampant machismo. In fact, while many of their colleagues in Congress continue to second Republican saber-rattling, most of the Democrats who are running for president seem notably wary of rushing into war with Iran.
Of the four senators among the Democratic candidates, only Hillary Clinton voted for the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Sept. 26. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution, which passed 76-to-22, with 29 Democrats voting in favor, says, “the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization … and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” Jim Lobe, among the best journalists covering neoconservatism in Washington, wrote that unnamed “Capitol Hill sources” told him that the resolution was crafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, interviewed on “Democracy Now,” concurred that the amendment was pushed by the Israel lobby.
It would be unprecedented to declare a military force of a state to be a “terrorist” organization, and illogical, since the formal definition of terrorism is that it is committed by non-state actors. It would also endanger U.S. troops, who might well be designated terrorists by some foreign governments. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she would not allow a similar resolution to be brought up for a vote in the House of Representatives, telling ABC’s “This Week,” “This has never happened before, that a Congress should determine one piece of someone’s military is [a threat].”
Sen. Chris Dodd voted against the resolution on the grounds that it would green-light a Bush administration attack on Iran. Sen. Joe Biden also opposed it, though he argued that it was just a resolution and could not authorize a war. Sen. Barack Obama missed the vote because it was abruptly rescheduled after he had already left on a campaign swing, but when he learned of the rescheduling he issued a statement against the resolution. Obama blasted Clinton’s vote for the resolution as a repeat of the mistake she made when she voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq war. (Clinton muddied the waters somewhat by backing a resolution by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb requiring that Bush seek Congressional authorization before attacking Iran.) Some analysts suggested that Clinton is already thinking past the primaries. They believe she is making her decisions on the assumption that she will face a Republican hawk in the presidential contest of 2008, and therefore has to guard against charges that she is weak on national security. According to this analysis, the other Democratic candidates, trailing her, are still playing to the party faithful, who are to the left of the general public.
In short, Clinton’s staffers must have read the Opinion Dynamics poll for Fox Cable News, which shows that 80 percent of the U.S. public believe that Iran’s nuclear program is for weapons purposes, and 50 percent believe that the U.S. should take a tougher line with Iran (as against 31 percent who do not). About 29 percent of the sample want Bush to go ahead and attack Iran before leaving office, while a bare majority thought he should leave the problem to the next president. Some 54 percent of respondents believed that if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been allowed to visit the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, he would have been intent on honoring the hijackers.
Since the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been carrying out regular inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, still cannot find good evidence for a weapons program, the overwhelming consensus to this effect in the U.S. is evidence of successful propaganda by the Bush administration and its enablers in the media. That Ahmadinejad, an Iranian Shiite who has repeatedly denounced Sunni fundamentalism and its terrorist activities, should be viewed as an al-Qaida sympathizer by the American public is a testament to how effectively he has been demonized.
Iran has not launched an aggressive war against a neighbor since 1785 and does not have a history of military expansionism. Its population is a third that of the United States and its military is small and weak. Aside from the Republican Party’s long history of fear-mongering as a way to get power, throw public money to their corporate clients, and scare Americans into giving up their civil liberties, what is driving this obsession with Tehran?
Candidates may be talking about Iran as an indirect and politically safer way of speaking to voters’ anxieties about Iraq. As an issue in itself, Iraq contains many pitfalls. It is a quagmire about which a former commanding general in that country, Rick Sanchez, said last Friday, “There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end.”
The Iraq problem is so intractable that bringing it up with voters is dangerous, since they will then ask about policy prescriptions, and most experts agree that the U.S. has no good options. Iran, in contrast, looms as a vague sort of threat on the horizon and politicians can therefore pull out of their tool kits their favorite instrument — speaking hypothetically without committing to a particular course of action. The problem, as Chris Dodd and Barack Obama saw so clearly, is that in attempting to change the conversation to Iran, American politicians and their morbidly aggressive constituents may be vastly widening the quagmire, playing Katrina to the Middle East’s New Orleans.
— By Juan Cole
Copyright ©2007 Salon Media Group, Inc.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Celebrating American Tears: Responding to Naomi Wolf’s Recent Missive by Carolyn Baker
by Carolyn Baker
Atlantic Free Press
Speaking Truth to Power
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
Last month I reviewed Naomi Wolf’s recent best seller, The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot in which I praised Wolf’s succinct and thorough analysis of the triumph of fascism in the United States. This past week, Wolf’s article “American Tears” has been posted on a variety of internet sites and forwarded to me several times. Whereas I was inspired to give The End Of America a glowing review that it more than deserves, I must take issue with the fundamental premise of “American Tears” which is in my opinion, the most inappropriate of all responses to the dire situation Wolf elucidates in The End Of America.
Wolf begins by stating:
“I wish people would stop breaking into tears when they talk to me these days.”
This statement left me breathless and gasping for air. However, I continued reading because I already had a sense of where Wolf was going. As I had correctly intuited, her premise is that we should not be debilitated by our grief, but rather rise to the occasion and fight for the constitutional democracy that is being stolen from us.
What I found so appalling about Wolf’s essay was not her premise with which I agree in part, but the vacuousness of her one-sided perspective. Yes, we must resist the fascist empire that has declared unspoken war on every nation on earth and on its own citizens, but I must disagree with why and how Wolf admonishes us to resist.
Before any further analysis of Naomi Wolf’s perspective, let’s pause to consider what is at stake. Scientists are telling us that nearly 200 species per day on earth are going extinct; virtually every resource on earth, including energy, water, and food is being perilously depleted and privatized; the capacity of the planet to carry its current number of inhabitants is already stretched to the breaking point and cannot sustain the rate at which human population continues to grow; our food, water, and air are nearly unfit to take into our bodies; numerous, endless resource wars around the globe could potentially erupt into nuclear holocausts; the future of our children and grandchildren has been mortgaged into abject poverty; educational institutions are producing graduates who are incapable of thinking critically; the world economy is entering economic meltdown; and ghastly global pandemics are waiting to eliminate breathtaking numbers of human beings.
I could continue the litany, but if you’ve read thus far and feel nothing in your body, please check your vital signs. If you do feel something, it’s important to notice what that is. In fact, our not noticing, our not feeling, is exactly what has brought about the horrors I have just enumerated.
The heroic, cerebral, non-visceral perspective embraced by Wolf is unequivocally part of the problem. But what do I mean by heroic?
Western civilization is the product of the heroic attitude depicted in countless myths and fairytales of the past five thousand years. Greek and Roman mythology were replete with tales of the hero’s journey-the overcoming of ordeals in order to prove one’s faithfulness to the gods and goddesses and one’s sense of integrity to the community. The Judeo-Christian tradition further perpetuates heroism in protagonists like Moses, David, Daniel, Jesus, St. Paul, Augustine, the crusaders, and the panoply of saints.
The apotheosis of heroics in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the savior who brings salvation. Despite the Enlightenment and the rejection of the mythological, Western civilization has been profoundly and permanently characterized by a heroic attitude. In this country, our Puritan ancestors declared that their fledgling colony was a “city set on a hill”, “a light unto the world”, “a new Jerusalem”-hence the birth of the American notion of exceptionalism. Like it or not, their work-and-win ethic has permeated our culture, subtly instilling in us the belief that we must survive, conquer, and prevail. “Good” human beings, “morally responsible” Americans want to conquer adversity and win. In fact, to do otherwise implies a deficiency in character.
Heroism, a traditionally masculine, problem-solving perspective, abhors the emotional. “What good are tears?” it arrogantly asserts; “Stop sniveling and start fighting!”
I hasten to add that I am not excluding the need for problem-solving and resistance in the face of the plethora of adversities that threaten the earth and its inhabitants. What I am arguing is that the heroic approach is ineffectual given the fact that it is fragmented and incomplete because the natural human response to the death of the planet is nothing less than gut-wrenching grief.
Dr. Glen Barry, founder of Ecological Internet, states:
The Earth is dying and it makes me feel sad. Not just a bit tense or melancholy; but deeply and profoundly anguished, depressed, and angry. Humanity had so much potential that has been wasted. Our self consciousness, opposable thumbs, upright walking and ability for limited rationality has lead to great triumphs in philosophy, art, sport and leisure. But alas other aspects of our animalistic nature; libido, insatiable appetite, and desire to dominate, have won out.
Barry is mourning the loss of feeling and the triumph of heroics, and until any of us is able to feel our grief and consciously, viscerally mourn the loss of our planet, our civil liberties, and our humanity, we are ill-equipped to resist or make the changes in our own lives that will influence either microcosm or macrocosm. Certainly, it is possible to “get stuck” in grief, but from my perspective, that is hardly the most ominous pitfall in front of us. If anything, our inculcation with American heroics has facilitated ungrounded political organizing detached from our bodies and emotions which, like civilization, disconnects us from the totality of our humanity.
I’m well aware that the great labor organizer, Joe Hill, is famous for his adage, “Don’t mourn, organize”, but Joe’s late-nineteenth and early twentieth-century world was quite different from ours. He and his comrades in struggle were not facing the death of the planet and the possible extinction of the human race.
What seems to escape Naomi Wolf is that humans are capable of feeling deep grief and demonstrating fierce resistance at the same time. Indeed, this reality is paradoxical, and being incredibly complex creatures, paradox is one of the most fundamental aspects of our human experience.
It appears that what Wolf, along with nearly all Americans is unwilling to face, is that not only is the American empire in a state of freefall, but so is civilization itself. What she fails to understand is that the paradigm of civilization has already expired, and that humanity is now navigating its way to an entirely new paradigm. That process will be increasingly painful, formidable, and terribly uncertain. What will not work is reversion to left progressive or green politics which refuses to acknowledge the reality of collapse and heroically struggles to keep a crumbling civilization and its old paradigm intact. But then what do I mean by “work”?
I do not mean “succeed” in the heroic sense of the word. I do not define success at this point in human history as preventing collapse and electing the right candidates who will kiss the catastrophe and make it all better. Rather, I mean refusing to succumb to the ferocious undertow of denial that permeates the heroic perspective and instead, telling the truth about the current reality. In order to do this, we must first grieve the incalculable losses in front of us, and at the same time, introspectively assess how we will respond to them.
Introspection does not mean self-absorption. It means evaluating how one wishes to live in the face of collapse and who one wishes to share one’s life with. It means scaling down not only one’s lifestyle, but one’s problem-solving perspective. That is, instead of looking for political heroes who will solve problems for us on a national or global level, we focus on our community and work with trusted others to address issues in our place. As the crumbling of governments, financial systems, and other institutions exacerbates, collapse itself will compel us to implement local solutions. Thus, even in the face of such a painful demise as the collapse of civilization, we may be able to surrender to and celebrate the opportunity for rediscovering our own humanity and that of the other individuals who inhabit our community. Perhaps what we most need to discover and experience is not heroics but transformative defeat-the defeat of the paradigm of civilization.
Kahil Gibran in “Madman” wrote:
Defeat, my Defeat,
my deathless courage,
you and I shall laugh together
with the storm,
and together we shall dig graves
for all that die in us,
and we shall stand
in the sun with a will,
and we shall be dangerous.
Naomi Wolf states that the time for tears has to stop, and the time for confronting has to begin. Yet only our tears give meaning and dynamism to our resistance. Could it be that the most effective means of being truly “dangerous” and revolutionary is to accept the defeat of civilization? Could it be that what is most needed now is not heroics but American tears?
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
see
The “Fix” by Cindy Sheehan
by Cindy Sheehan
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
October 17, 2007
There is quite a lot of interesting, but wild, speculation running around the blog-o-sphere, progressive circles and just plain dinner conversation these days about whether BushCo will allow a peaceful and constitutional transfer of Executive power in the ’08 elections.
Unless or until George Bush appears on our TV boxes one night, wearing a dark blue suit, white shirt and red tie with his hands sweatily clasped in a desperate death grip on top of his desk in the Oval Office, telling us that some catastrophic event, whether man-made or natural, has just occurred somewhere, and he must, for the good of the Homeland, declare martial law and “temporarily” suspend elections, the fears of many people are truly speculative. In my nightmare scenario, after George drops this fascist bomb and kills the rest of our Republic, he will tell us not to worry and to go about our holiday shopping, traveling and celebrating: it’s the American way, after all. God Bless America.
The order of events in the conversations I have heard or read go something like this: BushCo and Congress, Inc are ramping up the rhetoric for an attack on Iran (true). In their little minds and black hearts they still assume that most of us are still stupid and we will believe anything they ever say again (true). Yet, they have told us that Iran and Ahmadinejad have done just about everything except try to assassinate George’s Pop (still true). So, if you believes that 9-11 was a “false flag” op, then you say that BushCo will engineer ANOTHER false flag op, blame Iran, declare martial law, (George can do that unilaterally now because of Presidential Directive 51) and attack Iran, possibly using “strategic” nuclear strikes on “military” targets. Then of course, when our Homeland is in such a terrible state of emergency, it would be an awful idea to “change horses in the middle of the stream,” you know, so we must suspend elections: Thereby, staging yet BushCo’s third coup in a row: the first two being the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.
If, God forbid, any of this does happen, my guess is most of us will go shopping and have our holidays as usual, however, I am not so certain that martial law or even suspending elections will be necessary. Whoever becomes our president in 2008 will likely be more than happy to continue the neo-con agenda of global, imperial and military, American hegemony.
The likely nominee for the Democratic Party will be Hillary Clinton, a Fem-Bush who has been virtually endorsed by George and accepts money from Rupert Murdoch, he of Fox “News” infamy and who will soon own every newspaper and cable news network in the Homeland. Hillary guarantees and assures us that if she is elected she could nuke Iran and maybe, just maybe have most of our troops home from Iraq by the end of her first term. One would have to step down onto the 2nd tier of Democratic hopefuls to find a candidate who would guarantee us a swift end to the occupation of Iraq but they are no match to the money or machine behind the Clinton mojo.
I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx). Even though many of them, (except Rudy Giuliani who had the “honor” of standing on a pile of rubble at Ground Zero with George after 9-11 and sharing a bull-horn with him), distance themselves from the miserable failure of the Bush regime, they will all joyfully allow themselves to be used by the military industrial complex, after all, every president since FDR has. There is no reason to think any Repug or Dem will break with this deadly pattern.
The “fix” is in, folks.
The “fix” stopped Al Gore, who really won the 2000 election, from fighting for our country and our constitution by supporting those Congressional members who begged him, through tears, to sign on to continue the recount in Florida. The “fix” stopped millions of Americans from pouring into the streets to protest the fact that the Supreme Court treasonously and treacherously appointed the less than mediocre governor of Texas as next president of the USA, (which wasn’t the Homeland, yet).
The “fix” is why Kerry cave into George faster then anyone could even say “recount” in 2004, breaking so many hearts and crushing so many hopes.
The “fix” is the elite establishment status quo of the way things have “always been.” We have always had just a Democratic and Republican Party, right? Wrong!
The “fix” is in the mainstream media, which rarely discusses any substantive issues and has in the past intentionally misled the Homeland in its partnership with BushCo to glorify war while hiding, or glossing over, its awful costs and consequences.
The “fix” is in compromised voting machines whose programs are written by the elite establishment and the “fix” is in the disenfranchisement, literally and spiritually, of hordes of voters who have seen their votes go uncounted for years and who see their “elected” representatives ignore the will of their constituents, in any case.
The “fix” is in We the People who believe that we some how owe any kind of allegiance or support to the elite establishment who have impoverished, imprisoned, oppressed and killed our children for generations while we furiously, but inexplicably cling to a status quo that clearly only benefits a very chosen few. It is acceptable to protest obvious infractions like the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq…but don’t scratch the surface too deeply because we are not sure of what may ooze out. What emerges may be something that is very hard to acknowledge, let alone face and overcome.
George Bush simply does not want to be President any longer. You can see it in every twitch (when I think he is really trying to smirk), every gray hair and every line on his face. He desperately wants to go back to Texas and go on permanent vacation to give high paid lectures (?) to pad his bank account so he can jog, ride bikes, clear brush, and live the rest of his life with the moral certitude of a simpleton. He looks like he is barely being held together by baling-wire, spit and some judiciously placed wads of bubble gum. Stick a fork in him: he’s done. I do not even think that Dastardly Dick could force him to remain President after January, ’09. I hope I am right, but there is still the “I cannot put anything past the Bush Crime Cabal” factor.
Barring an electoral revolution of American citizens wanting to fix the “fix” by voting with our humanity, consciences and integrity, instead of out of fear that the greater criminal will win. We will be faced with two choices, depending on ones perspective: Evil or Less Evil.
I will break my voting hand before I vote for Mr./Ms Lesser of Two Evils, ever again.
Join me in taking the Voters for Peace Pledge: http://www.votersforpeace.org
h/t: After Downing Street
see
Bush Declares Himself Dictator – Presidential Directive 51 (May 2007; video link)
Senator Bernie Sanders Talks About Inequality in Amerika (videos)
Mumia Abu-Jamal: Of Savages And Thugs?
Yoko Ono on the New Imagine Peace Tower in Iceland (link)
EXCLUSIVE: Yoko Ono on the New Imagine Peace Tower in Iceland, Art & Politics, the Peace Movement, Government Surveillance and the Murder of John Lennon
Democracy Now!
Tuesday, October 16th, 2007
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
Today, we spend the hour with Yoko Ono: artist, musician, peace activist. She joins us in the firehouse studio just days after returning from Iceland, where she unveiled a project 40 years in the making — the Imagine Peace Tower. Dedicated to her late husband John Lennon, the tower shoots light into the sky and bears the inscription “Imagine Peace.” It will light up every year between October 9th, the day of Lennon’s birth, and December 8th, the day of his death. [includes rush transcript]
Today we’ll speak with Yoko Ono about this latest project, and her long and sometimes overlooked career as a prolific artist and innovator. We’ll also talk about her husband John Lennon — and how their political activism together led to government surveillance and deportation attempts from the Nixon administration. But first, this an excerpt of Ono’s speech unveiling the Imagine Peace Tower, one week ago today.
- Yoko Ono, speaking in Reykjavik, Iceland.
Among those joining her to unveil the statue was Sean Lennon, her only child with John Lennon. John Lennon’s fellow Beatle Ringo Starr was also there. Yoko Ono joins us now in the firehouse studio for the hour.
- Yoko Ono, musician, artist, and peace activist. Last week she unveiled the Imagine Peace Tower in Iceland, dedicated to her late husband John Lennon. More info: ImaginePeace.com.
- Excerpts From “The U.S. vs. John Lennon”
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
see
The Light Goes ON! The IMAGINE PEACE TOWER dedication ceremony (videos)
Chalmers Johnson: Is America on the brink of destruction through imperial over-reach? (link)
Chalmers Johnson parallels the military over-reach of the United States with the Roman Empire and warns that financial bankruptcy could herald the breakdown of constitutional government in America.
h/t: ICH
U.S. too often follows Israel’s lead in diplomatic situations By Paul Findley
Dandelion Salad
By Paul Findley
10/16/07 “ICH”
There is an open secret in Washington. I learned it well during my 22-year tenure as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. All members swear to serve the interests of the United States, but there is an unwritten and overwhelming exception: The interests of one small foreign country almost always trump U.S. interests. That nation of course is Israel.
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue give priority to Israel over America. Those on Capitol Hill are pre-primed to roar approval for Israeli actions whether right or wrong, instead of at least fussing first and then caving. The White House sometimes puts up a modest and ineffective show of resistance before it follows Israel’s lead.
In 2002, President Bush publicly ordered Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to end a bloody, destructive rampage through the Palestinian West Bank. He wilted just as publicly when he received curt word from Sharon that Israeli troops would not withdraw and would continue their military operations. A few days later President Bush invited Sharon to the White House where he saluted him as a “man of peace.”
I had similar experiences in the House of Representatives. On several occasions, colleagues told me privately that they admired what I was trying to do in Middle East policy reform but could not risk pro-Israel protest back home by supporting my positions.
The pro-Israel lobby is not one organization orchestrating U.S. Middle East policy from a backroom in Washington. Nor is it entirely Jewish. It consists of scores of groups — large and small — that work at various levels. The largest, most professional, and most effective is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many pro-Israel lobby groups belong to the Christian Right.
The recently released book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” co-authored by distinguished professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, offers hope for constructive change. It details the damage to U.S. national interests caused by the lobby for Israel. These brave professors render a great service to America, but their theme, expressed in a published study paper a year ago, is already under heavy, vitriolic attack.
They are unjustly accused of anti-Semitism, the ultimate instrument of intimidation employed by the lobby. A common problem: Under pressure, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs withdrew an invitation for the authors to speak about their book. Council president Marshall Bouton explained ruefully that the invitation posed “a political problem” and a need “to protect the institution” from those who would be angry if the authors appeared.
I know what it is like to be targeted in this way. In the last years of my long service in Congress, I spoke out, making many of the points now presented in the Mearsheimer-Walt book. In 1980, my opponent charged me with anti-Semitism, and money poured into his campaign fund from every state in the Union. I prevailed that year but two years later lost by a narrow margin. In 1984, Sen. Charles Percy, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and an occasional critic of Israel, was defeated. Leaders of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me, claims that strengthened lobby influence in the years that followed.
The result is that Members of Congress today loudly reward Israel as it violates international law and peace agreements, lures America into costly wars, and subjects millions of Palestinians under its rule to apartheid-like conditions because they are not Jewish.
It is time to call politicians to account for their undying allegiance to a foreign state. Let the Mearsheimer-Walt book be a clarion that bestirs the American people to political action and finally brings fundamental change to both Capitol Hill and the White House.
Citizen participation in public policy development is a hallmark of our proud democracy. But the pro-Israel groups subvert democracy when they engage in smear campaigns that intimidate and silence critics. America badly needs a civilized discussion of the damaging role of Israel in U.S. policy formulation.
Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Dandelion Salad 